Syntagma Theologiae Christianae

About to compose a Syntagma of Christian Theology, I first with my whole heart pray that OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, who has been made for us from God the Father wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, and in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, may by his Holy Spirit sanctify us and lead us into all truth, to the glory of his divine grace and to our eternal salvation. Amen. But since in every instruction which proceeds from right reason, first the terms of the things to be handled, and then the things signified by the terms, ought to be explained - for “to teach rightly one must first examine the names” (εἰς τὸ ὀρθῶς διδάσκειν δεῖ πρῶτον ἐξετάζειν τὰ ὀνόµατα), as Aristotle advises; and as Clement of Alexandria says in book six of the Stromata, page 293 of the Commelinian edition, “there are two forms of truth, the names and the things” (δύο εἰσὶν ἰδέαι τῆς ἀληθείας, τὰ τε ὀνόµατα καὶ τὰ πράγµατα) - therefore we too will first treat of the term or name “Theology,” and only afterwards of the thing itself. Concerning the term and name “Theology” we determine thus. “Theology” is a Greek word in its origin, yet of Latin citizenship, as are many other words that have been granted [that citizenship]. It was used first by the Gentiles: for the most ancient writers of Greece - because they treated of the gods and their worship, as Lactantius says in his book On the Anger of God, chapter eleven - were called “theologians,” and their science “theology”; afterwards it was also employed by Christians, inasmuch as John the Apostle in the title of the Apocalypse is named “the Theologian,” and the Greek and Latin ecclesiastical Fathers retained the word “theology.” It signifies either a discourse of God himself, that is, proceeding from God - just as theopropia (θεοπροπία, Iliad 1), and likewise theopropon (θεοπρόπιον), is an oracle or prophecy which God utters, and theosemeia (θεοσηµεία) is a signification which God exhibits - or else a discourse about God, or, as St. Augustine speaks in book eight of the City of God, chapter one, “a reasoning or discourse about divinity”; just as physiology signifies a discourse about nature, astrology a discourse about the stars, meteorology a discourse about meteors, and cosmology a discourse about the world. In this our undertaking it is taken in the latter sense, namely for a discourse about God.

Furthermore, “theology” is said ambiguously; for it is either true or false. The former we will touch upon briefly; the latter we shall afterwards, at greater length and expressly, explain. False theology is a false opinion concerning God, his will, and his works. This is named “theology” equivocally. Whence it is also called “opinionable theology,” since it is a mere opinion which the mind conceives with depraved judgment, embracing the false as the true; although whether it is altogether to be called “theology,” and not rather “mataeology” (vain-talk), may be questioned. Certainly a vain and erratic opinion about the Godhead is ignorance of God, Gal. 4. v. 8: “Then indeed, not knowing God, you were in bondage to those who by nature are not gods.” Eph. 2. 12: “You, I say, at that time were without Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers as regards the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” Whence those who introduce human opinions or fables in divine matters are to be called “mataeologists” (vain-talkers), or anything rather than “theologians.” And this belongs both to the ancient pagans and to others erring concerning divine matters. The theology of the ancient pagans was twofold: one about the gods - to which the general name “theology” was given - and another about daemons. Of each, and against each, Eusebius of Caesarea, bishop, treats copiously in the first six books of the Preparation for the Gospel. That which treated about the gods was twofold: one vulgar, the other exquisite. The pagan vulgar theology was that of the common crowd, resting upon the imperfect principles of our nature, nor rising higher by reasoning. The exquisite pagan theology was that which, by the efforts of those who were held to be learned and wise, drawing near to the vulgar theology, seemed to treat of divine things more exquisitely; yet by error of reasoning or presumption of wisdom, from the corrupted principles and notions of corrupt nature, it flowed forth and ran down into various, mutually dissenting, and false conclusions and precepts concerning God and his nature, works, and worship. And this is threefold: mythic (µυθική, mythikē), physical (φυσική, physikē), and political (πολιτική, politikē); as Augustine teaches from Varro in book six of the City of God, chapter five and the following, and in book eight, chapter one; and as Eusebius teaches in the preface to book four of the Preparation for the Gospel. The mythic theology was that of the poets, serving theatrical pleasure; whence it is also called by some “theatrical theology,” by others “historical theology.” The physical theology was that of the philosophers, treating of God and other divine matters from the investigation of natural things. They call this theology “natural,” and also “philosophical,” “mystical,” and “allegorical.”

The political or civil theology was that of the citizens in individual cities - especially of the priests and governors - introduced first by the custom of the several cities, then publicly approved and received by their laws, for establishing mutual society by the authority of religion. The same theology is called “urban,” and against it neither any poet nor any philosopher dared to mutter, unless he wished to be punished by the national law as impious, as happened to Socrates at Athens. They differed, therefore, in the end for the sake of which they commemorated the gods and their deeds. But that which treated of daemons is twofold: magic (µαγεία, mageia) and theurgy (θεουργία, theourgia). Magic, which was also called goeteia (γοητεία, goēteia), was that which treated of appeasing evil daemons and averting them. Theurgy, which is also called telete (τελετή, teletē, “rite”), was that which by the adjuration of good daemons - who were enticed by invocation and invited by sacrifices - promised to souls a false purification. Whence by theurgic consecrations the Gentiles believed the soul to be made fit for the reception of angelic spirits and for beholding God. Porphyry the Platonist was given over to such theurgy. See Augustine, City of God, book ten, chapters nine and ten. As for the theology - or rather mataeology - of others erring in divine matters, such as the blasphemous Jews, the Mahometans, the pseudo-Christians, and the heretics, if anyone with leisure to spare wishes to learn it fully, let him seek it elsewhere. In this Syntagma we will touch upon those controversies here and there, and, according to the rule of the word of God, we will treat them briefly (συντόµως, syntomōs); the knowledge of which is most necessary for us at this time.

After the name of Theology has been set forth by a concise definition (syntomos) and distinguished in its significations, now follows the treatment of the thing itself, the treatment, in which first it must be shown whether true Theology exists; then, what it is; next, how manifold it is, and what consequences follow from that. In this chapter it is to be explained whether true Theology exists, what it is, and what its subject is, about which it is engaged. That TRUE THEOLOGY EXISTS is proved both by testimonies and by reasons. By testimonies, both divine and human. The divine testimonies are: Job 12:13, “With God are wisdom and might; his are counsel and understanding.” Romans 11:33, “O the deep riches both of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God!” Deuteronomy 4:6, “This is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples;

who, when they hear all these statutes, will say: Only this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” If there is a wisdom of divine things, there is also Theology. But that there is a wisdom of divine things, Scripture attests. Therefore it also attests that this exists. The human testimonies are two: one is general, namely the universal consensus of all peoples; for what the universal consensus of all peoples attests to exist, most assuredly exists. And this is known from the writings of the Gentile philosophers, historians, poets, and from the oracles: as Justin Martyr explains at length in the Paraenesis or Exhortation to the Greeks; Clement of Alexandria everywhere in the Protrepticus to the Greeks and in the books of the Stromata; Lactantius in the books of the Divine Institutes against the Gentiles; Theodoret in the sermons or books On the Cure of the Greek Affections; St. Augustine in the books On the City of God, etc. For all, even the Gentiles, acknowledged that there is true Theology, though they erred in the determination of what it is. The other human testimony is special, to wit that of the Church of God, which acknowledges that Theology exists, and rejoices over it for herself. The reasons are these:

Thus it has been proved that Theology exists; now there follows what true Theology is. TRUE THEOLOGY is the wisdom of divine things. This is called Theology univocally. It is called true, because it is one - for more than one cannot be true - and because it is his and from him who is truth itself and cannot lie; and because it makes its genuine devotees truthful, when by the Holy Spirit they are led into all truth and are sanctified by the truth; and because by the all-harmony (τῇ παναρµονίᾳ, panharmonia), that sweetest and most admirable concord of all the parts, which is the proper index of truth, it ever stands fast. The same is also named “divine wisdom” (Θεῖα σοφία). There are two parts to this description. In the first part it is taught that true Theology is wisdom. Therefore wisdom extends more broadly than Theology: for Wisdom is the most perfect knowledge of the highest things, divine and human, and of the causes by which they are contained; as it is

defined by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book one, page 122 of the Commelinian Greek edition. 7 Of this wisdom it is read in Ephesians 3:10: “That now might be made known through the Church to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places that manifold wisdom of God.” Furthermore, that Theology is wisdom has also been taught by the chief Schoolmen, such as Thomas Aquinas, in the first part of the Summa, question 1, article 6;8 and John Duns Scotus, Prologue to the Sentences, question 4, fol. 10, col. 4 of the Venice edition of the year 1506, says: “Yet it can more properly be said that Theology, according to itself, is wisdom.” Although by the name of wisdom there is sometimes understood only the knowledge of divine things, as in 1 Corinthians 2:6: “We speak wisdom among the perfect; yet a wisdom not of this age nor of the rulers of this age who are coming to nothing.” In the second part of the description it is taught what the subject or object of true Theology is, about which it is occupied. That consists of divine things, that is, God, and whatever is God’s, insofar as it is ordered and referred to God as pertaining to his knowledge and worship - namely, every good springing from God in nature, and the sayings and actions and works of God. The subject of Theology is the infinite, known to none unless insofar as it unveils itself. Whence Theology itself, in an infinite manner and above all analogy, surpasses the other disciplines. Indeed Theology treats not only of God, but also of angels, men, and the other creatures, yet not equally. For of God it treats principally, as of its subject; but of creatures, insofar as they serve for the manifestation of the subject - that is, insofar as they are ordered and referred to the right knowledge and worship of GOD. Theology, therefore, is not about angels, nor about the other creatures, as about its subject, but for the manifestation of the subject: so that it is about all things that are, as regards the respects they have to GOD. John Duns Scotus, called the Subtle Doctor, in the Prologue to the Sentences, question 3, fol. 10, col. 2 of the Venice edition of the year 1506, lately cited. The same is manifest from the principles of Theology, that is, the Holy Scriptures, the sum of which are the articles of faith and the precepts of the Decalogue. Now the articles of faith are about God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and about his household, the Holy Catholic Church, and the benefits of God toward it; the Decalogue enjoins love toward God and toward the neighbor on account of God. Moreover, the subject of the principles and of the whole science is the same, since the whole science is contained virtually in the principles. Further, the noblest science has the noblest subject. But Theology is the noblest science. Therefore Theology has the noblest subject, namely God, and whatever is God’s.

True Theology is either archetypal or ectypal. This division is analogical; because archetypal Theology is and is called Theology first and principally; ectypal Theology, secondarily and in the likeness of the archetypal. For Theology stands in the same relation as wisdom, goodness, justice, power, and the other qualities created by God in the rational creature, whose archetype is in God, or rather whose archetype is the Godhead, while the image and likeness are in the rational creature. For all true virtues are in a certain manner imprinted upon the created mind by the form of that eternal and immutable substance which is God. Therefore, just as wisdom, goodness, justice, power, etc. are either archetypal or ectypal - the former existing in God, the latter expressed in rational creatures - so also Theology. Thus our Theology lifts our souls up to God and unites them with him. Thomas Aquinas, in the first part of the Summa of Theology and in the Exposition upon Boethius On the Trinity; likewise John Duns Scotus, in the Prologue to the Sentences, question three, fol. 8, col. 4, and more clearly fol. 10, col. 2, and in many places, make mention of the Theology of God, of Theology in itself, of the Theology of the blessed, of the Theology of the way, that is, of travellers, that is, of our Theology. Likewise Pelbartus of Themeswar in the Golden Rosary of Theology upon the four books of the Sentences, prooemial questions, the seventh, § 25. That there is Theology in God is certain; for: I. The wisdom of divine things is in God. But Theology is the wisdom of divine things. Therefore Theology is in God. II. All the perfections that are in us are also in God. But Theology is a perfection in us. Therefore Theology is in God. This Theology is archetypal, and it is described thus. Archetypal Theology is the wisdom of divine things, residing in God, essential to him and uncreated. This is also the prototypal Theology (ωρολοταςος prototypa); by the Schoolmen it is commonly called the Theology of God, also exemplar Theology, to which, as to the primal idea and exemplar, primary and immutable, the created Theology has been expressed and conformed as an image; which divine Theology we adore and do not investigate; and it is, so to speak, a part of the essential wisdom of God. Since in every discipline one must know the usage of the words themselves, by which we are advanced to the apprehension of the things themselves, so also in this place it must be explained what is signified by the word archetype, whence it will be understood more easily what archetypal Theology is. Archetype (Ἀρχέτυπος) is the original exemplar, the original form, the first type, the idea, the primitive exemplar, to whose likeness other things have been produced and, as it were, fashioned as images: as is shown by the notable passage of Philo the Jew in the book “On how the worse is accustomed to assail the better” (ωοι φι το χειορον τῳ χρείτιονε φιλεῖν ἐπικθε τα), that is,

“on the fact that the worse is wont to lay snares for the better”: “The archetype of rational nature is God; man is an image and likeness” (δξχετυπον υξυ φυσεως λογικῆσ ὀ θεός οσι, µιµηµα α α ἀπεικονισµος ἄνθρωπος). The same is made clear by the passage of Clement of Alexandria, who in book five of the Stromata, p. 239, says about God the creator of man: “Who made him, using himself as an archetype” (ας ἐτεχιι τουσει αυον αρχετυπῳ χώυδος ἐουτῳ), that is, “who fashioned him, making use of himself as an archetype.” He cites this from Eutys the Pythagorean; and a little earlier he explains it thus: “The Craftsman, using himself as the exemplar, made man” (Τὸν δηµικρρονα αυτῳ χζωµδµον πααγαειγµαλε ποιησον τ αυτρωτον). The same is shown by a passage of St. Basil the Great, book two Against Eunomius, p. 306 of the edition of “The Five Dialogues of Athanasius on the Trinity” and “The Four Books of Basil Against Eunomius,” printed by Henri Estienne in octavo, 1570: “To think of the image of the invisible God, not one which, like those made by art, was afterwards elaborated according to the norm of exemplars, but one which, as soon as the exemplar itself subsisted, at once existed, subsisted together with it, and as soon as it was the archetype, was; an image, I say, not formed by imitation, but the whole nature of the Father imprinted, as in a certain seal, upon the Son” (vοεῖν δε εἰκονα γ ζεκ γ αοθγτα, ακγρασ τεχθεηλεισ τοθλασ υσεπεν α ωζγαθεισαν ωρος το λοχι τθπον, αλλα σωθπαρχεσαν και πaρθγεσηκηαν αι ωρολοτθκῳ θπσκσοθκ, γ εινα τι αρχετθπον, χσαν, σοα εκτθποθειραν δα µιµεσεως, αλλα, σσεχεν σφραγιδι κνσ της ολης φυσεως φ Πατζασ ενπεσηµανθεισης τις Υιῳ). Clement of Alexandria in the Protrepticus to the Greeks calls the Son of God “archetypal light” (φως ἀρχετυπον φὼς; here: φωος δζχετυπον φὼς). Theodoret, in the second discourse “On the Cure of the Greek Affections,” p. 20, says: “You have heard the voice, but you have not seen the form. Therefore compare no type, since you do not know the archetype” (φωιῆ ακηκοασ, ειδος ι εχ εωρακας, µηδενα κη τυπον καζαεκδυσκς, κ τό δξχιτυπον εσκ επιςασιµ). And in the twelfth discourse he calls “archetypes of virtue” (αρχετθπα τῆς δοετῆς) the exemplars of virtue, according to the imitation of which images are painted. On Colossians chapter 3 he says: He “turns the discourse from the type to the archetype,” that is, from the figure to the exemplar. For in baptism he teaches that there is a figure of the new man whom we put on; in Christ, the archetype. Therefore Theology most properly is that knowledge which is in the divine mind concerning divine things. In this way God alone is called a Theologian, and accordingly God is understood to be the first, best, and most perfect Theologian. And it is wisdom that is formal (forma), absolute or most perfect, infi - nite, whole all at once, incommunicable, and communicating only a certain image of itself with rational creatures. It is formal (forma): because it is essential and the form of God or of the Godhead, which is the purest form. For God alone is naturally known to himself alone. John Duns Scotus, Prologue to the Sentences, question three, fol. 8 B.

It is most perfect: because it is not only about all things, but is also the whole knowledge that can be had by God concerning them.

Ectypal theology is the wisdom of divine things, expressed and fashioned by God from his own archetype by a gracious communication, to his glory. “Names are denotative of things” (Δηλωτικά τῶν πραγµάτων ἐστι καὶ ὀνόµατα, dēlōtika tōn pragmatōn esti kai onomata), says St. John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith 1.13. Therefore at this point it is also to be explained what are called ectypa. Clement of Alexandria in the eighth book of the Stromata, p. 331 of the Commelinian edition, speaks in this way: “There are three things about speech: first, the names, being symbols of the concepts in the primary respect, but consequently also of the subjects; secondly, the concepts, being likenesses and impressions of the subjects. Whence for all men the concepts are the same, because the same imprint is produced for all from the subjects, but not likewise also the names, on account of the different dialects. Thirdly, the underlying things, from which the concepts are imprinted in us.” That is: In vocal utterance three things are involved, namely both the names, which are signs of those things which are thought in the mind, primarily, but by consequence also of the subjects; secondly, the thoughts, which refer to and express the subjects. Whence the same thoughts are common to all, because from the subjects the same form and type are engendered in all; but not likewise also the names, because of diverse languages. Thirdly, there are the subjects, from which thoughts are imprinted upon us. Thus works that have been formed from an archetype or prototype are called ectypa. Pliny also uses this word in book 36 of his Natural History, chapter 12. And in book 37, chapter 10, he says: “These are the gems that are suitable for ectypal carvings.” Archetypal theology is the first idea of theology, from which ectypal theology is conceived (to use this word) and expressed: just as essential truth and goodness in God are the archetypal and first idea of the true and the good, from which every created true thing and good is conceived. Archetypal theology is the exemplar; ectypal is the example, which ought to agree with, correspond to, and be like the exemplar. Thus ectypal theology in the rational creature is a part of the image and likeness of God according to which it was created. And this is considered either in itself or as it is in rational creatures. Ectypal theology in itself is the whole wisdom of divine things communicable with rational creatures, in this life and in the life to come, according to the mode of God who communicates it. Therefore by the name of ectypal theology considered in itself is understood not only whatever of the wisdom of divine things has already been communicated by God with rational creatures, but also whatever ever in this age and in the future will be communicated with them and can be communicated, according to that mode which pleases God by his gracious will, out of his inexhaustible fulness: so that this theology is as it were a most full fountain of all spiritual wisdom

bubbling up with God, from which are brought forth the treasures to be communicated with rational creatures by God through grace. Psalm 36:10. “For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light let us enjoy light.” Ectypal theology considered as it is in rational creatures is the wisdom of divine things communicated with rational creatures according to their mode or capacity, in order that, rightly recognizing God and loving him from the heart, they may live blessedly with him forever, and that to his glorification. It is also called ectypal theology as general in the subject. For it is such knowledge as the created intellect is born to receive and to have concerning that theological object: just as each thing is received according to the mode and capacity of the recipient. For “mode” in this place is not the form of theology, not the way of comprehending and perceiving it, but the quantity of comprehending and perceiving it, that is, a measure falling upon any individual of the rational creature. John 3:34. And 2 Corinthians 10:13. Romans 12:3, 6. And 1 Corinthians 12:7 and following. Ephesians 4:7. Next, the ends of theology communicated with rational creatures are two: the primary and highest is the glorification of God as the highest good; the secondary and subordinated is the beatitude of rational creatures. To these ends true theology leads rational creatures. Infinite, whole all at once, incommunicable, and communicating only a certain image of itself with rational creatures. It is formal (form): because it is essential and the form of God or of the Godhead, which is the purest form. For God alone is naturally known to himself alone. John Duns Scotus, Prologue on the Sentences, question three, fol. 8 B. It is most perfect: because it is not only about all things, but is also the whole knowledge that can be had by God concerning them.

To the philosophers the highest good and beatitude are one and the same; but theology distinguishes these two. For according to it, the HIGHEST GOOD of rational creatures and therefore also of man is God himself alone, as the first principle and the ultimate end of every good. The Highest Good is said comparatively with respect to those things that are called good equivocally. But the Highest Good is likewise the single good that is univocally good: that alone is God. This is confirmed both by the testimonies of Holy Scripture and by other arguments drawn from Holy Scripture. These are the testimonies: Genesis 15:1, God himself says of himself to Abraham: “Do not fear, Abram; I am your shield; your reward is very great.” Psalm 16:5: “Jehovah is the portion of my lot and of my cup.” And Psalm 33:12: “Blessed is that nation whose God is Jehovah.” And Psalm 40:5: “Blessed is that man who makes Jehovah his trust.” Psalm 73:25, Asaph the prophet to God:

“Whom have I in heaven but you? Besides you I delight in none upon earth.” Psalm 142:6: “I cry to you, Jehovah, saying, You are my refuge, my portion in the land of the living.” And Psalm 144:15 it is said: “Blessed the people whose Jehovah is God.” Other arguments drawn from the Sacred Scriptures are these: I. Whoever is for us salvation, glory, strength, shield, and indeed all things whatsoever are necessary for our beatitude, he is our highest good. God alone is for us salvation, glory, strength, shield, and indeed all things whatsoever are necessary for our beatitude: Therefore God alone is our highest good. The assumption is proved by many passages of Scripture, of which these are some: Psalm 27:1: “Jehovah is my light and my salvation: whom shall I fear? Jehovah is the strength of my life: of whom shall I be afraid?” Psalm 28:7: “Jehovah is my strength and my shield.” Psalm 62:3, 7: “Only he is my rock and my salvation.” Psalm 3:4: “You, Jehovah, are a shield around me, my glory, and the lifter up of my head.” Psalm 18:2 - 3: “From my inmost parts I will love you, Jehovah, my strength and my fortress, my strong God, my rock to which I may flee; my shield and the horn of my salvation, my high place.” Colossians 3:11: “Christ is all and in all.” 1 Corinthians 15:28: “God will be all in all,” that is, he himself alone without any mediator or means will be to eternity the immediate cause and author of all our good and of all felicity, and the immediate object in which our felicity will be exercised. II. Whatever truly makes us blessed, that is our highest good. For the highest good is the cause of our true beatitude, and it makes us free from every evil and from every misery. But God alone truly makes us blessed. For he makes a man blessed, and none does unless it be he who made man. For he who bestows upon his creature so many and so great goods, both upon the good and upon the evil - namely, that they may be, that they may be men, that they may be vigorous in senses, strong in powers, abounding in resources - gives himself to the good, that they may be blessed, because it is also his gift that they be good. He, seeing that through sin we had become evil, restores goodness in us from his own goodness, and takes away from us the sin by which we were pressed down. Whence it is said in Psalm 32:1 - 2: “Blessed is he whose iniquity is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom Jehovah does not impute iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.” Psalm 36:10: “With you is the fountain of life, and in your light we shall see light.” Psalm 94:12, 13, 14; 1 Corinthians 11:32: “When we are judged, we are taught by the Lord, lest we be condemned with the world.” III. Whatever makes the soul tranquil and peaceful, and free from all vicious affections, that is our highest good. For he is happy whose soul, tranquil and at peace, does not grieve, nor fear, nor anxiously desire, nor hope for uncertain things, but rests in holy and pious joy and in hope, which he has as the soul’s anchor, safe and sure.

But God alone does that, as David professes in Psalm 23:3 - 4: “He makes my soul quiet, he leads me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. Even though I were walking through the valley of the deadly shadow, I would not fear evil, because you are with me.” Psalm 27:1 - 3. God alone indeed can render a man’s soul tranquil and at peace both in life and in death. IV. That in which alone there is our perfect and solid consolation against every evil, that is our highest good. But in God alone there is our perfect and solid consolation against every evil, James 5:11. Now evil is the privation of the good required for the perfection of any creature. Therefore, etc. V. Whose knowledge and trust make us truly blessed and good, that assuredly is our highest good. But the knowledge and trust of God alone make us truly blessed and good, as these testimonies of Holy Scripture make plain. Proverbs 3:13: “Blessed is the man who obtains wisdom, and the man who attains understanding.” Solomon speaks of saving wisdom and understanding, of which 2 Timothy 3:14: “You have known the Sacred Scriptures from childhood, which are able to make you wise unto salvation.” John 17:3: “Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” Isaiah 53:11: “By his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, whose iniquities he himself will bear.” 2 Peter 1:2 - 4: “Grace to you and peace be multiplied in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that his divine power has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who has called us to glory and virtue; inasmuch as he has given to us those greatest and most precious promises, that through these you might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust,” and v. 8: “For if these things are in you and abound, they will render you neither idle nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Psalm 2:12: “Blessed are all who trust in him.” Jeremiah 17:7: “Blessed is that man who has his trust in Jehovah, and whose confidence is Jehovah.” Psalm 146:5: “Blessed is he for whom the Mighty God of Jacob is for help, whose expectation is in Jehovah his God.” VI. Whose fear and love prove that we are truly blessed, that assuredly is our highest good. But the fear and love of God alone prove that we are truly blessed. Psalm 112:1: “Blessed is whoever reveres Jehovah; he greatly delights in his commandments.” Psalm 1:1 - 2: “Blessed is that man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, and does not stand in the way of sinners, and does not sit in the seat of scoffers; but whose delight is in the law of Jehovah, and who meditates on his law day and night.” Psalm 119:1 - 3: “Blessed are the blameless in way, who walk in the law of Jehovah. Blessed are those who keep his testimonies, who seek him with the whole heart. They also do no iniquity.” Isaiah 56:2: “Blessed is the mortal who does justice, and the son of man who lays hold of it; keeping the sabbath so as not to profane it, and keeping his hands so as not to do any evil.” Matthew 5:3 and several others. with the following: Blessed are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, those who endure persecution for righteousness’ sake on account of Christ. Prov. 8:34: Blessed is the man who listens

to me, diligently taking his stand at my doors daily. And 28:14: Blessed is the man who fears as he ought continually; but whoever hardens his heart will fall into evil. Eccles. 12:13: Fear God himself and keep his commandments, for this is the whole of man. Jas. 5:11: Behold, we count those blessed who endure adversities. Rev. 16:15: Behold, I come like a thief. Blessed is he who keeps watch and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked, and his shame be seen. And very many such things occur everywhere in the Scripture of both Testaments. Such are also these: Prov. 8:17: I love those who love me. John 13:17: If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. John 14:23: If anyone loves me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make a dwelling with him. The fear and love of God alone, I say, prove that we are blessed, that is, they show and declare it, not as a cause, but as a sure and infallible sign. Godliness is the way to blessedness, not the cause of blessedness; just as Bernard says that good works are the way to the kingdom, not the cause of reigning. For the free remission of sins makes us blessed, as Paul teaches in Rom. 4:7 - 8, Ps. 32: Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. But God remits sins to us, not because we have feared and loved him, but so that we may fear and love him, as it is read in Ps. 130:3 - 4: If you should mark iniquities, O Lord; Lord, who will stand? For with you there is forgiveness, that you may be feared, that is, reverently worshiped. Luke 7:47: Many sins are forgiven her; for she loved much; but to whom little is forgiven, he loves little. Ps. 18:2 - 3: From my inmost bowels I will love you, Jehovah, my strength; Jehovah, my rock and my rampart and my deliverer; my strong God, my rock to whom I flee, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my high place. VII. Whatever is absolutely perfect, plainly sufficient, and supremely desirable, that is our highest good. For these are the three conditions of the highest good, which even the Gentile philosophers acknowledge. It must be absolutely perfect; for if anything were lacking to the highest good, it would certainly not be the highest. Likewise it is utterly sufficient; for nothing is lacking to him to whom it belongs. It is supremely desirable; for in it and from it and on account of it is that which is to be desired; to it all other goods are referred. But God alone is absolutely perfect, utterly sufficient, and supremely desirable; even the Gentiles themselves admit this. VIII. The first idea of the good is the highest good. The first idea of the good is called the one ineffable principle of all things, from which alone are all things and to which alone are all things: the universal good itself, not in predication, but in causing according to efficiency, that is, the exemplar and cause of all created goods, from whose goodness all other goods are derived; the beautiful itself; the first beautiful; the sea of beauty; the first loved (prôton philon, πρῶτον φίλον); the self-loved (autophilon, αὐτοφίλον), the lovable itself; sincere and pure. But God alone is the first idea of the good. For in the divine mind are the ideas of all things, i.e., the exemplary and eternal forms, as Plato also held, as his view has been interpreted by St. Augustine, in the fourth volume, book of 83 Questions, ch. 46; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book 4, p. 230, and book 5, p. 236 and p. 249; Theodoret, Cure of the Greek Affections, Discourse 2, which is on the Principle, p. 36, and Discourse 4, which is on Matter and the World, p. 64, in the

Commelin edition of the year 1592; Tertullian, On the Soul, ch. 18; Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, book 15, ch. 44; L. Annaeus Seneca, Epistle 59. Hear what an idea is, that is, what it seems to Plato to be. An idea is the eternal exemplar of things that come to be by nature. For Plato by ideas did not understand certain species, I know not what, fluttering in the air, as has been falsely imputed to him, but, as has now been said, exemplary forms, incorporeal, invisible, eternal and immutable, the truths of all things that are, always existing in the divine mind, always remaining in the same manner, which themselves are not formed, but according to which all things have been created by God; by participation of which it comes about that whatever is, is, in whatever way it is. For God did not gaze upon anything set outside himself, so as to constitute according to it what he constituted; for to think this is sacrilege. An idea and an eidos (εἶδος) differ. What the difference is, you ask? The one is the exemplar, the other the form taken from the exemplar and imposed on the work: the one the craftsman imitates, the other he makes. A statue has some face; this is an eidos. The exemplar itself has some face, upon which the maker, looking, has fashioned the statue: this is the idea. Do you still desire another distinction? The eidos is in the work; the idea is outside the work, and not only outside the work, but before the work. L. Annaeus Seneca, Epistle fifty-ninth. The orthodox Fathers subscribe and testify that our highest good is God. St. AUGUSTINE, volume one, Retractations, book 1, ch. 1, says: Without controversy a certain original region of the blessedness of the soul is God himself. And a little after: In the third book: If you ask what seems to me, I say, I consider the highest good of man to be in the mind. I would have spoken more truly: In God; for in him the mind enjoys, that it may be blessed, as its highest good. See volume seven, book two On the merits and remission of sins, chapter seventeen. FULGENTIUS, book one On Predestination to Monimus, p. thirty-six of the Basel Henricpetri edition: He ordered that the supreme good (which is not created, and by which every mutable good was created) should rule the created good; and that by participation of it it should be blessed, if it would serve the supreme good in humble love. From these things it is manifest that God alone is our highest good. Wherefore, that we may remove some false opinions about the highest good, no worldly thing is the highest good of man which makes him blessed: both because any of them is subject to vanity, mutable, unstable, fleeting, perishable; and because none of them renders the mind tranquil, but rather disturbs it, as the book of Solomon called Ecclesiastes teaches, ch. 1:2 and ch. 12:10, Vanity of vanities; all these things are vanity. Thus therefore the believer reasons: Whatever is vain and does not make the soul tranquil, but only disturbs it, that is not our highest good. But all worldly things are vain and do not make the soul tranquil, but only disturb it. That the matter stands thus is shown, first, by each man’s useless occupation and weariness in the things of this world, by which he can attain nothing that remains lasting either in itself or in the man himself, and provides true rest and tranquility; Eccles. 1:3: What profit has a man from all his labor which he labors under the sun?

Second, by the destruction of whole families and nations, to whom the earth itself reproaches that momentary condition, while it itself remains perpetually, like a certain theater in which the same thing is always acted, whether comedy or tragedy, with only the actors changed; Eccles. 1:4: One generation departs, and another comes; although the earth abides forever. Third, by the mutable nature of created things and their innumerable vicissitudes undergone daily, as of the sun, of the air or wind, of rivers, and finally of all things in the knowledge or use of which man toils and wearies himself; Eccles. 1:5 - 11: The sun rises and the sun sets, and again returns to its place where it rises. It hastens to the south and circles to the north; the air, circling in its course, hastens, and the air returns according to its circuits. All the rivers hasten to the sea, and yet the sea is not filled; to whatever place the rivers hasten, to the same they return again. All these things weary; no one could tell it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor is the ear filled with hearing. That which has been is the same that shall be, and that which is done is the same that shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which it is said, Behold, this is new? It has already been, in ages long before us. There is no remembrance of former things; and of later things that shall be, there will be no remembrance of them with those who shall come afterwards. Rom. 8:20: This world has been subjected to vanity, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it to that vanity. 1 Cor. 7:31: And those who use this world, as not abusing it; for the fashion of this world passes away. 1 John 2:17: Moreover, the world passes away, and its desire; but he who does the will of God abides forever. Fourth, by the mutability of times and of all things that are done and happen at fixed times appointed by God, which ever flow and roll and revolve in perpetual turning, so that no act and no event subject to the instability of time endures perpetually, but all things are done and happen in their turns, so that a change and vicissitude of all things is easy; which Ecclesiastes proves by an induction of examples in ch. 3, the first eight verses, so that we may understand that the profit of these acts and events can come stably to no one, however much he strives; and therefore that all worldly things are vain and do not make the soul of man tranquil, but only disturb it. Hence it is necessarily concluded that no worldly thing is the highest good of man; none of them makes a man blessed. Accordingly, HUMAN WISDOM, consisting in the knowledge of natural things and of things done in the world, and in what has been handed down by men in the human spirit concerning ethical or moral philosophy and other matters, is not the highest good of man. First, because it is laborious and troublesome; for it is accompanied with the evil vexation which God has inflicted on men that they might afflict themselves, in very just judgment thus avenging the profane audacity of the human wit from that first parent of the human race. Eccles. 1:13: Applying my mind to inquire and to explore wisdom concerning all that is under the heavens (this evil occupation God has given to the sons of men, that they should occupy themselves in it). And v. 17: I also applied my mind to know wisdom and knowledge of all madness and folly; I learned that this too is vexation of spirit.

Second, because it deals with those things which are vain in themselves, and do not bring eternal salvation and the kingdom of heaven; Eccles. 1:14: I saw all the works that are done under the sun, and behold, all these are vanity and vexation of spirit. Third, because it is food for the wind, or a pasturing of the mind; that is, no other reward of toil is returned from it than a useless fatigue of the mind, as it were feeding itself on wind, by which the mind is not nourished and its hunger is not satisfied; Eccles. 1:14. Fourth, because it cannot correct even the least evil thing, nor supply its defects, which are innumerable, much less furnish heavenly perfection; Eccles. 1:15: That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and defect cannot be numbered. Fifth, because it does not produce euthymia (euthymia, εὐθυµία), so that in it not even kings themselves find any tranquility, as by his own example Solomon, the wisest and most powerful king, teaches; Eccles. 1:12 - 13: I, Ecclesiastes, when I was king over Israel in Jerusalem, applying my mind to inquire and to explore wisdom concerning all that is under the heavens (this evil occupation, etc.). And vv. 16 - 17: I spoke with my heart, saying, Behold, I have magnified and increased wisdom above all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my mind has perceived much wisdom and knowledge. I also applied my mind to know wisdom and knowledge of all madness and folly; I learned that this too is vexation of spirit. Sixth, because it does not produce autarkeia (self-sufficiency, αὐτάρκεια), but is joined with much vexation and pain; since so far is it that in this inquiry anyone’s mind, however sagacious, can find what for himself to satisfy him; rather, the farther he has advanced in investigating this wisdom, the more he is offended; and the more he has learned, the more he is tormented and grieved both by ignorance of not a few things and by the most uncertain knowledge of those which he has grasped, Eccles. 1:18 according to the Vulgate, or according to the edition of Tremellius and Junius ch. 2:1. Then because with the multitude of wisdom there is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow. And ch. 9:1 - 2: But when I applied my mind to know wisdom and to observe the very business that is upon the earth - even if someone should not take sleep with his eyes by day and by night - I observed all the work of God, that man cannot attain to the work that is done under the sun: although man should laboriously seek, yet he will not attain it; indeed, even if the very wisest should think to know it, nevertheless he would not be able to attain it. VII. Because it does not avail to avoid the events and chances of human affairs, Eccles. 9:1 and the following. VIII. Because it was not desired by the truly faithful and by men approved by God, 1 Cor. 1:26: For you see your calling, brothers, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble. And ch. 2:1: Therefore I, when I came to you, brothers, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, announcing to you the testimony of God. And vv. 4 - 5: And my speech and my proclamation were not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in spiritual and powerful demonstration, so that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

IX. Because it will be abolished and perish, 1 Cor. 1:19 - 20: For it is written, I will abolish the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of the prudent I will remove from the midst. Where is the wise? where the scribe? where the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? X. Because it is useless for the kingdom of heaven, and it brings salvation to no one, 1 Cor. 1:21: For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through this wisdom, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe. And ch. 2:4: And my speech and my proclamation were not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in spiritual and powerful demonstration. XI. Because it is desired for the sake of something else, not for its own sake. For who is content to know, not seeking some fruit of knowledge? The arts are therefore learned in order that they may be practiced; and they are practiced either for the supports of life, or for pleasure, or for glory. But the highest good is not that which is not desired for its own sake. XII. Because it is not present to man in the grave, Eccles. 9:10: Whatever your hand finds to do by your power, do it: for there is no work, or reasoning, or knowledge, or even wisdom in the grave to which you are going. XIII. Because it does not even bestow earthly goods, Eccles. 9:11: Turning myself, I observed under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor also bread to the wise, nor also riches to the prudent, nor also favor to the learned, but time and chance happen to them all. XIV. Because for the most part it is far removed from us, as Solomon professes of it, Eccles. 7:24 - 25: When I said, I am wise, it (Wisdom) was far from me. That which has always been was farthest away, and what is most deep - who shall find it? It is objected: If wisdom is not man’s highest good, then it provides nothing more than folly. But this is absurd; therefore that also. Answer: The consequent is denied. For although wisdom is not man’s highest good, nevertheless it is preferable to folly. 1. Because just as light is better and more useful than darkness, so wisdom is more excellent and more useful than folly, Eccles. 2:14: I indeed saw there is an advantage of wisdom over stupidity, as there is an advantage of light over darkness.

season, and a time to every purpose under heaven: a time to be born, a time to plant, and a time to die; a time to pluck up what has been planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance, etc.

Nor is GLORY, that is, human praise and the celebrity of a name spread far and wide and commended to posterity, the highest good of man.

“Love of country conquered, and an immeasurable lust of praise.” When Torquatus slew his own son, because by fighting the enemy he had violated military law by doing it without the general’s order. When Camillus, driven from his country, afterward freed it when it was oppressed by the Gauls, with great spirit. When Mucius Scaevola, his right hand having erred in the killing, for King Porsenna, as he was killing the attendant, freely threw it into the flame. When Curtius, armed and sitting on his horse, of his own accord plunged himself into a chasm of the earth, by which deed the Roman state might be delivered from a plague. When the Decii devoted themselves, that the legions might turn out safe and victorious. When A. I. Pulvillus, while he was consecrating the temple to Jupiter, was not moved by the news of his son’s death nor

thrown into confusion of mind. When Regulus returned to Carthage to most exquisite torments. When Fabricius despised the gold of King Pyrrhus. When Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar in a short time subjugated many kingdoms.

desirous of vain glory. Phil. 2:3: Doing nothing through contention or through vain glory. 1 Thess. 2:6: Nor seeking glory from men. X. Because zeal for it stirs up mutual envy, Gal. 5:26: Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. XI. Because the desire of glory is common to man with the brutes. For is it not detected even in horses, when the victors exult, the vanquished grieve? So great is the love of praise, so great the concern for victory. Nor without cause does the chief Poet say that it must be tried: And what pain there is to each when beaten, what glory to the palm. XII. Because it depends solely on the opinion of men and on the esteem and judgment of others. Nor is the PLEASURE OF THE FLESH the highest good of man: I. Because it is vanity, Ecclesiastes 2:1: I said in my heart, Come now, I will test you with mirth; therefore enjoy good; but behold, this also is vanity. II. Because it is sheer madness, Ecclesiastes 2:2: Of laughter I say, It is mad. III. Because it brings no profit, Ecclesiastes 2:2: and of joy I say, What does this do? IV. Because not even kings does it make blessed, as Solomon by his own example teaches, Ecclesiastes 2:3 and the following: I searched in my heart, continuing in drinking in my flesh; and guiding my heart in wisdom itself I explored by embracing folly, until I might see whether this be good for the sons of men, what they should do under the heavens during the number of the days of their life. I

made great works, I built houses for myself, I planted vineyards for myself; I prepared gardens and orchards for myself, in which, setting in them, I planted all kinds of fruit-bearing trees; I prepared pools of water for myself, to irrigate with them a grove rich in trees. V. Because it is food for the wind, or a pasturing down of the spirit, Ecclesiastes 2:11: But when I had not withheld from them whatever my eyes had desired; I had not restrained my heart from any joy; but my heart rejoiced in all my labor, and this had fallen to my portion from all my labor, etc. VI. Because in it the mind can neither rest nor ought to, Ecclesiastes 2:12: I looked upon all my works that my hands had made, and upon the labor in which I had labored toilsomely; and behold, all these are vanity and vexation of spirit, so that there is no profit under the sun. 1 Cor. 7:29, 30, 31: Let those who have wives be as though they had none; and those who rejoice as though not rejoicing; and those who buy as though not possessing; and those who use this world as not abusing it; for the fashion of this world passes away. VII. Because it is not proper to man, but is common to him with the other animals. VIII. Because it is brief. But the highest good must of necessity be everlasting. IX. Because it does not allow the seed of the Word of God to put down roots in the heart and to bear fruit pleasing to God, Luke 9:24. X. Because it casts down the soul, lest it lift itself up to God, 1 Pet. 2:11: abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul. Nay, not even PLEASURE COUPLED WITH WISDOM is the highest good of man. I. Because thus also it is vanity. II. Because not even when joined together do these bring tranquility of mind, as Solomon by his own example teaches, Ecclesiastes 2:3: I searched in my heart, continuing in drinking in my flesh; and guiding my heart in wisdom itself, etc. Solomon paints in his own example the pursuit of the worldly wise. It is objected: Therefore every pleasure is to be shunned. Answer: There is a certain honorable pleasure of soul and body, by no means forbidden by God, namely if one enjoy with a cheerful and thankful mind the things granted by the gift of God. Nor is PLEASURE OF THE FLESH JOINED WITH HONESTY the highest good of man: I. Because these cannot be conjoined: for he who is given over to carnal pleasure must needs lack honesty; he who strives after honesty ought to abstain from pleasure. II. Because honesty is a perpetual honor, conferred upon someone, seconded by the people’s report. But he who pursues the pleasure of the flesh has an ill name also in the judgment of the wise. Nor are SUPREME DIGNITY AND POWER in the commonwealth the highest good of man: I. Because frequently they are an injury to others, arming, as it were, every injustice with public authority. Ah good God, how many and how great evils run riot both in the Commonwealth and in the Church, when wicked Princes and Magistrates, at their own lust, with the fear of God and the laws scorned, throw all things into confusion. Ecclesiastes 3:16 and following: For I still looking under the sun saw, in the place of judgment, there wickedness; in the place, I say, of justice, there wickedness. I said in my heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked; because there is a time for every purpose, but he who presides over all this matter is there. I said in my heart according to human reason, when God himself would declare them, and I should see these to be beasts to them, etc. Likewise chap. 4 and 5. Those who without fear of the divine Deity seek honors and principalities among others, as if by this means they could attain happiness - these, by their

preposterous ambition, overturn all things, so that there is no place for justice; nor do they themselves have any tranquility. Therefore they allow many corruptions to creep into divine worship, provided only they themselves may stand out. Nay rather, in a poorly administered state, together with political vices, subjects are compelled by the tyranny of evil princes to embrace and to retain corruptions of religion. II. Because it always has much joined with vanity, troubles, and pain. Do you think those men safe - those at least secure with firm stability amid the fillets of honors and abundant wealth - whom, gleaming with the splendor of the royal court, the guard of watching arms surrounds? Greater is fear for them than for others: they are compelled to fear as much as they are feared: though they be hedged about by a band of bodyguards, and protect their side, shut in and shielded, by a numerous attendant. As they do not allow their subjects to be safe, so it is necessary that they themselves not be secure. Their own power terrifies them before themselves, those whom it makes to be terrible. It smiles in order to rage; it caresses in order to deceive; it entices in order to kill; it exalts in order to cast down. With a certain usury of doing harm, the greater the sum of dignity and honors has been, by so much the greater an interest of punishments is exacted - to use the words of Cyprian from his second epistle. Ecclesiastes 4:11, 12: I saw all the living who walk under the sun joining themselves to that second youth who shall stand in the place of this one; there is no end to all the people; yet of him who shall rule them even posterity will not rejoice; for this also is vanity and vexation of spirit. III. Because it can be lost, so that he who was with the highest power may become a slave; as Solomon says, Ecclesiastes 10:4: I saw princes going as servants upon the earth. The example is Jehoiachin, who, his kingdom lost, together with the most precious spoils and a number of captives was led away captive to Babylon, 2 Kings 24. Seventy kings, their thumbs of their hands and of their feet cut off, gathered under the table of Adoni-Bezek bones and crumbs of bread like dogs, Judg. 1:7. IV. Because it is altogether bounded within the narrow spaces of this life. For even if someone retain dignity as long as he lives, yet on dying he must needs leave it: as Solomon, and other kings and princes without number. But what is broken off by death and taken away from man is not the highest good. V. Because it often befalls wicked, foolish, and unworthy men. Psalm 12:9: The wicked walk round about; when that which is vile is exalted among the sons of men. Ecclesiastes 4:9: Better is a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king, who no longer knows to be admonished. And chap. 10:2, 3, 4: There is an evil that I have seen under the sun, according to the error that proceeds from the face of the ruler: folly itself is set in high and ample dignities; but the rich sit in lowliness. I have seen servants mounted on horses, but princes going as servants upon the earth. VI. Because it is not to be sought after by the faithful; although when legitimately offered it can be admitted and accepted by them with good conscience. Whatever among others in human affairs seems sublime and great lies within the conscience of the Christian. He can now desire nothing, long for nothing, from the world, who is greater than the world. After the faithful soul, looking to heaven, has known its author, higher than the soil and more exalted than all this earthly power, it begins to be that which it believes itself to be. He who has already renounced the world is greater than its honors and its kingdom; and therefore he who dedicates himself to God and to Christ desires not earthly but heavenly kingdoms. VII. Because it is often to the harm of those who possess it, and dashes them to

ruin, Ecclesiastes 8:8: There is a time when a man rules over a man to his own hurt. An example is Pharaoh king of Egypt, who, relying on his own power and persecuting the Israelites, brought himself to ruin. VIII. Because Christ our Lord fled from it, John 6:15: When he knew that they were coming and were about to seize him to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain by himself alone. He who gives heavenly kingdoms does not desire earthly things. IX. Because it cannot always be held or retained without sin; as Naaman could not retain his dignity without sin, 2 Kings 5:18. X. Because by it a man cannot stand fast for even a single night. Psalm 49:13: Yet man in honor does not lodge; he is like the beasts that perish. Eccles. 8:7: No man has dominion over his spirit so as to restrain his spirit, and there is no dominion in the day of death, and there is no discharge in that battle. The example is Belshazzar king of Babylon, Dan. 5:30. XI. Because even the most powerful monarchs cannot thereby obtain from their subjects, much less from neighboring or distant peoples, whatever they will. The example of Rehoboam the son of Solomon teaches this; the examples of kings of our own time also teach it. XII. Because dignity and power do not make even kings immune from mockeries, even of their subjects, whence the minds of kings are filled with indignation. Job 12:21: He pours out contempt upon princes, and loosens the belt of the strong. XIII. Because dignity and power often cause that those who possess them do not keep pledged faith, through contempt or neglect of those to whom they had promised it, as daily experience bears witness: which utterly disagrees with the nature of the highest good. XIV. Because dignity and power impel the ambitious and the avaricious to afflict others with evils against divine and human laws, to seize what is another’s and hold it by force, to be the authors of many slaughters: the example is Pharaoh king of Egypt, who oppressed the people of Israel, and Haman, the enemy of the Jews, and that great Xerxes. XV. Because it drives a man to lift up his heart against God; it rouses him to abominable pride, as the example of that same Pharaoh, of Nebuchadnezzar, of Antiochus Epiphanes, of Herod, teaches. XVI. Because it is brief and momentary, Isa. 40:6: A voice saying, Preach; he also says what I am to preach: that all flesh is grass, and that its comeliness also is like the flower of the field. 1 Pet. 1:24: All flesh is grass, and all the glory of man like the flower of grass: the grass withered and its flower fell. XVII. Because it does not vindicate from oblivion after death, Ecclesiastes 8:9: For thus I observed the wicked who had exercised dominion to be buried after they had died; and from the place of the holy they went away and were consigned to oblivion in the city in which they had done thus: this also is vanity. Nor are RICHES the highest good of man: I. Because for the most part they are procured unjustly, or at least with great toil through a punishment divinely inflicted, with anxious occupation and troublesome solicitude; or even if they have been gotten justly, yet men use them unjustly, Jer. 5. v. 27: As a cage full of birds, so their houses are full of deceit; therefore they are great and rich. Whence CHRIST calls riches the unjust Mammon, Luke 16. v. 9, 11. Ecclesiastes ch. 2. last v.: God gives to the sinner an occupation for gathering and heaping up. II. Because they are increased and kept with vexatious torment. Ecclesiastes 5. v. 12: The satiety of the rich man does not permit him to sleep. For those whom you suppose to be rich, joining pastures to pastures, houses to houses, and, with the poor excluded from the boundary, stretching

out their fields indefinitely and without limits more broadly - by whom there is the greatest weight of silver and gold, and, of huge sums, either embankments piled up or hoards buried - these men also, amid their riches, are racked, timid through uncertain thought, by anxiety: lest a robber ravage, lest an assailant molest, lest an enemy’s envy of any wealthier person disturb with slanderous lawsuits. No secure food or sleep befalls him; he sighs at the banquet, though he drink from a gemmed cup, and when, along with dainties, the couch more soft has laid to rest the languid body in its deep bosom, he keeps awake on the down; nor does the wretch understand that his punishments are splendid, that he is held bound to gold, and is possessed by riches and wealth more than possessing them. O detestable blindness of minds, and the deep darkness of insane greed: though he could adorn himself and lighten himself of burdens, he goes on rather to brood over pressing fortunes, he goes on stubbornly to cleave to penal heaps. There is from it no largess to clients, no sharing with the needy, and they call it their money which, as if another’s, they guard shut up at home with anxious toil: as Cyprian writes in the second epistle which is written to Donatus. III. Because they are corruptible, Matt. 6. v. 19: Do not lay up treasures on earth, where moth and rust corrupt, and where thieves dig through and steal. 1 Tim. 6. 17: Charge those who are rich in this age not to be high-minded, nor to set their hope on uncertain riches, but on the living God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. James 5. v. 2, 3: Your riches have rotted, your garments have been eaten by moths; your gold and silver is rusted through, and their rust will bear witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire; you have laid up treasure in the last days. IV. Because they can be lost by that very one who had acquired them with great troubles, Matt.

IX. Because they hinder the worship of GOD and draw a man away from it, Matt. 6. v. 24: No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon. X. Because when increased they multiply vanity, whereas it ought to suffice man that he himself is vanity, Ecclesiastes 6. 11: When there are many things, they multiply vanity; what more has this man? XI. Because they do not preserve this temporal life, but GOD, by his providence, Matt. 6. 25 and several following: Do not be anxious for your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink; nor for your body, with what you shall be clothed: is not the life more than food, and the body than clothing? Look at the birds of heaven: for they do not sow nor reap nor gather into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them: are you not much better than they, etc. Luke 12. v. 15: Take heed and beware of covetousness; for a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things which are at his disposal, so as to overflow. XII. Because they free no one from temporal death, much less from eternal, Prov. 10. 2: Treasures of wickedness do not profit, but righteousness delivers from death. And ch. 11. 4: Riches do not profit in the day of wrath. Ps. 49. v. 7 and following: Of those who trust in their wealth and glory in the multitude of their riches: No one can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him (for the redemption of their life is costly, indeed it ceases forever), that he should still live forever, and not see corruption. For he sees the wise die, likewise the fool and the brutish perish, and leave their wealth to others, etc. And Ps. 52. 7, 8, 9: God the mighty will also demolish you forever; he will snatch you away and tear you from the tent; and he will root you out of the land of the living most vehemently. The righteous seeing this will fear, and they will laugh at him, saying: Behold the man who did not make God his strength, but trusted in the abundance of his riches and strengthened himself in his substance. Luke 16. 22, 23: The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, lifting up his eyes, being in torments, etc. XIII. Because we are forbidden to desire and heap them up, Matt. 6. v. 19: Do not lay up treasures on earth, where moth and rust corrupt, and where thieves dig through and steal. And ch.

away anything for his toil which he can take in his hand. Wherefore this also is an evil causing grief: altogether as it came, so it goes away; what profit is there to him that he has labored for the wind? Luke 12. v. 16 through 21. XV. Because desire for them and possession of them brings many evils upon men. 1 Tim. 6. 9, 10: Those who wish to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many senseless and hurtful desires, which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all evils; which some, while they covet, have wandered from the faith and have pierced themselves through everywhere with many sorrows. Ecclesiastes 5. 13: There is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun: riches kept by their owner to his hurt, XVI. Because they do not bring tranquility of mind, but increase disquiet, since the desire of the rich man cannot be satisfied and filled, Ecclesiastes 6. v. 7: So that all the labor of a man goes to his mouth, yet his desire is not filled. XVII. Because we are forbidden to put confidence in them. 1 Tim. 6. 17: Charge those who are rich in this age not to be high-minded, nor to set their hope on uncertain riches, but on the living God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. Whatever is earthly is perishable, nor do such things afford a stable confidence to those who possess them, which do not have the reality of possession. XVIII. Because by means of them their possessors are not made better, but for the most part worse - dainty, intemperate, haughty, cruel and harsh toward the poor, luxurious. Prov. 10. v. 16: The produce of the wicked is unto sin. James 2. 6, 7: Do not the rich oppress you by tyranny, and drag you into courts? Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called? And ch. 5. v. 5, 6: You have lived in luxury upon the earth and have been wanton; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter. You have condemned, you have killed the righteous: he does not resist you. The example is in the rich feaster, Luke 16. v. 19, 20, 21. XIX. Because no one enjoys them wholly; rather, they are transferred by inheritance for the most part to foolish men, who, though acquired with great labors and sweats, foolishly squander them, Ecclesiastes 2. v. 19, 20: I also hated all my labor wherein I labored under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who shall be after me. And who knows whether he shall be wise or foolish, who shall have dominion over all my labor wherein I have labored, and wherein I have shown myself wise under the sun? Yet even this is vanity. And v. 22, 23, 24. XX. Because they often come into the hands of those who are joined to us neither as sons, nor by blood, nor by affinity; a matter which greatly torments the soul of the man who has amassed great wealth, if it is destitute of the divine Spirit, Ecclesiastes 6. 1, 2: There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is great among men: A man to whom God himself has given riches and wealth and honor, so that he lacks nothing for his soul of all that he desires, yet God himself does not grant him power to eat thereof, but a stranger eats it: this is vanity and a sore affliction. Luke

XXI. Because they often come to our enemies, not only when we have departed from this life, but even while we are still living; as the examples teach of so many cities occupied by enemies, as of the city of Jerusalem, 1 Kings 14. v. 25, 26, and 2 Kings 24. 15; of the city of Tyre, Ezek. 26. 12; of the cities of Egypt, Ezek. 29. 19: Thus says the Lord Jehovah, Behold, I deliver to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, the land of Egypt, that he may take its multitude and despoil its spoil and plunder its plunder, that there may be wages for his troops. The same is taught by the examples of kings buying peace, as Hezekiah, 2 Kings 18. 14; Jehoahaz, 2 Kings 23. 35. Also the examples of the confessors of the heavenly truth, whose goods were plundered, Heb. 10. 34. XXII. Because men approved by GOD have not desired them; as Moses judged the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of the Egyptians, Heb. 11. 26. Others wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated - of whom the world was not worthy - erring in deserts, and in mountains and caves and holes of the earth, Heb. 11. 37, 38. 2 Cor. 6. 4: In everything commending ourselves as ministers of God, in much endurance, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses. And v. 10. As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing all things. XXIII. Because our Lord Christ did not desire them either, 2 Cor. 8:9. You know the kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sakes he became poor, though he was rich, that by his poverty you might be enriched. Matt. 8:20. Jesus says: Foxes have dens, and the birds of the heaven nests; but the Son of man has not where to lay his head. XXIV. Because they drive a man to lift himself up against God and proudly to despise his word, Prov. 10:16. What the righteous by his work acquires, he acquires to life; the yield of the wicked is to sin. Examples are in the rich banqueter and his brothers, Luke 16. XXV. Because they hinder most people from entering into the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 19:23 -

in Jerusalem, etc. I looked back upon all my works which my hands had made, and upon the labor which I had toiled to do: and behold, all these things are vanity and a chasing of the wind, so that there is no profit under the sun. It is objected: If riches are not man’s highest good, therefore they are evil. It is answered: They are not evil, if their possession be just and their use legitimate, Ecclesiastes 2:24ff. It is not within man that he should eat, drink, and bring it to pass that his soul enjoy the good from his labor: even this I have seen to be from the hand of God himself. For who would enjoy it except I? For to the man who seems good in his sight, God gives wisdom and knowledge along with joy; but to the sinner he gives travail to gather and heap up, that he may give it to him who will seem good in his sight. Even this also is vanity and a chasing of the wind. Nor is VIRTUE and its act (although by the philosophers with highest praises it is proclaimed as the highest good) the highest good of man. I. Because in virtue we ought not to glory. II. Because virtue cannot make anyone blessed: Lactantius, book three of the Divine Institutes, chapter eight. Although without virtue no one is blessed, yet it itself is not the cause of blessedness, but the way to blessedness. III. Because it is not sought for its own sake, but for the blessed life. Hence many philosophers have on their lips that the reward of virtue is the blessed life. IV. Because it cannot subsist without another good. For it needs many helps from without, nor does it rely upon its own strength by itself. But the highest good ought to need no help from without. V. Because its force lies in the endurance of evils. Lactantius, book three of the Divine Institutes, chapter eleven. But the highest good must be separated from every evil. VI. Because by itself it is not blessed. Lactantius, the book cited, chapter twelve. VII. Because it is not always alike and the same. But the highest good is alike and the same always, and it alone can neither be diminished, nor increased, nor changed. VIII. Because it is a witness of our calamities: which can be proved by an induction of the species of virtue. For what does temperance mean, which is given for this reason, that drunkennesses, carousings, lusts, and the base and foul motions of souls may be curbed? For these things show that it has no place except in minds still liable to such corruption; which corruption, the more inward it is, the more it makes us miserable, and, like a domestic enemy, rages in the inmost chambers of our hearts. These affections are vices which hinder us from doing the things that we will, as Paul teaches, Romans 7:17 and following: So now it is no longer I who accomplish it, but sin that dwells in me accomplishes it. For I know that good does not dwell in me (that is, in my flesh): for to will is present with me, but to accomplish what is good I do not attain. For I do not do the good that I will, but the evil that I do not will, this I do. But if I do that which I do not will, it is no longer I who accomplish it, but sin that dwells in me accomplishes it, etc. What is the task of prudence, except to provide that we be not deceived by error in choosing goods and avoiding evils? Surely, unless we were wrapped in errors and darkness, there would be no need of this remedy: but

when it is applied, it declares that men are not yet happy, but are entangled in great and grievous errors. Justice too, whereby to each is rendered what is his own, is necessary, that robberies, rapines, violences may be checked. Nor indeed can it obtain this only, so that just and upright men do not often do many things unjustly, and also often suffer many things unjustly from others. Now what shall we say of fortitude? It indeed arms men, that they may be able to endure pains, dangers, torments, death itself at last, if need be: and consequently it bears witness to our evils. Nor is VIRTUE joined with HONESTY the highest good of man. I. Because no virtue can be dishonorable; and if it has any disgrace, it ceases to be virtue. II. Because if virtue joined with honesty is the highest good of man, it would follow that he who studies virtue ought to be a slave to the esteem of men. But whoever does this departs from the right and the good: because it is not in our power that virtue should be honored according to its merits. Then what will happen if, through the error and perversity of men, evil repute follows; if envy presses down, nay even oppresses, virtue? Nor is THIS EARTHLY AND TEMPORAL LIFE the highest good of man: I. Because it is liable to innumerable evils. II. Because it is short. But the highest good is everlasting. III. Because the highest good is not to be sought in the lowest part of the world, that is, in the earth whence the body is. IV. Because the highest good is not of the body. V. Because it is vain. For whatever pertains to the body and is devoid of immortality must needs be vain. VI. Because it does not make one blessed. VII. Because it is reckoned as nothing by holy men and men pleasing to God in comparison with that other life. VIII. Because those who among the Gentiles were held to be the wisest and bravest men resolved to break it off for themselves, as Cato, Brutus, and others. But if this life is the highest good, why did these men seek the aid of death that it might be ended? Nay, not even MAN’S IMMORTALITY is his highest good, although Lactantius more than once so determined. I. Because immortality is only a certain accident of man; but the highest good must be a thing subsisting of itself. II. Because it is brought about by God in man. III. Because immortality by itself does not make one blessed: for the Devil is an immortal spirit, and yet on that account is not blessed; and the souls of reprobate men are immortal, or of immortal nature, and yet for that reason are not blessed. Nor is the ABSENCE OF PAIN the highest good, as the sick and those set in pain think, and as Diodorus supposed. I. Because it can be given by a man. But what is so ridiculous as to hold that for the highest good which a man can give? II. Because desire for it is common to man with other animals, since every animal flees pain. III. Because he would be most miserable who never felt pain, because he lacks a good. Therefore one must feel pain that we may enjoy a good, and indeed grievously and often, that afterwards not to feel pain may be the more pleasant.

Nor are the FAVOR AND GRACE of any prince, or relative, or of any other whatsoever, the highest good of man. I. Because they are men. Psalm 146:3. Do not put your trust in princes, in any son of man, in whom there is no salvation. II. Because every man is vanity, Psalm 62:9. Only vanity are they who are born of the common man; a lie are they who are born of the excellent man: if they were put together upon the scales, they would go up above vanity. III. Because none of men can rescue anyone from death, Psalm 49:8 - 10. No one can by any means redeem a brother, nor give to God his ransom: (For precious is the redemption of their life, yea, it ceases for ever:) That he should still live forever, that he should not see corruption. Psalm 146:3. Do not put your trust in princes, in any son of man, in whom there is no salvation. IV. Because every man is mortal, Psalm 146:4. His spirit departs, he returns to his earth (to wit, not the spirit, but the man in his body); on that very day his thoughts perish. Isa. 2, last verse. Cease from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for of what account is he? And ch. 40:6, 7, 8. A voice saying, Preach; and it also says, What shall I preach? that all flesh is grass, and all its goodliness is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower falls; when the Spirit of Jehovah blows upon it, surely the people is grass. The grass withers, the flower falls; but the word of our God abides for ever. V. Because we are forbidden to place our trust in men, Psalm - VI. Because trust placed in men is cursed, Jer. 17:5. Cursed is that man who has trust in man, and makes flesh his arm, but his soul departs from Jehovah. VII. Because true believers have not hesitated to repudiate the favor and good will of men, even of those who could profit much bodily; as Moses, now grown up, by faith refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to be afflicted together with the people of God than to retain the temporary enjoyment of sin, Heb. 11:24, 25. Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and the other prophets, who did not hesitate on account of sins to reprove kings severely. VIII. Because human favor is vain, temporary, brief, and indeed momentary. IX. Because the wills of men are inconstant and pliable, and they are wont, either by the slanders of others or even by light suspicions, to change favor into hatred and goodwill into wrath. Nor is FORTUNE, adapting herself to men’s complexion, their highest good and the cause of human happiness. I. Because fortune in itself is nothing, but a mere figment of the Gentile poets, who feign it to be a goddess, who gives good and evil to whom she wills, II. Because fortune is a denial of God and his providence. For he who persuades himself that the happiness which he enjoys, the goods which he possesses, are not f- from God, but has them from fortune, despises and denies God and his providence, and most easily deserts his pure worship. III. Because fortune, even by the more sober Gentile poets, philosophers, and historians, is not acknowledged. The verses of Juvenal are well known:

“No divine power is lacking, if there be prudence; but it is we who make Fortune a goddess and place her in heaven.” IV. Because, if fortune is anything, it is nothing other than the sudden and unexpected event of accidental things. Therefore the error of those is most grave who determine that a man is happy just so long as fortune adapts itself to his complexion and humor. Nor is RELIGION DEVISED BY HUMAN WILL, even if it be publicly and commonly received and cultivated with great zeal; nay, not even the external observance of ceremonies commanded by God - especially without true faith - is the highest good and the cause of human happiness. I. Because it draws away from the true God, who is the author of every true good. Isa. 1:4. “Ah, sinful nation, people most grievous in iniquity, seed most malicious, sons that are corrupters; they have forsaken Jehovah, they have with contempt provoked the Holy One of Israel; alienating themselves, they have turned back.” II. Because it is to be shunned by us with all diligence. Isa. 1:11 - 14. “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? says Jehovah; I am sated with the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fatlings; and in the blood of bullocks and of lambs and of he-goats I take no pleasure. Why do you come, is it to appear before me? Who has required this at your hand, that you should trample my courts? Do not go on offering a vain gift; incense is an abomination to me; at the new moon and sabbath, in calling an assembly, I cannot bear iniquity nor the solemn day. Your new moons and your stated feasts my soul hates; they are a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.” III. Because it is evil. Eccles. 5:1. “Observe both your feet when you go to the very house of God, and be prepared to listen rather than to give the sacrifice of fools; for these do not consider that they are doing evil.” IV. Because it profits its worshipers nothing. Isa. 1:15. “Therefore, when you spread forth your hands, I hide my eyes from you; even when you use much prayer, I do not hear; your hands are full of blood.” V. Because it is not the cause of eternal beatitude. Matt. 15:9. “In vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines which are commandments of men.” Wherefore they err who affirm that the cause of the happiness of the Roman commonwealth was the religion of Numa and the worship of many gods; nor do they impose less upon the simple those who preach that the religion of the Roman Church, such as it most chiefly has been from Gregory the Great down to this day, was and even now is the cause of the happiness of the Christian Commonwealth. Finally (lest I enumerate more false opinions about the Highest Good, of which Varro records two hundred and eighty-five different), neither is the CONDITION OF ALL GOODS of the body and of what they call fortune, perfected by aggregation and acquisition, our highest good. I. Because it is uncertain. II. Because it is confined within the limits of this life. III. Because there are no goods of fortune, since fortune is a heathen fiction, as was said a little before.

Thus far it has been said what the highest good of rational creatures is and is not, and especially of man: what follows is about their beatitude.

The beatitude of rational creatures is the fruition of the Highest Good, namely of God; or, which comes to the same, it is the communion of rational creatures with God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who alone is truly their Highest Good, which makes them eternally blessed. It is called the salvation of God, Psalm 50:23: “He who offers praise glorifies me; and to him who orders his way aright I will show the salvation of God.” Jeremiah 3:18: “Truly in Jehovah our God is the salvation of Israel.” 1 John 1:3: “That you also may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” Its parts are two: freedom from all evils, and the possession of all true goods, which rational creatures enjoy in God; of which sort are the vision of God, conformity with God, sufficiency in God, and the sure knowledge of their eternal felicity. The vision of God is the knowledge of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, by a supernatural light kindled by the Holy Spirit in the minds of rational creatures, to quicken them with eternal life. This is the first and chief part of beatitude. Whence beatitude is commonly defined to be the vision of God; or to be the perfect act whereby God is known. And this in the soul of Christ is most open and most perfect, as much and of such sort as can befall a rational creature, so that with ineffable brightness and perfection the soul of Christ sees God face to face, and by that vision of God is blessed. Indeed, the soul of Christ, from the very personal union with the Word (λόγος), is made blessed with uncreated beatitude; but by created beatitude it could not be blessed without the vision of God. And that vision differs from the vision whereby the Deity sees itself: for, 1) the Deity sees itself as a whole and wholly; but the soul of Christ sees indeed the whole Deity, yet not wholly. 2) The Deity sees in itself all things, even those which will never be, provided only they are not simply impossible; but the soul of Christ sees in the Deity only all those things which have been, are, and shall be. 3) The Deity sees itself and all things in itself with a clarity simply infinite, because it sees by an uncreated and therefore infinite light, that is, by its own essence; but the soul of Christ sees with a finite clarity, because with a created and finite light. In the angels likewise the chief part of beatitude is the vision of God; and this in them is always clear, Matthew 18:10: “See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I say to you that their angels in heaven at all times behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.” And by it they see and know the essence of God, not indeed whole as the soul of Christ, much less wholly and in every way, but in proportion to their capacity: for finite minds do not at all take in what is infinite, nor can that which is created plainly and perfectly comprehend the Creator.

As for man, likewise necessary to his beatitude and its primary part is the vision of God, which assuredly is true wisdom, of which Proverbs 3:13: “Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, and the man who gets understanding;” and verse 18: “Everyone who holds her is blessed.” Matthew 16:16 - 17: “And Simon Peter answering said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Then Jesus answering said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona; for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” John 17:3: “This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” Moreover, the vision of God in man is either obscure or clear. The obscure vision of God is of this life, while the soul, still existing in a mortal body, knows God by faith, as by a riddle and a mirror, 1 Corinthians 13:12: “For now we see through a mirror and by a riddle; but then we shall see face to face: now in part; but then I shall know more fully, in proportion as I shall have been more fully taught.” The clear vision of God is of the other life, when the soul, both when separated from the body and, after the universal resurrection, when reunited to it again, will know God face to face, as it is, 1 Corinthians 13:12; 1 John 3:4: “We shall see him as he is.” Revelation 22:3 - 4: “The throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and his servants shall serve him; and they shall see his face.” So much concerning the vision of God. Conformity with God is that by which a rational creature is like God in true wisdom, righteousness, and holiness, 1 John 1:6 - 7: “If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not act sincerely. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have mutual fellowship with him.” And chapter 3:2: “Beloved, now we are the sons of God, but it has not yet been manifested what we shall be; but we know that when he shall be manifested, we shall be like him.” Sufficiency in God is that by which a rational creature so rests in God and is so content with him, that outside him it seeks nothing, desires nothing further, Psalm 33:12: “Blessed is the nation whose God is Jehovah.” Psalm 62:2: “Only in God my soul rests still: from him is my salvation.” And verse 6: “Only in God rests my soul: for from him is my expectation.” And Psalm 73:25 - 26: “Whom have I in heaven besides you? and besides you I delight in no one on earth. Though my flesh and my heart fail, the rock of my heart and my portion is God forever.” A sure knowledge of one’s eternal felicity is that by which a rational creature not only knows its felicity, but also surely knows and is confident that it will be blessed forever, Romans 8:35 - 39: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall affliction? shall distress? shall persecution? shall famine? shall nakedness? shall danger? shall sword? (As it is written: For your sake we are put to death all the day long; we are accounted as sheep appointed for slaughter.) Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

This beatitude is spiritual, because it consists in goods properly pertaining to the mind, which is spirit; it is divine, because it is from God alone, and is occupied with the fruition of God; and it is proper to the Church, that is, to the holy angels and to men elected unto eternal life. Psalm 33:12: “Blessed is the nation whose God is Jehovah; the people whom he has chosen for his possession.” And 144:15: “Blessed is the people that is in such a case: blessed is the people whose God is Jehovah.” Canticles 6:8: “They shall call her blessed.” Malachi 3:12: “And all nations shall call you blessed.” And it alone is true, solid, and eternal. In this life it is begun in the reborn; in the other it will be perfected, Revelation 20:6: “Blessed and holy is he that has part in the first resurrection: over these the second death has no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ.” And chapter 22:14: “Blessed are they who do his commandments: that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.” The efficient cause on account of which we are made partakers of it is the gratuitous remission of sins for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us by God, Psalm 32:1 - 2; Romans 4:7 - 8: “Blessed is he that is lifted from transgression, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom Jehovah does not impute iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.” Its instrumental cause is saving faith, Luke 1:45: “Blessed is she who believed.” John 20:29: “Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.” And its infallible sign, which shows a man to be blessed, is threefold. The first is the effectual calling unto Christ, by which we are members of the true and pure Church of God, and are made partakers of the goods which God dispenses in his Church. Psalm 65:5 - 6: “Blessed is the one whom you choose and draw near, to inhabit your courts: we shall be satisfied with the good of your house, with the holy things of your temple. Fearful things in righteousness you will speak to us, O God of our salvation, the confidence of all the ends of the earth and of the distant sea:” Psalm 84:11. Better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere: I choose to frequent the threshold in the house of my God rather than to dwell in the tents of wickedness. The second sign is diligence in shunning sins and in doing the good works commanded by God, Psalm 1:1 - 2: “Blessed is that man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, and does not stand in the way of sinners, and does not sit in the seat of mockers; but whose delight is in the law of Jehovah, and who meditates on his law by day and by night.” And Psalm 2:12: “Blessed are all who trust in him.” Psalm 40:5: “Blessed is that man who puts his confidence in Jehovah, and does not regard the proud, or those turning aside to lies.” Psalm 84:6: “Blessed is the man to whom there is strength in you to tread your paths according to the conviction of his heart.” And verse 13: “O Jehovah of hosts, blessed is the man who has confidence in you.” And Psalm 89:16: “Blessed is the people who recognize the trumpet-blast, who walk in the light of your face, O Jehovah.” And 112:1: “Blessed is whoever reveres Jehovah, who greatly delights in his commandments.” And 119:1 - 2: “Blessed are the blameless in the way, who walk in the law of Jehovah; blessed are those who keep his testimonies, who seek him with their whole heart.” Proverbs 8:32, 34: “Blessed are those who observe my ways. Blessed is the man who listens to me, diligently standing at my doors daily,

watching the posts of my entrances.” And ch. 14:21: “He who shows favor to the poor - oh, blessed is he!” And ch. 16:20: “He who trusts in Jehovah - oh, blessed is he!” And ch. 28:14: “Blessed is the man who, as is fitting, is always fearful; but he who hardens his heart will fall into evil.” And ch. 29:13: “When there is no vision, the people are unrestrained; but he who keeps the law - oh, blessed is he!” Isaiah 30:18: “Jehovah is a God of justice; blessed are all who wait for him.” And ch. 56:2: “Blessed is the mortal who does righteousness, and the son of man who lays hold of it, keeping the sabbath so as not to profane it, and keeping his hand so as not to do any evil.” Matthew 5:3, 5, 6, 7, 8: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for mercy will be shown to them. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” Luke 11:28: “Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” John 13:17: “If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them.” James 1:25: “But he who has looked into that perfect law of liberty and has continued in it, because he has not been a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, that man, I say, will be more blessed in his deed.” Revelation 1:3: “Blessed is he who reads and blessed are those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep the things that are written in it.” And ch. 16:15: “Behold, I come like a thief. Blessed is he who watches and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame.” And ch. 22:7: “Behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.” The third sign is the cross and affliction by which God both chastens the godly as a father, and tests them, and makes them martyrs of his truth, Psalm 94:12 - 13: “Blessed is that man whom you chasten, O Iah, and whom you teach from your law, to give him rest from the days of adversity while a pit is being dug for the wicked.” James 1:12: “Blessed is the man who endures temptation,” etc. And ch. 5:11: “Behold, we pronounce blessed those who endure adversity; you have heard the patience of Job, and you have seen the end of the Lord; for the Lord abounds in tender mercy and is compassionate.” Matthew 5:4, 10, 11: “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will receive consolation. Blessed are those whom men persecute for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. You will be blessed when they reproach you, and persecute you, and lying say every kind of evil against you for my sake.” 1 Peter 3:14: “But if you suffer anything for righteousness, yet you are blessed.” And ch. 4:14: “If you are reproached in the name of Christ, you are blessed.” But besides this there is a certain temporal and bodily blessedness of men, which consists in the enjoyment of goods that pertain to this bodily life: and this is called human blessedness, because it consists of those things which concern this human life, and have their place in this life, as an appendix (epísagma) and a certain addition, serving for the consolation of the godly; as is everywhere described in the sacred Scriptures, as for example in the Psalms and elsewhere these parts of bodily felicity are proclaimed. I. Nobility and honor of family and birth. Proverbs 17:6: “The ornament of children is their fathers.” Hence the genealogies of the godly are everywhere in Scripture recounted with praise; and by Christ himself, and as to the flesh, John 8:37: “I know that you are the seed of Abraham.” Acts 25: “You are the sons of the Prophets and of the covenant which

God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall obtain blessing’.” Romans 9:4 - 5: “Who are Israelites; to whom belong the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, etc.; whose are the Fathers, and to the Jews alone is granted the praise of their descent from Abraham; as to the flesh, from whom is Christ, according to the flesh.” To this also pertains the respectability of birth: for those born of an unlawful bed are barred from discharging public offices and dignities, Deut. 23:2: “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of Jehovah; even his tenth generation shall not enter into the congregation of Jehovah.” II. Renown and fame of one’s fatherland or native soil, Psalm 127:4, 5: “How would we sing the song of Jehovah in a foreign land? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget herself.” III. Good education, Proverbs 3:13: “Blessed is the man who obtains wisdom, and the man who advances in understanding.” 1 Kings 10:8: “Blessed are your men, blessed are these your servants, who stand continually before you, hearing your wisdom.” Ecclesiasticus 25:12 - 13: “Blessed is he who has obtained prudence, and who declares it to the ears of hearers. How great is he who has obtained wisdom! but no one surpasses the one who reveres the Lord.” And ch. 50:28 - 29: “Jesus the son of Sirach the Jerusalemite has inscribed in this book instruction of understanding and knowledge, who poured forth a shower of wisdom from his soul. Blessed is he who is occupied in these things; and he who puts these things into his heart will become wise.” IV. The necessities of this life as helps, Psalm 33:19: “That he may snatch their soul from death, and keep them alive in famine.” And 36:8 - 9: “How precious is your kindness, O God; the sons of men take refuge under the shadow of your wings. They are abundantly satisfied with the fatness of your house, and from the river of your delights you give them drink.” And 37:11: “But the meek will by hereditary right possess the land, and they will delight themselves in the abundance of peace.” And verses 21 - 22: “The wicked borrows and cannot pay back; but the righteous shows favor and gives. For those blessed by him possess the land by hereditary right; but those cursed by him are cut off.” And verses 25 - 26: “I was young and am also grown old, yet I have not seen the righteous so forsaken that his seed sought bread. All the day he shows favor and lends, and his seed is in blessing.” And verse 29: “The righteous will by hereditary right possess the land, and will dwell upon it forever.” Matthew 5:5: “Blessed are the meek, for they will obtain the land by right of inheritance.” And ch. 6:33: “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” V. A happy marriage, Ecclesiasticus ch. 26:1: “A good wife: blessed is the man, and his number of days is doubled.” Although celibacy, if one be adorned with the gift of continence from God, is not placed in the least part of blessedness, 1 Cor. 7:40. VI. The enlargement and prosperity of one’s household and posterity. Thus in Leah, the wife of the patriarch Jacob, Gen. 30:13: “Blessed am I; for women will call me blessed.” Psalm 112:2: “Mighty in the land will be his seed; the generation of the upright will be blessed.” And Psalm 127:3 - 5: “Behold, sons are the possession of Jehovah; the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a strong man, so are the children. Blessed is that man who has filled his quiver with them; they will not be ashamed, but they will destroy their enemies in their gate.” And Psalm 128:2 - 3: “You will be blessed and it will be well with you. Your wife will be as a fruitful vine by the sides of your house; your children as olive plants will encircle your table.” And 144:12: “That our sons may be like plants

well brought up in their youth; and our daughters like corner stones, hewn for the structure of a temple.” Proverbs 17:8: “Children’s children are the crown of old men.” And ch. 20:7: “The righteous, walking unceasingly in his integrity, is blessed; blessed are his sons after him.” Isaiah 65:23: “Nor will they beget for disquiet; for the seed of the blessed of Jehovah shall they be, and their offspring with them.” Yet not whatever children and descendants are to be placed in the part of human blessedness, but the wise and godly, not those begotten for disquiet. Otherwise, “He who begets a fool begets him to his own sorrow, nor will the father of a fool rejoice,” Proverbs 17:21. “And a foolish son is vexation to his father, and bitterness to his mother,” Proverbs 17:25. VII. Increase of power and riches, Psalm 112:3: “Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness endures forever.” And 144:13 - 15: “May our storehouses, being full, bring forth constant supply; may our flocks bear a thousand, multiplied to myriads in our folds. And our oxen well-laden; may there be no breach, and no going out, and finally no outcry in our streets. Blessed is the people to whom it is thus.” VIII. Preservation, comfort, and help in adverse things. Psalm II: 2 - 3: “Blessed is he who pays heed to the afflicted; in the time of evil Jehovah will deliver him. Jehovah will keep him and restore him to life; he will be blessed on the earth; also, do not give him over to the desire of his enemies.” And 112:4: “Light rises in darkness for the upright; the righteous is gracious and merciful.” Deuteronomy 33:29: “Blessed are you, O Israel; who is like you, a people saved by Jehovah, the shield of your help, and whose sword is your excellency? Thus your enemies will come cringing to you; but you will tread upon their high places.” Daniel 12:12: “Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the days one thousand three hundred and thirty-five.” IX. Tranquil government and comfortable dwelling under a prudent and good Prince or Magistrate, Ecclesiastes 10:7 or 14, according to the version of Tremellius: “O blessed land, whose king is born of the most noble; and whose princes eat in due season for strength, and not for revelry.” Ecclesiasticus 25:11: “Blessed is he who dwells with an understanding wife, and who does not slip with his tongue, and who does not serve an unworthy man.” X. Security from fear and trembling, and from bodily annoyances and miseries, Psalm 112:7 - 8: “He does not fear an evil report, being fully confident in Jehovah. Upheld in his heart he does not fear, until he see his desire upon his enemies.” 1 Corinthians 7:40: “But she is more blessed if she remains thus, according to my judgment; and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” XI. Joy flowing from the usufruct of our labors and of the goods given by God, Ecclesiastes 2:23: “It is not good with man unless he eat, drink, and make his heart enjoy good from his toil; this also I saw to be from the hand of God himself.” And v. 26: “For to the man who seems good in his sight God gives wisdom and knowledge with joy.” Acts 14:17: “God fills our hearts with food and gladness.” Isaiah 65:13 - 14: Thus says the Lord God: “Behold, my servants will eat, but you will be hungry; behold, my servants will drink, they will rejoice, they will sing for joy of heart.” And vv. 21 - 22: “And they will build houses and inhabit them, and plant vineyards and eat their fruit: they will not build and another inhabit; they will not plant and another eat.” Joy also flowing from the overthrow of the enemies of God and of the Church. Psalm 112:8: “Upheld in his heart he does not fear, until he see evil upon his enemies.” Ecclesiasticus 25:10: “The man rejoicing over his children is blessed, and he who while living sees the ruin of his

enemies.” XII. Long life, Exodus 20:12: “That your days may be prolonged upon the land which Jehovah your God gives you.” Isaiah 65:22: “For as are the days of a tree, so will be the days of my people.” XIII. A peaceful bodily death in the faith of Christ, Revelation 14:13: “Blessed from henceforth are the dead, those who die on account of the Lord. Yea, says the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; for their works follow after them.” Isaiah 57:1 - 2: “Upright men are taken away, with no one taking note; before the coming of that very evil the righteous man is taken away; he enters into peace, he rests upon his bed.” XIV. Perpetual glory and honorable fame, also remaining after death on account of piety, virtue, and right deeds, Psalm 112:6: “For he will not be moved forever; the righteous is in everlasting remembrance.” And v. 9: “He scatters, he gives to the needy; his righteousness stands forever; his horn is exalted with honor.” Proverbs 31:28 - 31 (it is said about the woman who manages her household well and reveres God): “Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband likewise praises her, saying, ‘Many women have acted valiantly, but you surpass them all.’ Favor is deceitful and beauty is vain; a woman endowed with the fear of Jehovah - she obtains praise for herself. Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates.” Revelation 21:24: “And the nations that shall have been saved will walk by its light; and the kings of the earth will bring their glory and honor into it.”

Ectypal theology (theologia ectypa), considered as it is in rational creatures, is either Christ’s as Head of the Church of God according to his humanity, or that of the members of Christ. The theology of Christ as Head according to his humanity is the whole wisdom of divine things communicated by the personal union to the God-man (theánthrōpos) humanity of Christ united, and poured into it by the Holy Spirit without measure, both for his everlasting beatitude and for the enlightenment of all who are joined to Christ as to the Head. This is also called the theology of union, because Christ’s humanity has it from the hypostatic union with the divine nature. Of this one reads, John 1:16: “And of his fullness we all received, and grace for grace.” And chapter 3, verses 11, 12, 13: “Amen, amen, I say to you, that what we know we speak, and what we have seen we testify; but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how, if I tell you heavenly things, will you believe? No one ascends into heaven except he who descended from heaven, namely the Son of man, who is in heaven.” And v. 32 and following: “What he has seen and heard, this he testifies; but no one receives his testimony. He who receives his testimony has set his seal that God is true. For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for God does not give the Spirit by measure. The

Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.” Colossians 2:3: “In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” XIII. A peaceful bodily death in the faith of Christ, Revelation 14:13: Thus he says, “From now on blessed are the dead who die in the Lord.” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors; and their works follow them.” Isaiah 57:1 - 2: Good men are taken away with no one attending; before the coming of evil the righteous is taken away; he enters into peace, he rests in his bed. XIV. Perpetual glory and honorable fame, also remaining after death on account of piety, virtue, and right deeds, Psalm 112:6: “For he will not be moved forever; the righteous is in everlasting remembrance.” And v. 9: “He scatters, he gives to the needy; his righteousness stands forever; his horn is exalted with honor.” Proverbs 31:28 - 31 (it is said about the woman who manages her household well and reveres God): “Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband likewise praises her, saying, ‘Many women have acted valiantly, but you surpass them all.’ Favor is deceitful and beauty is vain; a woman endowed with the fear of Jehovah - she obtains praise for herself. Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates.” Revelation 21:24: “And the nations that shall have been saved will walk by its light; and the kings of the earth will bring their glory and honor into it.”

The theology of the members of Christ is the wisdom of divine things communicated by Christ with his members for the glory of God and the everlasting salvation of the members of Christ. John 1:16: From his fullness we have all received, and grace for grace, And it is either of the blessed or of wayfarers. The theology of the wayfarers is subalternated to the theology of the blessed. The theology of the blessed is the wisdom of divine things communicated by Christ with the blessed in heaven through the Holy Spirit by a clear vision or intuitive knowledge of God to his glory. It is also called the theology of clear vision, and by synecdoche the theology of vision, because the vision of God is attributed also to the human nature of Christ, as also to the faithful still sojourning in this life. Knowledge in the rational creature is twofold: intuitive and abstractive. Intuitive knowledge is knowledge of a thing present as it is present; that is, such a cognition by which we so lay hold of the thing that by it the presence of the object is seen in itself and by the force of the cognition itself, and not because it is proved from elsewhere. Such is the knowledge by which one sees whiteness or another color on a wall, and by which one hears a sound, and that by which the blessed gaze upon God. This must be immediate, namely such that the thing is not perceived in another known thing, as Caesar is known in his statue. For by intuitive cognition a thing is beheld in itself, which cannot be when a thing is seen in another previously seen. Intuitive knowledge is also called knowledge of vision.

Abstractive knowledge is knowledge of a thing through a species abstracted from it, and therefore it is cognition of a thing not as it is present: for example, the knowledge by which I think of the Emperor Rudolph when absent, and that by which an astronomer at his home considers an eclipse, which he does not behold; likewise that by which a philosopher knows from creatures that God exists. For although these cognitions tend toward the thing under the being of what exists, nevertheless they do not so tend that by them the presence of the object is seen. It is also called knowledge of simple intelligence. That by which also the sons of God become blessed and see God they receive from the humanity of Christ, and from the fullness of his grace which dwells in it they must draw. For Christ is the author of their salvation by the communication of the grace and gifts which are in him, Heb. 2:10 - 11: For it was fitting that he, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the prince of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of one. For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brothers. The theology of the blessed is either of angels or of men. The theology of the blessed angels is the wisdom of divine things communicated by Christ with the holy angels, by which, perfectly knowing God and his mysteries, they are blessed; Matt. 18:10: See that you do not despise any one of these little ones; for I say to you, their angels in heaven at all times behold the face of my Father who is in the heavens. 1 Pet. 1:12: To whom it was revealed that not to themselves but to us they were ministering the things which now have been announced to you through those who evangelized to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, into which things angels long to peer. Luke 1:31 and following: And behold, you will conceive in the womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus; he will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of David his father. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end, etc. The theology of blessed men is the wisdom of divine things communicated, by the power of the Spirit of God, from Christ’s measure to the elect men now raised to perfection in heaven, by which, now seeing God clearly, as he is, face to face, they are blessed. Of this it is said, Matt. 5:8: Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 1 Cor. 13:12: Then indeed we shall see face to face. 1 John 3:2: We shall see him as he is. 2 Cor. 5:7: We walk by faith, not by sight, namely, a clear [sight]. Rev. 22:4: They will see his face. For otherwise even in this life we see God by faith, that is, we know him; as David says in Psalm 63:2 - 3, that his soul is thirsting for God, that his flesh is drying up toward him, as being intent to see the strength and glory of God, as in the holy place he used to see him, that is, know him. So John 6:40: This is the will of the Father who sent me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life. John 8:56: Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad. John 12:25: He who sees me sees him who sent me. John 14:7: If you had known me, you would also have known my Father; and now you know him and have seen him. And v. 9: He who sees me sees my Father, namely with the eyes of faith. 1 Cor. 13:12: We see now through a mirror and in an enigma, but then we shall see face to face. 2 Cor. 3:18: But we all, with face unveiled, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are

being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord. Heb. 2:9: But Jesus we behold, crowned with glory and honor. 1 John 2:6: Whoever sins does not see him nor know him. Whence it follows that there is a vision both of wayfarers and of those who are in the fatherland; and therefore the theology of vision is to be distinguished, so that it is either of clear vision or of obscure [vision]. The theology of blessed men, or of clear vision, is also called the theology of the comprehensors, that is, of those who have now grasped the goal of beatitude toward which they were striving in this life, from the place of Paul, 1 Cor. 9:24: Do you not know that those who run in a stadium all indeed run, but one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain. And Phil. 3:11, 12, 13, 14: Trying if in any way I might attain to the resurrection of the dead. Not that I have now obtained the goal, or am now perfected; but I press on, trying whether I may also apprehend, for which very thing I was also apprehended by Christ Jesus. Brothers, I do not reckon myself to have apprehended the goal. But one thing I do: forgetting the things that are behind, and reaching out to the things that are before, I press on toward the mark, to the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

The theology of wayfarers is wisdom of divine things, communicated by Christ through the Holy Spirit to men dwelling here on earth by gracious inspiration, so that by the light of the intellect they may contemplate God, and the divine things, by its own advances, and may rightly worship God, until in heaven they attain a clear and perfect vision of him, to his glory. Of this it is said, 2 Corinthians 13:9: For we know in part and we prophesy in part. And verse 12: For now we see through a mirror and in an enigma, etc.; now I know in part. Ephesians 4:11 - 13: And he gave some as apostles, and some, on the other hand, as prophets, and others as evangelists, and others as pastors and teachers, for the knitting together of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ, until we all reach the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. 1 Peter 1:8: Whom, though you have not seen, you love; in whom, though you do not now behold him, yet believing you exult with inexpressible and glorious joy, receiving the reward of your faith, the salvation of your souls. Peter denies that we see Jesus Christ while we are in this life, yet he denies this in a certain respect only, namely with the eyes of the body, and also with respect to that vision which we shall enjoy in heaven, in comparison with which the enigmatic vision on this earth is not reckoned to be vision; since the things which in the gloom of this life can be known by men about God are scarcely a slight beginning of that wisdom which will be communicated to us in the heavenly life. It is called the theology of the way, or of wayfarers, because it has been revealed to us men here on earth; likewise inspired theology and of revelation, because to the prophets and apostles dwelling on earth it was immediately inspired and revealed, and through them made manifest to other believers.

By synecdoche, however, it is called the theology of revelation, because even the human soul of Christ knows many things by the revelation of the Godhead to which it is united; and the holy angels by revelation have come to know and do know many mysteries of divine things, as in Daniel 8 and 9 the mystery of the seventy weeks is revealed to the angel Gabriel. Ephesians 3:10 Paul teaches that the grace of preaching the Gospel was given to him, in order that through the Church there might be made known to the dominions and authorities that are in the heavens that manifold wisdom of God. Thus Peter says, 1 Peter 1:12, that into the mysteries announced in the Gospel the angels long to peer. Concerning this knowledge of the angels see Jerome Zanchi, Book 1 On the Works of Redemption, chapter 13; and Zacharias Ursinus, Volume 1 of the Theological Treatises, p. 315. And after this life, by a full and most clear disclosure, we men shall come to know the things which we now believe, according to these testimonies: 1 John 3:2: Beloved, we are now children of God, but it has not yet been disclosed what we shall be; we know, however, that when he shall have been disclosed, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. Romans 8:18 - 19: I hold that the sufferings of this present time are by no means equal to that glory which shall be revealed in us. For the whole creation with expectation fixes its eyes on the revelation of the sons of God. 1 Corinthians 1:7: So that you lack in no gift, as you wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 2 Thessalonians 1:7: And to you who are afflicted, rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his mighty angels. 1 Peter 1:5, 7, 13: Who by the protection of the power of God are guarded through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed at the last appointed time; that the testing of your faith, much more precious than the testing of gold which perishes and yet is tested by fire, may be found for you to be unto praise and honor and glory when Jesus Christ shall be revealed. Wherefore, with the loins of your mind girded, being sober, hope to the end in the grace that is being brought to you when Jesus Christ shall be revealed. And 4:13: Rather, inasmuch as you are partakers of the sufferings of Christ, rejoice, so that also when his glory shall be revealed you may rejoice exulting. Hence it is plain that the theology of wayfarers is called by synecdoche revealed, or theology of revelation. Moreover, in respect of origin it is divine and supernatural; that is, it proceeds from principles in themselves known of a higher science by its light, which in this place is the same thing as from divine revelation, illumination, and persuasion beyond the measure of human reason. This light is poured into our minds by the breathing of the heavenly Deity.

Moreover supernatural theology differs from natural theology, that is, that which proceeds from principles known in themselves by the light of nature of the human intellect according to the measure of human reason, and therefore treats of divine things so far as they can be known merely by the natural light: which is called philosophical theology and metaphysics, likewise first philosophy.

It differs first in kind, or according to kind: for supernatural theology is wisdom; but natural theology is not wisdom, although by equivocation it is called wisdom by the metaphysical philosophers. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, part one, question one, article one: “Theology,” he says, “which pertains to Sacred Scripture, differs according to kind from that theology which is set as a part of philosophy.” II. It differs in subject, around which it turns, or object: for the subject of supernatural theology is divine things properly and simply so called; but the subject of natural theology is divine things, partly properly, partly improperly and according to human opinion so called; for instead of true subject-matter it has often been occupied with what is false or merely probable. III. It differs in efficient cause; for the efficient cause of supernatural theology is grace and the supernatural light of the Holy Spirit, that is, of divine revelation of faith; but the efficient cause of natural theology is nature and the natural light of our intellect. The light of the intellect is an instrument for understanding. Therefore supernatural theology is not acquired naturally, but depends on the revelation of God; whereas natural theology, or metaphysics, is acquired naturally. IV. It differs in matter; for the matter of revealed theology are the principles or precepts of divine things unknown by nature and graciously revealed; such as: God is one and three, the Father begets the Son, etc. All such truths are had supernaturally through inspiration or revelation from God in the Sacred Scriptures; but the matter of natural theology are the principles or precepts of divine things implanted in men by nature, as that God is, that God is one, that God is to be worshiped, that what is due is to be rendered to each. Revealed theology contains the Law and the Gospel; natural theology is utterly ignorant of the Gospel. The scholastics commonly call the principles and precepts of theology “theological truths.” V. It differs in form; for the form of revealed theology is divine truth, of which John 17:17: “Sanctify them by your truth; your word is truth.” But the form of natural theology is not divine truth. VI. It differs in end. For supernatural theology profits us for three things: 1. for knowing God, and for believing those things which are about God, which we cannot know by human investigation, but only by revelation which has been made by God in Holy Scripture. 2. for arousing our affection to desire and to love God; because only things known can be loved. Hence for loving God there is required the knowledge of faith which is through revelation, and thus supernaturally.

in them; for God has made it manifest to them. For his invisible things, from the creation of the world, being attentively considered from the things he has made, are clearly seen, namely his eternal both power and divinity: to the effect that they are inexcusable.” Natural theology moreover bore itself otherwise in an unfallen nature, otherwise it bears itself in a corrupted nature. In an unfallen nature it was more excellent than it is in the corrupted; yet from common, obscure, and imperfect principles it had to be cultivated and increased by reasoning, and to be perfected by grace. In corrupted nature indeed it is very depraved, because its principles, which remained after the fall, have become most obscure, by a mixture of errors most faulty and most disturbed. Therefore natural theology by itself is not capable of the perfection supervening from grace; and it does not lead anyone to perfection, indeed it cannot.

Wherefore, besides natural theology, supernatural and revealed theology is necessary for man. First, because man is ordained to know and worship God, as to a certain end which exceeds the comprehension of natural reason, according to Isa. 64:4 by the Vulgate reckoning, or verse 8 according to the edition of Tremellius and Junius: “And from of old unheard, in no way perceived by the ears; what eye has not seen, beyond you, O God, you prepare for the one who waits for him.” Now the end must be foreknown by men, who ought to order their intentions and actions to the end: whence it was necessary for man unto salvation that certain things be made known to him by divine revelation which exceed natural reason. Since, I say, the human race has been established for the acknowledgment and celebration of God, and yet God cannot be acknowledged and worshiped without a disclosure of himself and of his will, it was necessary that God himself show what he willed to be believed concerning himself and how he wished to be worshiped. Second, because the sincere truth concerning God cannot be investigated by natural reason. But upon the knowledge of that truth depends the whole salvation of men which is in God, according to John 17:3: “Now this is eternal life, that they may know you to be the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.” Therefore it is necessary that, besides natural theology, there also be a supernatural one by divine revelation. Paul excellently hands down all these things in 1 Cor. 2:9 to the end of the chapter. It is called the theology of the way, or of wayfarers (Theologia viae, seu viatorum), because it has been revealed to us men here on earth; likewise, inspired and of revelation (Theologia inspirata et revelationis), because it was immediately inspired in and revealed to the prophets and apostles dwelling on earth, and through them made manifest to the other faithful. Synecdochically, however, it is called the theology of revelation, because even the human soul of Christ knows many things by the revelation of the Deity to which it is united; and the holy angels from revelation have learned and do learn many mysteries of divine things, as in Daniel 8 and 9 the mystery of the seventy weeks is revealed to the angel Gabriel. In Eph. 3:10 Paul teaches that the

grace of preaching the gospel was given to him, so that through the church that manifold wisdom of God might be made known to the dominions and authorities which are in the heavens. Thus Peter says, 1 Pet. 1:12, that into the mysteries announced in the gospel the angels desire to look.

There is a twofold account of the theology of wayfarers, for it is considered either absolutely, or insofar as it is in the wayfarers themselves. Theology of wayfarers, said absolutely and considered according to its nature, is the wisdom of divine things according to divine truth, inspired by God, and through his enunciative word, committed in Christ to his servants, and in the Old and New Testament consigned through the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, as much as it is expedient to be revealed to men in this life for the glory of God and the good of elect men. Gal. 1. 11, 12. “Now I make known to you, brothers, that that gospel which was evangelized by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it from man nor was I taught it, but by a revelation of Jesus Christ.” And v. 15, 16. “But when it pleased God, who had set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might evangelize him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately furthermore confer with flesh and blood.” Eph. 3. v. 10. “That through the church there might now be made known to the dominions and authorities which are in the heavens that manifold wisdom of God.” It is called the theology of the way, or of wayfarers, because it has been revealed to us men here on earth; likewise, inspired theology and of revelation, because it was immediately inspired in and revealed to the Prophets and Apostles dwelling on earth, and through them made manifest to the other faithful. Synecdochically, however, it is called the theology of revelation, because even the human soul of Christ knows many things by the revelation of God to which it is united; and the holy angels from revelation have learned and do learn many mysteries of divine things, as in Daniel 8 and 9 the mystery of the seventy weeks is revealed to the angel Gabriel. Eph. 3. v. 10 Paul teaches that the grace of preaching the gospel was given to him, so that through the church that manifold wisdom of God might be made known to the dominions and authorities which are in the heavens. Thus Peter says, 1 Pet. 1. v. 12, that the angels desire to look into the mysteries announced in the gospel. The enunciative word of God, which the Greeks call the enunciative word (logos prophorikos, λόγον προφορικόν), is so called by which God sets forth to us his divine, heavenly, supernatural matters, and indeed all those which he wills us to know. For it is the instrumental cause of the wisdom of divine things in us. This theology according to its essence is one and eternal and immutable, because it is necessarily true, holy, and perfect according to God.

According to its adjuncts it is either old or new. It is old insofar as it is delivered in the Old Testament. It is new insofar as it is taught in the New Testament. Theodoret has this distinction in the second discourse of the Cure of the Greek Affections. Yet this theology is not properly the Scripture itself of the Old and New Testament, just as it is customary for habits of the soul to be taught in books; although by the trope of metonymy the sacred Scripture itself is frequently called Theology by the orthodox Fathers, especially by Clement of Alexandria and Theodoret in the Discourses On the Cure of the Greek Affections.

The theology of wayfarers, insofar as it is in them, is a wisdom of divine things communicated by God through the word to men living in this life, modified according to the measure of those men in whom it is, so that in one there is more, in another less, of that wisdom, and from it they are called theologians. 2 Pet. 3:15: “And count the patience of our Lord to be salvation, just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you.” Our theology is also called, in its subject, obscure theology, in comparison to the theology of the blessed. “Modified” is the same as “measured,” “tempered,” “having a measure,” “portioned out,” and therefore “determinate and distinct.” For to be modified is the same as to be measured, to measure off, to measure, to define, to determine; and modification is nothing other than dimension, measure, mode, determination. To the Lord Christ indeed “God does not give the Spirit by measure” (John 3:34), and therefore neither does He give by measure the wisdom of divine things; but to the rest of the faithful He allots it to each one in a definite measure, just as He has distributed to each one a certain measure of faith (Rom. 12:3). “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:4), “who distributes them to each one privately as He wills” (1 Cor. 12:11). “To each of us grace was given according to the measure of the gift of Christ” (Eph. 4:7). As to the true genus of this our theology, it is asked whether it is understanding, or science, or art, or prudence, or wisdom. I answer: The true genus of our theology is not understanding (intelligentia), because this genus is narrower than theology; for understanding is knowledge of first principles only, without any demonstration; and, consisting only in principles, it grounds reason and exercises the very work of reason which we call ratiocination. Nor is it science (scientia), strictly and properly so called, because thus it too would be a genus that is narrower by definition. For science, strictly taken, is knowledge only of conclusions gathered by demonstration from principles or premises that are evidently known. But where the principles or premises are only believed, as in theology, the conclusion also is only believed and is not known, properly speaking. Every science, thus strictly so called, proceeds from principles that are known of themselves to all; but theology does not proceed from principles that are known of themselves to

all, because it proceeds from principles revealed by God, which are not known of themselves, since they are not granted by all - “for not all have faith” (2 Thess. 3:2). Then too science strictly so taken is not of singulars; but theology is also of singulars, as of God who is a singular reality; as of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; as of Christ; as of the individual divine works; as of the things done by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others. Therefore theology is not science in the strict sense of the word “science.” However, in the broad signification, with the word taken so that it is understood synecdochically for wisdom, the genus of theology is rightly defined, since in Scripture everywhere divine things are said to be known, as in Job 19:25 - 27: “I know that my Redeemer lives, and on the last day I shall rise from the earth; and again I shall be clothed with my skin, and in my flesh I shall see God - whom I myself shall see, and my eyes shall behold, and not another.” Isa. 11:9: “They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; when the earth will be full of this knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the channel of the sea.” John 3:11 - 12: “What we know we speak, and what we have seen we bear witness to; but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how, if I shall tell you heavenly things, will you believe?” And 6:69: “And we have believed, and we know that you are the Christ, that Son of the living God.” Matt. 22:29: “Jesus answered and said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.” 1 Cor. 2:2: “For I resolved to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Eph. 1:18: “The eyes of your mind enlightened, so that you may know what is that hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.” 2 Cor. 5:1: “For we know that, if the tent of our earthly house is dissolved, we have a building from God, a dwelling not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” 1 John 2:3: “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.” 2 Pet. 1:5: “And for this very reason, applying all diligence, add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge.” Whence St. Augustine, in the second volume, the one hundred and twelfth letter, p. 341: “Accordingly our knowledge consists of things seen and things believed; but in those things which we have seen or do see, we ourselves are witnesses: in those things, however, which we believe, we are moved to faith by other witnesses, since, for those things which we neither remember to have seen nor do see, signs are given either in words or in writings or in any documents whatsoever, on seeing which the things not seen are believed. Nor do we without good reason say that we know not only those things which we have seen or do see, but also those which, moved by suitable testimonies or witnesses proportioned to each matter, we believe. Furthermore, if we are often not incongruously said even to see that which we most certainly believe, it has come about hence that even things rightly believed, although not present to our senses, are said to be seen by the mind; for knowledge is ascribed to the mind, whether through the bodily senses or through the soul itself it retain something perceived and known; and faith itself is assuredly seen by the mind, although that is delivered by faith which is not seen.” And the same, in the third volume, On the Trinity, book thirteen, chapter nineteen, says: “Nor should we so take these two, as if it were not lawful to say either that wisdom which is in human things, or that science which is in divine things. For in the broader usage of speech, each can be called wisdom, each can be called science.” And in book

fourteen, chapter one, he says: “They who have disputed about wisdom have defined it by saying, ‘Wisdom is the knowledge of human and divine things.’ Hence I too, in the previous book, did not pass over in silence that the knowledge of both kinds of things, that is, of divine and of human, can be called both wisdom and science.” And a little after he says that to this science (which we call theology) he ascribes only that by which the most saving faith, which leads to true beatitude, is begotten, nourished, defended, strengthened - “in which science very many of the faithful do not excel, although they may excel very much in faith itself.” For it is one thing to know only what a man ought to believe for attaining the blessed life, which is none other than eternal; but another to know in what manner this very thing is aided in the godly and defended against the ungodly, which the Apostle seems to call by the proper term “science.” Following Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, in the Prima Pars of the Summa Theologiae, question one, article two, says that sacred doctrine is a science - but he says this with a certain distinction. For he asserts that there is a twofold kind of sciences: some proceed from principles known by the natural light of the human intellect, as Arithmetic and Geometry; others proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science, as Optics or Perspective proceeds from principles known through Geometry, and Music from principles known through Arithmetic; and in this way he says that theology is a science, because it proceeds from principles known by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and of the blessed. Whence, as Music believes the principles handed on to it by the arithmetician, so sacred doctrine believes the principles revealed to it by God. Therefore every science proceeds from principles which are either known of themselves, or are reduced to the knowledge of a higher science; and such are the principles of sacred doctrine. Moreover, theology is one science; because unity, as of a power, so also of a habit, is judged from the formal ground of the object or manner of considering the object, just as man, horse, and stone agree in one formal character of being colored, which is the object of sight. Thus theology considers whatever things are subject to it, insofar as they are divinely revealed, or insofar as they can be known by the divine light. It is objected I. The unity of a science is that which is of a subject of one genus; but theology is not of a subject of one genus, because it treats of the Creator and of creatures. Therefore, etc. I answer to the proof of the minor. Theology does not determine equally about God and creatures, but about God principally; about creatures, however, according as they are referred to God as to their principle or end: whence the unity of the science is not hindered. II. Whatever treats of diverse things that pertain to diverse sciences is not one science; but theology treats of diverse things that pertain to diverse sciences. The minor is proved: because it treats of angels, of bodily creatures, of the morals of men, and of other things which pertain to diverse sciences. I answer: I restrict the major. Whatever treats of diverse things that pertain to diverse sciences, namely, not under one formal ground or not under one mode of considering, that is not one science. But that theology treats of diverse things that pertain to diverse sciences not under one

formal ground or not under one mode of considering, is denied. For theology treats of diverse things under one formal ground, namely, insofar as they are divinely revealed and are referred to God as to an efficient principle or an end; just as the one common sense, since it is one power, extends itself to all the objects of the five external senses. Furthermore, the true genus of our theology is not art; because likewise the genus would be narrower than theology: for art is a habit by which we are rightly directed with true reason to the making of something, and, proceeding from understanding and science, it is terminated in some work. Nor prudence; because this genus too would be narrower than theology: for prudence is a practical or active habit with true reason, that is, which, conjoined with true reason, has force for rightly directing and managing all things that pertain to the conduct of life. But our theology embraces all these at once. Prov. 1:2 - 6: “To know wisdom and instruction; to understand words of prudence; to receive instruction of understanding, of justice and of judgment and of all rectitude; to give to the simple shrewdness, to the youth knowledge and skill: the wise man, having heard these things, shall add discipline, and the intelligent shall acquire resourceful counsels; to teach a proverb and interpretation, the words of the wise and their riddles.” It embraces, I say, the understanding of principles, Ps. 119:27: “Make me understand the way of your commandments, and I will meditate on your wondrous works.” And v. 34: “Give me understanding, that I may keep your law and observe it with my whole heart.” Likewise v. 73: “Give me understanding, that I may learn your commandments.” And v. 99: “I have become more understanding than all my teachers, for your testimonies are my meditation.” Eph. 3:4: “By which, when you read, you can perceive what is my understanding in the mystery of Christ.” The knowledge of conclusions, Ps. 119:66: “Teach me goodness of judgment and knowledge, for I believe your commandments.” Isa. 5:13: “Therefore my people goes into exile because it lacks knowledge; and its men of honor are famished, and its multitude parched with thirst.” James 3:13: “Who is wise and skilled in knowledge among you? Let him show by a good manner of life his works, in the gentleness of wisdom.” The most healthful art of works in which, as in a stadium, we strive toward God, Prov. 1:2 - 3: “To know wisdom and instruction; to understand words of prudence; to receive instruction of understanding, of justice and of judgment and of all rectitude.” And finally the prudence of things to be done, Ps. 119:110: “I am more prudent than the aged, because I keep your commandments.” And v. 104: “Through your precepts I get prudence; therefore I hate every path of falsehood.” And v. 125: “I am your servant; make me prudent, that I may know your testimonies.” Likewise v. 130: “The hearing of your words gives light; it instructs the simple to be prudent.” And v. 144: “Make me prudent, that I may live.” And v. 169: “According to the wor-” According to your word make me prudent. Prov. 9:10. The beginning of wisdom is the reverence of Jehovah; and the knowledge of the holy is prudence.

It therefore remains that the true genus of our theology is wisdom, which is a composite habit, comprehending other habits of the mind in itself - by intelligence assenting to the principles, by science deducing conclusions and determinations from the principles, by art being engaged in Christian works, by prudence rightly directing and managing all things that pertain to piety and life. And consequently this wisdom is placed not only in the cognition of things, but also in the reverence, trust, and obedience of God, with the senses and pursuits of our flesh renounced. For the definition of created wisdom is that it is the knowledge of the highest things referred to the highest good, that is, to the enjoyment of the first and ultimate end, which is God. St. Augustine, in the first volume, the second book of On Free Choice, defines wisdom to be the truth in which the highest good is beheld and held. The sense of this definition is the same as the former: for by the name of “truth” is understood the true knowledge of divine and human things and of the causes in which they are contained. But that our theology is wisdom is shown in particular both by the testimonies of Scripture and by reasons. The testimonies of Scripture are these: Deut. 4:6. You shall observe therefore and do; for this is your wisdom and your prudence before the eyes of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, shall say: This great nation is indeed a wise and prudent people. Ps. 19:8. The doctrine of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of Jehovah is true, making the unskilled wise. And Ps. 119:98. Your precepts make me wiser than my enemies; for it is with me forever. Prov. 2:5 and following. Then you will understand the reverence of Jehovah, and you will gain the knowledge of God. For Jehovah gives wisdom; from his mouth proceed science and intelligence. He has stored up for the upright whatever truly is, a shield for those who walk in integrity, guarding the paths of justice; and he preserves the way of those whom he has graciously received. Then you will understand righteousness and right, and whatever is straight, every good path. When wisdom shall have come into your soul, and science shall be pleasant to your mind, discretion will keep watch over you, intelligence will guard you, by delivering you from the way of evil, from men speaking perversities, etc. And ch. 3:13 and following. Blessed is the man who obtains wisdom, and the man who advances in intelligence; for the traffic of her is better than the traffic of silver, and the yield of dug-out gold; she is more precious than carbuncles, and all your delights cannot be compared to her. Length of days is in her right hand; in her left, riches and honor, etc. Eph. 1:8. Which he has made to overflow toward us in all wisdom and prudence. And v. 17. That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, that Father of glory, would give you a Spirit of wisdom and revelation through the knowledge of him. Col. 1:9. For this reason we also, from the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will with all wisdom and spiritual intelligence. And v. 28. Whom we proclaim, admonishing everyone, and teaching everyone in all wisdom, that we may present everyone perfect in Christ Jesus. And ch. 3:16. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your heart to the Lord. James 3:17. But the wisdom that is from above is first indeed pure, then peaceable, equitable, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without wrangling, and in no way feigned.

The reasons by which the same is evident are these: I. The knowledge of the highest cause of the whole universe is most properly wisdom; but our theology is the knowledge of the highest cause of the whole universe, which cause is the true God; therefore our theology is wisdom. II. A discipline occupied with the most difficult things and with those farthest removed from human senses is truly wisdom; but theology is such a discipline. III. Theology comprehends in itself, in a manner plainly most excellent, absolutely all the properties of intelligence, science, art, and prudence, from nature and above nature, as the most certain index of principles, the most ample mistress of all the theoretical and practical sciences, and the most accurate arbitress of all actions and reasons, greater than every exception. For this teaches us to apprehend any simple principles whatever, whether inborn from nature, or inspired by the grace of God, and indeed immediate, unmoved, and necessary; this same [teaches us] to compose and divide those things apprehended; this also [teaches us] to reason from things composed and divided, in a divine manner; this [teaches us] by reasonings to ascend to science itself, most necessary, most certain, and alone content with the contemplation of eternal, immutable, and most constant Truth. This likewise shows most excellently the necessary, sure, and most sufficient method of our true holiness and righteousness. This sets before our eyes the supreme end, both in nature and above nature, truly - the end which, being supernatural, is truly alone set before nature, or, if it please to add other ends besides, it is by far the most preeminent end. This, finally, is that genuine mother and queen of the sciences which indeed are truly sciences and are so called; and of the principles, and of the reasonings, and of the conclusions from them, and of the sciences, and of the use, and of the actions, and of all judgments, and of the whole reason pertaining to all these, [it is] the highest perfection; judging most perfectly, and ordering most wisely, whatever things are of intellect, and reason, and science. Therefore it is truly wisdom. V. A science which excels all other sciences and disciplines is truly wisdom; but theology is such a science, which excels all other sciences and disciplines. For it transcends all other sciences, both speculative and practical; and the speculative, indeed, both on account of the dignity of the subject, and on account of the certainty of the principles. For the more worthy the subject of a science is, the more worthy is the science. But theology is principally about those things which by their height transcend reason; while other sciences consider only those things which are subjected to reason. Then, as regards the certainty of the principles, other sciences have it from the natural light of human reason, which can err; but theology has it from the light of divine science, that is, from divine revelation, which can neither be deceived nor deceive. It therefore receives its principles immediately from God by gracious revelation; and accordingly it has a divine certainty, which inheres both in the very things which it delivers as they are, and in the mind itself of the knower, as they are by him divinely known. Now among practical sciences, that one is more worthy which is not ordered to a further end; and that one most worthy, to whose end as ultimate all the other ends of the practical sciences are ordered. But our theology is such a science, which is not ordered to a further end, but to whose

ultimate end, which is the glory of the eternal God, all the other ends of the practical sciences are ordered. Whence it is manifest that theology is in every way more prior and more worthy than the other sciences. Thus theology is more excellent than the other disciplines on account of the nobility of the subject, the certainty of the principles, and the higher end. Whence also all the other disciplines are called and are handmaids of theology; but theology is their mistress and queen, commanding them all and using all in service to itself; and it has authority to judge concerning the others, on account of the greater and more infallible truth. The scholastic doctors subscribe to this: For that theology is wisdom is taught by Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, Jodocus Clichtoveus, and others. Obj. I. No doctrine which supposes its principles from elsewhere is worthy of the name of wisdom; but theology supposes its principles from elsewhere; therefore, etc. The major is proved: because it belongs to wisdom to order and not to be ordered. The minor is proved: because theology takes certain principles from physics, as Luke 24:39: See that a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me have. Likewise 1 Cor. 15:36: Fool, what you sow is not made alive unless it has died. And what you sow, you do not sow the body that shall arise, but a bare grain, if it so happen, of wheat or of some of the remaining seeds. But God gives it a body as he willed, and to each of the seeds its own body, etc. I answer: The major must be restricted to that doctrine which supposes its principles from some human science. But our theology neither supposes nor receives its principles from any human science, but from divine science, by which, as by highest wisdom, all our knowledge is ordered. But as to the proof of the minor, it is denied, taken simply: for theology does not receive anything from physics or the other disciplines as from superiors, but uses them as inferiors for our sake. Theology commands all the other disciplines as the principal, and uses all in service to itself as the user. II. It belongs to wisdom to prove the principles of other sciences; therefore, etc. I answer: The antecedent is only particularly true: for it does not belong to every wisdom to prove the principles of other sciences, but it belongs to some wisdom to judge concerning them. Nay more, their principles are either known of themselves and cannot be proved, or are proved by some natural reason in some other science. Now that it does not pertain to our theology to prove the principles of other sciences is conceded: because the proper knowledge of this science is that which is through divine revelation, not however through natural reason. But it pertains to theology to judge concerning the other sciences and to reprove whatever is opposed to its truth. For whatever in the other sciences is found opposing theological truth, the whole is condemned as false: whence it is said, 2 Cor. 10:4 - 5: For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but divinely powerful for the overthrow of strongholds, overturning reasonings and every height which exalts itself against the knowledge of God.

III. Wisdom is had by infusion; theology is not had by infusion; therefore, etc. The major is proved from Isa. 11:2: Upon whom the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest, the spirit of wisdom and of intelligence. The minor is proved, because theology is acquired by our study. I answer: The major is to be limited. Wisdom, namely divine and saving, is had by infusion. The minor also must be distinguished: theology is not had by infusion, namely insofar as it is the knowledge of conclusions obtained by long labor. Yet the same is had by infusion, insofar as it is the saving knowledge of God. IV. Science is not wisdom; theology is science; therefore it is not wisdom. The major is proved: because whatever habits are distinct, the one of them is not the other. But science and wisdom are distinct habits; therefore science is not wisdom. I answer: Science is not wisdom, namely, with both words taken properly and strictly. But theology is science with the word “science” taken broadly, in such a way that it is also attributed to wisdom: since wisdom also is science with respect to the knowledge of conclusions. Let it therefore stand fast that theology is wisdom. Wherefore theology also is the mother and queen of all intelligence, science, art, and prudence that can fall within a creature, making us become like to God, who is the highest good and the immutable truth, and that we be united to him and cleave to him. Whence this also follows, that theology consists of truths, that is, of true universal pronouncements or precepts, not particular ones. God indeed is a singular thing, but theology contains precepts concerning the knowledge and worship of him, which knowledge and which worship are common things; and even singular propositions are equivalent to universal ones, in which the subject is of the number of those things which are not καθ’ ἕκαστα (kat’ hekasta, “particulars”), but καθόλου (katholou, “universals”): of which sort are GOD, CHRIST, God the Father, the Son of God, the Holy Spirit, the Messiah. Then Christian theology does not rest on probables, but on necessaries. Furthermore, with respect to its efficient causes, the theology of wayfarers, that is, our theology, considered in a qualified sense, is partly infused and partly acquired. It is infused as it includes infused faith, or is the same as infused faith: that is to say more clearly, our theology is infused in so far as it is the saving knowledge of God and of our Savior Christ and of the other divine things necessary unto salvation, and thus also as regards the saving understanding of the principles of faith and of good works, flowing from the inner light of the Holy Spirit alone - principles which by justifying faith are believed to have been revealed to us by God, that they might be instruments of the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. Those principles in no wise fall under the discipline of human reason, nor can they be savingly perceived, nor be brought into act, without the inner light of the Holy Spirit enlightening our minds. It is, however, acquired, in that it includes acquired faith and the acquired habits that make manifest both propositions and consequences, as well as acts that comprehend complex and incomplex objects; that is to say more clearly, our theology is acquired as regards the knowledge of propositions and of conclusions deduced from principles and apprehended by continual toil, work,

diligence, and exercise, through the religious, attentive, and seemly meditation of the written Word of God, for the right worship of God; or, our theology is acquired in so far as it is the knowledge of conclusions gathered by syllogistic discourse from theological principles, set in a sure order, and impressed upon the soul by long labor and exercise: so that the habit of theology in the truly faithful in this life is not simple, but mixed or composite, including infused faith and acquired [faith] of things revealed by God in Scripture. John Duns Scotus: The perfect habit of theology includes infused and acquired faith regarding the articles of faith and other things revealed by God in Scripture: so that theology is not here only infused, nor only acquired, but both together. Wisdom and science in all elect men are threefold: one is infused, as it is knowledge imparted by the Holy Spirit; another is acquired, such as that which we acquire, both privately by the reading and meditation of the Holy Scriptures and of other useful writers, and publicly in the Schools and in ecclesiastical assemblies, by instruction and by daily experience, which for that reason is also called experimental science. And only these two are had in the present age. The third is called blessed, and pertains to the life to come, and it is that whereby all the blessed angels and men, through a created light, see God face to face. So too wisdom and science in the soul of Christ are threefold: blessed, infused, and acquired. Both kinds of theology, infused as well as acquired, consist of very many habits, some of which are theoretical, others practical, and there are diverse species of both kinds. Hence our theology is not only speculative, but also practical, proceeding under the light of the divine revelation of faith, in so far as it is applied mediately and by syllogistic discourse to the conclusions contained in the principles of faith. Now faith not only reveals God as the ultimate end of all things, but also in particular teaches that man’s beatitude consists in him; and therefore it not only reveals the speculative truths of faith concerning God, but also the practical ones: indeed it also reveals all first principles of morals, and with the same certainty, and as of itself in the same manner, it bears upon all these matters; from which theology reasons, considering not only speculatively in God the ratio of the ultimate end, but also morally with reference to the means by which he is to be attained. Our theology, I say, is not only speculative but also practical; first, because its end is not theory but praxis or operation - namely, the glorification of God and our beatitude; second, because theology also expounds the doctrine of the law, which assuredly is practical, since the knowledge of God is not set in cold speculation, but draws along with it his worship; third, because practical knowledge concerning the end is nobler than any speculation. That the end of theology is not theory but praxis, Scripture teaches: 1 Tim. 1:3 - 5. Charge certain persons not to teach a different doctrine, and not to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which provide questions rather than the edification of God which is by faith. Moreover, the end of the commandment is charity from a pure heart and a good conscience and an unfeigned faith. The end of the commandment is charity, namely toward God and the neighbor, 1

John 4:21. Charity, I say, which does not consist in words and the tongue, but in deed and truth, 1 John 3:18. Likewise: 1 Tim. 4:7. Reject profane and old-wives’ fables; but exercise yourself unto godliness. James 1:21ff. Casting away all filthiness and the outgrowth of wickedness, receive with meekness that engrafted word which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word and not hearers only, cheating yourselves by false reasoning. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man beholding his natural face in a mirror. For as soon as he has looked upon himself, he went away and straightway forgot what sort he was. But he who has looked into that perfect law of liberty and has continued therein, since he has not been a forgetful hearer but a doer of work, that man, I say, will be more blessed in his deed. If anyone thinks he is religious among you, not bridling his tongue but deceiving his own heart, his religious worship is vain. But religious worship pure and undefiled with God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. Prov. 8:32ff. That eternal Wisdom says: And now, sons, listen to me; for blessed are they who keep my ways. Hear instruction and be wise, and do not draw yourselves away. Blessed is the man who listens to me, diligently taking his stand at my doors daily, watching the posts of my entrances. For he who obtains me, obtains life, that favor might be advanced from Jehovah. But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul; all my haters love death. Rev. 22:14. Blessed are those who perform his commandments, that theirs may be the right to the tree of life, and that they may enter by the gates into the city. The Fathers and the more sober Schoolmen acknowledged the same. Justin Martyr, Paraenesis to the Greeks, p. 25 of the Commelin edition: “Not in words, but in deeds, stand the matters of our religion” (ouk en logois, all’ en ergois ta tes hemeteras philosophias pragmata estin). John Duns Scotus, in the Prologue to the Sentences, question 4, and fol. 14, cols. 3 and 4, determines theology to be practical, and he uses this reasoning: because since the first object of theology is the ultimate end, and the principles in the created intellect taken from the ultimate end are practical principles, therefore the principles of theology are practical; therefore the conclusions also are practical. Because the conclusions are practical, they have practical principles: whence he asserts that even those truths which are most theological - that God is triune; that the Father begets the Son; that the Father and the Son breathe the Holy Spirit - are practical. For example, the first truth, namely that God is triune, virtually includes the knowledge of the rectitude of love tending toward the three persons of the Deity, with none excluded: for were even one person excluded, the act would not be right. This opinion agrees with that saying of Augustine: To believe in God is by loving to tend into him. Likewise the same Scotus teaches on the fifteenth folio that faith is not a speculative habit, just as believing is not a speculative act; nor is the vision following upon the believing itself a speculative but a practical vision. Wherefore others have determined that infused theology ought to be called not so much speculative as superspeculative, which eminently contains both the Speculative and the Practical; on which matter see Thomas Aquinas, part 1, question 1, article 5. The reason is this, because infused theology, under a higher light, considers in God the ratio of the ultimate end to be obtained by practical means. Accordingly, when theology teaches that God is the

highest good, that he is the ultimate end of all things, that he is the first truth, it shows on that ground that God is to be loved above all things. Again, when theology teaches that God is most wise and most just and exercises providence over all things, it consequently also teaches that he is to be feared, that he is to be trusted in, and the like - all of which pertain to praxis. But those who make the end of theology theory or contemplation try to establish their opinion by the following arguments.

They prove the major premise, because contemplation is nobler than action. I answer: The major proposition is denied. To the proof of it we answer by a distinction. If a mechanical action be understood, then contemplation is nobler than action. But when we assert the end of theology to be operation, we mean an action more excellent than any mechanical work, more excellent than any speculation - namely, the glorification of God and our everlasting beatitude: this action is most perfect. Naked and mere contemplation, however, is an imperfect act and a sign rather of human weakness than of praiseworthy strength, if, that is, some effect and fruit of that contemplation is lacking which can follow upon our knowledge. They press the proof of the major: Whatever is preferred by Christ to action is more excellent than action; contemplation is preferred by Christ to action; therefore, etc. They prove the assumption from Luke 10:41 - 42, where these words are read: Jesus said, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things; but one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.” I answer: Nay rather, Christ does not commend idle speculation, but Mary’s activity, that is, occupation in a holy and useful study appointed to this end, that she might rightly serve God, from which activity she ought not to be drawn away. And this action Christ prefers to domestic care or administration, to which Martha at that time was wholly given. They press again: The action of the most excellent part of man is the most excellent; but the mind, whose proper act is contemplation, is more excellent than the body; therefore contemplation is nobler than action. I answer: The reasoning would be conceded, if the action of which we speak were merely bodily; but it is spiritual, and it is the operation of the intellect and will, to whose service the members of the body are afterward marshalled. Therefore, when we say that operation is the end of theology, we do not mean some servile and mechanical work, but the most noble action of our intellect and will tending to God. They press yet further: The eye is more excellent than the hand; therefore contemplation than operation. I answer: It is conceded with respect to manual operation; but the operation which we maintain to be the end of theology is not manual.

Their second argument is this: If a science makes life blessed, its end is contemplation; theology is a science making life blessed; therefore, etc. They prove the major proposition, because the contemplative life is more blessed than the active life, and that by the consent of the wisest men, who preferred the former to the latter: whence so many Monks, Anchorites, and Hermits arose of old - I answer: The major proposition is denied, as also its proof. For it is contrary to Holy Scripture, which says, 1 Pet. 3:10 - 12: He who wishes to love life and to see good days, let him cause his tongue to cease from evil, and his lips not to speak guile. Let him turn from evil and do what is good; let him seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous and his ears unto their supplication; but the face of God is against those who do evil. James 1:22ff. Be doers of the word and not hearers only, cheating yourselves by false reasoning. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man beholding his natural face in a mirror. For as soon as he has looked upon himself, he went away and straightway forgot what sort he was, etc. Finally, our theology is argumentative; and it is most proper to it to argue from authority - of Holy Scripture, properly and of necessity; of other saints, namely the orthodox Fathers who were after the Apostles, probably; but of the philosophers as from something extraneous; and from the arguments of natural reason for some manifestation, not for proving the faith. So much on the genus.

That the genus of our theology is wisdom was established in the preceding chapter; now the difference and the proximate and immediate efficient cause, required for a perfect definition, are to be considered. The difference. The difference of our theology is understood from its subject when it is called a doctrine of divine things. When we name divine things, we include in them a fourfold condition of theology: its origin, object, mode, and end. The origin of this theology is divine: for the things delivered in it are divinely disclosed to us in the God-breathed Scripture (θεοπνεύστῳ, theopneusto). The object about which theology is occupied is divine, namely God himself, to whose knowledge and worship all the precepts of theology lead, whether they be about the essence and nature or the attributes of God, or about the persons of the Godhead, or about the works, and, in a word, about all things that are of God and from God; and it is ordained to knowing God rightly and to worshiping him. Its mode also is divine, in its form, action, and effect, not only surpassing all human things to infinity, but also far exceeding this whole nature. Likewise its end is divine and most perfect, namely the glory of God and that glorious communion with God, toward which, with theology as guide, we strive.

The cause. The proximate and immediate efficient cause of our theology is the WORD OF GOD; which therefore is also its principle. For the first principle into which all theological dogmas are resolved is, THE LORD HAS SAID, or GOD HAS SAID. This principle is unique; and it must be unique; both because all the Prophets and Apostles call us back to that alone, as the whole Scripture bears witness; and because God cannot be understood except through God. From God one must learn what must be understood about God: because he is known only by the author himself. Refer here the passage of Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book 7, p. 261, in the Florentine Latin version: For it is necessary that those who undertake the greatest matters fall into the greatest errors, unless they shall have held the rule of truth received from the Truth itself. But those are of such a sort that, as men who have fallen from the right way, they are deservedly mistaken also in very many particulars, for the reason that they do not have a judgment of truths and falsehoods plainly exercised in those things which ought to be chosen. For if they had it, they would obey the divine Scriptures. Therefore, just as if someone should become a beast from being a man, in the same way as those who had been infected by the poisons of Circe: so he loses being a man of God and being faithful to the Lord who has kicked against the ecclesiastical tradition and has leapt down into the opinions of human heresies. But he who, having returned from error, has obeyed the Scriptures and has surrendered his life to the truth, in a certain way is made from a man to be God. For we have the Lord as the principle of doctrine, who both through the Prophets and through the Gospel and through the blessed Apostles, in many parts and in many ways leads from the beginning to the end of knowledge. But if anyone should think that he has need of another principle, the principle surely could not be truly preserved. Who then is faithful of himself? The Lord’s Scripture and voice is worthy of faith, the benefit whereof is exercised toward man through the Lord. And we use it itself as judge for discovering matters. Now whatever is judged is not believed before it has been judged. Therefore that is not a principle which has need of judgment. Rightly therefore, when by faith we have grasped the indemonstrable principle, and from a certain overflowing abundance have taken demonstrations from the principle itself about the principle, by the voice of the Lord we are taught to the recognition of the truth. For we would not put faith in men making absolute assertions, to whom it is even permitted to assert the contrary. But if it is not enough merely absolutely to say what seemed good, but it is also necessary to prove what has been said, we do not wait for testimony that is given by men; but by the Lord’s voice we prove what is sought, which is more worthy of faith than any demonstrations, or rather which is the only demonstration, through which there is knowledge; those who have merely tasted the Scriptures are believers. But those who have gone further are perfect judges of the truth, that is, those who are endowed with knowledge, since even in matters that pertain to life, craftsmen surpass the unskilled, and by common notions express that which is better. Thus therefore we also, perfectly demonstrating out of the Scriptures themselves concerning the Scriptures themselves, by faith persuade with demonstration. The Word of God is one and simple in reality and substance, but in its manner of revelation it is twofold, internal and uttered (ἐνδιάθετον καὶ προφορικόν, endiátheton and prophorikón), Iesa. 59. v. 21: “As for me, this shall be my covenant with them, says Jehovah: my Spirit which is upon thee,

and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of the seed of thy seed, says Jehovah, from this time forth and forevermore.” Actor. 5. v. 32: “And we are his witnesses of these things which we say; and so also is that Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who are obedient to him.” Rom. 8. v. 16: “And the Spirit himself bears witness together with our spirit that we are sons of God.” 1 Cor. 2. v. 10, 11, 12, 13: “But to us God has revealed these things through his Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also the things of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things with which God has graced us. Which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Holy Spirit, comparing spiritual things with those which are spiritual.” The internal word of God is that by which God inwardly addresses men through the Holy Spirit; or, it is the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, by which theology is communicated inwardly to the faithful, when the eyes of their mind are enlightened and the spiritual light of saving knowledge is kindled. Heb. 8. v. 11: “And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.” This internal word is also called the internal afflatus. The external word of God is that by which God outwardly addresses men by its preaching; or, it is the external testimony of the Holy Spirit, teaching absolutely the same things about divine matters as the internal word. This again is manifold in the mode of disclosure or communication: for of old he produced it either by his own living voice, or by the ministry of angels, or by the agency of men, or by dreams sent in, or by visions exhibited, or by various symbols and images, which were set before the senses sometimes internal, sometimes external, and were understood by the godly as much as was needful, sometimes with a human form assumed; and accordingly God in many parts and in many ways (πολυµερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως, polymerōs kai polytropōs) addressed and instructed human beings, and communicated his word with them; thereafter he consigned it to letters in the Prophetic and Apostolic books and delivered it to the Church. But now, after he no longer immediately sends Prophets and Apostles to the Church, he addresses it from without only by the written word conjoined with the internal word, thereafter moreover consigned to letters in the Prophetic and Apostolic books. The external word is not to be separated from the internal, but it must be conjoined with it, in order that it may be effectual and saving. Yet the external word must be distinguished from the internal, that we may understand how far the work of God proceeds in us, lest we attribute to men, who are only ministers of God, that which is God’s. The internal word is principal; but the external is instrumental. We have need of both. For just as in darkness there is need outside for a lamp; inside, for the light of the eyes: for neither in darkness do we see without a lamp, although very strong in eyesight; nor do those see in the midst

of light who are blind: so in the knowledge of divine things we always join together the torch of Scripture outside and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, so that God may teach us both by the internal and by the external word. This internal word of God which the Holy Spirit inscribes upon our hearts, and the external which the same Holy Spirit delivers in the Prophetic and Apostolic books or announces through preaching, do not differ in reality and ground, but only in mode. For he does not reveal one word in our hearts and exhibit another in the books; but it is wholly one and the same.

Moreover, both the internal and the external word of God are called Scripture: the internal indeed, Scripture of the heart; the external, Scripture of both Testaments. Scripture of the heart is the internal Scripture which the Holy Spirit immediately inscribes on the fleshy tablets of the heart of the sons of God ordained beforehand to eternal life, so that, taught by God (θεοδίδακτοι, theodidaktoi), they may believe unto salvation. Jer. 31. v. 33; Heb. 8. v. 10; and ch. 10. 16. “This is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after these days, says Jehovah: I will put my law into their mind, and on their heart I will inscribe it; and I will be God to them, and they shall be a people to me.” 2 Cor. 3. v. 3. “While it becomes manifest that you are an epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not on tablets of stone, but on fleshy tablets of the heart.” Scripture of the Old and New Testament is the external Scripture, which by the Prophets and Apostles and the Evangelists, the companions of the Apostles, has been committed to writing by means of paper and ink, for the handing down, propagating, and transmitting to posterity the sound doctrine of heavenly wisdom. 2 Cor. 3. vers. 3. 2 John v. 12. “Though I had many things to write to you, I chose not to do so by paper and ink.” 3 John v. 13. “I could write many things, but I do not wish to write to you with ink and pen.” Phil. 3. v. 1. “To write the same things to you is not irksome to me, but for you it is safe.” From the external Scripture alone, separated from the internal Scripture and the superior light, there can be in us no saving faith. This external Scripture, however, is usually understood when Holy Scripture is named. And it is at one time considered according to essence (essentia), at another according to accident (accidens). Holy Scripture according to essence is the word of God, that is, the very heavenly doctrine, which is contained in the sacred books, of such a kind as it was indeed from the beginning even before it was written and was handed down only by the living voice. Taken in this way, Scripture existed before the Church existed. For it is the eternal wisdom in God himself; nor was the knowledge of it only then disclosed to the Church when it was consigned to letters, but its disclosure began with the very creation of rational creatures and with the

beginnings of the Church. Nay rather, that word is the immortal seed from which the Church is born. Therefore the Church could not exist unless the word of God had first been delivered. Wherefore Holy Scripture, as to its essence, is by nature as cause prior to the Church, and accordingly more ancient than the Church. Holy Scripture according to accident is the word of God, insofar as in its own time it was written in letters in the books of the Old and New Testament by the singular providence of God, so that it might be the necessary instrument of the divine truth, which is according to godliness, for our eternal salvation. The same Scripture, considered according to accident, that is, insofar as it is consigned in books, is called sacred in two ways: properly and improperly. Properly, that which is “according to truth” (κατ’ ἀλήθειαν), that is, according to truth or is truly sacred, and thus it is called “synonymously” (συνωνύµως), that is, univocally. Improperly, that which is “according to opinion” (κατὰ δόξαν), that is, sacred and divine according to human opinion, but according to truth is not so, and therefore is called sacred “homonymously” (ὁµωνύµως), that is, equivocally. Scripture properly, truly, and univocally sacred are certain books which by the will of God, from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have been written by the faithful servants of God, the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists sanctified for that purpose, so that in the Church of God they might be the immovable foundation of faith and divine religion. Of this Scripture there is treatment in 2 Tim. 3. v. 14. 15. 16. “But you, continue in the things which you have learned and which have been entrusted to you, knowing from whom you learned them; and that from a child you have known the holy letters, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is divinely inspired, and is useful for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work.”

Up to this point the distinction of Sacred Scripture has been shown. Now there is inquiry concerning the external Scripture of both Testaments with respect to authority, necessity, the authentic edition, translation into vernacular languages, reading, perspicuity, interpretation or exposition, and perfection. The προλήψεις (preconceptions) of these things, and the notions, because they pertain to the principle of theology and are certain and immovable rules, which are known beforehand or are previously believed from the light of a higher science, that is, from divine revelation, are also called principles of faith and theology. Therefore the principles of theology and faith are: that Sacred Scripture is truly divine; that it is the canon and the most certain and infallible rule of faith and of good works; that it is now necessary for us; that the Hebrew edition alone of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New is authentic; that it

must altogether be translated into vernacular languages; that it is to be read and known by all men of all orders; that it is in itself perspicuous and clear; that its genuine sense and use are to be investigated and judged from the Scripture itself, that is, that Sacred Scripture is the interpreter of itself; that the same is perfect, or contains all doctrines necessary for eternal salvation, etc. Since these are principles, they ought to be believed on account of themselves and in no way need proof. But because, by the craft of the devil, who is the adversary of God and of Sacred Scripture and of the Church, malicious men call them into doubt or obscure them, therefore they must be set forth and confirmed in order, and defended from their attacks. But at the beginning we shall deal with the authority of Sacred Scripture. The authority of Sacred Scripture is the dignity and excellence belonging to Sacred Scripture alone above all other writings, by which it is and is held to be authentic, that is, infallibly certain, such that by absolute necessity it must be believed and obeyed by all, on account of its author, God. There are two related yet distinct questions: One is, Whether the authority of Sacred Scripture must be believed by all with absolute necessity. And whether Sacred Scripture is necessary with absolute necessity. To the former question we answer by affirming, because it is by no means permitted to doubt the truth of Sacred Scripture, therefore by absolute necessity it is to be believed, not otherwise than as if God himself were speaking by his voice from heaven. To the latter we answer by denying, because God neither was nor is bound to Scripture. Scripture however is necessary for us with the necessity ex hypothesi of the divine will, because God willed the Church at length to be bound to Sacred Scripture. The former question belongs to the present place. The authority of Sacred Scripture is twofold: divine and canonical. The former is prior by nature, the latter posterior. For first it must be believed that Scripture is divine, before it is believed that it is canonical. The divine authority of Sacred Scripture is that by which Sacred Scripture in itself truly is, and by us is held indubitably, divine or the Word of God, which was immediately inspired by the Holy Spirit to the Prophets and Apostles. The canonical authority of Sacred Scripture is that by which Sacred Scripture alone is in itself and by us is held to be canonical or a canon, that is, a certain, stable, perfect, unique and irrefragable rule of all the wisdom of divine matters, of all religion, faith and divine worship, and of Christian life; such that from it alone all the wisdom of divine matters, all religion and the faith of Christ are to be drawn; from it alone the assertions of all the doctrines of divine religion are to be fetched; from it alone refutations of errors in religion and of heresies and of false worships are to be taken; from it alone controversies about religion are to be decided and defined; from it alone the method of correcting life and instituting it holily is to be sought; from it alone consolations are to be produced which may stand against adverse things and even against death itself. Divine authority is considered with respect to the author of Sacred Scripture; canonical, on the other hand, with respect to the form of Scripture and the end depending thence.

With respect to the author, only Sacred Scripture is divine, because its author is God by immediate inspiration. Therefore as God cannot deceive, so neither can Sacred Scripture: because it is the voice of God; because it is his testament, certainly bearing witness to us concerning his will; because it is his epistle sent down from heaven to us men; because it is his edict solemnly promulgated in the Church: whence it is to be most highly venerated and altogether infallible. With respect to form, Scripture is first truth, just as God himself, and, as to the end, inspired to the Prophets and Apostles and by them committed to the Church, in order that it might be the rule of the truth which is taught by others, in faith and in the worship of God: whence Sacred Scripture alone is canonical. Each of these kinds of authority of Scripture is considered both absolutely in itself and with respect to us. Absolutely in itself Sacred Scripture is divine and canonical, even if no man recognized it, or the whole world contradicted: just as the sun is luminous in itself and the measure of light, even if it is not seen by the blind or by those who are shut up in darkness: and the gnomon of a sundial is in itself the rule of the hours, whether it be seen and attended to as such, or not. With respect to us, Scripture is divine and canonical in so far as it is recognized by us and is held to be divine and canonical. Of this authority of Scripture with respect to us it is said in 2 Pet. 1:19: “We have the more sure prophetic word, to which you do well to attend, as to a lamp shining in a dark place.” Ps. 119:105: “Your word is a lamp to my foot, and a light to my path.” Ezek. 20:19: “I am Iehovah your God; walk in my statutes, and observe my judgments and do them.” But now there must be treated distinctly of divine authority, and it must be explained, from whom Sacred Scripture has divine authority. Sacred Scripture has divine authority both absolutely in itself and with respect to us from God alone, as St. Augustine says about the sacred books in the first tome, book six of the Confessions, chapter five: “You persuaded me, O Lord God, that those who would not believe your books, which you have established with such great authority almost among all nations, were to be blamed.” And a little after: “Since we were weak for discovering the truth by clear reason, and on this account we had need of the authority of the holy letters, now I had begun to believe that in no way would you have bestowed so excellent an authority upon that Scripture throughout all the lands, unless you had willed both by it that you be believed and by it that you be sought.” Therefore Sacred Scripture is in itself divine and is held by us as such, because it was immediately inspired by God to the Prophets and Apostles. By no means however does it have that authority from the Church, which indeed has the power of discerning and declaring the canon received from God, but by no means of constituting or changing or abrogating, that is, of making divine Scripture which is not divine, or of changing or excluding from the canon Scripture which is divine. Furthermore a question is agitated: whence it is certain for us, or whence we know, that the Sacred Scripture which we have is truly divine and of those authors to whom it is ascribed? For a well-worn ditty was once and is still today: “Whence do you know Scripture to be divine? the Gospel of Matthew to be Matthew’s?”

This is first to be distinguished, and then at length to be solved. Question: Whence do you know Sacred Scripture to be truly divine? is, according to the differing disposition of the questioner, diverse. For it is a question of unbelief when it is moved by one who simply denies and removes the divinity of Scripture; and it is a question of perversity when it is moved by one who denies the divinity of Scripture in a certain respect, that is, suspends it upon the judgment of the Church; finally it is a question of teachableness when arguments are investigated, in order that we may be more certain that Scripture is truly divine and that we may more strongly stop the mouths of fanatics. In the first sense this question was once that of the Manichees and today is that of the fanatics who deny Sacred Scripture to be the Word of God. In the second sense it is that of the Papists, who subject the divinity of Scripture to the judgment of the Church. In the third sense it is that of the truly faithful, desiring to be instructed or to instruct others in holiness. In the first and second sense it is condemned as impious and curious: just as St. Augustine, in the first tome, book six of the Confessions, chapter five, says to God: “You persuaded me, not that those who would believe your books, which you have established with such great authority almost among all nations, but that those who would not believe were to be blamed; nor are they to be listened to, if perhaps some should say to me: Whence do you know these? whence do you know those books to have been ministered to the human race by the Spirit of the one true and most truthful God? For this indeed was especially to be believed.” But in the third sense this question is not disapproved, and it is explained from Scripture itself. Now indeed, that the question itself may be solved, I shall propose our orthodox opinion about it; and at the same time I shall refute the Papists. The orthodox opinion about the divine authority of Sacred Scripture. That Sacred Scripture, both in general and in particular, is truly divine is known to us today both from divine testimonies and grounds as true criteria (κριτήρια) for judging whether Scripture is divine, and also from human testimonies. The divine testimonies as the chief criteria (κριτήρια) are two, one external, the other internal: the former goes before, the latter follows in us ordinarily. The external divine testimony is that of Scripture itself bearing witness about itself that it is divine. Which testimony of Scripture about itself is supremely apt and above all exception, since it is the voice of God: for whatever Scripture says, God says: but God is in every way a suitable witness about himself and his own Word. Hence it is so often prefaced in the books of Moses, “Iehovah said”; likewise in the prophetic books, “Thus says Iehovah.” But in the evangelical books: “Jesus said.” Paul, writing, affirms that Christ, the Word of God, speaks in him. 2 Cor. 13:3: “Since you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me.” Of the whole Scripture of the Old Testament Peter says, 2 Pet. 1:20 - 21: “This first knowing, that no prophecy of Scripture is of one’s own exposition. For prophecy was not formerly brought by the will of man, but holy men of God, being moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke.” Of the epistles of Paul the same says in the same epistle, chap. 3:15: “As also our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given to him…”

“According to the wisdom given to him he wrote to you.” Thus the Epistles of Paul, by the express testimony of Peter - and therefore by a divine testimony - are approved; for Peter wrote this, as the rest in his epistles, by divine inspiration. But of the whole Scripture of the Old and New Testament Paul says in 2 Tim. 3:16: “All Scripture is divinely inspired.” For he affirms this not of the Scripture of the Old Testament only, but also of the Scripture of the New Testament, which by that time truly existed entire. Surely, since the second epistle to Timothy was the last of all Paul’s epistles, as is clear from the same epistle, chap. 4:6, his other epistles already existed, and furthermore the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, likewise the Acts of the Apostles, and also the epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. Then he confirms it in v. 15: “And that from a child you have known the holy letters, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” From this we draw three arguments. One: Timothy knew not only the Scripture of the Old Testament, but also whatever of the Scripture of the New Testament existed, from childhood - he who was still a young man when Paul wrote the first epistle to him, as is evident from 1 Tim. 4:12: “Let no one despise your youth, but be a pattern of the faithful, in word, in conduct, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in chastity.” Nor is it in any way credible that Timothy - born not only of a believing mother but also grandmother (2 Tim. 1:5; Acts 16:1), commended to Paul by the testimony of the brothers who were at Lystra and Iconium, and early made Paul’s companion in the ministry of the Gospel (Acts 16:2 - 3), and moreover an evangelist and bishop of Ephesus - by the time of Paul’s near death was still ignorant of the Scripture of the New Testament. The second: Not only the Scripture of the Old but also of the New Testament can make one wise unto salvation. The third: The New Testament explicitly teaches that we are saved, that is, obtain eternal salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Therefore Paul speaks not of the Scripture of the Old only, but also of the New Testament, when he says that “all Scripture is divinely inspired.” The Romanists except: Paul does not say that “the whole Scripture is divinely inspired,” but “every Scripture,” because in the Greek it is πᾶσα γραφή (“every Scripture,” pāsa graphē). Reply: In this place of Paul πᾶσα (“every,” pāsa) is the same as ὅλη (“whole,” holē). For Paul does not mean “every Scripture,” that is, any whatsoever - such as that of Plato, Aristotle, and of whatever other authors - to be divinely inspired; rather he speaks of the sacred writings of which he had spoken in the preceding verse, and he calls them “Scripture” in the singular, by pre-eminence (kat’ exochēn, καθ’ ἐξοχήν) or by antonomasia (antonomasian, ἀντονοµασίαν). Whence it is necessary that πᾶσαν mean ὅλην, that is, “the whole,” as also in Eph. 2:21; 3:15; 4:16; and 1 Cor. 13:2. And indeed, even if we retain “Every Scripture is divinely inspired,” the universal particle must be restricted to that Scripture about which the discourse is instituted in the preceding verse, and must not be unskillfully extended to any writing, even a human one. Whatever the Prophets and Apostles testify to be truly divine is assuredly such. But the Prophets and Apostles testify that Holy Scripture is truly divine: therefore it is such. Thus then, from the testimony of Scripture itself - to which faith is to be given without contradiction - it is clear to us that the whole of Holy Scripture is from God. The reasons prove the same:

First. If from the testimony of Holy Scripture alone it is known with certainty and without doubt that Jesus of Nazareth truly was sent by God, then from the testimony of the same Scripture it will also be established that Scripture itself is from God. The antecedent is true: for Christ appealed to the testimony of Scripture, which testimony he even preferred to that of John the Baptist, John 5:39: “Search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of me.” And the Apostle Peter prefers, as to firmness with respect to us, the testimony of Scripture testifying of Christ to the voice which he himself had heard from heaven, 2 Pet. 1:17 - 19: “For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the magnificent glory: This is my Son, the beloved, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him on that holy mountain. And we have the more sure prophetic word” (bebaioteron, βεβαιότερον), “to which you do well to pay attention, as to a lamp shining in a dark place,” etc. He calls the prophetic word more sure than the voice which he had heard from heaven, because a written word is firmer than an unwritten (engraphos vs. agraphos, ἔγγραφος ἀγράφῳ), a double authority than a single. A thing not written but only heard has a single authority, namely from the author; but what is written has a double authority, from the author and from the writing. Who does not know this to be observed in testamentary causes, and finally in all contracts and pacts? A promise made by the voice of a prince has authority; but a promise made in writing and confirmed by the prince’s seal is firmer. Therefore true also is what follows. Second reason: Holy Scripture is the principle of divine religion: therefore it abundantly bears witness of itself that it is divine. For principles are self-authenticating (autopista, αὐτόπιστα), and have in themselves a sure ground that can win faith for them. Third reason: If Holy Scripture is of such authority that he who does not have faith in it would not believe even Christ himself preaching in person, then assuredly it abundantly confirms itself to be divine. The antecedent is true; therefore the consequent also. The assumption is clear from John 5:46 - 47: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” He who does not believe Holy Scripture would not believe even Christ himself preaching in person. Nay, Bellarmine himself, Book I On the Word of God, chap. 2, sections 6 and 11, teaches that the Scriptures contained in the prophetic and apostolic writings are not human inventions, but contain divine oracles - the Scripture itself being witness. The same confesses, in Book I On the Word of God, chap. 5, section 4, that the books of the Old Testament have from the books of the New Testament very many and most clear testimonies of their authority. The same, often in the same chapter, asserts that the books of the Old Testament, which the heretics denied to be divine, are proved divine by the testimonies of the New Testament. Therefore, besides the testimony of the Church, there is another external testimony, namely that of Scripture itself, by which it is established that the sacred books which we have are truly divine.

This testimony of Scripture about itself is public, not private; and because it is divine, among all external testimonies it alone is the chief and infallible and the most clear of all, the most certain, the most worthy of faith - such that among them none is more principal, more infallible, more clear, more certain, and more worthy of faith; and consequently it is by far to be preferred to the testimony of the Church. And it is believed and received for itself, and is by itself worthy of faith. Moreover, Bellarmine, Book IV On the Word of God, chap. 4, section 15, contends that in no way can it be had from Scripture that the books of the Prophets and Apostles are divine. And he tries to prove this by the following arguments:

Reply: Bellarmine’s proposition is not only false, but also impious, blasphemous, and a witness of unbelief more than Mahometan. It is false, because it establishes an equal footing for the Alcoran of Mahomet and the Holy Scripture of God with respect to the authority or testimony of each, whereas they are by far unequal. It is impious, because it is a mark of an impious mind, acting the Mahometan’s part, so as to undermine the Christian principle in an un-Christian way. Thus would a Mahometan assail the divinity of Holy Scriptures: If you do not believe the Alcoran to be divine, even if the Alcoran says this, then neither will I believe the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures to be divine, even if they say this. I supposed our affair was with a Christian, not with a Mahometan; but now the argumentation speaks of Bellarmine as acting the Mahometan, that he may overturn the principle of the Christian religion. And indeed a Christian sees with other eyes and by other light than a Mahometan. The same proposition is blasphemous, because it attributes no more to the true God speaking in Holy Scripture - since whatever Scripture says, God says - than to the God of the Alcoran, who is a liar, or rather to Mahomet himself, who lies in claiming that God speaks in the Alcoran. But who, reverencing and devoutly worshiping God, does not readily recognize from the kind of Mahometan doctrine - which openly establishes blasphemies against God, injustice toward men, plunderings and crimes, and utterly overthrows the grace of Christ - that not God but Satan is the author of the Alcoran? Finally, the same Bellarminian proposition is a witness of unbelief beyond Mahometan: because Bellarmine expressly says, “Even if Scripture says that the books of the Prophets and Apostles are divine, nevertheless I will certainly NOT BELIEVE this, unless I first have believed that the Scripture which says this is divine.” For what else is this than if he were to say: “Even if God says” (for Scripture is the voice of God; whatever Scripture says, God says) “that the books of the Prophets and Apostles are divine, nevertheless I will certainly not believe it,” etc.? And yet he ought at least to have been moved by the authority of Canon Law to believe Holy Scripture for itself. For thus, in Distinction 9, the chapter Noli meis, from Augustine’s Prologue to the third book On the Trinity, it enjoins: “In those

(that is, the Canonical Scriptures) even what you did not believe, when you have found it, BELIEVE WITHOUT DELAY”; and in the chapter Quis nesciat, from Augustine’s second book On Baptism against the Donatists, chap. 3, it says that Holy Canonical Scripture, both of the Old and of the New Testament, is contained within its fixed limits, and is so preferred to all subsequent writings of bishops (how much more to those of Mahomet!) that about it there can be no doubting or disputing at all whether whatever is proved to be written in it is true or right. And Augustine, tome 1, book 6 of the Confessions, chap. 5 - thinking far otherwise than Bellarmine - says to God: “You persuaded me that those who do not find fault are not to be censured for believing your books, which you have established with such authority among almost all nations; and that those are not to be listened to who should perhaps say to me, ‘Whence do you know that those books have been ministered to the human race by the Spirit of the one true and most truthful God?’ For this very thing was most of all to be believed.”

1. Whatever is believed from the sole unwritten Word of God can in no way be had from Scripture. That Holy Scripture is truly divine is believed from the sole unwritten Word of God. Therefore that Holy Scripture is truly divine can in no way be had from Scripture.

The minor is proved thus: since faith rests on the Word of God, unless we have the unwritten Word of God there will be no faith in us, says Bellarmine in the said book, chapter, and section. Reply: The minor is false; but the proof of the minor is partly true and partly false. True in it is that faith rests on the Word of God. False in it is that unless we have the unwritten Word of God there is no faith in us; for this clashes with divine truth. Thus Christ pronounces in John 5:46 - 47: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me also, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” Whence it may be gathered that those who do not believe Holy Scripture would, much less, believe the unwritten Word of God, even if it were announced to them by Christ himself. Thus John the Evangelist and Apostle, chap. 20:31: “These things are WRITTEN that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, you may have life through his name.” Augustine assents to Christ and to John. who, in the third volume, book 1 of On Christian Doctrine, chapter 37, says: “Faith will totter if the authority of the divine Scriptures wavers”; and much more plainly, in the fifth volume, book nineteen of the City of God, chapter eighteen: “The City of God believes the holy Scriptures, which we call canonical, whence that very faith is conceived by which the just shall live.” III. Whatever we have from no other source than unwritten tradition: But that Scripture is divine, we have from no other source than unwritten tradition: Therefore, etc. The minor is proved by Bellarmine by the authority of the ancient Fathers, who attest this with one voice. Thus in Eusebius, book six of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 16, Serapion rejects certain things falsely inscribed to Peter, because by tradition he had received that Peter wrote nothing of the sort. And chapter 11, Clement of Alexandria, according to the tradition commended to him by the elders, teaches which are the true Gospels. And chapter 18, Origen: “From tradition,”

he says, “I learned concerning the four Gospels that these alone, etc.” Basil also, in the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27, says that, if unwritten traditions are neglected, the Gospel too will suffer great loss. Finally, Augustine, in the book Against the Letter of the Foundation, chapter 5, clearly says that he would not believe the Gospel unless the Church enjoins it. Answer: The minor is false; and the proof of it falters at the very beginning (το ἐν αρχι λαµξανει). For it is taken from the Fathers; but the Fathers are not the principle of the Christian religion, from which the controverted dogmas of religion ought to be proved. Then too the testimonies of the Fathers adduced do not confirm Bellarmine’s minor; for from none of them can it be gathered that we have only from unwritten tradition that the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture is divine. First, there is an equivocation or homonymy in the name “tradition,” which either signifies the action of the Church teaching and handing down to posterity that the Scriptures which we have are divine; or it signifies a dogma or the unwritten (ἄγραφον) Word of God. The Fathers adduced by Bellarmine use the term tradition in the former sense, and they teach that, as their elders handed it down, they learned which are the true Gospels and which are not; which we grant outright, because it is the office of the Church to hand down to posterity, that is, to teach those to come, which are the true Gospels and which are not. The Church ought always to have done this and still ought. But Bellarmine takes the word tradition in the latter sense and contends that by unwritten (ἄγραφῳ) doctrine alone, or the unwritten Word of God, it is established that the Scripture which we have is divine, which we rightly deny. Second, the Fathers alleged do not use an exclusive particle. Serapion says that he received by tradition that Peter did not write the things falsely ascribed to him; but he does not say that he received this only by tradition. Then there is no consequence: Certain writings that are ascribed to Peter are not Peter’s - this was received by tradition; therefore that Scripture is divine - we have it only from tradition. Unless perchance by some new Logic from any negation one must necessarily conclude the contrary affirmation, even in disparate matters; and from an antecedent which is true in a qualified way, one infer a consequent understood simply. Clement of Alexandria similarly has no exclusive, nor does Origen. Basil, in the place adduced, treats only of traditions of rites and ecclesiastical observances; but here we are treating of an ecclesiastical dogma, of the authority of the divine principles of the Christian religion upon which the Church rests, not the Church itself. Certain rites received from the elders and propagated to posterity we willingly grant; but that some unwritten Word of God received from the Apostles was transmitted to posterity, which Bellarmine understands under the name of tradition, we by no means grant; or, if anything of the sort can be produced, it would contribute nothing to the establishing of the false dogmas of the Papists. Finally, when Augustine says that he would not believe the Gospel unless he were moved by the authority of the Church, he does not speak simply of himself, as is clear in itself, but in a qualified way, namely, having assumed the person of one not yet believing and still inquiring into the truth, he shows that he is moved by the authority of the Church, that is, by the assertion of so many thousands of faithful men who, from the Apostles down to his own times, constantly testified that the Gospel which we have is true and not supposititious, not adulterated. And we too grant freely that the authority or testimony of the true Church is a moving cause to embrace the Gospel, indeed not a principal cause, but a helping cause, not an

essential cause, but an accidental one; not one necessary of itself, but one concurrent for our benefit. This very thing Peter of Ailly, Bishop of Cambrai, Cardinal of the Roman Church, and one of the Fathers of the Council of Constance, handed down in the Sentences, book one, question 1, article 3: By the authority of Augustine it is not held that he believed the Gospel by the authority of the Church as by a theological principle, from which the Gospel is proved theologically to be true, but only as by a moving cause bringing him to faith in the Gospel. So much for the external divine testimony. The internal divine testimony, from which it is established for each of us that the holy Scripture which we have is truly divine, is the internal revelation of the Holy Spirit, who by an inward breathing so teaches us in our hearts that he effectively persuades us to believe firmly that the holy Scripture which we have in the Prophetic and Apostolic books is truly and indubitably the Word of God. Concerning this testimony it is said in Isa. 59:21: “This shall be my covenant with them, says Jehovah; my Spirit who is upon you and my words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart out of your mouth,” etc. 1 John 2:20: “You have an anointing from that Holy One, and you all know,” and v. 27: “The Anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you; but as his anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is no lie; and just as it has taught you, you will abide in him.” John calls the Anointing the Holy Spirit, by whom, from that Holy One, that is, Christ the Lord, we have been endowed and, as it were, drenched with oil; a metaphor taken from the anointings received in the Law. This anointing teaches us concerning all things necessary for eternal salvation: therefore also concerning Holy Scripture, that it is divine. 1 Cor. 2:10 - 13: “But to us God has revealed them through his Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? so also the things of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which also we speak, not in words which human wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual.” 2 Cor. 1:21 - 22: “He who confirms us with you into Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.” To these testimonies of Scripture there are added the following reasons. FIRST. By whose inspiration holy Scripture was written out, by his same internal testimony it must needs be established for us that it is truly divine. But holy Scripture was written out by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: Therefore by the same internal testimony of the Holy Spirit it must needs be established for us that it is truly divine. The major premise is most certain: because whoever primarily has the office of handing over holy Scripture to the Church, the same one also primarily has the office of confirming it. The minor premise is established by the testimony of Paul, 2 Tim. 3:5, 16. SECOND: That which always brings it about that holy Scripture has authentic authority with us - from that indeed it is established for us that holy Scripture is divine. But the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit always brings it about that holy Scripture has authentic authority with us: Therefore, etc.

THIRD: All true dogmas of faith are confirmed by the Holy Spirit in our hearts. That holy Scripture is divine is a most true dogma of faith: Therefore that holy Scripture is divine is confirmed by the Holy Spirit in our hearts. The major is certain from the promise of Christ, John 16:13: “That Spirit of truth will lead you into all truth.” FOURTH: From whom faith is infused into us by which we believe Scripture to be the Word of God, by his internal revelation it is indeed established for us that holy Scripture is truly the Word of God. But by the Holy Spirit faith is infused into us by which we believe holy Scripture to be the Word of God: Therefore by the internal revelation of the Holy Spirit it is established for us that holy Scripture is truly the Word of God. I explain by a reason. Faith is either acquired or infused. Acquired faith is that which is obtained by our effort and by human persuasions. Infused faith is that which the Holy Spirit pours into our hearts. FIFTH. By whose illumination we know the true God and Christ our Savior, by his illumination we know that the Scripture which proclaims this true God is truly divine. But by the illumination of the Holy Spirit we know the true God and Christ our Savior: Therefore by the illumination of the Holy Spirit we know that the Scripture which proclaims this true God is truly divine. To these reasons are added the testimonies of the orthodox Fathers. AUGUSTINE, first volume, book six of the Confessions, chapter five, thus speaks with God: “You persuaded me that those who would not believe your books - which you have established with such great authority in almost all nations - are to be blamed, not those who would believe; nor are those to be listened to who might perchance say to me, ‘Whence do you know that those books have been ministered to the human race by the Spirit of the one true and most truthful God?’ For that very thing was chiefly to be believed.” And in the sixth volume, in the book Against the Letter of the Manichee which they call “of the Foundation,” chapter 14: “Let us follow those who invite us first to believe what we are not yet able to behold, that, made stronger by that very faith, we may merit to understand what we believe; no longer with men, but with GOD HIMSELF WITHIN strengthening and enlightening our mind.” BASIL, in a Sermon on Psalm 115: “Faith, beyond rational methods, draws the soul to assent; it comes not by geometrical necessities but by the operations of the Spirit” (πίσις ὑπερ τας λογικας µεθεθει τονν ψυχιι εισ συγµαταζρασιν ἔλκµσαεπιης εχ η γρεπρικαισ αυαγκαης aλλη τῶῆς γ τουµατος ενγειοις εγνορη). This internal testimony of the Spirit is most certain and more excellent than all human authority: because God alone is a competent witness concerning himself and his Scripture. And without this internal testimony of the Holy Spirit no one truly and savingly acknowledges holy Scripture as divine. This most true doctrine is opposed by the Papists, who contend that the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit does not pertain to the knowledge and judgment of the Scriptures. They use objections of this sort:

FIRST OBJECTION. Whatever testimony ought to be manifest and certain, that ought not to be internal and hidden, but public. But the testimony of the Holy Spirit, from which it is established for all that Scripture is divine, ought to be manifest and certain: Therefore the testimony of the Holy Spirit, from which it is established for all that Scripture is divine, ought not to be internal and hidden, but public. Answer: The major premise is ambiguous, because, since it is indefinite, it can be understood either particularly or universally. If it be understood particularly, it will indeed be true; but then we deny the consequence of the argument proposed, because from pure particulars nothing follows. But if it be understood universally, it is false; because not every testimony which ought to be manifest and certain must needs be public, but it can be internal and hidden and known only to him in whose heart it is borne; as the testimony of the Holy Spirit bearing witness that we are sons of God is manifest and certain to each of the faithful, even if it be internal, as is clear from Rom. 8:16. Thus it is said in 1 John 5:10: “He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself.” This testimony is manifest and certain to all believers whoever have it, e- even if it be internal and hidden. Wherefore, although the testimony of the Holy Spirit, from which it must needs be certain to each of the believers that the Scripture to which they believe is divine, ought to be manifest and certain, nevertheless this does not prevent its being internal and hidden, and not public. Then, in this objection there is committed a fallacy from the qualified to the unqualified. The major, understood simply, is false; but it is true if understood in a qualified way and limited thus: Whatever testimony ought to be manifest and certain, namely for the purpose of convincing others, that must not be internal and hidden, but public - such as is any testimony in a court or tribunal, which either the plaintiff or the defendant produces to convince the opposing party. But that the testimony of the Holy Spirit, from which it is certain for each of the believers for himself that Scripture is divine, ought to be manifest and certain for the purpose of convincing others, is denied. For this testimony of the Holy Spirit is not borne to Scripture in our hearts for this end, that we should use it to convince others and say: You ought to believe us when we assert that Holy Scripture is truly divine, because the Holy Spirit has dictated or revealed this to us in our hearts; we leave such boasting and manner of proceeding to the Enthusiasts and the Papists, who time and again bring against us I know not what revelations of the Holy Spirit which clash with Holy Scripture and which they cloak under the name of the unwritten word of God. But it is borne in the hearts of all true believers for this end, that each of them for himself may rest firmly in Scripture, and, enlightened by the power of the divine Spirit, may now believe, not by his own or by others’ judgment, that Scripture is from God, but, beyond human judgment, may most surely determine with himself - as if he heard God himself speaking from heaven - that by the ministry of men it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God. Reply of the adversaries: Every testimony of the Holy Spirit ought to make for the edification of others; but this internal testimony does not make for the edification of others; therefore it is not of the Holy Spirit.

The major is proved by the testimony of Paul, 1 Cor. 12:7: “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for profit,” that is, for the use of the Church. The minor is proved from this, because it was said that this internal testimony avails to confirm each one of the believers for himself, not for others. Our rejoinder. The minor is denied; for it also makes for the edification of others, because whoever, persuaded by that testimony, believes that Scripture is divine, does by his example and exhortations invite others also to believe. The adversaries’ surrejoinder: Whatever makes for the edification of others must needs become known to them; but this internal testimony does not become known to others; therefore it does not make for the edification of others. Our fourth reply: And this minor too is denied. For although the private testimony of the Holy Spirit is not to be employed by us, nor can it be employed, for convincing others, nevertheless it becomes known not only to those in whom it is, but also to others - albeit in one way to these, in another way to those. To whatsoever persons it is present, to them it can be certain and known, if it also affects them inwardly in their hearts by divine influence, and agrees with the divine external testimonies, that is, of Holy Scripture. But to others concerning others it cannot be known and certain unless it be confirmed among others by divine testimonies - within indeed by the Spirit, but without by the testimonies of Scripture and of the works or fruits of the Holy Spirit, and of events - from which we judge concerning others out of truth and charity. Otherwise, no man knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man which is in him, as Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 2:11. But this latter point, namely that the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit which is in the heart of each one of the faithful also becomes known to others, and whence, is proved thus: From whatever source true disciples of Christ recognize one another, and from whatever source others gather and judge concerning others that they are truly faithful, that they are enlightened and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, that they are graciously governed by him, from that same source also that internal testimony becomes known to others; for those matters are no less internal than this. But from the internal motion of the Holy Spirit by which each one of the sons of God is impelled to embrace other sons of God with brotherly love, and from the ingenuous confession of faith, and from sincere charity toward true believers, and from other fruits of the Holy Spirit, they recognize one another as true disciples of Christ, and others gather and judge concerning others that they are truly faithful, that they are enlightened and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, that they are graciously ruled by him. For the Holy Spirit unites the minds of the faithful, who strive to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. “There is one body and one Spirit, even as we also were called in one hope of our calling” (Eph. 4:3 - 4). “By one Spirit we all were baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free; and we all were made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13). Whence also charity toward God and neighbor is said to be infused, because it is poured into the hearts of the faithful by the Holy Spirit. To this belong also the following places: 1 John 5:1: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God; and whoever loves him who begot, loves also him who is begotten of him.” John 13:35: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among one another.” 1 John 4:12: “If we love one another, God dwells in us, and

his charity is perfected in us.” By this we know that we dwell in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. Gal. 5:22 - 25: “The fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control. Against such things there is no law. For they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.” Matt. 12:33: “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree rotten and its fruit rotten; for by the fruit the tree is known” - that is, what sort of tree it is is known from its fruit; so also from each man’s works it must be known and judged whether he be good or evil, faithful or unbelieving. Therefore from that source also the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, by which each one of the faithful is confirmed to believe that Scripture is divine, becomes known to others. Second Objection If there is need for each individual of the private testimony of the Holy Spirit, and one must not rest content with only the public testimony of the Holy Spirit which sounds in the Church, then there is one Spirit private to each, and another the Spirit of the Church. But the consequent is absurd; therefore also the antecedent. Answer. The consequence of the conditional is denied. For one and the same Spirit of God is the Spirit of the whole Catholic Church and of each member singularly, taking from the discourse of Christ and announcing to us outwardly and inwardly (John 16:14), working all things in all (1 Cor. 12:7, 11), just as the soul animates both our whole body as a whole and its individual members. Third Objection. If it is sealed to each of the believers by the private testimony of the Holy Spirit that Scripture is divine, then the public testimony of the Holy Spirit in the Church is superfluous and idle. But the latter is absurd; therefore also the former. Answer. The conditional is false; for coordinated things do not take away each other. Now the private testimony of the Holy Spirit in the heart of each of the believers, and the public [testimony] in the Catholic Church, are coordinated; nor does the one exclude the other any more than the internal teaching by which we are taught individually in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (John 6:45; 1 John 2:20, 27) excludes the external teaching by which we are instructed in common in the Church. If Moses, the Prophets, Christ himself, John the Baptist, and the Apostles either themselves confirmed the divine doctrines from the Scriptures, or at least exhorted others to read the Scriptures, Fourth Objection and never remitted anyone to the judgment of an internal spirit with the Scriptures neglected, then it is not rightly taught that from the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit it is certain to each of the believers that Holy Scripture is divine. The antecedent is true; therefore also the consequent. Answer. The antecedent labors under the fallacy of several questions confusedly conjoined, and is in part falsely, in part captiously stated. Moses and Christ himself are improperly confounded with the others, whose rationale is different. Moses did not confirm doctrines from the Scriptures at the beginning, for they did not previously exist, as far as the consignation of them in books is concerned, although as to substance they always were from the beginning. He wrote the

canon of divine doctrine and religion first; he did not receive it written from his forefathers. But after he had prescribed the canon of truth, he bound all to it. “You shall not add” (he says, Deut. 4:2) “to the word which I command you, neither shall you take from it, that you may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.” That this was spoken of the written word of God is evident from Deut. 31:9. But the same Moses also wished that the Spirit of God might be upon all, Num. 11:29. Christ, moreover, both confirmed the things which he said by the Scriptures, and also made the Holy Spirit his witness, John 15:26: “That Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he shall bear witness of me.” The other Prophets and the Apostles sometimes used Scripture as a witness, sometimes the Holy Spirit, sometimes both together, as is clear from the testimonies alleged above; for these are coordinated, as Bellarmine himself also acknowledges in the third book On the Word of God, in the tenth chapter, in the reply to the sixth argument, where he says that Christ speaks to his sheep in many ways - through Scripture, through inward inspiration, and most plainly through the mouth of his vicars. The rest is said invidiously and captiously - that none was ever remitted to the judgment of an internal spirit with the Scriptures neglected: that can be referred to the Libertines and the Schwenckfeldians and other Enthusiasts; it certainly in no way pertains to us, who never remit anyone to the judgment of an internal spirit with the Scriptures neglected. Fifth Objection. Whatever savors of the error of the Enthusiasts must altogether be disapproved. That the divinity of Holy Scripture is certain to us from the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit savors of the error of the Enthusiasts. Therefore it must altogether be disapproved. Answer. I restrict the major: Whatever savors of the error of the Enthusiasts - namely truly, and not merely in the erroneous opinion of others - that must altogether be disapproved. But that the divinity of Holy Scripture is certain to us from the testimony of the Holy Spirit is truly to savor of the error of the Enthusiasts is denied. Sixth Objection. If it is certain from the testimony of the Holy Spirit that Holy Scripture is truly divine, then all the faithful who have this Spirit will agree among themselves. But they do not agree among themselves: for, they say, the Papists, the Lutherans disagree with the Calvinists; those do not acknowledge all the books of the New Testament as divine, these do not acknowledge some books as divine. Therefore either it is not certain from the testimony of the Holy Spirit that Holy Scripture is divine, or one of these parties does not have the Holy Spirit. Answer. First, there is sinning by the fallacy of several questions, when only one ought to have been concluded, which is in controversy; but another is invidiously mixed in to disturb the state of the controversy. Then the conditional is false: because even if it is certain from the testimony of the Holy Spirit that Holy Scripture is divine, nevertheless it is not necessary that all the faithful who have this Spirit agree among themselves in all doctrines, and consequently also in this particular one: because the Holy Spirit is not given to all in the same measure, nor does he teach all the faithful all things in a single moment, but through daily advances he perfects them little by little. Therefore, if some today do not acknowledge that all the books of the New Testament are truly

divine, tomorrow they can acknowledge it, or when God shall will to enlighten them more. Nor therefore do they either cease to be faithful or not have the Holy Spirit, if they err in some single doctrine: because not all errors are capital.

Thus far divine testimonies have been recited, from which it is certain to us that the prophetic Scripture is truly divine: there follow DIVINE GROUNDS, that is, such as are drawn from Holy Scripture, and they are most firm, which likewise are criteria (kritéria) and most certain norms of judgment, from which the same thing is evident to us, and which abundantly refute the assertion of Bellarmine and the other Papists: that it is to be known from no source other than the unwritten tradition of the Church which books are truly divine. Now those grounds are partly in the causes of Scripture - namely, the persons by whose ministry Scripture has been written, and in the essence of the doctrine itself which Scripture hands down; partly in the effects of Scripture, its subjects, adjuncts, opposites, and comparates. For whose causes are all divine, that thing itself must be divine. But the causes of Holy Scripture are all divine: the efficient, the matter, the form, and the end. Among the efficient causes the instrumental causes are the persons whose ministry God willed to use in the writing of Holy Scripture; of whom their divine calling, sending, and inspiration are to be considered. Whence we reason thus: Whatever Scripture has been written by those men whose calling, sending, and inspiration were certainly divine, that also is certainly divine. But Holy Scripture has been written by those men whose calling, sending, and inspiration were certainly divine. Therefore Holy Scripture is certainly divine. The major proposition is most firm: for any thing is reckoned to be of such a sort as those are by whom it has been produced; just as that thing which has been produced by men possessing only a human calling, sending, and institution, is rightly reckoned to be only human. The action conjoined into one of the principal cause and the instrument is the same in thing and in effect, but differs in respect. That the minor proposition likewise is true will be clear from this, if it shall have been certain that the calling, sending, and inspiration of the Prophets and Apostles, by whose ministry Holy Scripture has been written, were divine. But that is shown by these arguments. First Whoever taught the Church those things which they taught, and left the same in writings to it, had not previously learned them in the schools of men; some also shortly before had been professed enemies of the Church; and they could not err in the doctrine which they were handing down; and furthermore they performed true miracles inimitable by the devil and by men; and they put forth prophecies concerning matters far the greatest, which the event confirmed; in addition

they shone as lights with true piety and holiness; and they steadfastly sealed what they taught with their martyrdoms - assuredly their calling, sending, and inspiration were divine. But all these things are truly affirmed concerning the Prophets and Apostles. Therefore the calling, sending, and inspiration of the Prophets and Apostles were divine. In this prosyllogism there are seven members, which we shall prove in order. Proof of the first member. That the Prophets and Apostles did not learn in the schools of men the things which they taught the Church and wrote, is certain. For Moses, David, Amos had been herdsmen; Jeremiah almost still a boy when he was called to the prophetic office; other Prophets too, for the most part, had previously been base, contemptible, obscure among the common people; Matthew had formerly been fixed to his table for his gain; Peter and John were engaged upon their little boats, and the other Apostles were unlettered and laymen, as it is said of them, Acts 4:13. But it is objected: Moses, instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, had been mighty in words and deeds before he was called by God, as Stephen attests, Acts 7:22. Samuel was trained with the priest Eli, 1 Sam. 2:11. Daniel was learned in the wisdom of the Chaldeans, Dan. 1. Paul was brought up at Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel, Acts 22:3. I answer: Moses from the Egyptians and Daniel from the Chaldeans learned only human arts and sciences, such as astronomy, astrology, some part of natural philosophy, languages, and other political arts: but they could not learn the wisdom of divine matters from those who were ignorant of the word of God. For what would Moses have apprehended concerning God from those whose king was saying: “Who is Iehovah, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I do not know Iehovah; therefore I will not let Israel go,” Exod. 5:2; and who with unanimous consent opposed Iehovah and his people, whose idolatry and impiety God forbids and detests, Lev. 18:3, “After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, ye shall not do.” And in Ezekiel, where the worships of the Egyptians are recounted (for the Israelites were imitating them), which they rendered even to the most abject and vile things, namely reptiles and cattle: for the Egyptians honored cats and crocodiles, serpents, asps, and dogs with divine honors; about which matter Athenagoras, the Athenian Christian philosopher, in the Apology or Embassy for the Christians, straightway at the beginning; and they also rendered religious worship to Isis - that is, to Ceres or the Moon, as it seemed to Diodorus in the Library of History, book 1, part 1 - whom they sketched in a feminine image having ox-horns; and to Osiris, that is, the husband of Isis, whom the Egyptians also called Serapis - Ezekiel names him Thammuz; and to the Sun, whom they called Horus and they proclaimed to be the son of Isis, raised by her by a magical power from the dead; and to Anubis, the son of Osiris, whom an image represented with a man’s body and a dog’s head, because the skin of a dog’s head was for him a helmet. Concerning that god of the Egyptians Virgil of the Aeneid says, “The monsters of every kind of god, and Anubis the barker.” Servius calls him Mercury. And to Apis, a calf or an ox, who had been consecrated by them to Serapis. Herodotus recounts the marks of Apis in the Thalia: “He is black,” he says, “and on his forehead a white spot of a square shape, on his back the figure of an eagle, on his tail double hairs, on his tongue a scarab.” Such was the religion of the Egyptians: they worshiped the Sun, the Moon, and other stars; they worshiped

ancient kings and queens by whom they had been endowed with some notable benefit; they worshiped beasts and other created things. Therefore Moses did not learn from them the wisdom of divine matters. In like manner, what would the Prophet Daniel have learned concerning God and divine things from the Chaldeans, who held dead men, who held the elements, who held the stars as gods and worshiped them? The famous gods of the Babylonians were Bel, who was Jupiter, the son of Saturn, from whom Belshazzar was named; Rach, who was Apollo or the Sun, from whom Shadrach; likewise Nego, from whom Abednego was called; likewise Or, that is, fire. But the goddesses of the Chaldeans were Schacha, which is Earth; Mulitta, which is Venus. Samuel did not learn from the priest Eli the divine oracles which he set forth, as sacred history sufficiently indicates. Finally, the Apostle Paul by no means received the Gospel concerning Jesus Christ from Gamaliel. The proof of the second member follows. That certain persons shortly before their calling had been enemies of the Church, the examples show. Matthew had been a publican, a cruel collector of taxes, sparing no one, as that kind of men is wont to be inhuman and rapacious. Paul had been a professed savage and bloody enemy and persecutor of the Church of Christ, and, converted from heaven, immediately in the synagogues he preached Christ, as Luke testifies, Acts 9. The proof of the third member follows. That the Prophets and Apostles did not err in the doctrine which they handed down is certain. For through them Truth itself, namely the Spirit of Christ and Christ himself, spoke, 1 Pet. 1; 2 Pet. 1:21; Acts 28:25; 2 Cor. 13:3. It is objected, first: that the Prophets and Apostles sometimes said and wrote certain things discrepant from the truth which God reveals. For example: Samuel said, when he saw Eliab, the eldest son of Jesse: “Surely Iehovah’s anointed is before him,” as is read in 1 Samuel 16. Likewise the Prophet Nathan said to King David, who was thinking of building the holy house: “Whatever is in thine heart do; for Iehovah is with thee,” 2 Sam. 7. Paul wrote that he would set out for Spain and by that journey would come to the Romans, Rom. 15. The same to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians. Since therefore they said, or even wrote, something false, how will it be affirmed that they did not err in doctrine? I answer: One thing is the doctrine of divine matters; another is the indication or signification of human judgments and counsels. In divine matters are reckoned not only those which God does, but also those which he attests by his speech, either through the word which he commands to be publicly announced to all, or through a singular revelation. But on the other hand, in human judgments and counsels are comprehended those things which, without a public or singular testimony of God, are put forth by men, however most holy, either by any human judgment, or even by a most holy counsel. Of this sort were those judgments of Samuel and of Nathan, when, without consulting God, according to an opinion by itself by no means evil, they determined contrary to what God by his secret judgment had defined. For neither, because they were prophets, had they ceased to be men; but each kind of action was done by them, the human according to nature, the prophetic according to the revelation of grace which had been added to nature. And these judgments of theirs, in which they were mistaken, Scripture relates truthfully; which the faith of history requires. But the example of Paul seems to present no small difficulty, because he wrote

the letters alleged at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and yet one thing was promised by his word, another followed in the event. But this too proceeded from the dictation of the Holy Spirit, namely, that Paul should write his human counsels about his journeys, although the effect of them did not follow by the secret will of God: for it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to make it openly attested that human volitions which pertain to piety and humanity are approved and sanctified by God, even if, God so willing, they do not always obtain their effect; just as David’s will about building a house for Iehovah was pious and holy, even if David did not afterwards build it, but Solomon, with Iehovah thus disposing, 2 Samuel 7. And the Holy Spirit wished also to indicate this: that there is a difference between the divine promises which God makes concerning himself and his actions, and the human ones which a man makes concerning himself and his actions. God alone promises with the certainty of truth, as it is said 2 Cor. 1:20: “As many as are the promises of God, in Christ is the yea, and in him is the amen, to the glory of God”: but man promises in the truth of his mind, leaving to God the certainty and the event of the whole matter, just as James in his epistle warns, chap. 4:15: “Ye ought to say, If the Lord will, and we live, we shall do this or that”; and Paul expressly states this when writing to the Romans, chap. 15:32, “so that with joy I may come to you through the will of God”; and 1 Cor. 4:19, “I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will”; and when he was about to depart from Ephesus, he says: I will return to you, God willing. Act. 18. v. 21. Therefore, with the Holy Spirit inspiring, Paul also wrote and promised those things which served for the manifestation of humanity and the attestation of charity toward others, leaving the outcome to the hidden and absolute will of God. The Holy Spirit also wished by Paul’s example to instruct us that we ought to be ready to perform the offices of Christian humanity and charity, even if it is not settled for us by some special divine revelation concerning the definite will of God, whether he will permit us to carry out those offices in deed. For if we ought to be ready only for those things, if we ought to promise to others only those things, which we knew for certain that we would actually perform, then all the offices of humanity and charity which are extended to a future time would have to cease. Nay rather, God has testified that our will to do that which he himself commands is pleasing to him, even if he does not permit that thing to be done by us: just as the ready obedience of Abraham, willing to sacrifice his son Isaac as God had commanded him, was approved by God; even though afterward he did not permit him to sacrifice him, but accepted the will for the deed, as is read Gen. 22. It is objected II. The apostles thought the kingdom of Christ would be earthly, Act. 1. v. 6. The apostle Peter thought the Gentiles did not belong to the kingdom of Christ, but only the Israelites, Act. 10. The same man did not walk with a straight foot as befitted the truth of the Gospel, as Paul testifies, Gal. 2. v. 14. Therefore the apostles could err in the doctrine which they handed down. I answer: That consequence is denied. For there is a difference between an opinion conceived in the mind for a time but not preached, and doctrine preached in the name of God. And again, when it is said that Peter did not walk with a straight foot as befitted the truth of the Gospel, it is not signified that he erred in doctrine or taught something false, but it is indicated that he dissembled, that he did not act sincerely with the Gentiles, as the Gospel requires, which teaches that the Gentiles also belong to the kingdom of Christ, and therefore that one should converse with those

who from among the Gentiles have been converted to the faith with a declaration of charity and conjunction with them. Peter indeed knew this to be most true; nevertheless, fearing lest he offend the Jews, he withdrew himself and separated from the faithful converted from Gentilism. Therefore Peter’s error was not in doctrine, but in life, that is, in conversation. Thus Paul shows that sins are opposed to sound doctrine which is according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, 1 Tim. 1. v. 9, 10, 11. Proof of the fourth member. The miracles inimitable by any creature which Moses and the other prophets and the apostles produced, both Testaments commemorate; such as the raising of the dead, the checking or delaying of the sun’s course, the making fruitful of those barren and utterly worn by age, the dividing of the sea and the leading of many thousands of men through it, the stopping of the course of great and swift rivers so that they furnished a passage not only to one and another, but even to many thousands of men, the bringing forth of rivers of waters out of a solid rock, etc. Irreligious men object. Feigned miracles do not prove divine vocation, mission, and inspiration: But those miracles were feigned: Therefore, etc. I answer: The assumption is denied. For, to speak only of Moses: when he inculcated those miracles publicly to the Israelites, what place was there for feigning among eyewitnesses of the deeds, that is, that he should have come forth into the midst and, convicting the people of unbelief, stubbornness, ingratitude, and other crimes, bragged that his vocation and doctrine had been sanctioned in their sight by those miracles which they had never seen. For this also is worthy of note: as often as he narrates about the miracles, there is at the same time joined the odious reproach of the sins of the people, which could have spurred them to protest if there had been even the least occasion. Whence it appears that they were brought to assent in no other way than because they were more than sufficiently convicted by their own experience. They press. Things that are common to believers and unbelievers do not prove divine vocation, mission, and inspiration: But miracles are common to believers and unbelievers: Therefore, etc. I answer: The minor is denied. For true miracles are the proper property of the true Church. It is certain that God, truthful and burning with zeal for his glory, would never have borne, nor would bear, witness to those who spread false doctrine about himself and his will.

They prove the minor: because some miracles of the Egyptian magicians, Exod. 7. & 8., and also of other pagans are commemorated; likewise the images of the household gods which Aeneas, fleeing from Troy, brought with him, are said to have moved from place to place; it is told also that Attius Navius cut a whetstone with a razor; that a serpent of Epidaurus clung as a companion to Aesculapius as he sailed to Rome; that a ship on which an image of the Mother of Phrygia was being carried, made immovable by such great efforts of men and oxen, was moved and drawn by a single little woman, tied with her girdle, as a testimony of her chastity; that a Vestal virgin, about whose corruption a legal inquiry was underway, with a sieve filled with water taken from the Tiber, and it not running out, removed the dispute, as St. Augustine recounts from pagan writers in the City of God, book 10, chapter 16. And about the false prophets it was foretold that they would produce great signs and miracles, so that they would lead astray (if it may be) even the elect, Matt.

least to the greatest, saying, This man is that great power of God. And they gave heed to him because for a long time he had bewitched them with magical arts, as is read Acts 8. v. 9, 10, 11. By contrast, Moses, crying out that he and his brother Aaron were nothing, but only carrying out what God enjoined, sufficiently wipes away every sinister mark. Now if the things themselves be considered, what incantation could have made the sea, once divided, furnish a path to the people of Israel; made the rock, smitten with the staff, pour forth a most copious stream; made manna, raining daily from heaven, suffice to feed so great a people as was brought out of Egypt and born in the wilderness? And if anyone had kept it beyond the just measure, he would learn from the very putrefaction that his unbelief was divinely punished. What more? The event plainly teaches that the miracles of Moses were divine, which for all ages have sanctioned his doctrine. The same we maintain concerning the miracles of the other prophets, of Christ, and of the apostles. They press still further: Miracles whose narration is of doubtful credibility prove nothing: But the narration of the miracles which are had in the sacred writings is of doubtful credibility: Therefore they prove nothing. For who knows (they say) whether the miracles which are narrated in the sacred writings really took place thus? Or who has made us more certain that these things were written by Moses and the prophets and the apostles, which are read under their names? Nay, who has made us more certain whether there ever was any Moses, any Isaiah, Peter, Paul, and some other prophet or apostle? I answer: The minor proposition is false and its proof full of wickedness. But the parts of the proof must be refuted in order. First, as to the one who calls into doubt whether the miracles which are commemorated in Holy Scripture really so took place - undoubtedly his impudence is exceedingly great. For by the same act he will charge the whole of sacred and profane history with falsehood. But we see that these men first relate, along with the other parts of sacred history, and indeed especially the miracles, as affairs not hidden but performed in the public of the church and in the sight of many men. Vainly, indeed, would the prophets and apostles have tried to conciliate faith to their vocation, mission, and doctrine by means of miracles which other men had never seen. Nay, they would rather have stripped themselves of all credit, especially since they proclaimed them not as hidden, but as publicly known. Then also the doctrine which they announced was unknown to human reason and contrary to the affections of men: therefore miracles, unless most manifest, would never have found faith. Then also in the miracles themselves, and in the doctrine which is confirmed by them, it plainly appears that by those who described them not their own glory, power, or other advantages of life, but only the glory of God and the salvation of men were sought: therefore there must be no doubting the truth of their narration. To these arguments there assents not only the testimony of the Church, but also the confession of the enemies of Christ, who certainly, if by any means they could, would have denied and suppressed even things true and well-known. Whence it is sufficiently clear that the miracles which are narrated in the sacred Scriptures were done as surely as if we had seen them being done with our own eyes; and accordingly they serve no less for our confirmation, even if with the eyes of the body we have not beheld them, than for those who were seeing them; as John 20. v. 29, 30, 31 says: “Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed: blessed are those who have not seen

and have believed.” “Now many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, that same, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life through his name.” Second, if anyone should call into doubt whether the prophets and apostles wrote these things which we read; or whether there was any Moses; whether there were such prophets and apostles: By the same reasoning let him call into doubt whether Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Livy wrote the things which are had under their names; let him call into doubt whether there ever was some Plato, or Aristotle, or Cicero, or Livy. But if everyone judges him insane who calls this into doubt, how much more foolish is he who is uncertain about that? Thus the fourth member has been proved: the proof of the fifth follows. The prophetic and apostolic predictions concerning the greatest matters, and laid open to the investigation of no creature, published also a very long time beforehand, and thereafter by a most certain event confirmed, co- prove that the calling, sending, and inspiration of the Prophets and Apostles are truly divine. A fitting testimony of divinity is the truth of divination (prophecy). Tertullian, the Apologeticus against the Pagans, chapter twenty. In Genesis 3 Moses reports a prophecy concerning the Messiah, the Savior of the human race, given 3970 years before its fulfillment, as Abraham Bucholcer computes, or 3948 years, as Joseph Scaliger counts. In Genesis 6 the universal cataclysm is predicted a hundred and twenty years before the first world was destroyed by it. In Genesis 15 the descent of Abraham’s posterity into Egypt, their servitude there, and their liberation from it after four hundred years are foretold. In Genesis 49 Moses recites the oracle by which the royal principate was assigned to the tribe of Judah, which in due time befell it. Moses predicted the calling of the Gentiles into the kingdom of Christ, which also followed. Isaiah, at the time when the kingdom of Judah flourished and cultivated friendship with the Babylonians, preached concerning the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the people to be at the hands of the Babylonians. Then through Coresch or Cyrus, whom by name he expressly mentions as to be born more than a hundred years later, he declared that the Babylonians would be subdued and the Jewish people asserted into liberty. Jeremiah defined how long the Babylonian captivity would last. Ezekiel and Daniel also prophesied concerning matters far later to come; and Daniel so composed prophecies of future things as if he were writing a history of things already done and everywhere known. Finally, all the Prophets about Christ and the calling of the Gentiles to him; likewise the Apostles about the Antichrist, about the future apostasy from Christ and the truly Catholic Church, and finally about other matters - these they foretold such that the events have partly exactly corresponded, and partly are even now corresponding, so that we ought to doubt nothing about the completion of the remaining items.

It is objected by some. Whatever also was among the pagans does not prove the divine calling, sending, and inspiration of the Prophets and Apostles. But prophecies of future things were also among the pagans. Therefore, etc. They prove the minor: because the pagans too had prophecies to which the event answered. I answer: I limit the major. Whatever also was among the pagans, in such manner as it is in the true Church, that does not prove the divine calling, sending, and inspiration. But that there were prophecies of future things among the pagans in such manner as they are in the Church, is denied. For there is a great and manifold difference between pagan and sacred prophecies. For the pagan prophecies were impostures of the devil, who by a counterfeit imitation wished to obscure divine truth and glory; they were founded by frenzied seers driven by a diabolic impulse; they confirmed crimes and idolatry; by false hope they lured those who listened into deceit and destruction; they were published about uncertain matters, or at least about those whose outcome the devil could somehow, according to his cunning, gather from antecedent signs, or which by divine permission and command he knew he would bring about; nay, they were obscure or ambiguous or vain; finally, they disagreed with the truth and righteousness of God previously disclosed. Thus was the proof of the fifth member of the assumption: the proof of the sixth follows. Moreover, that the Prophets and Apostles, by whom the sacred books were written or whose doctrine is contained in the Prophetic and Apostolic writings, have by the brightness of their piety and virtue overshadowed all the virtues of the pagans or of those following other religions, is manifest from a comparison of the histories of the Church and of men outside the Church. Certainly in the Prophets and Apostles there was such piety and holiness of life as is not found outside the Church: Objection I. Those whose lapses are by no means light, theirs is not so great piety and holiness. But the Prophets’ and Apostles’ lapses were by no means light. Therefore theirs was not so great piety and holiness. Reply. Those whose lapses are by no means light, theirs is not so great piety and holiness - namely, if they fell into those lapses with full will and deliberate deed and persevered in them. But that the Prophets and Apostles fell into those lapses with full will and persevered in them, we deny: for they straightway repented and consistently declared their repentance, which is a great proof of true piety and holiness. But those who have been and are outside the Church did not and do not repent, but day by day became and become worse. Objection II. Whatever is common to the Prophets and Apostles with heretics and seducers does not prove their divine calling, sending, and inspiration. But piety and holiness are common to the Prophets and Apostles with heretics and seducers. Therefore, etc. Reply. Whatever is common to the Prophets and Apostles with heretics and seducers - namely, truly - that does not prove their divine calling, sending, and inspiration. But that piety and holiness are truly common to the Prophets and Apostles with heretics and seducers is denied: for heretics

and seducers only pretend piety and holiness; and, as nothing feigned is lasting, so they shortly betray their malice, nor are they wont to hide all crimes, but either excuse or extenuate them, or do not count them crimes at all. Objection III. Whatever in reality was either no less or even certainly greater in many pagans than in the Prophets and Apostles does not prove the divine calling, sending, and inspiration of the Prophets and Apostles. But piety, holiness, and virtue were in reality either no less or even certainly greater in many pagans than in the Prophets and Apostles. Therefore, etc. Reply. The assumption is denied. For although it seems in reality that there was not less or even greater piety, holiness, and virtue in many pagans than in the Prophets and Apostles, nevertheless in reality it was by no means so. For whatever the pagans did which in external appearance seems very praiseworthy, that did not proceed from true faith; but what is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23), nor did it please God, because without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6); nor did it flow from true love of God and neighbor, because those who are destitute of true faith are not endowed with true love of God and neighbor; nor did they refer it to the glory of God alone, but they only pursued their own reputation from it. They insist. But nevertheless the virtue of some pagans has been praised, as that of Aristides, Socrates, Cato. Reply. First, that virtue was only external discipline, it had no roots within. Then, it does not embrace all the parts of obedience due to God. Third, the same persons approved and followed very many things at variance with true virtue, piety, and holiness, namely, idolatry, many false opinions about God. Fourth, those praiseworthy motions, insofar as they were such, were gifts of God in them; therefore they ought to be praised. Fifth, the pagans have none who can even be like to Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Jehoshaphat, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Paul, and innumerable other Christians. There remains the proof of the last member. That the Prophets and Apostles sealed by their martyrdoms, and indeed by their blood and death, the doctrine which they announced and delivered to the Church in writings; and that in their martyrdoms a divine and unconquerable virtue shone forth, clearly testifying to the divinity of the doctrine for which they were suffering - the sacred and ecclesiastical history bears witness. Paul in Phil. 1:7 affirms that his chains were for the defense and confirmation of the Gospel. And in 1 Thess. 2:1 - 2 he says: You yourselves know, brothers, that our coming to you was not in vain; but having even before suffered and been treated with insults at Philippi, as you know, we used boldness in our God to announce to you the Gospel of God with much conflict. To the Apostle Peter Christ foretold by what death he would glorify God (John 21:18 - 19). Moreover ecclesiastical history records the deaths of the individual Apostles, by which they sealed the doctrine they announced.

This is the first argument, from which it is clear that the calling, sending, and divine inspiration of the Prophets and Apostles existed. The second is this: If the frontispieces and other parts of the sacred books testify that the Prophets and Apostles by whom they were written were divinely called, sent, and inspired; then the calling, sending, and inspiration of the Prophets and Apostles were divine. The antecedent is true. Therefore so is the consequent. The consequence of the connection is certain: for either our faith is terminated upon Scripture alone, or there is granted a circular process into infinity, in which faith, since it terminates nowhere, must needs vanish. The assumption could be shown by an induction of all the books, if it were necessary: I will make mention only of one and another. In the books of Moses it is read again and again, And Iehova said to Moses, Say to the people of Israel, etc. Isaiah thus begins his book: Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for Iehova speaks. The beginning of the book of Jeremiah is: The words of Jeremiah, to whom was the word of Iehova in the times of Josiah, etc. Likewise in the New Testament: Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ; and especially in the Epistle to the Galatians: Paul, an Apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. So in the frontispiece of the Epistle of Peter: Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ; and in the second Epistle, chap. 3:2, he says, Be mindful of the words which were spoken beforehand by the holy Prophets, and of the commandment of us, who are the Apostles of the Lord and Savior. Finally, in the frontispiece of the Apocalypse it is said: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must soon be done; and this, having been sent by his Angel, he signified to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, and to whatever he saw. The Papists make an exception: Unless you shall first have believed that these books of the Old and New Testament are divine and canonical, how will you believe with Catholic faith that it is true which is inscribed in the frontispieces of those books? Or do you not believe these things because you believe the Scriptures which assert these things to be divine and canonical? Therefore you first believe those Scriptures to be divine, rather than that from those inscriptions you believe the Prophets and Apostles to have been divinely called, sent, and inspired. Our duplication (twofold reply). The Papists sin in two ways in this objection: First, by hiding a proposition which, although they are eager to gain, yet in this place they cautiously keep silent, namely, From the testimony of the Church alone - or, as Bellarmine speaks in book four On the Word of God, chapter four - we know from no other source than the unwritten tradition of the Church that the Prophetic and Apostolic books are divine. But according to this Papist proposition, that which will terminate our faith will not be Scripture but the Church; and our faith which we have in Scripture will ultimately be resolved into the authority of the Church, and the Church’s faith into itself. This is the mystery of antichristian iniquity, which lies hidden under that Manichean quibble. But in this way that first principle is overthrown into which all true theological

dogmas must at last be resolved: The Lord has spoken. For all theological knowledge, faith, doctrine, and demonstration must be terminated in some last immobile and first truth, about which it is lawful for no one to doubt - which is nothing other than Holy Scripture or the Word of the Lord: because Holy Scripture is the voice of God, and whatever Scripture says, God says. Therefore God calls us back to the Law and to the testimony, Isa. 8. Thus the Church of the Fathers, obeying God, established: Let us not listen to “I say this,” “you say that”; but let us hear, “Thus says the Lord”; as St. Augustine speaks in the book On the Unity of the Church, chapter 3. Second, if the Papist exception be included within the center and spaces of the syllogism, it will be such as this: The prior cannot be believed or proved by the posterior; but to believe that the Prophetic and Apostolic books are divine and canonical is prior; whereas to believe to be true what is written in the frontispieces of those books is posterior. Therefore from the frontispieces of those books, it cannot be believed or proved that those books are divine and canonical. But this Papists’ exception does not refute our argument, nor does it harm [our argument]: for it touches neither the consequence nor the premises. Therefore it stands unmoved. But they deny the conclusion, which kind of disputing, and how fitting it is to true Analytical doctrine, let the Papists see for themselves. But let us nevertheless see in order the premises of the exception. First, we deny the major: for it is false that the prior cannot be believed or proved by the posterior. For what are all demonstrations of the ‘that’ (tou hoti) except a process from the posterior to the prior? What is a demonstrative regress, except that after an unknown cause has been demonstrated from a more known effect, one afterwards demonstrates the same effect by regressing from the same cause? Faith in principles is prior to that in conclusions: and yet through demonstrated conclusions, faith in principles becomes more known. It is necessary to believe that God is, prior to believing that God is a rewarder: and yet from God’s rewarding, which we perceive by sense, the faith that God is becomes more known and is confirmed. It is necessary to believe that God is, prior to believing that the world is ruled by providence: and yet from providence, which is posterior and more known to us, one comes into the knowledge of God, who is prior and more unknown to us. So also in the present matter, the divine inspiration of Scripture is the cause of its truth. Therefore it is to be believed that Scripture is divine, prior to believing that it is true. But when it is unknown to someone that Scripture is divine, will it not be permitted to prove and gather from its constant and immutable truth that it is divine? And so the major of the Papal exception is false. Next, neither is the minor simply true, because it is ambiguous. For prior and posterior are twofold, either by nature or to us. Although faith in the divinity of sacred Scripture is prior by nature to faith in the truth of Scripture: nevertheless, as to us, we first believe them to be true, and posterior to this, to be divine. For unless you believe them to be true, you will never believe them to be divine. But faith in its truth leads into faith in its divinity, not indeed alone and absolutely, but

with other arguments proving the divinity of Scripture cooperating outwardly: and inwardly, especially with the Holy Spirit persuading that this Scripture is not only true, but also divine. The matter will be clearer by the apposition of an example: We believe the epistles of Paul to be truly divine, and Paul to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ, because we believe to be true what is written in those epistles, when we weigh the sublime mysteries of divine things which are contained in them, and other arguments of their divinity, which will be treated afterwards. The Papists rejoin: It can indeed be believed to be true what is written in sacred Scripture, without this being believed first, that it is divine; but not by Catholic faith. Our surrejoinder: This is false; because Catholic faith, as much as pertains to the Canon, has two degrees: faith in its truth and faith in its divinity. The latter indeed is prior by nature, but the former is prior as to us: through the former the Holy Spirit leads us down to the latter. These things concerning the efficient cause of Scripture. If we look at the remaining causes; they are comprehended in the essence of Scripture itself, which consists in matter, form, and end. We join the end here to the internal causes; because sacred Scripture is an instrument, through which we obtain the wisdom of divine things: but the nature and essence of any instrument is constituted most of all in its very end and use, as even the Philosophers acknowledge, such as Jacopo Zabarella in the third book On Methods, chapter 18. Therefore from the essence of Scripture we most firmly gather thus: Whatever scripture contains a doctrine entirely divine in matter, form, and end, that is surely divine: The Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture contains a doctrine entirely divine in matter, form, and end: Therefore, etc. The assumption has three members: the first concerning the matter, the second concerning the form, the third concerning the end of sacred Scripture: which we will explain and prove in order. The matter of sacred Scripture is both the dogmas themselves which are delivered in it, and the words by which they are expressed, which are entirely divine: most of which were unknown to human reason, and were not known in the Church of God except through divine revelation, whether you look at the things or the sentences and words. For the things concerning which the Prophets and Apostles teach surpass human capacity and could have been known by no man unless God had revealed them. For from sacred Scripture alone we have learned that God is one in essence, triune in persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: from sacred Scripture alone we have learned that man, who from the beginning was created pure and blessed, fell from his purity and beatitude through defection from God, and made himself with all his posterity obnoxious to sin and the punishments of sins. From sacred Scripture alone we have learned that God, out of His mere grace, through His only-begotten Son our Lord JESUS CHRIST made man, was going to free us and has freed us from sin and the punishments of sins, and has led us back to true beatitude. From sacred Scripture alone we have learned that there will be a universal resurrection of all the dead and a universal judgment of all men living and dead, and that the elect are to be blessed in eternity, the reprobate to be tormented in perpetuity. In sum, from sacred Scripture alone we have

learned the true and solid knowledge of God and of ourselves, the Gospel concerning Jesus Christ our Mediator, and true and constant consolation against sin, death, and all miseries. The learned Plato did not know these things: the acute Aristotle was ignorant of these things: but God has revealed them to us in sacred Scripture. This John the Baptist testifies when he says, John 1:18: No one has ever seen God: that only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has expounded Him. This Paul testifies, 1 Cor. 2:7 up to the end: we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, that hidden wisdom which God had foreordained before the ages unto our glory, etc. But the character of the sentences, that is, of the words and of the Prophetic and Apostolic style, testifies to those exercised in Scripture and divinely illuminated far more evidently that the sacred books were inspired from Himself by God the author of all wisdom, than the elegance and roundness of the Latin style testifies to those skilled in Ciceronian diction that the books De Officiis and De Oratore were written by Tully, the parent of Latin eloquence. Objection I. The Gentiles also, such as Plato and the Platonists, knew about the holy Trinity, about that eternal Word: whence it is gathered that this doctrine is not proper to sacred Scripture and divine. The antecedent is proved by an induction of several places. Plato, in the second epistle which was written to Dionysius the Tyrant of Syracuse, has a lucid description of the divine nature: peri ton panton basilea pant’ esti kai ekeinou heneka panta, kai ekeino aition hapanton ton kalon. deuteron de peri ta deutera, kai triton peri ta trita, that is, Around the King of all are all things, and for his sake are all things, and he is the cause of all beautiful things: the second around the second things: and the third around the third things. That the mystery of the Sacrosanct Triad is hinted at by Plato in these words, the holy Fathers teach, Justin Martyr in his Apology for the Christians, and Theodoret in On the Cure of Greek Affections. Likewise in the sixth epistle which is written to Hermias, Erastus, and Coriscus, he says: ton ton panton theon hegemon ton te onton kai ton mellonton, tou te hegemonos kai aitiou patera kyrion epomnyntas, that is, calling to witness God, the Emperor of all things, both which are and which will be, and the Lord Father of that Emperor and cause. The same says in the Epinomis: ton kosmon etaxe logos ho panton theiotatos, That Word most divine of all arranged the world. Similarly Numenius the Pythagorean says in those things which he wrote concerning the Good: demiourgountos theou chrenai nomizein patera ton proton theon, that is, It is necessary to think that the Father of the Maker God is the first God. Amelius the Platonist says concerning the Son of God: kai houtos ara en ho logos, kath’ hon aei onta ta ginomena egineto, that is, And this therefore was that Word according to whom the things that were made always were. Plotinus and others have similar things. I answer: We concede that these things exist in Plato and his disciples: but they did not have them from themselves, but partly drew them from sacred Scripture, which the writings of Galen and Amelius testify was read by them, and partly perceived them in the Academies of Phoenicia and Egypt, in which Plato also was conversant. Objection II. Plato and other Philosophers delivered many things concerning beatitude and concerning other things agreeably to the Prophets and Apostles: Therefore the doctrine concerning these things is not proper to sacred Scripture and divine. The antecedent is proved by an induction of several places. In Plato’s Theaetetus, page 176 of the first volume, of the edition of Henri

Estienne, of the year 1587, the beatitude of man is homoiosis theo kata to dynaton, homoiosis de dikaion kai hosion meta phroneseos genesthai, that is, that we be assimilated and conformed to God as closely as will be possible. But justice and holiness joined with wisdom assimilates us to God. And a little after: theos oudame oudamos adikos, all’ hos hoion te dikaiotatos, kai ouk estin auto homoioteron ouden e hos an hemon au genetai hoti dikaiotatos. peri touto kai he hos alethos deinotes andros, that is, God is nowhere in any way unjust, but as much as can be done is most just (that is, He is infinitely just); but nothing is more similar to God, than when someone from among us men is as just as possible. In this truly also the true excellence of man is engaged. Likewise, that God ordained time with the world is taught in the third volume of the works of Plato in the book of Timaeus Locrus On the Soul of the World: and that God will dissolve the world when He wills is delivered in the same book of Timaeus Locrus On the Soul of the World and in Plato’s Timaeus: that the world is ruled by God’s providence, in the Apology of Socrates. I answer: Plato borrowed these and similar things from Moses and the Hebrews, as Justin Martyr teaches in his Apology for the Christians, Clement of Alexandria in many places, and Theodoret On the Cure of Greek Affections likewise in several places. Whence Plato was called an Atticizing Moses, as Clement of Alexandria reports in the first book of the Stromata, page 148 of the Commelin edition, and Theodoret in the second discourse On the Cure of Greek Affections, page 37, Commelin edition, from Numenius the Pythagorean. Therefore from the matter of sacred Scripture we argue thus. Whatever Scripture contains dogmas proceeding immediately from God, both as to things and as to words, that is certainly divine: But sacred Scripture contains such dogmas: Therefore it is truly divine. These things concerning the matter of sacred Scripture. Its form is the first truth, immutably most holy, most just, and most perfect, which teaches nothing profane, unjust, or imperfect, and leaves untaught nothing holy, just, or perfect. Concerning it Christ says, John 17:17: Sanctify them by Your truth: Your word is truth. And Paul, Col. 3:5 [1:5]: Because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before through the word of truth, i.e., of the Gospel. Whence sacred Scripture is called the first truth, both because God first revealed it to the Church through the Prophets and Apostles: and because it is true simply and without any exception and condition of agreement with another. For we believe sacred Scripture to be true through itself and on account of itself: but the Apostles’ Creed, likewise the Nicene, and other creeds and ecclesiastical writings drawn up by pious men after the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture, are judged true insofar as they agree with the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture. But that truth of sacred Scripture is both of the things which Scripture itself teaches, and of the speech enunciated concerning the things. And it is considered in two ways: for either the whole or some part of the whole is considered both simply in itself and comparatively with natural truth: or some parts are considered with others among themselves by a just comparison.

If the whole is considered in itself, it is in all ways entire and pure. Similarly if any part of the whole truth of the Scriptures is considered simply in itself, it will be found no less immutably true, holy, just, and perfect in any part, than in itself as a whole. But if it is compared with our natural truth, it exceeds it by far in integrity and purity: so that we may so much the more know and preach the amplitude of divine grace, which has revealed to us the truth which is above nature. But if finally a comparison of some parts with others among themselves is instituted, there appears the most sweet panharmony of all and a perpetual agreement, such that the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles with the Prophets, of the later Prophets with the earlier, of the earlier with Moses, of Moses with the Patriarchs, and finally of the Patriarchs with the first manifestation of God made in Creation and in Paradise, agree in all things and exactly. From the form (forma) of Sacred Scripture we argue thus: Whatever Scripture is the first truth, immutably most holy, most just, and most perfect, that is certainly divine. But the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture is the first truth, etc. Therefore it is certainly divine. This concerning the form of Sacred Scripture. The end (finis) of the same is that to which no doctrine except a divine one can lead without any error. It is indeed twofold. I. The illustration of the glory of God alone, so that he who glories, may glory in the Lord (Jer. 9:24; 1 Cor. 1, last verse). II. The solid and eternal consolation and salvation of our souls, because Sacred Scripture was written also for this end, that through its consolation, having hope, and believing in the Son of God, we might obtain eternal life (Rom. 15:4; John 20:31: But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life through his name). From this we gather thus: Whatever Scripture delivers a doctrine attributing glory entirely to God alone, and peculiarly destined by God for the solid and eternal consolation and salvation of our souls, that is certainly divine. But Sacred Scripture delivers such a doctrine: Therefore it is truly divine. There are two members of the major premise: the first can be denied, therefore we prove it by the testimony of Christ, who says in John 7:18: He who speaks from himself, seeks his own glory: but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him, he is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him. The same Christ the Lord, in order to prove that his doctrine was divine, used this very argument in John 5:41 and following: I do not seek glory from men. But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me: if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, when you seek glory from one another, and do not seek that glory which comes from God alone? And chapter 8, verse 50: But I do not seek my own glory: and verse 54: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. Similarly Paul, in order to teach that his doctrine is divine, uses this very argument in Galatians 1:10: For do I now persuade human or divine things? or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ. The same is confirmed by the opposition of contraries: Whatever doctrine is

prepared for the glory of men and not of God alone, that is by no means divine; such was the doctrine of the Pharisees, of whom the Evangelist John says in chapter 12, verse 43: They loved the glory of men rather than the glory of God. Therefore that doctrine is truly divine, which seeks the glory of God alone, and indeed entirely. This is the general mark and rule by which divine doctrine is distinguished from human. The second member of the major premise is beyond controversy. As pertains to the confirmation of the minor premise, it was shown a little before that the doctrine of Sacred Scripture vindicates glory entirely to God alone, and is peculiarly destined by God for the solid and eternal consolation and salvation of our souls. But for a fuller confirmation, this also must be referred to. That Sacred Scripture asserts glory entirely to God alone, is also evident from this, that it preaches and celebrates God as the unique author of all things, which could be shown by an induction of all the chapters of the Old and New Testament. It ascribes to God the creation of heaven and earth and of all things that are in them: it ascribes to God the government and preservation of all and singular things: it ascribes to God the calling, redemption, and sanctification of the Church: it ascribes our salvation to God alone, and in sum it ascribes to God as the unique author all good things which have been, are, and will be. But that Sacred Scripture is destined by God for supplying us with solid consolation and leading us to eternal salvation, could similarly be shown by an induction from the Old and New Testament. For Scripture teaches everywhere that we sinners are received into grace and please God and have eternal life on account of the most perfect obedience and righteousness of Christ imputed to us: then it supplies a manifold and constant consolation against miseries and calamities of every kind, and against death itself, which surpasses every consolation sought from Philosophy.

The SECOND GROUND (ratio) is taken from the effects of the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture. Whatever powerfully effects those things which can be effected only by divine power, that must certainly be divine. But the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture powerfully effects those things which can be effected only by divine power; Therefore. The major premise is necessary: because such as are the proper effects of any thing, such is the thing itself. The minor premise is proved by an induction of the effects of Scripture. For Sacred Scripture illuminates the eyes of the mind with a saving knowledge of divine things: it converts the soul to God: it fills the heart with solid and constant joy: and finally, it provides true and everlasting beatitude. David proposes this fourfold effect in Psalm 19, verses 8 and 9: The doctrine of Jehovah is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Jehovah is true, bringing wisdom to the simple.

The statutes of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of Jehovah is pure, enlightening the eyes. And in verse 12: Then you warn me, your servant, by them; in keeping them there is great reward. IT IS OBJECTED I. Heretics, in accordance with their perfidy, use Sacred Scripture against the faith. Therefore it does not illuminate the eyes of the mind with a saving knowledge of divine things. I ANSWER: There is a fallacy of accident in the antecedent: for heretics abuse Sacred Scripture by accident (per accidens), just as if someone were to severely injure himself with medical instruments, which certainly were instituted not for wounding, but for healing; St. Augustine uses this simile in his second volume, epistle 141. Nor are heresies built up from Scripture otherwise than as a windy and vain wild fig tree springs up from the pit of a mild, rich, and most sweet olive, as Tertullian says in his Prescription against Heretics. II. Sacred Scripture is obscure: Therefore it does not illuminate the eyes of the mind. I ANSWER: The antecedent is false when taken absolutely (simpliciter): but it is true in a qualified sense (secundum quid). For we willingly confess that some things in Scripture are obscure, but nevertheless, in those things which are openly set down in it are found all those things which contain faith and the moral life, as St. Augustine says in book two of On Christian Doctrine, chapter 9. III. The Law works wrath: Therefore Scripture does not rejoice the heart. I ANSWER: I deny the consequence, because more is concluded than the antecedent bears. It should only have been inferred: Therefore the Law does not rejoice the heart, which we concede when rightly understood. For the Law, which in itself (per se) would have filled the heart with joy if it had been kept, works wrath by accident (per accidens), not by its own fault, but by ours. IV. Scripture kills: Therefore it does not rejoice hearts, nor does it confer beatitude. The antecedent is proved from 2 Corinthians 3: The letter kills. Scripture is the letter: Therefore Scripture kills. I ANSWER: First, the major proposition suffers from the fallacy of accident: for the letter kills, not in itself, but by accident: but in itself it would have been life-giving, according to that word, He who does them shall live by them (Gal. 3; Rom. 10). Second, there is a fallacy from a qualified statement (secundum quid) to an absolute statement (simpliciter) in the minor premise: for Scripture is the letter not absolutely, but in a qualified sense, namely with respect to the Law written on tablets, and its ministry separated from the regenerating and life-giving Spirit: but not with respect to the Gospel, which is not letter, but spirit in the souls of the elect. Moreover, the Law is called the killing letter and the Gospel the life-giving spirit for this reason, because not the Law, but the Gospel is properly the instrument of God through which the Holy Spirit is given who gives us life, and the Holy Spirit uses the ministry not of the Law, but of the Gospel to regenerate us,

according to that word in Galatians 3:2: This only I would learn from you, Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by faith (that is, by the preaching of the doctrine of faith perceived through hearing)? And verse 5: He therefore who supplies the Spirit to you, and works miracles among you, does he do it by the works of the Law, or by faith perceived through hearing? From the form (forma) of Sacred Scripture we argue thus: Whatever Scripture is the first truth, immutably most holy, most just, and most perfect, that is certainly divine. But the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture is the first truth, etc. Therefore it is certainly divine. So much for the form of Sacred Scripture. The END (finis) of the same is that to which no doctrine except a divine one can lead without any error. It is indeed twofold. I. The illustration of the glory of God alone, that he who glories, may glory in the Lord (Jer. 9:24; 1 Cor. 1:31). II. The solid and eternal consolation and salvation of our souls: because Sacred Scripture was also written for this end, that through its consolation, having hope, and believing in the Son of God, we might obtain eternal life (Rom. 15:4; John 20:31: But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name). Thence

THE THIRD REASON is drawn from the subject of Scripture. Whatever teaches about divine things without any error and defect in a divine manner, that is truly divine. But Sacred Scripture teaches about divine things without any error and defect in a divine manner. Therefore. OBJECTION I. The decrees of Councils, Creeds, Confessions, Catechisms, and the theological writings of pious Doctors also teach about divine things, and yet they are not therefore divine: Therefore neither is Sacred Scripture therefore divine. RESPONSE. I limit and distinguish the antecedent. The decrees of Councils and the other aforementioned ecclesiastical writings teach about divine things, but with words and phrases proceeding from human counsel to explain those divine things, and often not without error, nor without defect, and therefore not in a divine manner. Therefore they are not divine properly (κυρίως), in their nature and origin, although they can be called divine catachrestically (καταχρηστικῶς) and according to a certain image, namely insofar as they agree with Sacred Scripture. But Sacred Scripture teaches about divine things in a divine manner, and therefore it is divine simply (ἁπλῶς), in its nature and origin.

OBJECTION II. If Sacred Scripture is divine for this reason, that it teaches about divine things: then Metaphysics will also be divine, because it teaches about divine things. But this is absurd. Therefore the former is as well. RESPONSE. The conditional proposition (connexum) is false on account of the error of false identity, because Sacred Scripture and Metaphysics do not treat of the same things: for the former treats of things that are truly divine and divinely revealed, while the latter treats of those things which the Philosophers opine to be divine, being deceived by natural reasoning, when they are not divine. For the Philosophers have wandered very far from the true God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, holding as gods those who are not,

THE FOURTH GROUND is taken from the adjuncts of Scripture. Whatever Scripture is the most ancient and the first; full of mind; hated by Satan and by evil men, and yet approved and received by all nations and peoples, even with the devil and the world resisting; preserved by admirable divine providence for so many ages amidst the ruins of kingdoms and savage persecutions; sealed with the blood of innumerable martyrs; whose worshippers and defenders have been marvelously saved by God, rescued from dangers and endowed with rewards, while its enemies and despisers have been cruelly punished by God; and which also remains forever, etc.: that, indeed, is divine. Yet the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture is of such a kind. Therefore, etc. This fifth ground has several members, each of which we will prove. First, that concerning antiquity is proved thus: Whatever Scripture conveys the most ancient and first religion, which could only have been from God, that is divine. For the oldest and the first is the truest. The most ancient and first Scripture conveys the most ancient and first religion, which could only have been from God: Therefore the most ancient and first Scripture is divine. That Sacred Scripture is the most ancient and first is shown by comparison with other writers. It is established that Moses was the first writer, who alone described the beginning of the world and the things done from the beginning; from whom all the others who wrote about the origins of things drew. Josephus, moreover, in the second book against Apion the Alexandrian grammarian, cites testimonies worthy of remembrance from the most ancient writers: from which it can be gathered that, by the consensus of the Gentiles themselves, the teaching delivered in the Law was famous from the earliest ages. Objection I. Egyptian theology is the oldest, as many authors attest, such as Hermes Trismegistus, Plato, Herodotus, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus.

Therefore, from antiquity, the divinity of Sacred Scripture cannot be proven. Response. The antecedent is false; unless perhaps one chooses to believe the Egyptians, who extend their antiquity six thousand years before the creation of the world. The cited witnesses derive what they claim from the Egyptians: therefore they are not reliable in this matter. But since the prattle of the Egyptians has always been a joke even to secular persons, there is no reason for us to labor in refuting it. Objection II. New revelations have been made from time to time by God: and those things handed down by Christ incarnate and the Apostles are even later than the writings of the Gentiles. Therefore, Sacred Scripture is not the most ancient and the first. Response. This is reasoning from something said in a qualified sense to the absolute. New revelations have indeed been made by God from time to time, but not absolutely and entirely new in substance and words, but only in words, and so in a qualified sense. For the sum of Law and Gospel from the beginning was the same as it is now, nor did God ever deliver to his Church anything contrary or different from it; but only otherwise. For the things that were at first handed down more briefly and obscurely have, as time passed, been declared more and more by more words and clearer sentences. Thus, Christ and the Apostles taught nothing new, but only illuminated the old Scripture, just as Paul says, that he said nothing except what the Prophets and Moses predicted would happen, Acts 26:22. The second member of the fifth ground, which is about the majesty of Sacred Scripture, is evident: first, because it amazes us more by the dignity of its content than by the grace of its words; second, because even the Prophets and Apostles have a splendid mode of speaking, exceeding the human mode, and holding all, as it were, constrained to themselves. Objection I. The writings of Demosthenes, Cicero, Plato, and Aristotle, and other Gentile orators and philosophers also display a certain majesty: therefore from this one cannot infer the divinity of Sacred Scripture. Response. A distinction must be made: the writings of Gentile authors display a certain majesty, but not a divine one; and, when compared to the majesty of Sacred Scripture, it vanishes. Objection II. In Sacred Scripture there is great simplicity and humility of style: therefore it is not full of majesty. Response. I concede the antecedent with a limitation. In Sacred Scripture there is great simplicity and humility of style, but first, not everywhere, for in some Prophets and Apostles there is an elegant and polished style and surpassing the eloquence of all Gentile writers. Then, Sacred Scripture, in its humble and simple words, exerts divine power, profoundly affecting the souls of men, which no other writings do. Therefore, this simplicity, so powerful and so effective, increases the majesty of Scripture more. Proof of the third member: Whatever Satan and evil men vehemently hate and wish to extinguish must come from God. The reason for this proposition is plain: for Satan and evil men who are incited and driven on by Satan are alien to God; therefore, those things that are of God and most pleasing to him they pursue with bitterest hatred, but on the contrary, they love and desire those things which are not God’s, which God hates and forbids. Whence also they hate and long to

destroy the divine religion, but greedily and zealously seize and ardently defend whatever religions are opposed to God. To this pertains that saying of Christ, John 15:19: “If you were of the world, the world would love what is its own; but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you;” and verse 23: “He who hates me, hates my Father also.” Likewise that of Paul, Romans 8:7: “The mind of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God; indeed, it cannot.” But Satan and evil men vehemently hate and long to extinguish the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture. The certainty of this proposition is confirmed both by the sad testimony of experience and by the necessity of that hatred. The testimony of experience is all the cruel and bloody persecutions which have been endured and are even now endured by those who wish to follow no other religion than that revealed in the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures. Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, ordered the sacred books to be sought out and burnt everywhere. The Pope of Rome, imitating him as a type, orders the sacred Bibles found among the laity to be burnt together with them: and the history of the martyrs of the previous, the sixteenth, century testifies that the Papists have done the same. And indeed it is necessary that the Scripture be hated by the impious, for obvious reasons: first, because the exact rectitude of Scripture is repugnant to the depraved and corrupt nature of Satan and the wicked; second, because that Scripture reproves the malice of Satan and evil men, truly shows them their own misery, takes away all matter of glorying except in God alone, and by indicating even the hidden vices of their hearts, wounds their consciences. To this applies the saying of Christ, John 3:19-20: “And this is the judgment, that light has come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” Now the voice of Scripture is the voice of that Light which came into the world. Therefore, since Sacred Scripture has been exposed to the bitterest hatred of Satan and evil men, it is truly divine. Objection I. Satan also hates evil men and wishes their ruin, and evil men also hate each other: therefore the hatred of Satan and evil men against something is not a sure argument of its divine origin. Response. The implied connective proposition, omitted from the objection, is denied. For Satan hates all men insofar as they are the work of God, which he wishes destroyed, whether the men themselves be pious or impious. And evil men hate other evil men at Satan’s instigation, who also wishes the destruction of evil men themselves, insofar as they are God’s work, as has already been said. Objection II. Sacred Scripture is also cited by Satan and evil men to confirm their opinions: therefore they do not hate it. Response. I make a distinction in the antecedent: it is indeed cited by them, but in bad faith and with the same spirit that criminals cite laws when condemned to punishment, who would prefer all laws were abolished or had never been enacted.

Objection III. Even unbelievers have read and magnified Sacred Scripture. Therefore they have not hated it nor wished it destroyed. The antecedent is proved: for Plato in the Phaedo confesses that he drew the best precepts of wisdom from the barbarians; by barbarians he means Moses and the Prophets and others who followed the Sacred Scriptures. And Amelius the Platonic philosopher praises the Gospel written by John, although he called him a barbarian after the Greek manner, as Cyril of Alexandria relates in the eighth book against Julian the Apostate, page seventy-two of the third volume of Cyril’s Works in the Basel edition by Cratander in Latin. Likewise, the Emperor Alexander Severus valued so highly the saying of Christ, “What you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to another,” that he ordered it to be inscribed on the walls and proclaimed by a herald and kept as law inviolably. Response. Nothing follows from purely particular instances. For although it must be admitted that a few Gentiles, somewhat more moderate, praised certain things in Sacred Scripture, yet the vast majority hated it and wished it abolished. What the judgment of Galen the physician, likewise that Julian the Apostate, and even the Papists about Sacred Scripture was, is well known. Illustration and proof of the fourth member: That to which not one city, not one nation alone cooperated in receiving and embracing, but as far and wide as the world extends, it was approved and accepted by a holy alliance of various nations, who had nothing else in common among themselves, must indeed be divine. But of Sacred Scripture this is truly to be affirmed: for it was not one city, not one people, but all nations, among whom there was such great diversity of religions, who suddenly with a kind of common and general consensus approved and accepted it: therefore, it is divine. Illustration and proof of the fifth member: Whatever is marvelously defended by God and preserved against all enemies, even the most powerful, is manifestly divine. But Sacred Scripture is marvelously defended by God and preserved against all enemies, even the most powerful: therefore, it is divine. The force and evidence of the major proposition is indicated as sufficient even by the confession of infidels, as in the statement of Gamaliel the Pharisee, Acts 5:38, 39: “If this plan or this work is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow it. You might even be found opposing God.” The reason for this is manifest; for if something is thought by men to have no strength at all, and yet stands invincible against both external and internal enemies, terrible with number and power, from such an unequal contest it can be known with certainty that what remains unconquerable cannot have originated otherwise than from God. The minor proposition is certain from the testimony of Scripture. For Paul says, 2 Corinthians 4:7-9: “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the excellency of the power may Illustration and proof of the sixth member: That for the sake of whose doctrine and religion, the Prophets, Apostles, and countless other martyrs have cheerfully and courageously endured the most bitter torments and most cruel death with unshaken constancy and without refusal, that, I say, must be divine.

But for the doctrine and religion of Sacred Scripture, they have done this: Therefore, it is necessary that Sacred Scripture be divine. The major proposition is most certain: for no one who is of sound mind would wish to pour out and lose his life, and all things most dear to him, in order to bear witness and confirm as divine that which he professes to be divine, unless he were persuaded in his heart and certain that it is divine. Nor could the weight of horrible persecutions and torments be borne in such human weakness unless martyrs were upheld by divine strength. The minor is confirmed by sacred and ecclesiastical history, in which are recounted countless examples of martyrs: it is further confirmed in our own times by experience. Therefore, we would not receive the prophetic and apostolic Scripture, sealed and ratified by such a pledge - namely, the blood of so many holy men - with certain and unshaken persuasion as divine, unless this were the case. It is objected. Gentiles and heretics too are said to be martyrs, as those who have gone to their death for their teaching: for example, Socrates at Athens, George the Cappadocian at Alexandria, the Arian bishop, and many Anabaptists; yet their teaching is not divine. Therefore, from martyrdoms the divinity of Scripture cannot be gathered. Response. First, the antecedent is false. For Gentiles and heretics are not martyrs in the sense that we use the term martyrs, which is for witnesses of the divine truth revealed to us in Scripture: For it is not the suffering, but the cause, that makes the martyr. Next, even if it be granted that Socrates and others of fanatical character were, or are, martyrs, yet this objection commits the fallacy of false equivalence: for, first, Gentiles and heretics do not have the multitude of martyrs that is in the Church; second, among Gentiles and heretics there is not such sober and steadfast zeal for the glory of God but a certain fanatical intemperance and obstinacy; third, among Gentiles and heretics, that cheerfulness in undergoing suffering is not seen which bears witness to security of conscience and joy of heart in God; but in most of our martyrs, so great was the cheerfulness that they even offered themselves to death without fear, something they would not have done unless they were furnished with divine confirmation and consolation, as is shown in the examples of the Maccabean brothers, Ptolemaeus, and Lucius in Justin Martyr’s First Apology for the Christians, of Christians freely flocking to the tribunal of Antoninus the Pius and desiring to suffer for Christ, also the Orthodox of Edessa under the Arian Emperor Valens, and countless others. Fourth, Gentiles and heretics suffer as defenders of impious doctrine, convicted of their errors; but our martyrs, when no falsehood is shown in their confession, are dragged to sufferings by tyrannical persecutors, since no falsehood can be demonstrated in our Confession, because it is the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles. It is again objected. If from martyrdoms it is gathered that Sacred Scripture is truly divine, then the certainty of it depends on men. But the consequent is absurd: therefore so is the antecedent.

Response. I deny the consequence of the connection, and the reason is, because in martyrdoms for Sacred Scripture and its doctrine, we do not look merely at the testimony of holy men, but chiefly at the testimony of God, who grants to the martyrs that they may not hesitate to face death steadfastly for the truth of Scripture, according to that word of Paul (Philippians 1): “To you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him but also to suffer for him.” Illustration and proof of the seventh member: That whose worshipers and defenders are marvelously preserved by God, rescued from dangers and adorned with rewards, that is truly divine. But the worshipers and defenders of Sacred Scripture are marvelously preserved by God, rescued from dangers, and adorned with rewards: Therefore, etc. The major is evident by the confession of all. The minor is proven both by testimonies of Scripture and by examples of the faithful who embrace and follow Sacred Scripture. Such testimonies are: Psalm 1 - blessed is the man whose delight is in the Law of the Lord, and who meditates on his Law day and night. For he is like a tree planted by streams of water that gives its fruit in season, whose leaf does not wither, and whatever he does prospers. Psalm 19:12 states that there is great reward in the observance of God’s commandments. Psalm 119 is full of such testimonies. Galatians 6:16: “Whoever walks by this rule, peace will be upon them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” There are examples in kings, princes, and other faithful. Of kings it is said generally in Deuteronomy 17:18-20: When the king sits on the throne of his kingdom, let him write for himself a copy of this law in a book from what is before the Levitical priests: and it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to observe all the words of this law, and to do these statutes: so that his heart be not lifted above his brothers, nor turn aside from this command to the right or to the left: that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his sons in the midst of Israel. Special examples are David, Josiah, Hezekiah, and others. To Joshua, the Lord says (Joshua 1:7-8): “Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the Law which Moses my servant commanded you: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may succeed wherever you go. This book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it: for then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you will have success.” This is confirmed by the whole book of Joshua, in which Joshua’s prosperity is described. The same is confirmed by other examples, such as Daniel and his three friends, also Nehemiah, the Jews preserved from utter destruction (πανωλεθρεία, “complete extermination”) under Ahasuerus, husband of Esther, the Maccabees, Constantine the Great, Theodosius the Great, Theodosius the Younger (who copied the New Testament with his own hand), Charlemagne, Alfonso the Great King of Aragon and Sicily (who read through the whole Bible with the Ordinary Gloss ten times); all of whom were fortunate in their military campaigns, were delivered by God from their enemies, and adorned with great victories.

It is objected. Many who were devoted to Sacred Scripture have not been equally fortunate, as David himself, who was driven from his kingdom by his son Absalom and suffered other troubles; Daniel and his companions were in exile. Therefore, the minor premise is not true. Response. This argument goes from a qualified statement to an unqualified one. Many devoted to Sacred Scripture are not fortunate - namely, either when they do not obey Sacred Scripture and depart from God’s commandments, as sometimes happened to David and to the Jews carried off into Babylonian exile; or they are not fortunate in human judgment, even though they are blessed before God, as those who suffer persecution for confession of the heavenly truth, like the martyrs; but many of whom God gloriously delivers, as Daniel’s companions from the flames of the Babylonian furnace, Daniel from the lions’ den, and other faithful from other dangers. It is further objected. The worshipers and defenders of the religions of Gentiles and heretics were also fortunate; therefore, from the happiness of the worshipers and defenders of Sacred Scripture the divinity of Scripture cannot be inferred. Response. First, the antecedent is false. Even if Gentiles and heretics have seemed fortunate, yet that happiness was neither true and solid nor lasting. Second, even if it be granted that they were fortunate, yet from this it cannot be inferred that their religion was divine, both because their religion lacked other indubitable arguments proving its divinity (for outward happiness alone is not sufficient evidence of true religion, nor do we rely on it alone, but together with other arguments); and because God sometimes uses Gentiles and heretics to chastise the Church, so that he may bring it to repentance from sins, as many examples in the book of Judges, Kings, and Chronicles attest. Illustration and proof of the eighth member: That whose enemies and despisers are severely punished by God in this life and the life to come, that is indeed divine. But the enemies and despisers of Sacred Scripture are severely punished by God in this life and the next. Therefore, Sacred Scripture is divine. The major is beyond controversy, even by the confession of the Gentiles. The minor is confirmed both by testimonies of Scripture and by examples. The testimonies are these: Psalm 1:4 - 5: “The ungodly are not so, but are like chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore, the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.” Psalm 2:12: “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.” Matthew 10:14 - 15: “Whoever does not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.” John 12:48: “He who rejects me and does not receive my words has that which judges him: the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.” But Sacred Scripture is the word of Christ, delivered to the Church through the Prophets and Apostles. Examples of the enemies and despisers of Sacred Scripture severely punished by God in this life and to be punished in the next are as numerous as the tyrants and stubborn persecutors of the divine religion prescribed in Sacred Scripture; reprobate men who have opposed the word of God preached in the world: as the first world, which, rejecting and

mocking at the word of Christ proclaimed by Noah, perished in the universal flood (Genesis 7; 1 Peter 3:19 - 20; 2 Peter 2:5); the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, reduced to ashes with their inhabitants by fire and brimstone from heaven (Genesis 19; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7); Dathan, Korah, and Abiram with their followers (Numbers 16); Jeroboam king of Israel with his posterity, Ahab, Jezebel, Sennacherib, Manasseh, Nebuchadnezzar, Haman, Antiochus Epiphanes, Herod, Elymas the Magician, Nero, Domitian, Commodus, Maximinus, Decius, Valerian, Aurelian, Diocletian, Maximian, Magnentius, Julian the Apostate, etc.; likewise, Capernaum, Bethsaida, and the city of Jerusalem destroyed by the Romans, etc. It is objected: The enemies and despisers of Sacred Scripture flourish; therefore, they are not punished. Response. This is an argument from a qualified to an unqualified statement. The enemies flourish, namely, for a short time, and only some: but their brief happiness is often followed in this life by calamity, and always by the most miserable and eternal destruction; and many enemies are removed from this life with tragic examples. II. The enemies and despisers of Sacred Scripture for the most part flourish; therefore, Sacred Scripture is not divine. Response. This is an argument from a non-cause as if it were a cause; for they flourish sometimes and for a time not because they are the adversaries of a non-divine thing, but for other reasons, of which the first is that by their temporary prosperity the faith and patience of the godly may be more exercised and tested; the second, that they may be given time for repentance; the third, that as they abuse the long-suffering of God, so much the more just and severe punishment may finally be inflicted on them, as in Psalm 37, 52, 56, 57, 58, and Romans 2:4, 5. III. Not all enemies and despisers of Sacred Scripture have tragic ends; therefore, they are not punished by God. Response. First, nothing follows from mere particulars: “Some are not punished, therefore none.” Second, the argument moves from a qualified to an unqualified statement. Not all have tragic ends, that is, in this life: therefore, not at all. they are punished. For although certain persons are not removed from this life by tragic examples, nevertheless they do not escape eternal punishments; and since in this life God avenges himself on very many, he sufficiently shows what ought to be thought concerning the rest. IV. They are not punished for this reason, that is, for their opposition to and contempt of Sacred Scripture, but for other crimes: therefore from this it cannot be concluded that Scripture is divine. Response. The antecedent is false: for they are punished by God both for their opposition and contempt of Sacred Scripture and for other crimes; as Sedechias, king of the Jews, who scorned and burned the prophecies of Jeremiah; as Antiochus Epiphanes, who took care that all the copies of Sacred Scripture which he could find were burned. Illustration and proof of the ninth member. Whatever remains forever is undoubtedly from God; Sacred Scripture remains forever: therefore, etc.

The major premise is most certain in itself, since no one fails to acknowledge that nothing can persist forever unless it proceeds from the author of eternity. The minor is proven by these testimonies: Isaiah 40:8, “The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God stands forever.” 1 Peter 1:25, “The word of the Lord endures forever; and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” This word is none other, nor can it be, than that which has been consigned to the Sacred codex.

Thus far for the fourth ground: the fifth now follows, from dissenting considerations. Whatever Scripture has not proceeded from men as men, nor is it subject to the authority of any creature (so that it is not permissible even for the angels themselves - let alone for men - to add anything to it or take anything away, or change anything at all therein; and to which neither antiquity, nor custom, nor multitude, nor human wisdom, nor judgments, nor prejudices, nor edicts of kings and princes, nor any decrees, nor councils, nor visions, nor miracles may be opposed; which also contains no error, admits no falsehood; and cannot be removed or destroyed by Satan or the world), that truly is divine. Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture is such: Therefore, etc. Objection I. The prophets and apostles were men; Sacred Scripture proceeded from the prophets and apostles; therefore, it proceeded from men as men. Response. The consequent is denied, because more is inferred than the premises support: for the only proper conclusion is, “Therefore, it proceeded from men.” That, rightly understood, is granted. For Scripture did proceed from the prophets and apostles, but not insofar as they were men, but insofar as they were extraordinary ministers of God, divinely sanctified, to whom the Holy Spirit immediately inspired the Scripture, and through whom He revealed it to the Church; so that, properly speaking, Scripture did not come from men, but from God through men. Objection II. In Matthew 27:9, something which is of Zechariah is attributed to Jeremiah - the prophecy concerning the thirty pieces of silver for which Christ was valued. Therefore, Sacred Scripture contains an error. Response. The passage of Matthew 27:9 involves a homonymy in the name “Jeremiah,” by which is not meant Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, who began to prophesy in the time of Josiah, but Zechariah, who was also called Jeremiah - just as it was customary in the Jewish people for many to have two names, especially when the two names shared a similarity, either in the etymology of the words or the signification of the things: as Jonathan and Nathanael, Uzziah and Azariah, and the like. In fact, the name “Jeremiah” and “Zechariah” share the same meaning, as if one should say, “a man who exalts God,” or “one who recalls and celebrates God.”

The sixth ground is taken from arguments by comparison. Whatever Scripture is identical with the preached Word of God, and far surpasses philosophy and all other doctrines and disciplines, whose authority is greater than the Church’s, indeed than that of all angels and men, and even than miracles; which is sharper than any two-edged sword, reaching even to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and which is like the mould into which we are cast that we may be conformed to its pattern, &c. - it is indeed divine. But Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture is such as this. Therefore, &c. The major is evident in itself. The minor proposition is clear from what follows: that Sacred Scripture is the same as the preached Word of God is certain, since the prophets and apostles did not preach one thing and write another, but one and the same; as Irenaeus testifies, who in the third book against heresies, chapter one, says: “We have not known the arrangement of our salvation through others than those through whom the Gospel has come to us, which indeed they then preached, but afterward, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith.” Other parts are clear from these testimonies. Deuteronomy 4:6,7,8: “This is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples: who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people!’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to them as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call on him? And what great nation is there that has statutes and righteous judgments as all this law which I set before you this day?” And 1 Corinthians 1:20: “Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” And chapter 2, verse 6, and the following, up to the end of the chapter. And Galatians 1:8: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel to you contrary to what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” To which words Chrysostom says in his Commentary on the first chapter to the Galatians: “Paul (indeed, when I say Paul, I mean Christ himself, for he was the one acting in Paul’s mind) even prefers the Scriptures to angels descending from heaven, and that very fittingly: for however great angels may be, they are nevertheless servants and ministers. But all the Scriptures have not come to us from servants, but from the Lord God of all.” Isaiah 8:19: “When they say to you, ‘Consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter,’ should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?” Likewise Deuteronomy 13:1 - 4: “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you, and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods

Up to this point, we have received divine testimonies and most solid reasons drawn from Sacred Scripture, from which it is certain to every believer that Sacred Scripture is truly divine, that is, the Word of God. Human testimonies now follow. Human testimonies likewise are twofold: one from the Church, the other from those who are outside the Church. The testimony and authority of the Church in asserting which books are truly divine and canonical we by no means despise, but receive and embrace in a fitting manner, so that we ascribe to it reverently only as much as ought to be ascribed. When we name the testimony or authority of the Church, we mean the historical assertion or testimony of the Catholic and orthodox primitive Church before its successors, and also of this Church now, among the simpler and the unbelievers, that Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture is truly divine. Some call this ecclesiastical tradition. The Romanists, on the other hand, understand by it an external approbation made by the Church, from which, they claim, Sacred Scripture derives all the authority it possesses, on account of which it is held and accepted as divine, and declare that it holds all this status from the Church. Further, we mean the testimony of the Church not of a false and heretical one - such as is that of those who boast themselves to be the Church when they are not, namely the Romanists now for several centuries, that is, the Roman Pontiffs, Cardinals, pseudo-bishops of Rome and other prelates, in short all who acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as the head of the universal Church and adhere to him - but of the true and orthodox Church, which acknowledges Christ Jesus alone as its sole head, and is dedicated to him alone. The testimony of this true Church is twofold, namely, of the ancient and of the current Church. By the name of the ancient Church, we here understand those faithful who at the beginning received Sacred Scripture from the Prophets and Apostles themselves, and having received it in this way, handed it down to their posterity as if from hand to hand, and openly set forth as on a pillar the testimony of God, of Scripture, of the Prophets and Apostles concerning Scripture. The testimony of that Church is commended by Tertullian in his book on Prescriptions Against Heretics, chapter twenty-one; and in book four Against Marcion, chapter five; and by Augustine in volume six, in the book against the letter of the Manichee which they call “The Foundation,” chapter five. By the name of the current Church, we understand the faithful who are now living, who testify and will testify to the younger about Scripture the same as the ancient Church testified before them.

This testimony of the Church is very useful to us: for it serves two purposes. First, so that we lend our ears to Sacred Scripture, that we may read and consider it; second, so that we may form some good opinion about this Scripture, even if not a firm faith that it truly is the Word of God - for firm faith is the gift of the Holy Spirit, not of the Church. But concerning the Church’s testimony, several questions arise. The first is: Whether it is from the Church’s testimony alone that we may certainly know the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture to be divine. The second: Whether the authority of Sacred Scripture depends on the testimony and authority of the Church. The third: Whether the Church’s testimony concerning the divine authority of Scripture is the chief, most lucid, and certain of all. In these questions, the Romanists understand by the Church not so much the Church which existed at the time of the Prophets and Apostles, or that which immediately succeeded it, as the present Church; nor the entire body of the faithful, but only the pastors, that is, the councils and especially the Florentine. …Trent, and their own Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and prelates. Now, so as not to speak about the general assembly of other believers who have existed down to the present time, let us address those whom the Papists understand by the name “the Church.” With them we will now contend. And let us treat the first question first: The Papists affirm, on the basis of the testimony of the Church alone - that is, of the Pope and the prelates - that we are certainly to know, from that testimony alone, and without any doubt, that Sacred Scripture is truly divine. We, however, deny this. That this is indeed the affirmation of the Papists is clear from their writings. Eck, in his Enchiridion, chapter on the authority of the Church, answer 3 to the objections of heretics, says: “Scripture is not authentic except by the authority of the Church.” Pighius, book 1 De Hierarchia Ecclesiastica, chapter 2, says: “All the authority of the Scriptures which now exists among us necessarily depends on the authority of the Church.” Bellarmine, in book four De Notis Ecclesiae, chapter two, section nine, says: “Which is the true Scripture, and what is its true sense, we cannot know except from the testimony of the true Church.” And by “their Church” they mean the Papal Church. The arguments for this Papal assertion must first be examined and refuted. FIRST: If the canon of Scripture cannot be known with certainty without whose authority, then by the testimony of that one alone, we may know with certainty which Scripture is divine. But the canon of Scripture cannot be known with certainty except by the authority of the Church. Therefore, it is by the testimony of the Church alone that we may know with certainty which Scripture is divine. RESPONSE. The minor proposition is denied. They try to confirm it with several proofs: I. Without the most certain authority, the canon of Scripture cannot be known with certainty. But the authority of the Church is most certain. Therefore, etc.

I answer: The minor is false, because there is a more certain and greater authority - namely, the authority of God addressing us through Scripture, and consequently of the Scripture itself, and of the Holy Spirit, by whose inward prompting we are persuaded to believe Sacred Scripture as the Word of God. They reply: By him through whom God teaches us, and not otherwise, his authority can be for us no greater. But God teaches us through the Church, and not otherwise. Therefore, the authority of the Church can be for us no greater. I answer: Both premises are false - the first, the major, because the authority of the one who is our highest and principal teacher is more certain than that of one who performs only the parts of a minister. Now God is our highest and principal teacher; the Church is merely God’s minister and serves him in teaching Scripture. Therefore, God’s authority is greater and more certain than the Church’s. Furthermore, the minor proposition is also false; for God teaches us not only through the Church, but also through the Scripture itself, as Paul testifies in 2 Timothy 3:15 - 16 and Romans 15:4. For “whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” Likewise, Luke 17:29: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.” John 20:31: “But these things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” But God also teaches us through the Holy Spirit, as Paul testifies in 1 Corinthians 2:9 and following; as the first letter of John 2:27 attests: “The anointing teaches you concerning all things.” So too Christ himself in John 14:26: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” And chapter 15:26 - 27: “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father - the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father - he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.” Here Christ indeed joins together the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the testimony of the Church, but in such a way that he distinguishes them; and in chapter 16:13: “The Spirit of truth will guide you into all the truth.” II. The Stapletonian proof of the first argument’s assumption. Apart from whose judgment, the means by which Scripture is commonly recognized - namely, style and phrase and the like - are of no avail; therefore, the canon of Scripture cannot be known with certainty without its authority. But apart from the Church’s judgment, those means are of no avail; therefore, etc. The minor is established thus: because the Church knows those means best and can judge them best. I answer: The minor is false; indeed, the confirmation of it is ambiguous, and thus must be distinguished. For if by “Church” are meant the Roman Popes and Papal Bishops (as the Papists always are wont to mean, especially in this question), I deny that they best know those means or that they can best judge. Their ignorance in this, as in other matters, is far too evident. But if by “Church” one means the true Church, then the confirmation is irrelevant, since the minor

proposition is intended concerning the Roman Pontiffs and Papal Bishops, who are no more the true Church than Annas, Caiaphas, and the other Jerusalem high priests and priests were, who rejected Christ. III. The proof of the assumption of the first argument. By that by which Scripture is to be proved, without its authority, the canon of Scripture cannot be known certainly. But Scripture must be proved by the Church; therefore, etc. I answer: The minor is false. Stapleton supports it thus: Scripture cannot be proved by Scripture; therefore, it must be proved by the Church. I answer: The antecedent is false, He tries to support it thus: The authority of Paul’s epistles cannot be proved by Scripture; Paul’s epistles are Scripture; therefore, Scripture cannot be proved by Scripture. I answer: The major is false. He wants to prove it thus: The authority of Paul’s epistles can be proved neither from the Old Testament nor from the Gospel; therefore, it cannot be proved by Scripture. I answer: The antecedent is denied. He proves this as follows: There is nowhere mention of Paul’s epistles, neither in the Old Testament nor in the Gospel; therefore, their authority cannot be proved from them. I answer: The later part of the antecedent is denied: for there is mention of Paul’s epistles in the Gospel, namely, in the Second Epistle of Peter, chapter 3, verse 16, where they are also called “Scriptures,” and their divine authority is asserted, since Peter says that Paul wrote “according to the wisdom given to him” - but by whom was that wisdom given, if not by God? Further, Paul himself, by his own name and judgment, approves his own epistles. Therefore, mention of Paul’s epistles and the assertion of their authority is found in the Gospel - unless, perchance, the Papists wish to deny that the epistles of Peter and Paul are Gospel concerning Jesus Christ. It is replied to this last point, that Paul cannot be a witness to himself. I answer: I concede this; but he is not a witness to himself, but to God, to Jesus Christ, whose word it is that he wrote. If some chancellor, by order of his prince, was to write letters to a certain city, and placed his name upon them as is customary, would not placing his name on them testify that they were indeed written by the order and authority of the prince? Most certainly. Why, then, should less be conceded to the Apostle Paul than to an earthly prince’s chancellor? STAPLETON INSISTS: Neither the whole of Scripture nor any part of it can be proved by Scripture itself, because all proof is from things better known; therefore, for one who does not know or denies the whole of Scripture or any part, nothing can be proved from Scripture itself. I answer: There is here a fallacy of several questions, because one must proceed differently with one who denies the whole of Scripture than with one who denies only part. Whoever denies the whole of Scripture is not a Christian, and so the proof of Scripture must be sought from elsewhere,

because against one denying principles, there is no disputing from principles which he denies, but from those he concedes and posits. But whoever denies only part of Scripture - against him, one may and must dispute from the Scripture he concedes, and from that Scripture may and ought to prove the part which is denied by him. SECOND ARGUMENT. If the apocryphal books of the second sort are not counted as divine solely because the Church has never wished to approve them, then from the testimony of the Church alone it is clear to us which books are truly divine; that is, to the same point, that the Sacred Scripture which we have is truly divine. The antecedent is true. Therefore, so is the consequent. I answer: The connected proposition must be restricted. If the apocryphal books of the second sort are not counted as divine solely because the Church has never wished to approve them, then from the testimony of the Church alone it would be clear to us that the Scripture we possess is truly divine. But as regards the minor, it is denied that the apocryphal books of the second sort are not considered divine only because the Church has never wished to approve them. There are other reasons why they are not and ought not to be reckoned as divine. But if it be replied that both the antecedent and the assumption of the connection must be understood without restriction, then the connected proposition is false. THIRD. If the Church is older than Scripture, then from the testimony of the Church alone, most plainly of all, it is clear to us that Scripture is truly divine. But the Church is older than Scripture. Therefore, etc. I answer: The consequence is denied, because the argument suffers from the fallacy of equivocation. Scripture, in respect of essence, means the word of God contained in the prophetic and apostolic books; in respect of accident, it means the external writing or recording of the word of God in the prophetic and apostolic books, accomplished by parchment and ink. Now, if you take “Scripture” in respect of essence, then the assumption is denied: for the word of God contained in the prophetic and apostolic books must necessarily have existed before the Church, since the word of God is the seed of the Church, that is, the cause by which the Church was brought into being. For by the word of God, men called to blessed communion with God became the Church. But the seed is always necessarily older than the offspring that proceeds from it, since it is impossible for the cause to be later than its effect. But if you take “Scripture” in respect of the accidental sense, then the assumption is indeed true: for Moses was the first amanuensis of God, who committed the word of God to letters and delivered it in writing to the Church; but the Church existed before Moses. Yet in that case, the connected proposition is false. For even if the Church was before the written word of God, considered as written, yet it in no way follows that by the testimony, judgment, and authority of the Church alone it is established that Scripture is truly divine. FOURTH.

All matters of faith can be established for us only through the Church; that Sacred Scripture is truly divine is a matter of faith; therefore, that Sacred Scripture is truly divine can be established for us only by the Church. The major is proved thus: because only through the Church does the Holy Spirit infallibly teach matters of faith. I answer: The major is false, and its proof likewise, because it clashes with the word of God, which attests that the Holy Spirit teaches matters of faith infallibly by Sacred Scripture itself; as the Apostle affirms in Romans 15:4: “Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction,” and in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is divinely inspired and profitable for teaching, etc., that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.” And in John 20:31 it is read: “These things are written so that you may believe, and that by believing you may have eternal life.” FIFTH. Only the Church can judge concerning the κριτήρια (criterions) of the divine Scriptures. Therefore, from the testimony of the Church alone it can be ascertained with certainty that Sacred Scripture is divine. They prove the antecedent thus: If some Scripture has arguments and κριτήρια of divinity, who shall be the judge? Either some individual, or the Church. Not some individual, for example, Arius, Luther, etc., for then we would have nothing certain about the Divine books. Therefore, the Church. The response: First, the antecedent of the enthymeme is denied, if by the term “Church” is understood the Pope and the Roman prelates: for not all the faithful are left brutish and devoid of judgment by the Spirit of God, as if only the Popes and Roman prelates were granted the ability to pluck out the eyes of crows, who are, as is often evident, the most stupid donkeys and brothers of ignorance. Moreover, it is false that the spirit of discernment and judgment concerning the criterions (κρίτηρια) of the divine Scriptures is given by God to none except the Pope and those prelates enslaved to him. For it is not in vain that it is said also to the laity, Matthew 7:15, “Beware of false prophets”; and 1 Corinthians 10:15, “I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say”; likewise, chapter 12, verse 10, “To others are given distinguishing of spirits.” Ephesians 4:7, “But grace is given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift,” and 1 John 4:1, “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God.” Hence even Stapleton, a strenuous Papist, in De Auctoritate Ecclesiae book 1, chapter 8, section 1, does not take away all judgment from private persons and doctors, but leaves the judgment of assent to private individuals, the judgment of discernment even to doctors, and the judgment of determinatio solely to the Church. But now the inquiry is not concerning the determinative public judgment, but concerning any judgment whatsoever, whether by these criterions one can judge concerning the divine books, that is, come to the recognition of their divine origin. But if no one can do this except the Church, that is, the Pope alone or with his prelates, then why were the judgments of the ancient Fathers about the divine and

canonical Scriptures ever made and cited, who individually were not the Church; nor did any individual write the judgment of the Church, since they long fluctuated and disagreed about certain books, which the Papists deny to befit the Church? But let us answer even by a fiduciary rejection: Suppose the judgment about these criterions belongs to the Church alone. This either finds its terminus in Scripture, or not. If it is terminated in Scripture, our position stands. If not, then there results an infinite regress, which is absurd: nor is the judgment of the Church certain, because it is terminated either in itself or in nothing. SIXTH AUGUSTINE, against the Letter of the Foundation, chapter 5, says: “I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.” Whence it is gathered, from this assertion, that Scripture is not accepted as divine by the faithful on its own account, but on account of the sole authority of the Church. The response: First, from the particular to the universal nothing follows: Augustine did not believe the Gospel except when moved by the authority of the Catholic Church; therefore, no faithful person believes, or can and ought to believe the Gospel except when moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. Whatever Augustine did, it ought not and cannot be immediately put forward as an example that all the faithful should follow. Next, Augustine did not wish that the authority of Scripture should depend on the authority of the Church, or that he believed the Gospel solely on account of the Church’s authority, or that the divine authority of Scripture rested upon no other firmer external testimony than that of the Church. They do manifest harm to Augustine who twist his words thus into a foreign sense. For Augustine disputes against the Letter of the Foundation of the Manichaeans, whose beginning was: “Manichaeus, Apostle of Jesus Christ by the providence of God the Father,” etc. Examining this beginning, Augustine says: “Now with good patience, if you please, attend to what I am asking. I do not believe this man to be an Apostle of Christ, I beg you not to be angry and begin to curse. For you know that I have determined not to believe anything put forward by you rashly. So I ask, who is this Manichaeus? You answer: Apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you have nothing else to say or do. For you promised knowledge of the truth, and now you force me to believe what I do not know. Perhaps you will read me the Gospel, and from there you try to assert the person of Manichaeus. If then you found someone who does not yet believe the Gospel, what would you do if he told you ‘I do not believe’? ‘I for my part would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.’ So then I obeyed those saying, ‘Believe the Gospel’: why should I not obey those saying, ‘Do not believe Manichaeus’? Choose what you want. If you say, ‘Believe the Catholics’, they advise me to place no faith in you. Wherefore, by believing them, I cannot believe you. If you say, ‘Do not believe the Catholics’, you do not act rightly in forcing me by the Gospel to the faith of Manichaeus, because I believed the Gospel by the preaching of the Catholics. If, however, you say, ‘You rightly believed the Catholics praising the Gospel, but not rightly those blaming Manichaeus,’ do you really think me so foolish that, with no reason given, I should believe what you wish and disbelieve what you do not wish? I certainly act much more justly and cautiously if, since I have once believed the Catholics, I do not go over to you unless they bid me not to believe, but only if you should make it manifest and transparently clear by reason. Wherefore, if you are going to give me a reason, dismiss the Gospel.

If you hold to the Gospel, I will hold to those on whose command I believed the Gospel and, on their orders, entirely not believe you. If, perchance, you could find something most manifest in the Gospel about Manichaeus’s apostleship, you would undermine for me the authority of the Catholics, who bid me not to believe you. That being undermined, I could then no longer believe the Gospel either, for I believed it on their witness; so you would have no influence on me, whatever you might produce from it. Wherefore if nothing manifest about Manichaeus’s apostleship is found in the Gospel, I will rather believe the Catholics than you: but if you read something manifest on behalf of Manichaeus from there, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, because they lied to me about you; nor you, because you advance to me a Scripture to which I had been led to believe by them who lied to me. But God forbid that I should not believe the Gospel. For in believing it, you do not find any way how I might also believe you. For the names of the Apostles which are read there, do not include the name of Manichaeus. As for the one who succeeded in the place of Christ’s betrayer, we read in the Acts of the Apostles: and I must believe that book if I believe the Gospel: because both Scriptures are commended to me with equal authority by the Catholic Church.” Thus far the words of Augustine, of which this is the brief and clear analysis: the Manichaeans asserted that Manichaeus was an Apostle of Jesus Christ; in reply, Augustine professes that he does not believe this, and wants it demonstrated to him that Manichaeus is such. From where would this be demonstrated? They had nothing except either the letter of Manichaeus, or the Gospel of Christ, or the testimony of the Catholics. But Augustine says it could not be demonstrated to him by any of these. Not by the letter of the foundation of Manichaeus, because its authority cannot force him to believe, since Manichaeus attests only on his own behalf, and no man is a suitable witness in his own cause; not by the Gospel of Christ, first because he does not believe the Gospel, second because even if he did, the Gospel testifies nothing about Manichaeus. Now, when Augustine said that he does not believe the Gospel, he did not say this as if he truly did not believe - for at that time he was already a good Catholic and bishop, who believed the Gospel most firmly and without any doubt - but, with the utmost prudence, wishing to win the Manichaeans for Christ, he imitates Paul who says, Galatians 4:19, “My little children, for whom I am again in labor until Christ be formed in you,” and “I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone,” and by changing his tone he assumes the character not yet believing but still seeking the truth, and by his example striving to bring back the not yet converted to the true Church. Thus he puts himself into the matter as if present and as though not yet believing the Gospel, he says, “I do not believe”; and after he has asked what now the Manichaeus would do for the one not believing, he himself replies, “But I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.” Thus he affirms that the Church’s authority carries much weight for the weak, to convert them to the faith, proposing himself as an example; both to make the matter clearer in his own person, and because his example would carry great weight, since he himself had once been a Manichaean. Lastly, he shows why the testimony of the Catholics could not demonstrate to him that Manichaeus was an Apostle of Jesus Christ: because the Catholics say that Manichaeus and his followers are not to be believed. This is the plain and genuine meaning of these words. Therefore, it is quite wrong to conclude from Augustine’s words that Scripture

receives its authority from the Church, neither on account of itself (which would be blasphemous, for thus the authority of the divine voice would be suspended on human authority), nor on account of us (which would be absurd, for since the Church itself also believes Scripture to be divine, it would not be induced to believe this by any testimony other than its own); but this only follows, that Augustine would not have believed the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church had moved him while he was in unbelief. But how he was moved, he indicates in the following, when he says that he believed the Gospel on account of the preaching and commendation of the Catholics. Now that weaker souls, and those magnifying human authority, may be brought to believe the Gospel, we freely admit. From these things it is manifest that Augustine is not speaking simply of what he did as a Catholic, but states a hypothetical case, namely, what he would do if he had not already believed, showing the Manichaeans clinging to human authority in the manner what they themselves ought to do, namely, that they ought to believe rather the Catholic Church preaching and commending the Gospel of Christ than Manichaeus. What was the straightforward sense of Augustine as a Catholic concerning the authority of Scripture, is indicated most openly in the place cited above from the first volume, book six of the Confessions, chapter five: “You have persuaded me [O Lord God] that those who do not believe your books, which you have established with so great authority in almost all nations, deserve censure, but not those who do believe; nor should I listen to anyone saying to me, ‘How do you know those books were ministered to mankind by the Spirit of the one true and most truthful God?’ For this is above all what must be believed.” And that he attributed more authority to Scripture than to the Catholic bishops themselves is amply taught by the places cited in the Canon Law, Dist. 9, chapter Ego solus, and chapter Quis nesciat, and chapter Noli frater, and chapter Neque quorumlibet. Such is the opinion of the Papists. But our orthodox opinion is: it is not sufficiently evident to us from the testimony of the Church alone that the prophetic and apostolic Scripture is divine. We prove this in the following way: I. Whatever by other also most certain testimonies and strongest reasons is certain to us, that assuredly from the testimony of the Church alone is not certain to us. But that the prophetic and apostolic Scripture is divine is certain to us by other most certain testimonies and strongest reasons; therefore, &c. The major is self-evident. That the minor is most true has been amply shown above in several chapters. II. Whatever testimony does not suffice for the true cognition of the prophetic and apostolic Scripture and for a firm faith that it is truly the word of God, from that testimony alone it is not plain to us that that prophetic and apostolic Scripture is truly divine: But the testimony of the Church does not suffice for a true cognition of the prophetic and apostolic Scripture and for firm faith that it is really the word of God. Therefore, &c.

The assumption is most certain: for by the testimony of the Church alone, no one can be induced to know and truly to believe that this Scripture is theopneustos (θεόπνευστον). For not even the whole Church can confer faith even on one: for this is the gift of God alone as to its beginning and its growth. III. Spiritual matters cannot be made evident to us from the testimony of the Church alone. That the prophetic and apostolic Scripture is truly divine is a spiritual matter: therefore, &c. The major is manifest from this: for spiritual matters cannot be perceived and truly known except by supernatural light; the kindling of which in our hearts belongs not to the Church but to Him who is above nature, namely, God, 1 Corinthians 2. The minor is self-evident. IV. Whoever is not an autoptēs (αὐτόπτης, “eyewitness”) of the truth, from his sole testimony it is not clear to us that the prophetic and apostolic Scripture is truly divine, from his testimony alone, it is not plain to us that the prophetic and apostolic Scripture is truly divine. But the Church is not an autoptēs (αὐτόπτης, eyewitness) of the truth: therefore, etc. The assumption is most true: for the Church does not have the smallest authority to testify and proclaim anything, except what it received from God through the Prophets and Apostles, as the Apostle says in Galatians 1:9, “If anyone proclaims a gospel to you contrary to what you received, let him be accursed.” Therefore, what the Church receives from God through the Prophets and Apostles in the sacred Scriptures, that alone does it testify; if it bears witness to anything else, it is a false witness (ψευδοµαρτυνεῖ). V. Whatever testimony is by itself merely human, from that alone it is by no means clear to us that the prophetic and apostolic Scripture is truly divine: But the testimony of the Church is by itself merely human: therefore, etc. Thus ended the first question concerning the testimony of the Church,

The second question is: Whether the authority of Sacred Scripture depends on the testimony of the Church. The Romanists affirm this, relying on the following arguments: Whatever is the primary means by which it is known that Sacred Scripture is truly divine, upon that the authority of Sacred Scripture certainly depends. But the testimony of the Church is the primary means by which it is known that Sacred Scripture is truly divine, therefore the authority of Sacred Scripture depends upon the testimony of the Church. The assumption is proved from Romans 10:14, 15: “How shall they believe, unless they hear? How shall they hear, without a

preacher? How shall they preach, unless they are sent?” Thus, there is no one among us who did not have the testimony of the Church as the first means by which he knew Sacred Scripture to be truly divine. I answer. The major proposition is denied: for not every primary means by which we are led to the knowledge of a thing is therefore so sufficient that the authority of that thing depends on it. For example: The testimony of the Samaritan woman about Jesus was the first means by which many Samaritans believed that he was the Christ, as is read in John 4:39: “From that city many of the Samaritans believed in him because of the word of the woman, who testified: He told me all things that I have done.” Does the authority of the Lord Jesus, either in itself or with respect to the Samaritans, therefore depend on the testimony of that woman? By no means; for many more believed because of the word of the Lord Jesus himself, and they said to the woman: “We no longer believe because of your words: for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is truly the Savior of the world, the Christ,” as is written there in verses 41, 42. Similarly, the sermon and testimony of the Apostle Peter about Jesus crucified, that he was the Christ, was the first means by which, on that great day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Apostles, about three thousand souls believed in Jesus, as narrated in Acts 2:41. Does therefore the authority of Jesus depend on the testimony of the Apostle Peter? The authority of the Lord on the authority of the servant? Thus, also, it is not necessary that the authority of Scripture depends on that which is the first means by which we recognize its divinity. The assumption also is not simply true: for it is not always, nor with all, that the testimony of the Church is the first means by which they know that Sacred Scripture is truly θεόπνευστον (theopneuston, God-breathed). For Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles were persuaded that the Sacred Scripture, which they themselves were composing, was truly the word of God, without the testimony of the Church. II. The certainty of the authors who wrote the sacred books depends on the testimony of the Church alone: for by the testimony of the Church alone it is established that the epistle to the Romans is by Paul, the Gospel of Mark is by Mark, etc. Therefore, the authority of Sacred Scripture depends on the testimony of the Church. I answer. The antecedent is denied: for regarding the certainty of the authors, we judge not by the Church, but by the testimony of the books themselves. We believe that the epistle to the Romans is Paul’s, because Sacred Scripture attests so: for immediately in the beginning of this epistle is, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle,” etc. But this beginning of the epistle to the Romans is part of Sacred Scripture. III. By the testimony of the Church alone it is known to us which books are truly divine: Thus, upon it depends the authority of Sacred Scripture. I answer. We by no means concede the antecedent. For the Holy Spirit Himself attests both in Scripture and in the hearts of the faithful, and far more certainly than the Church. Thus Irenaeus, book three Against Heresies, chapter eleven, from that very point says that it is shown the Gospel of the Valentinians, which they named the Gospel of Truth, is not divine because it is in no way

consistent with the Gospels of the Apostles, but is different from them. Those, therefore, who rely on the testimony of the Church alone in this matter show that they have not yet sensed or understood the chief testimonies. IV. Whatever is older than Scripture, upon that the authority of Scripture depends: The Church is older than Scripture: Therefore, the authority of Scripture depends on the Church. They prove the major thus: because the authority of an older witness is greater than that of a more recent one. They establish the minor thus: because the Church existed before Moses, and Scripture did not exist before Moses. I answer. First, the major proposition, as also its proof, is not necessary and is, indeed, only particular. For a younger artisan can be more skilled than an older one. Also, the condition of a more recent witness can be such that he deserves more credence than the older one. That Incarnate Word testified concerning himself: Moses and the prophets of the Old Testament had also long since testified concerning him; yet, for that reason, the authority of all other witnesses is not greater than that of Christ alone. Next, in the assumption and its proof, there is a fallacy of accident: for not the whole Church, but only that which existed before the books written by Moses, is older than Scripture, not as to the substance of Scripture, but only as to the accident. For as to the substance, that is, as to the doctrine itself or the word of God itself, Sacred Scripture is the eternal wisdom in God himself; nor was its knowledge first revealed to the Church when it was committed to writing, but its manifestation began with the very creation of the human race in Paradise, and it is that immortal seed from which the Church was first born and subsequently grew: the Church, therefore, could not exist except by the word of God, the sum of which was afterwards committed to writing by Moses and other servants of God, the word itself having existed before. The word of God is the cause of the Church: therefore, the Church cannot be older than the word of God. But what now is the word of God, other than that which is contained in Scripture? Never, therefore, will the Romanists obtain that even the Church which was before Moses is, without qualification, older than Sacred Scripture. But as for the Church of the New Testament, especially that existing after the Apostles, whose authority the Romanists vigorously defend, it was in no way older than the Scripture, neither as to substance nor as to accident. Therefore, the conclusion falls. V. 1 Timothy 3: The Church is called the pillar and ground of the truth: Therefore, upon the authority of the Church depends the authority of Sacred Scripture. I answer. The consequence of the omitted proposition is denied; namely, if the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, then the authority of Sacred Scripture depends on it. For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, insofar as it is the guardian, protector, herald, or witness and interpreter of the truth drawn from Sacred Scripture. But does, therefore, the authority of Scripture depend on the Church? By no means; rather, on the contrary, Sacred Scripture imparts authority to its guardian, defender, herald, or witness and interpreter.

V. Whatever testimony is by itself merely human, from that alone it cannot at all be certain to us that Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture is truly divine: But the testimony of the Church is by itself merely human: therefore, etc. Thus ended the first question concerning the testimony of the Church.

Thus far some arguments of the Papists have been refuted. We for our part, although we gladly concede and embrace the historical testimony of the primitive Church among the subsequent and of this one now among us, that the Scripture which we have is truly divine: nevertheless we by no means concede that the authority of Scripture in any way, that is, either in itself or as to us, depends on the Church’s judgment and testimony. The arguments for our position are these. First: Whatever, beyond controversy, is the word of God, its authority by no means depends on the judgment and testimony of the Church. But Holy Scripture, beyond controversy, is the word of God. Therefore the authority of Holy Scripture by no means depends on the judgment and testimony of the Church. The major proposition is most certain. For if the authority of the word of God, at least as to us, were to depend on the Church’s judgment and testimony, then we would not believe God on account of himself, but on account of human judgment and testimony. But it is impious not to believe God on account of himself, but on account of human judgment and testimony: therefore whatever is, beyond controversy, the word of God, its authority by no means depends on the judgment and testimony of the Church. The Papists deny the major proposition of this proof; for this reason alleged, because the Church’s judgment and testimony - granted indeed that the judgment and testimony of the true Church can be called divine not absolutely (ἁπλῶς) but in a certain respect (κατὰ τι), namely, insofar as it agrees with Holy Scripture as with the Holy Spirit and the revealed will of God - yet considered absolutely it is not divine, but human, because it is not immediately inspired by the Holy Spirit: otherwise every judgment and testimony of whatever man agreeing with Holy Scripture would be divine; and thus there would now be no difference as to authority between the writings of the Prophets and Apostles and those of other Doctors of the Church who write things agreeing with the sacred letters. And then also when the Church’s judgment and testimony is received as agreeing with Holy Scripture, it is received not on account of the Church’s, but on account of God’s, authority: since no judgment and testimony of the Church is to be received unless it agrees with Holy Scripture. The Papists redouble: Through the Church God speaks: therefore the Church’s judgment and testimony is divine.

Our triplication. First, the major proposition is denied, if it is stated universally and understood simply, namely: Through whomever God speaks, his judgment and testimony is divine. When limited, however, it is true, namely: Through whomever God speaks by the immediate inspiration of his word, as he spoke through the Prophets and Apostles, his judgment and testimony is divine. But that God speaks through the Church by the immediate inspiration of his word as he spoke through the Prophets and Apostles is denied. Secondly, the minor proposition, understood simply, is false: for it is not through just any Church - for example, a false and heretical and Antichristian one - but through the true, orthodox, and truly Christian, that God speaks. Nor does he always speak through the true Church, but only then, when it presents the word of God drawn from the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures, or hands down doctrines agreeing with that word. But if even the true Church should teach or determine something that is opposed to the prophetic and apostolic word of God, then through it God does not speak. The conclusion therefore, as it is understood simply by the Papists, is false; Second: Whose authority the Church is subject to and serves, its authority by no means depends on the Church’s testimony. The Church is subject to and serves Holy Scripture: therefore the authority of Holy Scripture by no means depends on the testimony of the Church. Fourth: Whatever testimony is not self-authentic (αὐτόπιστον), from its testimony it does not become known to us that the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture is truly divine. But the Church is not a self-authentic (αὐτόπιστος) witness of truth: therefore, etc. The assumption is most true: for the Church has not even the least authority to testify and to preach anything except what it has received from God through the Prophets and Apostles, the Apostle saying Gal. 1. verse 9: “If anyone should evangelize to you beyond what you have received, let him be anathema.” Therefore what the Church receives from God through the Prophets and Apostles in the Sacred Scriptures, that it testifies: if it has testified to anything else, it bears false witness (ψευδοµαρτυνεῖ). Fifth: Whatever testimony is by itself purely human, from that alone it by no means becomes known to us that the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture is truly divine: But the Church’s testimony is by itself purely human: therefore, etc. Thus was the first question about the testimony of the Church. The major is most certain: for the authority of the superior does not depend on the testimony of the inferior. The minor also is most true, because the Church is commanded to cling to the Scriptures and to obey them; the Church is tied and bound to the Scriptures by God. Deut. 4:1: “And now, O Israel, give heed to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to do,” and v. 2: “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” Isa. 8:20: “To the Law and to the testimony: if anyone does not speak according to this word, there will be no dawn for him,” that is, not even a spark of light. Ezek. 20:19: “I am the Lord your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments and do them.” Luke 16:29: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.”

John 5:39: “Search the Scriptures.” 1 Tim. 4:13: “Attend to the reading,” etc. Hence it is evident that the Church is bound to Holy Scripture. St. Augustine subscribes, book eleven Against Faustus the Manichean, ch. 5: “The excellence of the canonical authority of the Old and New Testament was confirmed in the times of the Apostles, and by the successions of bishops and the spreadings of the churches, as though placed on a throne on high; to which let every faithful and pious intellect be in service.” Stapleton answers with a distinction: that the Church is subject to the Scriptures insofar as it signifies the body or multitude of the faithful; but insofar as it signifies pastors, prelates, and bishops, it is not subject, because they judge concerning the Scripture not yet received, that it may be received. I reply against the exception given, and I deny that the minor proposition is rightly restricted to the body or multitude of the faithful: for that command, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them,” pertains no less to pastors, prelates, and bishops than to the multitude of other faithful. Nay rather, the pastors and prelates of the Church are especially bound to Scripture and therefore subject to it, according to Isa. 8: “To the Law and to the testimony: If anyone does not speak according to this word, there will be no dawn for him.” And 2 Tim. 3:14 and following: “But as for you, remain in what you have learned and what has been entrusted to you, knowing from whom you have learned; and that from a child you have known the Sacred Letters which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is divinely inspired and is useful for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work.” This admonition pertained to Timothy, who was a man of God, that is, a herald and interpreter of the word of God, who was a pastor and prelate of the Church of God, and therefore it pertains also to other men of God, that is, the pastors and prelates of the Church. And indeed the Apostle Paul himself, Acts 24:14, professes that “according to that way which they call heresy” (enemies, namely, of the true religion), thus he serves the God of his fathers, as one who believes all things that are written in the Law and in the Prophets. And Acts 26:22 he says that he has said nothing beyond those things which the Prophets and Moses foretold would come. And the Apostle Peter, 2 Ep. 1:19: “We have,” he says, “the more sure prophetic word.” When he says “We have,” he understands both himself and the other Apostles and Doctors of the Church, as well as other faithful. For the Apostles themselves had the Prophets as patrons of their doctrine: therefore they confirmed it from the testimonies of the Prophets, as is evident from the Acts and Apostolic Epistles. Now if the Apostles themselves were subject to Holy Scripture, much more are other pastors, prelates, and bishops subject, or certainly ought to be. On the contrary, we see how much the Romanist prelates assume to themselves, who are unwilling to be subject to Holy Scripture, but strive to subject it to themselves. But let us see the reason by which Stapleton tries to confirm that the Church, insofar as it signifies pastors and prelates, is not subject to Holy Scripture; because, he says, the pastors and prelates of the Church judge concerning the Scripture not yet received, that it may be received.

But that reason is false: for Holy Scripture was already confirmed in the times of the Apostles and has always been received by all truly faithful. Therefore such a judgment concerning Scripture is no longer needed; rather, according to Scripture judgment is to be made concerning all ecclesiastical dogmas. For just as, after the civil laws have been enacted and confirmed by the public authority of the supreme magistrate, so that suits may be decided from them, it is not permitted to anyone, not even to a judge, to judge concerning the laws themselves, but he is bound to decide suits from them; so, after by the authority of God the divine Scriptures have been promulgated and delivered to the Church that it may follow them, they are not subject to human judgment, nor is it lawful for anyone to judge concerning them. Briefly: Holy Scripture is given by God to the Church so that it may be the rule of faith and good works. Therefore men are not finally to judge concerning it that it may be received, but all ought to subject themselves to it, and to judge all things according to it. So too Augustine says, tome 7, book 2 Against Cresconius the Grammarian, chapter 31: “The ecclesiastical canon has been established, to which certain books of the Prophets and Apostles pertain, which we should by no means dare to judge, and according to which we should freely judge concerning the other writings, whether of the faithful or of the unfaithful.” But if the Church must finally judge concerning Scripture that it may be received, that will be an affront to Holy Scripture, an affront to God the author of Holy Scripture. Stapleton rejoins and says that that is not an affront to Scripture, and he uses such an argument: If it is not an affront to the Holy Spirit if He be examined by the Scripture, then neither is it an affront to Holy Scripture if it be examined by the voice and testimony of the Church. The antecedent is true; therefore also the consequent. He proves the assumption from the testimony of John Calvin, book 1 of the Institutes of the Christian Religion, ch. 9, in which Calvin, replying to Enthusiasts, says that no injury is done to the Holy Spirit when He is examined by the Scripture. Our triplication. The connected proposition is false because of the sophism of false equals: because the case is not the same for Holy Scripture and the Church, as it is for the Holy Spirit and Holy Scripture. For the testimony of Holy Scripture is the public testimony of the same Holy Spirit: therefore if the private testimony of the Holy Spirit be examined by that public testimony, that will not be an affront to the Holy Spirit, because in that examination He is compared with Himself. But the testimony of the Church is not that of the Holy Spirit, but only human: for the Church does not speak from the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Each thing is denominated from its proximate efficient cause, not from a remote one. But the proximate cause of the Church’s testimony is men, not God: therefore the testimony of the Church is human, not divine. Third, That of which the Church is only the herald, by whose ministry it is proclaimed, its authority by no means depends on the testimony of the Church. But the Church is only the herald of Holy Scripture, by whose ministry it is proclaimed. Therefore, etc. The major is evident: for if the authority of the letter of an earthly prince does not depend on the testimony of the messenger or courier, much less does the authority of Holy Scripture, which is the letter of the heavenly Prince and of God almighty to us men, depend on the testimony and judgment of His herald. The minor likewise is sure: for the Church is a servant, a minister of God in announcing the Scripture.

Fourth, Whatever is self-authentic (autopistos), that is, which is believed on account of itself, its authority by no means depends on the Church’s judgment and testimony. But Holy Scripture is self-authentic (autopistos), that is, Holy Scripture is believed on account of itself. Therefore the authority of Holy Scripture by no means depends on the judgment and testimony of the Church. About the major there is no controversy. That the minor is true is plain from this, that Holy Scripture has in itself such power as to pierce all the way to the soul itself and to the inmost recesses of the heart and to draw our minds powerfully to itself, so that it persuades us inwardly. This those two disciples going to Emmaus experienced, as they themselves confess, Luke 24:32: “Did not our heart burn within us while He was speaking to us on the road and while He was opening to us the Scriptures?” Paul testifies the same, Heb. 4:12: “The word of God is living and efficacious and sharper than any two-edged sword, and reaches as far as the division of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and judges the thoughts and conceptions of the heart.” The Papists themselves confess this, as Baptista Mantuanus, On Patience, book 3, ch. 32: “I have often thought with myself whence it is that this Scripture is so persuasive: whence it flows so powerfully into the minds of the hearers, whence it has so much energy, that it bends all, not only to opine, but to believe solidly.” And St. Augustine Steuchus, bishop of Gubbio, librarian of the Roman Pontiff, at the beginning of the Cosmop.: “Those who think that the authority of the sacred books, to which now the whole church assents, is held by the mere faith of those reading, and that they do not bring with them certain divine and most powerful reasons drawing to themselves the judgments of great minds, are mistaken.” Fifth: Whatever is a principle of the dogmas of the Christian religion, its authority can by no means depend on the Church: but the Holy Scriptures are the principles of the dogmas of the Christian religion: therefore, etc. This argument is first to be explained, then the premises proved. PRINCIPLES here are axioms by which we first understand things without the mind’s discursus, and into which every discursus of the mind is finally resolved. And these are true, immutable, immediate, most necessary, prior, more known, the causes of all dogmas. Next, by the name of religion we do not understand certain external ceremonies introduced by men, but faith conjoined with the serious fear of God, which both contains in itself voluntary reverence and draws with it the legitimate worship of God, such as is prescribed in the Law. Now the premises are to be proved. The major is most true. For if the authority of principles in the philosophical sciences and arts does not depend on the testimony of men, although most celebrated for genius, acumen, and erudition, then indeed whatever is a principle of divine religion, its authority will by no means depend on the Church. And yet it is beyond controversy that the authority of principles in the philosophical sciences and arts does not depend on the testimony and authority of men, however ingenious, acute, and learned. For they are not understood to be true principles on account of the assertion of the philosophers, but on account of the certain ground which they have in themselves, which of itself induces belief in them. In sum, the principles of the philosophical sciences do not receive authority from men, not even from the whole college and choir of the philosophers: much less does the principle of divine religion receive authority from the Church. The principles of doctrines do not take authority from the men who teach; rather, the men

who teach obtain authority from the principles from which they deduce their dogmas. The minor also is most certain, as the Papists themselves confess, who with us state that the Sacred Scriptures are the principles of the dogmas of the Christian religion. Sixtus Senensis, book 6 of the Bibliotheca Sancta, annot. 151, says that Scripture “contains the first and highest principles of things to be believed, and the chief precepts of living well, and examples easy to know.” Peter of Ailly, bishop of Cambrai, cardinal of the Roman Church, in Sentences, book 1, question 1, article 3, has these statements: “From this description it is plain what the theological principles are. For they are the very truths of the Sacred Canon, because to them there is the ultimate resolution of theological discourse; and from them in the first place are deduced the several theological conclusions.” Stapleton answers with a distinction: that the principles of the sciences are in themselves indemonstrable as to what the quiddity is, but relative to us can be demonstrated, namely on account of our slowness, by a demonstration quia; the same to be the case with Holy Scripture. Our replication. Against Stapleton’s ill philosophy I oppose the prince of the philosophers, Aristotle, who in the Posterior Analytics several times teaches that principles are not demonstrated, but are apprehended by another kind of cognition, namely by understanding. I oppose James Cabarella of Padua, a most celebrated philosopher, who, book 2 On Methods, ch. 12, says from Averroes that the principles of cognition cannot be demonstrated in their own art, but either are known per se, or are taken as made clear in some other discipline, which happens in the principles of medicine. Then Aristotle, in the second book of the Posterior Analytics, in the last chapter, teaches that principles… that the cognition of them is not acquired from a prior intellectual cognition, but that principles are made known by induction from singulars, that is, by sensory cognition; that the cognition of principles is also understanding and not science, because the cognition of principles is not acquired by reasoning, but is the principle of reasoning. Now if the principles of the sciences do not need demonstration, then neither does Holy Scripture, whose certainty is greater than that of philosophical principles. Papist duplication: When the principles of the sciences are first handed on to us, we receive them and believe them to be true, being induced by the words and authority of our Professors: therefore they depend on the authority of those men. In the same way, when the Holy Scriptures are first handed on to us, we receive them and believe them to be divine, being induced by the words and authority of our teachers: therefore the authority of Scripture depends on them. Our triplication. A fallacy is committed, parà tò epómenon (affirming the consequent). For although, when the principles of the sciences are first handed on to us, we receive them and believe them to be true, being induced by the words and authority of the Professors, nevertheless for that reason their authority would not depend on the Professors, not even as to us. For when we grasp the ground of the principles, then we believe more because of their own most evident and necessary truth; indeed, we pay credence to the Professors on account of the very principles on which they found their dogmas. So also, although when the Holy Scriptures are first handed on to us we would receive them as divine, being induced by the words and authority of our teachers,

nevertheless their authority would not depend on the teachers, not even as to us. Just as many of the Samaritans at first believed in Christ because of the word of that woman who bore witness and said, “Surely he told me everything I did,” but many more believed because of the word of Christ himself. And they said to the woman: “No longer do we believe because of your words; for we ourselves have heard that this man is truly the Savior of the world,” as is read in John 4. v. 39. and 41. Stapleton quadruples; that Scripture is indeed a principle in religion, yet that the voice of the Church is prior and even of greater authority than Scripture. Our quintuplication; Both are denied. For the voice of the Church is not prior to Scripture; because it is born from Scripture or at least ought to be born; and because Scripture is taught by the Church. Nor is the voice of the Church of greater authority than Scripture; because whether the Church be true or false is judged by Scripture. Sixth argument: A rule does not receive authority from what is ruled; Holy Scripture is the rule of the Church. Therefore it does not receive authority from the Church. The major proposition is clear by its own light, because it is a principle: what is ruled is always inferior to its rule. The minor is proved: That by which the faith and every action of the Church is ruled is the rule of the Church. But by Holy Scripture the faith and every action of the Church is ruled. Therefore Holy Scripture is the rule of the Church. Seventh: Whatever was superior even to Christ himself according to his humanity and the economy of his will - its authority surely does not depend on the testimony of the Church. But Holy Scripture was superior even to Christ himself according to his humanity and the economy of his will: therefore, etc. The minor is plain from this, that Christ professes himself to be subject to Holy Scripture; he appeals to the testimony of Scripture as the greatest of all, more elevated than all exception and all authority; and he bids that his own doctrine be examined by the norm of Scripture, John 5. 39. “Search the Scriptures, because you think you have in them eternal life; and these are they that bear witness about me.” And v. 46: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.” Gal. 4. v. 4. “When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the Law.” He who was made subject to the Law was by that very fact made subject to Holy Scripture. Thus he professes that he ought and wills to obey Holy Scripture: Matt. 4. when he answers the devil tempting him, v. 4: “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word proceeding from the mouth of God.” And v. 7: “On the other hand it is written, You shall not tempt the Lord your God.” And v. 10: “For it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God,” etc. The same Holy Scripture confirms our faith more than the bodily and visible presence of Christ. For the Lord Jesus himself, when he had risen from the dead and offered his body to the eyes of the disciples to be seen and to their hands to be touched, lest they should think that they were being deceived in any way, judged that they ought rather to be confirmed by the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms, showing that the things which had been so long before foretold about himself were fulfilled, Luke 24. v. 25, 26, 27. “O senseless and slow of heart to believe all that

the Prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning from Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things that were written about him. And v. 44, 45, 46: “And he said to them, These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which are written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me. Then he opened their mind to understand the Scriptures. And he said to them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day.” It is objected: Whoever is the author of Holy Scripture is above it and not subject to it; Christ is the author of Holy Scripture: therefore Christ is above it, and not subject to it. Response. The whole argument is granted when rightly understood: Christ is above Holy Scripture and not subject to it in so far as he is God. But the argument fails by ignorance of the refutation. For our argument speaks not simply of Christ, but of the person of Christ according to his humanity, and according to the economy or dispensation of his will whereby God also was made flesh; in which respect he pronounced himself subject to Scripture; in which respect he was less than the Father and inferior to the Scriptures, that is, to the revealed will of the Father; although according to his person and divine nature he is always equal to the Father, Phil. 2., and superior to all Scripture. Eighth: Whatever had divine authority among all the pious before the Church’s judgment and testimony - its authority in no way depends on the Church’s judgment and testimony. But Holy Scripture had divine authority among all the pious before the Church’s judgment and testimony: therefore the authority of Holy Scripture in no way depends on the Church’s judgment and testimony. The major proposition is certain: because whatever is prior in time to some thing cannot be the effect of that thing, since it is impossible for an efficient cause to be later in time than its own effect. The minor proposition will become manifest by an induction of the parts of Scripture. For when the books of Moses were given by Moses to the Israelite people, they immediately had divine authority among the Israelites, with no judgment of the Church preceding. So too, when the books of the other Prophets were handed over to the faithful, they immediately had divine authority among them, with no judgment of the Church going before. Indeed, if the judgment of the priests and pontiffs of Jerusalem - who boasted that they were the true Church, just as now do the Papist clerics - had been to be followed, the book of the Prophet Jeremiah would not have had divine authority, because the priests were enemies of Jeremiah and denied that he had been sent by God to prophesy. The books of the New Testament were straightway acknowledged and held as divine by the faithful before the judgment of the Church. The Romans accepted the epistle of Paul written to them straightway as divine; similarly the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, the Thessalonians, and others straightway accepted the epistles written by Paul to them as divine, without first investigating and awaiting the Church’s judgment and testimony; for they did not first send the epistles of Paul that had been delivered to them to the

Roman Church, or take care to convene a Council, so as to explore and learn its judgment and testimony as to whether those epistles were divinely inspired. So too the epistles of Peter were straightway received as divinely inspired by the faithful to whom they were written and sent, nor did the faithful first seek the judgment of the Roman Church or of any Council concerning the epistles of Peter. The same must be held concerning the other books and epistles. Now if Holy Scripture was not accepted as divine from the judgment and testimony of the primitive Church, then much less will its authority depend on the Church which now is. Ninth: Whatever is the foundation of the Church certainly does not have authority in any way from the Church. But Holy Scripture is the foundation of the Church: therefore, etc. The major is manifest by its own light: for the foundation does not receive strength from the superstructed building; rather, the building has the strength of subsistence from the foundation, which, if it be weak or sink, must needs cause the house to fall, or at least become ruinous. Experience, the mistress of truth, demonstrates this. The minor proposition is plain from the testimony of Paul, Eph. 2. v. 19. and 20. “Therefore you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow-citizens of the saints and domestics of God, being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, since the cornerstone is Jesus Christ himself.” Stapleton excepts; that there is a twofold equivocation in this argument, namely in these two words, “foundation” and “Church”; for he says, first, that in this place of Paul “foundation” does not signify the doctrine written by the Prophets and Apostles, but their preaching. Then that by “Church” here is understood not the pastors, bishops, and rulers of the Church, but the faithful themselves, as they constitute the body of the Church. Our replication: At the outset there is no equivocation in the word “foundation,” first, because an equivocal word is that which signifies several things of diverse natures by a distinct account. But the word “foundation” in this place by no means signifies several things, but only one. For by “foundation” Paul understands the doctrine which indeed the Prophets and Apostles first preached, but afterward by the will of God handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. But doctrine first preached and then written is plainly one and the same thing: for preaching and writing are only accidents which do not change the thing. Nor is it in any way likely that the Prophets and Apostles preached one doctrine but afterward left another in the Scriptures. Secondly, because this foundation is not only Paul’s but also that of the other Apostles, and also of the Prophets. Now the Ephesians had not heard all the Apostles, perhaps only Paul at that time, but of the Prophets of the Old Testament they had heard none preaching. Stapleton doubles again and wants the Prophets of the New Testament to be understood here, of whom there is mention at Eph. 4. 11. 1 Cor. 12. v. 28.

But the duplication is false: for Paul understands the Prophets of the Old Testament, even if in the later place he names them. The Fathers agree with us. St. John Chrysostom, on the second chapter to the Ephesians, homily six, says that Paul first sets the Apostles, who are last in time; and he straightway adds, “Consider that the Greeks have the Patriarchs for a foundation.” St. Ambrose, in his Commentaries, explains it in the same way as we do and refutes Stapleton’s opinion. For thus he says: “Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, that is, placed upon the New and Old Testament; for what the Apostles preached, the Prophets foretold would be.” Although Paul says to the Corinthians, “God has set in the Church first Apostles; second, Prophets,” yet these are other Prophets. For in that place he disputes about the ordering of the Church, but here about the foundation of the Church. For the Prophets disposed; the Apostles laid the foundations. Whence the Lord says to Peter: “Upon this rock I will build my Church,” that is, “in this Catholic confession of faith I set the faithful unto life.” St. Thomas, in the exposition of the epistle of Paul to the Ephesians at these words, likewise says that Paul here understands the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets; and straightway he explains why Paul joins Apostles and Prophets together, namely, to show that both doctrines are necessary for salvation, Matt. 13. “A scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings forth from his treasure things new and old”; and likewise to show concord between the two for building up, that is, as the foundation of both; for what the Prophets foretold would be, the Apostles preached as done, Rom. 1. “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, which he had promised before by his Prophets.” Thus St. Thomas teaches that at Eph. 2 Paul understands the Prophets of the Old Testament. …understand. There Thomas Aquinas reconciles the places that seem to conflict, 1 Corinthians 3 and Ephesians 2. As to the meaning (he says) they do not differ at all, since it is the same to say that Christ is the foundation, and that the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles is the foundation, since they preached Christ alone, not themselves. Hence to receive their doctrine is to receive Christ crucified. 1 Cor. 1: We, however, preach Christ crucified. 1 Pet. 1: To whom it was revealed that not to themselves, etc. Theodoret and Dionysius the Carthusian are of the same opinion, that the Prophets of the Old and not of the New Testament are here understood. Third, we gather thus that the Apostle is speaking not of external preaching by a living voice, but of the written word of God. What is transitory cannot be the foundation of the Church, which is a house abiding forever. But the preaching of the Apostles and Prophets which they carried out by a living voice was transitory; because it was an act lasting a short time, and for many ages now it has ceased and come to an end. Therefore that preaching is not the foundation of the Church. On the contrary, if Paul is speaking of a perpetual foundation of the Church, which should stand and endure even to the end of the world, and on which the Church of all times should always lean; then surely he understands the written word of God. The former is true; therefore also the latter. And let that saying too hold which is commonly said: The emitted voice perishes; the written letter remains.

Fourth, it is also clear from this that Paul understands by the foundation the God-breathed (theopneuston) Scripture, because in Acts 26:22 he professes that he said nothing beyond those things which the Prophets and Moses foretold would come to pass. Therefore this passage in Ephesians must be explained thus, lest it conflict with other places. Hence it is plain enough that there is not in the name “foundation” such an equivocation as Stapleton contrives. But in fact, he who is so diligent a catcher of equivocations himself plays with equivocation in his distinction of equivocation, when he says that “foundation” in this place of Paul signifies “preaching.” For either he properly understands the action of the Apostles and Prophets; or, by a metonymy of the adjunct, the very word of God preached. If he understands the action, he attributes to a building abiding perpetually a transitory foundation - indeed, he posits a building without a foundation - because that act of the Apostles and Prophets ceased from the time when the Apostles and Prophets ceased to live on earth and to preach in person by a living voice. But if Stapleton understands the word of God preached, we say with Irenaeus, Book Three against Heresies, chapter one: We have not learned the dispensation of our salvation through any others than those by whom the Gospel came down to us; which indeed they then proclaimed, but afterward, by the will of God, they handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. Thus according to Irenaeus, indeed according to Paul, the foundation and pillar of our faith is the Gospel handed down to us in the Scriptures by the will of God. Thus far concerning the first equivocation. Stapleton says that the second equivocation is in the word “Church” (Ecclesia), which he wants here to be understood not of the pastors, but only of the people. But neither is there any equivocation in this word. For, first, Paul is treating of the foundation of the whole Church; therefore also of the pastors. Now Sacred Scripture is the foundation of the whole Church; therefore also of the pastors. But if Sacred Scripture is not the foundation of the pastors, then they are not members of the Church. Second, if by the word “Church” here the pastors are not understood, but only the people, then the pastors have one foundation and the people another. But there is not one foundation of the pastors and another of the people, because No one can lay another foundation besides that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus, as is said in 1 Cor. 3:11, that is, the Gospel concerning Christ Jesus handed down in the Holy Scriptures, because that foundation the Apostles laid, as Irenaeus teaches, Book Three against Heresies, chapter one; or what comes to the same thing, the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets concerning Christ Jesus, as Thomas Aquinas explains in the Exposition of Ephesians, chapter two, lecture six. Hence it is clear that by the word “Church” in this place of Paul not only the people but also the pastors are understood. Third, if the Apostles themselves were first built upon Christ through faith and charity, then surely by the name “Church” here are understood not only the people but also the pastors. But the antecedent is true, as Thomas Aquinas says in the exposition of chapter three of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, lecture two. The Apostles themselves were first built upon Christ through faith and charity; whence it is said in Ephesians 2 that they are built upon the foundation of the Apostles. Thus Thomas Aquinas from this very passage in Ephesians proves that the Apostles themselves were first built upon Christ. Therefore it is necessary that other pastors of the Church also be built upon Christ.

If anyone rejoins that the Apostles are called in Rev. 21 the twelve foundations, I reply with Thomas Aquinas from the exposition of chapter two to the Ephesians, lecture six: the Apostles are called foundations insofar as their doctrine proclaims Christ. Matt. 16: Upon this rock I will build my Church. Thus also, according to Thomas Aquinas, Christ is that rock of the Church of which Matthew 16 speaks. Moreover, as we warned in the first equivocation, so do we here also warn that the catcher of equivocations is in turn caught: for he says that by the word “Church” sometimes only the pastors, sometimes only the people are understood. But Peter of Ailly, the Cardinal of Cambrai, in De Commendatione Sacrae Scripturae, says that the Church is never taken in the text of divine Scripture specially for the congregation of the clergy. TENTH. From that on which the authority of the Church depends with respect to us, from that, surely, conversely the authority with respect to us does not depend on the Church’s authority. But the authority of the Church with respect to us depends on the authority of Sacred Scripture: therefore the authority of Sacred Scripture in no way depends on the authority of the Church. The major proposition is most firm: for the proving authority does not depend on the authority to be proved: the giver of authority does not depend on the one receiving it. The first proof of the minor is that only from Sacred Scripture can it now be proved and known which is the true Church, as Augustine at length teaches in volume seven, the book On the Unity of the Church against the Epistle of Petilian the Donatist, chapter two: Between us and the Donatists the question is, where is the Church? What then shall we do - seek it in our own words, or in the words of its Head, our Lord Jesus Christ? I think that rather we ought to seek it in his words, who is the truth and best knows his body. For the Lord knows those who are his. And in chapter three: Let us not hear, I say this, you say that, but let us hear, Thus says the Lord. There are surely the Lord’s books, whose authority both of us acknowledge, both of us believe, both of us serve: There let us seek the Church, there let us sift our cause. And soon after: I do not wish the holy Church to be demonstrated by human documents, but by divine oracles. And at the end of the chapter: Therefore let us seek it in the holy canonical Scriptures. Augustine urges this very point through many chapters in that book. St. John Chrysostom, homily forty-nine on Matthew, in the imperfect work, volume three, page 722 of the Froben edition of the year 1530: Whoever wants to know which is the true Church of Christ, whence shall he know it, unless only through the Scriptures? And a little after: Otherwise, if Christians look to other things, they will be scandalized and perish, not understanding which is the true Church. If anyone objects that those homilies are not Chrysostom’s, but seem to be by some Arian, as Erasmus of Rotterdam judges in his censure: Against this I reply that the Canon Law itself cites those homilies in the imperfect work on Matthew as Chrysostom’s homilies, and draws canons from them, as the titles of many canons plainly teach. The second proof of the minor is that the Church derives all the authority it has from Sacred Scripture, which the Papists themselves make clear when, being asked whence they prove the authority of the Church, they immediately bring forward the Scripture, Matt. 18:17: Tell the

Church; and if he refuses to hear the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican; and 1 Tim. 3:15: The Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the truth. But upon the proving and defending authority depends the authority to be proved and defended. Therefore, since the Papists prove and defend the authority of the Church by the authority of Sacred Scripture, they make it clear that with respect to us the authority of the Church depends on the authority of Scripture. The third proof of the minor is that from Scripture alone the Church can prove that it does not err in doctrine. From these things it is clear that with respect to us the authority of the Church depends upon Scripture itself. ELEVENTH. Whose authority is greater than the Church’s, that in no way depends on the testimony of the Church: But the authority of Sacred Scripture is greater than the Church’s. Therefore the authority of Sacred Scripture in no way depends on the testimony of the Church. The major proposition is beyond controversy, because a greater authority does not depend on a lesser authority; but on the contrary, the lesser on the greater. The minor proposition has several proofs. The first is that the proving authority is greater than the authority to be proved; but the authority of Sacred Scripture is proving, the authority of the Church is to be proved from Scripture, as was said above: therefore the authority of Sacred Scripture is greater than the Church’s. The second is that we are sent by God to Scripture for finding the truth, not however to the statutes and customs of the Church. To the law and to the testimony, says God, Isa. 8:20. They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them, says Abraham, Luke 16:29. Search the Scriptures, says Christ, John 5:39. And they are they which testify of me. From infancy you know the sacred letters, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. 3:15. St. John Chrysostom, homily forty- nine on Matthew, the imperfect work, the page just cited: Knowing that so great a confusion of things would be in the last days, therefore the Lord commands that Christians who are in Christendom, wishing to receive firmness of the true faith, should flee to nothing except to the Scriptures. The third proof of the minor is that the testimony of Sacred Scripture is firmer than that of the Church, as is clear from John 5:34 and the following, where Christ says: I have a testimony greater than that of John; and then he enumerates three testimonies greater than John’s testimony, namely, of his works, of his Father, and of the Scriptures. Hence we conclude thus: If the testimony of Sacred Scripture is greater and firmer than the testimony of John the Baptist, then surely it is also greater and firmer than the testimony of the Church. But the first is true; therefore also the second. The fourth proof of the minor is this. Whatever binds the Church has an authority greater than the Church’s: for, as is said, an equal does not bind an equal, much less a superior. But Holy Scripture binds the Church: Deut. 4:1: Now therefore, Israel, give heed to the statutes and judgments which I teach you to do, that you may live. In Rev. 2 and 3 it is found repeatedly: He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches, etc. Finally, v. 16: says the Lord: I

Jesus have sent my angel to testify these things to you in the churches. St. John Chrysostom, homily forty-nine on Matthew in the imperfect work, volume three, page 729 of the Froben edition of the year 1530: Nor is it to be believed absolutely even for the true churches themselves (for of these he is speaking), unless they say or do those things which are in agreement with the Scriptures. And soon: Do not depart from the rule of truth which I have delivered to you: do not believe. The fifth proof of the minor is from Canon Law, Distinction 9, chapter Quis nesciat: That which is set before all later letters of bishops has a greater authority than all bishops, and consequently also than the Church. But Holy Scripture is set before all later letters of bishops: Who does not know (says Canon Law) that Holy Canonical Scripture, of both the Old and the New Testament, is contained within its own fixed bounds, and that it is so set before all later letters of bishops that about it there can in no way be doubt or dispute whether whatever is written in it, or has been established to be in it, is true or right. The sixth proof of the minor: If more credence is to be given even to a layman than… if greater credence is to be given to a man not authorized, who brings forward Holy Scripture, than to the whole Council (which is the representative Church, to which alone judgment concerning the Scriptures the Romanist doctors say belongs) when it determines something against Scripture; then indeed Holy Scripture has greater authority than the Church. The antecedent is true; therefore also the consequent. The assumption is confirmed by the confession of the Papists themselves, such as the Abbot Panormitanus and Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris. Therefore Holy Scripture has greater authority than the bishops, and consequently than the Church. Twelfth: If the authority of Christ does not depend on the testimony of the Church, then neither does the authority of Holy Scripture depend on the testimony of the Church. The antecedent is true. Therefore also the consequent. The assumption is manifest from the words of Christ, Ioh. 5. v. 34: I receive not testimony from man; the meaning of which is: There is no need that anyone, by his testimony, should bestow or procure authority for me. But the consequence of the connection is confirmed thus. If the authority of Holy Scripture is not less than that of Christ himself, then it follows that if Christ’s authority does not depend on the Church’s testimony, neither does the authority of Holy Scripture depend on it. The former stands; therefore also the latter. The assumption of this confirmation is proved thus: The voice of Christ does not have less authority than Christ himself. But Holy Scripture is the voice of Christ; therefore the authority of Holy Scripture is not less than that of Christ himself. Two exceptions are taken against this argument. One is, that Christ indeed did not need the testimony of any man, but nevertheless brought the testimony of John on account of the Jews. The other is, If Christ brought the testimony of John on account of the Jews, then also Holy Scripture is commended by the testimony of the Church on our account.

I REPLY to the first and say that our argument is not weakened by that, but strengthened. For if Christ did not need the testimony of any man, then neither does Scripture, which is the word of Christ, need the testimony of any man: because the case is the same. Just as a king or prince, whose trustworthiness has always been known to his subjects by experience itself, whether he affirms something about himself or others with a living voice, or asserts the same by letter, in either way has sufficient authority from himself that faith be given to him; so that there is no need for him of others’ testimony. If subjects grant so much to an earthly king and prince that they give him credence when he testifies something concerning himself or another, whether he does it by a living voice or by letter, even if he had no testimony from another: how much more shall we, without hesitation, believe Christ, the King of kings and Prince of princes, testifying concerning himself and his Scripture, whether in person with a living voice, as was done formerly, or through his Scripture, as he now does. To the second I reply, that we likewise grant it, since it makes nothing against us. For out of sheer willingness we the more willingly grant that Holy Scripture is commended by the testimony of the Church for the sake of the weak. But just as John the Baptist indeed bore witness concerning Christ, yet did not give authority to Christ in the eyes of others; so the Church indeed with its testimony commends Holy Scripture to us, yet gives it no authority, nor, as regards us. Thirteenth; If the word of God preached by a living voice did not have its authority from the Church, then neither does the written [word]. The antecedent is true; therefore also the consequent. First confirmation of the connection. If the word of God preached by a living voice is one and the same with the written word of God, then it necessarily follows that if the former did not have authority from the Church, neither does the latter. But the former is true. Therefore also the conclusion. Second confirmation of the connection: If the word of God when preached did not lose its authority among the faithful after it was committed to letters, but retained the same among them; then it follows indeed, if the preached [word] did not have authority from the Church, neither does the written [word]. The former stands; therefore also the latter. The assumption of the principal syllogism is evident from this, that the word of God - both from the beginning, spoken ἀµέσως (immediately) to the patriarchs by God himself, and afterwards preached through the prophets and apostles - was forthwith received by the faithful as divine, commended by no testimony of the Church. Fourteenth: If the word of God preached by a living voice was immediately received by the faithful as the word of God, with no prior judgment and testimony of the Church, then also the written word is immediately to be received by the faithful as the word of God, with no prior judgment and testimony of the Church. The antecedent is true. Therefore also the consequent. The minor is most certain from I. Thessal. 2. v. 13, where Paul addresses the Thessalonians thus: We give thanks to God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but (as it truly is) as the word of God, which also works in you who believe. CHRYSOSTOM, in the third homily on the First Epistle to the

Thessalonians, explains thus: For, hearing us, you were not affected as hearing men, but you attended as if God himself were admonishing you. And soon after: For how, unless you had heard as God speaking, would you endure such dangers? Therefore see the authority. AMBROSE, in his Commentaries on this place, thus writes concerning the Thessalonians: With such devotion did they receive the word, that they proved they understood it to be the word of God. Likewise the Apostle writes, Gal. 4. v. 14: You received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. Fifteenth: That whose authority is greater and more potent than the authority of the word of God even preached by Christ himself, assuredly does not depend on the testimony of the Church. The authority of Holy Scripture is greater and more potent than the authority of the word of God, even preached by Christ himself: Therefore, etc. The major proposition is most certain: because the authority of the word preached by Christ himself is greater than the testimony of the Church. The minor proposition is evident from Ioh. 5. v. 46, 47, where Christ prefers Holy Scripture even to the word preached by himself, when he says: If you believed Moses, you would believe me also: for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? Which words Theophylact so interprets, ἀπιστοῦντες τοῖς γεγραµµένοις, πῶς πιστεύσετε ἐµοῖς ἀγράφοις ῥήµασιν (apistountes tois gegrammenois, pos pisteusete emois agraphis rhemmasin), that is, You do not believe those things which are written; and how will you believe my unwritten words? Jansenius the Papist, explaining the words of Christ, says it is an argument from the greater, because as that which is committed to letters is more firmly established, so it is more blameworthy and greater not to believe writings than not to believe words. And that is certain: for written authority (engraphos) is greater and more potent than unwritten authority (agraphos). For a written thing has a twofold authority, namely both from the author and from the mode; but a thing not written has a simple authority, namely only from the author. Who does not know this to be observed in contracts, in obligations, in testamentary causes? Surely bare words can be denied, writings cannot: and writings have more weight for proving and confirming than things said bare and not written. Sixteenth: The authority of Holy Scripture does not depend on the authority of the prophets and apostles; much less therefore on the authority of the Church of today. The antecedent is plain from this, that the prophets and apostles are unwilling that faith be given to them on the ground that they themselves proclaim whatever they proclaim, but because THE LORD says it. Whence the prophets repeatedly say, Thus SAYS THE LORD: and concerning the apostles Christ says, Matth.

Seventeenth: Whoever can err, from his testimony the authority of Holy Scripture does not depend; but the Church can err; therefore, etc. The major is self-evident: for the authority of that which is farthest removed from every error cannot receive authority from that which is liable to errors. The minor is true even by the confession of our adversaries themselves, who say that the Church can err in certain matters, as in things to be done or practicals and those which are of human law, and in the canonizations of saints, as Gerson says in the treatise De examine doctrinarum, part one, consideration one; which also is approved by Thomas Aquinas in Quodlibet eight, last article, except that concerning canonizations he thinks one ought piously to believe that in them the Church does not err. Melchior Canus, book four of the Loci Communes, chapter four, says that the Church can err in those matters which have not been revealed to it by God; therefore the Church can also believe things which are not revealed to it, and err in them, but with a probable error, which neither shakes faith nor removes the truth of the Church. Alphonsus, book six Contra haereses, admits that the Church can err in those things which do not pertain to faith, namely that it can err in a matter of fact, but not in right and in dogma. Edmund Campion the Jesuit, in the Colloquy of the second day, similarly confesses that the Church can err in a matter of fact, as, for example, to condemn an innocent bishop and to absolve one who is guilty. Others take refuge in that oft-repeated Papist axiom, that the Church cannot err; but that is more easily said than understood, not to say proved; which the disagreement of interpretations of that axiom shows. We distinguish in a twofold way. First, the Church considered in itself and left to itself by God not only can err but even can fall away from God, as the example of the very first and entire Church in Paradise shows. For Adam and Eve then represented the universal Church, but they, and in them all men, fell away from God. Considered, however, as it is in Christ and when it follows him, it cannot err, according to Christ’s saying, I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life, John 8:12. Then again a particular Church must be distinguished from the universal. Any particular Church not only can err, but also can be overwhelmed by errors and plainly fall away from Christ, as examples testify; but the truly Catholic or universal Church, which is only of the elect unto eternal life, we grant cannot err with a fourfold restriction, namely: first, when it hears in the Holy Scriptures the voice of its Shepherd Christ sounding and follows it, according to that word, John 10:4 - 5, The sheep follow him, because they know his voice. But a stranger they will by no means follow, but will flee from him; because they do not know the voice of strangers; and verse 27, Those sheep of mine hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. Second, the truly Catholic Church cannot err in things absolutely necessary unto salvation, and therefore it neither has nor can have errors that overturn the foundation, because of Christ’s promise, Matthew 16:18, Upon

this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; but in lighter matters and those not necessary unto salvation it can err, yet with errors not overturning the foundation. Third, we say that the truly Catholic Church cannot err, namely the whole, both because God always keeps for himself witnesses and heralds of his truth, and such as profess and retain it, according to that word, that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, 1 Timothy 3:15. This very restriction is brought forward by John of Torquemada, Cardinal, book two of the Summa de Ecclesia, chapter 91, and book 3, chapter 60. According to the doctrine of the Fathers, what we say - that the Church cannot err in faith and morals - is to be understood thus: namely, that God so assists the Church unto the consummation of the age, that faith never indeed fails in it; for there will be no time unto the end of the age in which there will not be some - though not all - who have true faith working through love. Then too because in this life it never was, never is, never will be altogether at once, but dispersed. Eighteenth: If there is more force to one not authorized who brings forward Holy Scripture than to the whole Council (which is the representative Church, to which alone, the Romanist doctors say, the judgment concerning the Scriptures belongs) determining something against Scripture; then assuredly the authority of Holy Scripture is greater than that of the Church. What goes before is true; therefore also what follows. The assumption is confirmed by the confession of the Papists themselves, as of the Abbot Panormitanus and Gerson, Chancellor of the Parisian Academy. Therefore the authority of Holy Scripture is greater than that of the bishops, and consequently than that of the Church. Nineteenth: If Christ’s authority does not depend on the testimony of the Church, then neither does the authority of Holy Scripture depend on the testimony of the Church. The antecedent is true; therefore also the consequent. The assumption is clear from Christ’s words in John 5:34, I receive not testimony from man; the sense of which is, There is no need that anyone should support me with his testimony. finally the whole will be together on the last day, when Christ will bring it and present it to the Father, 1 Corinthians 15. Fourth, we say that the true Catholic Church cannot err, namely, not finally. For although it can be deceived and err in some matter, nevertheless it cannot persist to the end in a deadly error: thus the Church of Jerusalem, gathered from the Apostles and disciples of Christ, erred when it believed that Christ’s kingdom would be earthly, Acts 1:6; but Christ did not allow the Church to remain in that error. Therefore it must be confessed that the universal Church can err and has sometimes erred. But never to be deceived and to err belongs to God alone. Eighteenth: Whoever only declares that Holy Scripture is authentic, but does not make it authentic, from him the authority of Holy Scripture in no way depends, not even as to us. But the Church only declares that Holy Scripture is authentic, and does not make it authentic: Therefore, etc. The major is certain, because nothing can be called authentic which seems authentic to none. For that is called authentic which is sufficient to itself for faith, which has authority from itself, which commends, sustains, and proves itself. The minor is true by the confession of the adversaries.

Nineteenth: From whatever the authority of Holy Scripture as to us depends, that necessarily and perpetually brings it about that Holy Scripture obtains authentic authority among us. But the Church does not necessarily and perpetually bring it about that Holy Scripture obtains authentic authority among us: Therefore, etc. About the major proposition there can be no doubt: because once the true, proper, necessary, and sufficient cause of that authentic authority which Holy Scripture obtains among us is posited, the effect itself must be posited; since the authority of Holy Scripture as to us depends on the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, therefore the Holy Spirit necessarily and perpetually brings it about that Holy Scripture obtains authentic authority among us. Experience confirms the minor proposition. For the primitive Church could not persuade innumerable philosophers and other Gentiles to acknowledge the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture as divine and as the canon of divine religion: which is attested by so many persecutions raised against Christians, so many writings and slanders disseminated against the Christian Church, so many ecclesiastical writings opposed to the Gentiles, such as those of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras the Athenian, Tertullian, Lactantius, Arnobius against the Gentiles, Athanasius against the Gentiles, Theodoret On the Cure of the Greek Affections, and others. Then also to many who professed the Christian name, namely heretics, the Church could not persuade them to acknowledge and hold as truly divine those Prophetic and Apostolic books which they were rejecting, as is abundantly clear from Bellarmine’s first book On the Word of God, chapters five and six, in which he treats of the heretics who attacked the books of the Old and New Testament. Likewise by its testimony the Church could not bring it about that the Scripture of the New Testament was held as divine among the Jews. Nay, even if the Church to this day steadily testifies and asserts that the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture is truly divine and canonical, yet it cannot bring this about among an innumerable multitude of men, as among the Turks, Saracens, and other Gentiles, that they hold and receive it as such. Twentieth: From whatever the authority of Holy Scripture as to us depends, from that it is necessary that the faith by which we believe Holy Scripture as the Word of God be infused into us: But from the Church the faith by which we believe Holy Scripture as the Word of God is not infused into us, nor indeed can it be infused: Therefore, etc. The major proposition is proved thus: Whatever is the proximate, immediate, and sufficient cause, which by its own power brings it about that we receive the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture, from that assuredly that faith is infused, inserted, engendered in us: the reason is, because no one can believe Scripture as the Word of God without infused faith. Now that from which the authority of the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture as to us depends is the proximate, immediate, and sufficient cause which by its own power brings it about that we receive the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture. Therefore, etc.

The minor proposition is true by the confession of the adversaries. For what is generated in us by God alone, that is not infused into us by the Church: but the faith by which we believe Holy Scripture as the Word of God is generated in us by God alone: Therefore it is not infused into us by the Church. The assumption of the prosyllogism, by which the minor proposition is proved, is most certain: because even if someone should produce the greatest miracles, nevertheless no one believes him unless he whose heart God inspires with faith, as is evident from Deuteronomy 29:2 - 4. Moses, calling together all the Israelites, said to them: You have seen all that Jehovah did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants, and to all his land: those very great proofs which your eyes saw, those very great signs and wonders. But Jehovah had not given you a heart to understand, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, to this day. So the Pharisees and Scribes and other Jews saw very many miracles of Christ, and yet did not believe Christ and the Apostles: much less then would the Church be believed, merely asserting something nakedly. Twenty-first: Whatever is more recent than Holy Scripture - on its testimony the authority of Holy Scripture in no way depends. But the Church is more recent than Holy Scripture: Therefore, etc. The major is clear in itself. The minor is evident from this: because even the first of all churches, which was in Paradise, existed by and after the Word of God, and indeed by no other Word of God than that very same which is now contained in Scripture: but that the Church of today, indeed any that was after the times of the Apostles, is posterior to Scripture both as to substance, that is, the Word of God, or the very heavenly doctrine; and as to accident, that is, its writing, is beyond controversy, as said above. Twenty-second. Whatever itself needs and relies on the testimony of Holy Scripture - on that the authority of Holy Scripture in no way depends. But the Church itself needs and relies on the testimony of Holy Scripture: Therefore, etc. The major proposition is true in itself. The minor is evident from this, that the Church proves by the testimony of Scripture that it is the true and orthodox Church, nor can it prove that from elsewhere. Thus St. John Chrysostom, on Matthew, homily forty-nine, in the imperfect work of the third volume, page 722 of the Froben edition of the year 1530, says: No proof of true Christianity can exist, nor can there be any other refuge of Christians who are willing to know the truth of the faith, except the divine Scriptures. For formerly it was shown in many ways (by the living voice of the Apostles, by their miracles, by prophets or predictions of future things, and by the Holy Scriptures) which was the Church of Christ and which was heathenism: but now it is in no way known, to those willing to know which is the true Church of Christ, except only through the Scriptures. Twenty-third: Whatever testimony is diverse and at odds with itself, and therefore doubtful, uncertain, and deceptive, from that assuredly the authority of Holy Scripture in no way depends. But the testimony of the Church is diverse and at odds with itself, and therefore doubtful, uncertain, and deceptive: Therefore, etc.

The major is beyond controversy; because the foundation of infallible faith ought to be infallible. The minor is evident from this: because the Church has determined variously and discordantly about the books of Scripture, at one time excluding certain books from the catalogue of divine writings, at another time receiving them into it: which the comparison of the judgments of the Church concerning the divine Scriptures proves. Soon after the times of the Apostles, the Greek Church pronounced otherwise about certain books than the Latin. The Greek acknowledged the Epistle to the Hebrews as divine, the Latin did not acknowledge it, as St. Jerome testifies, volume five, in the Commentaries on the sixth chapter of Isaiah, page thirty-five of the Froben edition of the year 1525, where he says, Hence also the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which the Latin usage does not receive, says, Are they not all, he says, ministering spirits? And in the third volume of the letters, the letter to Dardanus, page sixty-nine of the Froben edition of the year 1524, he says, But if the usage of the Latins does not receive it (namely the Epistle to the Hebrews) among the Canonical Scriptures, neither do the Churches of the Greeks receive the Apocalypse of John with the same freedom. Accordingly the Latin Church, that is, the Roman, either formerly erred in rejecting the Epistle to the Hebrews, or now errs in receiving it. The Council of Laodicea, confirmed by the Sixth General Synod, excluded from the number of divine books the book of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus or Jesus the son of Sirach, the Maccabees. Before the Council the same was done by Melito, bishop of Sardis, Origen, Athanasius in the Synopsis of Holy Scripture, Gregory Nazianzen; and after the Council Jerome, Rufinus of Aquileia, Epiphanius, John of Damascus, and others, as shown elsewhere. But the Third Council of Carthage, in canon forty-seven - although that is adulterine - by a changed judgment made those same books divine and canonical; which adulterine canon the Council of Trent followed, itself also adulterine, or rather an adulterer, since it confirmed spiritual adultery. Formerly some letters were contradicted, such as James and Jude, and the second of Peter and the second and third of John, as is clear from Eusebius, book two of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter twenty-three, where about the Epistle of James he says, ἐσεον ως νοθευεται µιν. κ πολλει γῆν τῶν παναι ἀθτης εµγηµονδυσαν, ως κδε τῆς λεγοµινης ικδα, that is, It must be known that it is adulterine; for not many of the ancients made mention of it; nor of the letter which is called that of Jude. And Jerome in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers says of it, that it is asserted to have been published by some other person under the name of James. Duraeus replies that Eusebius is cited fraudulently, Jerome however mutilated: that Eusebius meant this, that by some this letter is not held to be James’s; yet that it has been received by very many churches; that Eusebius also by no means doubted concerning the author of this letter: but that Jerome immediately adds to the words above, although with time gradually advancing it obtained authority, Our reply. Duraeus does manifest violence to the words and to the sense of Eusebius; for books are called vθευν ος, not those which are thought to be of another author than the one to whom they are commonly ascribed, but those which are adulterine.

Wherefore Eusebius does not say that by some it is not held or received as the Epistle of James; but, τοῦ ἐακωρκη πξῶτη τῶν σνεµαζοµεναν καθελικῶν ἐπισολῶών ειιαι λεγεταµ, µεσοον ως vοθευεταµ µεν; that is, That of James, the first of those which are called Catholic Epistles, is said to be; next, that it is adulterine indeed. What Eusebius then subjoins, Next, however, that it has been publicly received by very many churches: from this it cannot be concluded that he judged it to be divine and canonical, because in book three, chapter twenty-three he also says of the book of the Shepherd, which they commonly ascribe to Hermas, δεδηµοσιδυµινον, that is, publicly received, and yet he numbers it among the spurious. In which chapter also he does not list the Epistle of James among the books of the New Testament οµολογηµιιες, that is, acknowledged and ascertained, which by the confession of all are divine and canonical, but among the αυτιλεγειιίνος, that is, the doubtful and controverted, to which …is contradicted. Indeed, he would by no means have reckoned it among the disputed (ἐν ἀντιλεγοµένοις, antilegomenois) books, if he had judged it to have been written by the Apostle James. In the allegation from Jerome nothing has been mutilated; moreover, the words which Pareus thinks ought to have been added help our cause the more. For the Epistle of James, as time gradually went on, obtained authority; therefore at some time it lacked authority. Concerning the same epistle and others, see like things in Eusebius, book three of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter twenty-four and the following, in the Paris Greek edition of Robert Stephanus, where he records that they are among the disputed (ἐν ἀντιλεγοµένοις), that is, those to which objection is everywhere made as not apostolic, yet now they are held as truly divine and canonical. What is more unstable than this judgment and testimony of the Church concerning the sacred books? Will so unstable a judgment be the infallible foundation of our faith? and will the authority of Holy Scripture hang upon such a various and uncertain testimony? Twenty-fourth: Whatever dogma is impious, pernicious, absurd, and incoherent (ἀσύστατον, asystaton) must certainly be rejected. But that the authority of Holy Scripture, at least as regards us, depends on the testimony of the Church alone is an impious, pernicious, absurd, and incoherent dogma. Therefore it is to be rejected. I prove that it is impious: first, because it subjects the word of God to the judgment of men and, with nefarious boldness, subjects God to men, so that either it is not believed that God speaks to us, or no faith is given to God speaking to us, unless when and insofar as it has pleased the men who bear the title of the Church. But this is blasphemous and contumelious against God, and no different from the error of the Gentiles, who did not allow Christ to be worshiped as God, for this reason, that the Roman Senate had not declared him a god, as Tertullian wrote in the Apologeticus against the Gentiles, chapter five. There was an old decree that no one should be made a god by the Emperor unless approved by the Senate, as M. Aemilius [decreed] concerning his god Alburnus. This also makes for our cause, that among you the divinity is weighed by human choice. Unless God shall have pleased man, he will not be God; man must now be propitious to God. Therefore Tiberius, in whose time the Christian name entered the age, when it was announced to

him from Syria Palestine that there the truth of that divinity had been revealed, brought the matter before the Senate with the prerogative of his own vote. Because the Senate had not examined it in itself, it rejected it. The Caesar remained in his opinion, threatening danger to the accusers of the Christians. The heathen Roman Senate is imitated by the Senate of Cardinals and Bishops of the Romans: unless it itself bestows divine authority upon Scripture and approves it by its own judgment, Scripture will not be divine for us. Thus among the Papists the divinity of Scripture is weighed by human choice. The Papists make an exception: To subject Scripture to the Church is not the same as to subject it to men. Reply. That exception is false; for what else is the Church than an assembly of men? Take away the men, and where will the Church be? Therefore it is one and the same thing to subject Scripture to the Church and to subject the same to men. Secondly, I prove that Papist dogma to be impious by this argument, that if the divine authority of Holy Scripture as regards us depends on the testimony of the Church alone, then between the Prophetic and Apostolic books and the blasphemies of the Koran no distinction is left for us, except insofar as the Church makes it. But this is impious: for in this way it is contrived that, as regards us, God differs from the devil, truth from falsehood, no more than as the judgment of the men bears who arrogate to themselves the title of the Church. The same dogma is pernicious, because it brings with it two evident dangers. One is that it shakes all certainty of our faith and salvation, inasmuch as we believe with certainty that Scripture is divine only for this reason, that the men who call themselves the Church so will and command us to believe. The other is that it utterly overthrows the whole Christian religion and exposes it to the mockeries and jeers of Jews and Turks and other impious men, if, wishing to stop their mouths, we demand that it be believed on our part for this reason alone that this Scripture has been delivered by God, because we, who are the Church, affirm it. For if for this reason alone it must be believed with certainty that God truly speaks in Holy Scripture, because the Christian Church so judges, then our whole religion stands upon our own testimony, and has no more firmness than the Turkish, which likewise stands upon their own testimony, that is, upon sand; and on equal right the Turks will demand that we believe God speaks in the Koran on account of their testimony, with which we demand that it be believed that God speaks in the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures on account of our testimony. The same dogma is absurd and ridiculous, because the Church on whose testimony they want us to believe, and they themselves say that they believe the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures to be divine, is the Pope with the Cardinals and other Roman prelates. Therefore they themselves (if indeed they believe) believe the Scriptures to be divine because of the testimony of the Church, that is, of themselves and their predecessors; and what is that other than this, that it has thus pleased and does please them? than which nothing is more absurd even in human affairs, much less in divine. And they want us to believe that Scripture is divine because of the testimony of the same Church, that is, for this reason, because it is approved by the Popes and Cardinals and Roman

prelates. And so in reality they do not want us to believe Scripture or God, but themselves; than which again nothing is more absurd and more ridiculous. In sum, all who believe and want others to believe that some Scripture is divine because they so judge and testify, act absurdly and ridiculously. The reason is that they believe and want others to believe on account of their own testimony. But for anyone to wish to rely on his own testimony is foolish in human affairs; how much more in divine. Now the Papists do and establish that very thing. For the Church, upon whose testimony they want the divine authority of Scripture to depend, they say is the Pope with the bishops. For they define the Church in a twofold way, collectively and representatively. Collectively, in their view, the Church is the multitude of those who profess the same faith and use the same Sacraments under one head, the Roman Pontiff. Representatively, however, in their view, the Church is the multitude of bishops adhering to the Roman Pontiff, as it is seen assembled in a Council. In this latter sense only they make the Church the judge of controversies, the infallible interpreter of Scriptures, a witness beyond all exception, upon whom the authority of the Scriptures must necessarily depend. In both senses, however, the Church is bound to believe Scripture on account of the testimony of the Church. Therefore the Church collectively believes Scripture to be divine on account of the testimony of the representative Church; the representative Church on account of its own [testimony]; than which nothing is more stupid. Moreover, it is absurd in divine matters that faith should rest on the authority of men who do not have from God an express testimony that they do not err, such as the Prophets and Apostles once had. But the Papists want our faith to rest on the authority of men who do not have from God an express testimony that they do not err. Finally, the same dogma is incoherent (ἀσύστατον, asystaton) in a twofold way, because it does not stand together with other Papist dogmas, both true and false, but clashes with them and overthrows them. The true dogmas are these: that in Holy Scriptures, which are contained in the Prophetic and Apostolic writings, there is nothing more well known, nothing more certain, so that he must be most foolish who denies that faith is to be given to them; that those Scriptures are the word of God, made clear from the testimony of Scripture itself; that Holy Scripture is the most certain and most safe rule of believing, so that he is assuredly not of sound mind who, neglecting it, commits himself to the judgment of an inward spirit, often fallacious and always uncertain. These true dogmas Bellarmine asserts against the Schwenckfeldians and the Libertines in book one On the Word of God, chapter two, sections six, eleven, and thirteen. But the present assertion of the Papists overthrows these dogmas: for if the authority of the Scriptures depends only on the testimony of the Church, at least as regards us, then it will be false that nothing is more well known than they; it will follow that the Scriptures cannot be proved from the testimony of Scripture; it will follow that Scripture is not the most certain and most safe rule of believing, but that this praise rather belongs to the Church. Other dogmas of the Papists, though false, are these: that the authority of those Councils which the Popish bishops ascribe to them is proved from the Scriptures; likewise that the Church cannot be deceived and err; likewise that the Roman Pope has the primacy in the universal Church, that is, is the head and monarch of the universal Christian

Church. These dogmas the Papists everywhere try to bolster from the Scriptures, but they destroy them by the present assertion. For if this is true, that the authority of Scripture, as regards us, depends upon the authority of the Church, and therefore that we ought to believe the Scriptures on account of the authority of the Church, then it will be false that the Church is to be heard, that the Church cannot err, that the Roman Pope has the primacy in the universal Church, because of the authority of the Scriptures, since without doubt the proving authority is more well known, more certain, and greater than the authority to be proved. Twenty-fifth: That upon which the authority of Holy Scripture depends, in that the Christian faith and religion must necessarily terminate. But the Christian faith and religion do not terminate upon the testimony of the Church. Therefore the authority of Scripture does not depend on the testimony of the Church. Twenty-sixth: Whatever dogma is the Manichean heresy must be rejected. But this dogma - that the authority of Holy Scripture must be proved to be divine outside of Scripture - is the Manichean heresy. Therefore this dogma must be rejected. The minor is certain from Augustine, tome six, book one of the Acts with Felix the Manichee, chapter two, in which Felix the Manichee wants it to be proved to him outside of Scripture that Scripture is divine: “And let your Holiness,” says the Manichee to Augustine, “prove to me that which is written in the Gospel, Christ saying, ‘I go to the Father and I send to you the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, who will lead you into all truth.’ This do you, outside this Scripture, prove to be the Scripture of the Holy Spirit which Christ promised, wherein all truth may be found.” What else do the Papists establish? From these arguments anyone can see that the authority of the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture in no way depends on the testimony of the Church.

It is asked whether the testimony of the Church concerning the divine authority of Scripture is the chief, the most striking, and the most certain: the Papists affirm it, relying on these arguments. First. A divine testimony is the chief, the most striking, and the most certain. The Church’s testimony concerning the divine authority of Holy Scripture is divine. Therefore, etc. I answer: The minor proposition, understood simply, is false: because the Church’s testimony in itself is altogether and purely human. The Papists try to prove the minor thus: The voice of God is a divine testimony; the Church’s testimony is the voice of God; therefore the Church’s testimony is divine.

I answer: There is a fallacy from something said in a qualified sense to something said simply in the minor proposition. The Church’s testimony is the voice of God, not simply, but insofar as the Church publishes some doctrine revealed by God in the Scriptures: then indeed it is called the voice of God, not on account of the very act of speaking which is the Church’s, but on account of the oracles of divine Scripture which are brought forward by the Church. But the testimony of the Church, insofar as it is of the Church itself, or insofar as it proceeds from the Church, is not the voice of God. The adversaries press and maintain that the Church’s voice is the voice of God on three grounds: on account of the lawful authority of the doctrine of religion, and its infallible truth, and because the Spirit of God cooperates with the Church’s voice: hence they infer that there is therefore no need of a more certain testimony than the Church’s external proof. I answer: These three arguments are three-obol trifles. The first can be referred to this syllogism: Whatever voice confers lawful authority upon the doctrine of religion, that is the voice of God; the Church’s voice confers lawful authority upon the doctrine of religion; therefore the Church’s voice is the voice of God. I answer: The minor is false: for no doctrine is lawful on account of the Church, but the sole authority of God makes a doctrine lawful. For he who is himself the author of the doctrine, he alone confers authority upon the doctrine: the sole author of doctrine is God: therefore he alone bestows authority upon his doctrine, not the Church. Nor does God now establish new doctrines, but whatever he has appointed his Church to teach, he has consigned into his Scriptures: these are the Lord’s treasures, these are the Church’s treasures, as Basil says in the homily on repentance: “We shall speak of repentance from the Old and New Testament: for these are the Church’s treasures.” The second argument can be concluded by this syllogism: Whatever voice is infallibly true, that is the voice of God; the Church’s voice is infallibly true. Therefore, etc. I answer: The minor is false if it be taken universally of just any voice of the Church. For in religion nothing is infallibly true except that which is shown to have proceeded from God. But what the Church says, unless it be brought forth from the divine tables, will not be shown to have proceeded from God: therefore whatever voice of the Church shall not have been produced from Holy Scripture will not be infallibly true. For the Church has often enough misinterpreted the Scriptures, and has taught some things at variance with the Scriptures, nor is it bound to the truth so that it cannot err. For the Church has free will both to do ill and to stray from the truth and to teach falsehoods, as is manifest from the examples of the Churches that have existed up to now. But the Roman Church in particular has not so much forsaken as betrayed this truth, as is evident from its so many most false and most absurd doctrines together, on account of which the Christian religion has been turned into a laughing-stock among the Gentiles. The third argument is contained in this syllogism: Every voice with which the Spirit of God cooperates is the voice of God. The Spirit of God cooperates with the Church’s voice. Therefore, etc.

I answer: The minor, understood universally, is false. When the Church speaks the word of God, then the Spirit of God cooperates with the voice of the Church: but he does not cooperate with just any voice of the Church, since the Church does not always proclaim the word of God. Second. If those who do not heed the Church’s testimony are guilty of eternal death, then that testimony is the chief, the most striking, and the most certain. The antecedent is true: therefore so is the consequent. I answer: First, the conditional proposition is ambiguous, therefore it must be distinguished. If they do not heed the testimony of the Church, that is, of the true and orthodox Church, namely the testimony agreeing with Holy Scripture or drawn from it concerning some foundation of eternal salvation, they are guilty of eternal death. Next, the conditional labors under a monstrous fallacy (τερα τόκπυµδνον): for even if the antecedent be granted, nevertheless that consequent is not inferred from it. Third: God teaches us through the Church, and not otherwise. Therefore there is no testimony more certain than that of the Church. I answer: By retortion. Nay rather, if God teaches us through the Church, the authority of God is greater than that of the Church: because greater is the authority of him who teaches than of him by whom someone is taught. They press: But besides God’s authority there is no authority more certain than that of the Church. I answer: Nay rather there is, namely, that of Holy Scripture, whose authority is infinitely greater than that of the Church: because Holy Scripture is, without any doubt, the word of the living God. Thus far the opinion of the Papists.

But our orthodox opinion is this: The testimony of the Church concerning the divine authority of Scripture is not the chief, the most luminous, and the most certain of all. The arguments for our opinion are these: 1. Because far more principal, more luminous, and more certain than it is the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. 2. Because the testimony of the Church is not sufficient for the full assurance (πληροφορίαν, plērophorian) of faith and consolation. 3. Because it is not the absolutely infallible rule, basis, and foundation of faith. Someone may say that, among external testimonies, the testimony of the Church is the chief and most infallible. I answer: Not even among external testimonies is it such: because there is another external testimony of much greater authority, worth, and efficacy for establishing the divine authority of Holy Scripture, namely, that of Holy Scripture itself, which is the first truth revealed by God.

It is objected: Those who do not admit the testimony of the Church as the chief, most luminous, and most certain, those persons despise the Church and reject its testimony. But the Evangelicals do that: Therefore so do they. I answer: The minor is false, and therefore the conclusion as well. We do not despise, but we revere the true and orthodox Church, both ancient and present, as a mother who begot us to God, into whose bosom God wills us to be gathered, by whose work and ministry he nourishes us as long as we are infants and children, by whose maternal care he governs us until we grow up and at length arrive at the goal of faith. Nor do we slight and reject the testimony of the true and orthodox Church, since it too comes to the aid of our weakness and serves for the confirming of faith; but we ascribe to it only so much as ought to be ascribed - namely, that we do not equal it to the divine testimony, much less prefer it to that; and that we set it far before all other human testimonies. Now our opinion, how much is to be attributed to the testimony and authority of the Church, we shall gather in several theses. Thesis the first. Holy Scripture, in so far as it has, among men not yet endowed with the Spirit of God and with true faith, an authority on account of which it begins to be admitted and heard by them as the word of God, derives this from the testimony of the Church. Therefore we do not deny that the testimony of the Church can avail unto faith with those who, cleaving to human testimonies, do not yet perceive or understand divine things. But such faith is of necessity weak and confused; whereas explicated and solid faith requires far more solid foundations. Thesis the second. Holy Scripture, in so far as it has authority among the faithful and those endowed with the Spirit of Christ, to whom the truth and force of Holy Scripture is evident, no longer has that authority from the Church, but partly from the Holy Spirit, who has opened their hearts to believe Scripture as the word of God and to recognize its dignity; partly from itself, which, as light, so smites with its own brightness the eyes of the faithful already opened by the Holy Spirit, that it openly shows by itself that it is divine. An example of both propositions is in the Samaritans, John 4; likewise in catechumens, as in Augustine. Thesis the third. Holy Scripture ought to be not only in itself, but also among all; and among all the faithful endowed with the Spirit of God, with true faith, and with knowledge of Scripture, it is in very fact of greater authority than the Church. Gal. 1. 8 - 9: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you besides that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so now I also say again: If anyone should preach a gospel to you besides that which you received, let him be accursed.” 2 Pet. 1. 19: when the Apostle had testified that he and James and John had heard from heaven a voice borne about Christ, “This is my Son, that Beloved, in whom I am well pleased,” nevertheless he prefers to this his own testimony and that of the other Apostles the testimony of the Prophetic Scripture, when he says: “And we have the prophetic word more sure, to which you do well to pay attention,” etc. Thesis the fourth. Among those for whom the Church is of greater authority than Scripture, they are not yet endowed with the Holy Spirit.

It is asked: Is there then no authority of the Church with respect to Scripture? There is, and it is threefold. The first is the authority of recognizing and discerning divine Scripture from non-divine, canonical from non-canonical. John 10: “My sheep hear my voice.” 1 John 4. v. 1: “Test the spirits,” etc. The second is the authority of interpreting Scripture, but according to Scripture. The third authority is that of publicly preaching Scripture, Matt. 28: “Go,” etc. I answer: Those three arguments are three-obol pieces. The first can be referred to this syllogism: Whatever voice confers legitimate authority upon the doctrine of religion, that is the voice of God; the Church’s voice confers legitimate authority upon the doctrine of religion; therefore the Church’s voice is the voice of God. I answer: The minor is false: for no doctrine is legitimate on account of the Church, but the sole authority of God makes a doctrine legitimate. For he who is the author of the doctrine itself - he alone confers authority upon the doctrine. The author of doctrine is God alone; therefore he alone bestows authority upon his doctrine, not the Church. Nor does God now establish new doctrines; but whatever he has appointed his Church to teach, he has conveyed into his Scriptures: those are the Lord’s treasures, those are the Church’s treasures, as Basil, in the homily on repentance, says: “We shall speak of repentance from the Old and New Testament; for these are the Church’s treasures.”

Thus far we have treated of the Church’s testimony which it bears concerning the divinity or divine origin of Holy Scripture; the testimonies of other men outside God’s Church are those of the Jews, of heretics, and of the Gentiles themselves. For the Jews testify that all the books of the Old Testament are truly divine; whose testimony we rightly accept, because to them were entrusted the oracles of God, as Paul testifies in Rom. 3.2. For the fact that even now among the Jews the books of our religion are kept safe is a work of God’s providence on our behalf: so that we, bringing them forth from the Church, may not give those who wish to assail us with curses an occasion for saying that they have been foisted in by us or corrupted; rather, we produce them from their Synagogue, so that from the very books preserved by them up to this day it may appear clearly and manifestly that what was set forth by holy men pertains to us and to our doctrine; as Justin Martyr says in the First Paraenesis to the Greeks, p. 11. For what else even today is the very nation of the Jews, if not a certain chest-room for Christians, carrying the Law and the Prophets to bear witness to the Church’s assertion, says Augustine in the sixth volume, book twelve against Faustus the Manichee, chapter twenty-three. For this reason the Jews still exist, that they may carry our books to their own confusion. For when we wish to show that Christ was prophesied, we bring forth these letters to the pagans. And lest perchance

those hard to believe say that we Christians composed those writings, so that along with the Gospel which we preach we forged Prophets, by whom what we preach would seem to have been foretold, from this we convict them, because all those writings by which Christ was prophesied are among the Jews: the Jews have all those writings. We bring forth the codices from our enemies, that we may confound other enemies. In what reproach, then, are the Jews? A Jew carries the codex, from which a Christian believes. They have become our book-bearers, as slaves are wont to carry codices after their masters, so that they may grow weary by carrying, and these profit by reading; the same Augustine says this in the eighth volume, in the exposition of Psalm 56, p. 384 of the Froben edition of the year 1529. And toward the end of the first sermon in the exposition of Psalm 58, p. 409: The Jews are necessary to the Gentiles who believe. Wherefore this: That God may show us, in our enemies, his mercy (namely toward us). And soon after: The Jews are scattered as witnesses of their own unrighteousness and of our truth. They themselves have the codices in which Christ was prophesied, and we hold Christ. And if perchance some pagan should at some time doubt, when we shall have told him the prophecies about Christ, at the evidence of which he is astonished, and in his wonder thinks they were written by us, we prove from the codices of the Jews that all this was foretold beforehand. See how from our enemies we confound other enemies. Augustine has similar things in the second volume, letter fifty-nine, which is to Paulinus; and in the sixth volume, book thirteen against Faustus the Manichee, chapter ten; and in book sixteen against the same, chapter twenty-one. In particular, Flavius Josephus, a Jew by nation and profession, bears witness that the books of the Old Testament are divinely inspired, in the first book against Apion the Alexandrian grammarian not far from the beginning - a passage which Eusebius also cites in the Ecclesiastical History, book three, chapters nine and ten. So much for the testimony of the Jews. Heretics also, who separate themselves from the Church, render testimony to Holy Scripture, that it is divine. For from it they try to prove their own doctrine and to persuade other men: thus the Ebionites kept the Gospel of Matthew, the Valentinians the Gospel according to John, etc. Therefore, since those who contradict us bear witness to the divinity of Scripture, our demonstration is firm and true, as Irenaeus teaches, book three against the heresies, chapter eleven. Thus Tertullian says in the book On Prescriptions against Heretics, chapter fifteen: But they themselves (the heretics) both treat out of the Scriptures, and from the Scriptures they persuade. From elsewhere, forsooth, could they speak about matters of faith, unless from the writings of faith? Finally, the Gentiles themselves in like manner admit that our Scripture is divine. For to Ptolemy king of Egypt, when he marvelled why neither the historians nor the ancient poets made mention of the divine books, Demetrius of Phalerum replied - as Josephus reports from Aristeas in the twelfth book of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter two, and Eusebius in the eighth book of the Preparation for the Gospel, chapter one - that this Scripture is divine, and given by God himself; for that reason, if any of profane men wished to touch it, they were smitten by God and straightway

came to their senses. For he indicated how Theopompus, wishing to write in his history something about these things, was disturbed in mind for more than thirty days; and when he came to himself, with humility he begged pardon from God in supplication, since he suspected that madness had from that source befallen him, and he had also seen in dreams that this had happened to him for this reason: because he had scrutinized divine things and wished to bring them forth to impure men; and when he ceased from writing, he recovered his mind. He also reported that it is said of Theodectes, a poet of tragedies, that when he had tried to make mention, in some drama, of those things which are contained in the divine volume, he was struck with blindness of the eyes, and when he recognized the cause of his blindness, he was freed from his affliction by God’s granting pardon. It is objected I. The testimonies of impious men are not to be used for asserting the divine authority of the sacred books; but the Jews, heretics, and Gentiles are impious men; therefore their testimonies are not to be used. I answer: The major proposition must be limited. The testimonies of impious men are not to be used in divine matters, namely, unless either to confound other impious men and enemies, or to succor in this matter the weakness of the godly, who are greatly strengthened in the truth when they see that testimony is borne to it even by enemies. Who would forbid, then, the use of their testimonies for our Christian truth? Assuredly, universally, the testimony of enemies has great credit on behalf of enemies, and is eagerly received. Then too the minor must be restricted: the Jews, heretics, and Gentiles are impious men, not equally and in the same way, but some from malice, others from mere ignorance. It is objected II. Since God wills to be known by all men, it is not likely that anyone should be punished by God on account of the zeal for knowing him and for propagating him to others. But God wills Holy Scripture to be known by all men; therefore it is not likely that anyone should be punished by God on account of the zeal for knowing it and for propagating it to others. I answer: The major must be restricted. That God wills to be known by all men - namely, at any time, without any regard had to the distinction of the Church from other men outside the Church, with no discrimination of peoples observed - on account of the zeal for knowing him and for propagating him to others, it is not likely that anyone should be punished by God. But that God willed Holy Scripture to be known by all men at any time, without any regard had to the distinction of the Church from the remaining rabble of impious men, we deny. For before Christ’s coming in the flesh God made known his words to Jacob, and his statutes and his laws to Israel. He did not do so for any nation; therefore they did not know these laws, as it is said in Psalm 147, in the last two verses. In past ages he permitted all the Gentiles to walk in their own ways, says Paul, Acts 14.16.

Thus far the disputed questions about the divine authority of the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture have been dispatched. Questions follow about the canonical authority of the same. Concerning the canonical authority of Scripture there are between us and the adversaries several grave disputed questions about the same: One is, Whether the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture is a canon or rule of faith and good works. Another, What sort of canon or rule it is, whether total or partial. A third, From whom Scripture has this authority, that it is a canon or rule of faith and good works. As regards the first question, we affirm that Holy Scripture is the canon or rule of faith and good works: but the Romanists of today deny it, or at least affirm it inconsistently, and what they grant in words they in reality take away. Our affirmation is strengthened both by divine testimonies in which Holy Scripture is expressly called a canon or rule, and by other arguments drawn from Scripture. These testimonies are as follows. Gal. 6. v. 16. “And whoever shall walk according to this rule, peace be upon them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” The Apostle is speaking of a canon which the Holy Spirit has prescribed. Therefore he does not say indefinitely, whoever shall walk according to a canon, but deictically and emphatically (δεικτικῶς καὶ ἐµφατικῶς), whoever shall walk according to this canon - this one, I say, which is set forth in this epistle as also in the other divine Scriptures. Philip. 3. v. 15. 16. “As many therefore as are mature, let us think this; and if you think anything otherwise, this also God will reveal to you. Nevertheless, unto what we have attained, let us walk by the same rule (τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν κανόνι), let us be of the same mind.” Again the Apostle speaks of a canon which, as in the other sacred books, so also in this epistle is set forth, as he says: As many as are mature, let us think this - namely, that which in this epistle, as also in the other holy Scriptures, is enjoined. Moreover, Holy Scripture is named a canon or rule by a metaphor taken from the art of architecture. For just as architects who raise up buildings bring things to the standard, so that the several parts cohere among themselves with due symmetry and proportion; so those who teach and edify the Church of God ought to measure all that they teach by Holy Scripture and to stand upon it, in order that a sure and perpetual tenor of doctrine may be preserved. Other arguments drawn from Scripture are these. FIRST: The Word of God is the canon or rule of faith and good works: Holy Scripture is the Word of God. Therefore Holy Scripture is the canon or rule of faith and good works.

The major is not denied by the Romanists. For Bellarmine, in the first preface of the first tome, in the disputation on the controversies of the Christian faith against the heretics of this time, held in the Roman College in the year 1576, says toward the end: It is agreed between us and absolutely all the heretics that the Word of God is the rule of faith, by which judgment is to be made about doctrines; that it is a common principle granted by all, whence arguments are drawn; finally, that it is the spiritual sword which in this contest cannot be refused. The minor proposition has been proved above abundantly, both by testimonies and by most solid reasons. Furthermore, this demonstration is a “because” (τὸ διότι), from the proximate and immediate efficient cause of the canon or rule of faith and good works: that cause is the Word of God, that is, divinely inspired, because the Prophets and Apostles received the canon or rule of faith and good works not from men, nor through men, but from the immediate divine revelation, and handed it over to the Church. Whence the principle of Theology is more excellent than the principles of all the other disciplines: for the principle of Theology is had from the immediate revelation and divine inspiration; but the principles of all the other disciplines are had from the light of natural reason, as was also said above. SECOND. The first truth revealed to us is the rule of faith and of good works. Holy Scripture is the first truth revealed to us. Therefore, etc. The major proposition is manifest by its own light: for from the first truth every doctrine of faith and of good works arises and depends; then, than the first truth nothing is prior, nothing truer, and therefore by it it is necessary that faith and good works be regulated. The minor is certain also by the confession of the Romanists. For Sixtus of Siena, in the sixth book of the Bibliotheca, Annotation 151, says that Holy Scripture embraces the first and highest principles of things to be believed, and the chief precepts for living well and the examples readily known. Then the Schoolmen themselves often acknowledge Holy Scripture to be the first truth. THIRD: Whatever Scripture is in a divine manner useful for doctrine, for refutation, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for every good work - such a Scripture is assuredly the canon or rule of faith and good works. But Holy Scripture is such, as Paul bears witness, 2. Timoth. 3. v. 16, 17. FOURTH: Whatever Scripture can primarily and of itself make a man wise unto salvation through the faith that is in Christ Jesus - that is certainly the canon and rule of faith and good works. But Holy Scripture can do this, as Paul testifies, 2 Timoth. 3. 15. Therefore. FIFTH. Whatever Scripture by divine command all are bidden to hear, to read, to search, and not to turn aside from it to the right hand or to the left - that is assuredly the rule of faith and good works. But by divine command all are bidden to hear, to read, to search Holy Scripture, and not to turn aside from it to the right hand or to the left. Therefore, etc.

The minor is clear from these testimonies: Luc. 16. vers. 29. “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.” Esai. 8. v. 20. “To the law and to the testimony.” Josu. 1. v. 7, 8. “Only be confirmed and be very strong, that with observance you may do entirely according to that Law which Moses commanded you.” Are not the Jews necessary for the believing Gentiles? Why is this? In order that God may show to us in our enemies his mercy (namely, toward us). And presently: The Jews are scattered, witnesses of their own iniquity and of our truth. They themselves have the codices in which Christ was prophesied, and we hold Christ. And if perchance at some time some pagan should doubt, when we shall have told him the prophecies concerning Christ, at the evidence of which he is astonished, and, marveling, should think that they were written by us, from the codices of the Jews we prove that all this was foretold beforehand. See how from our enemies we confound other enemies. Augustine has like statements in tome two, the fifty-ninth epistle, which is to Paulinus; and in the sixth tome, book thirteen against Faustus the Manichee, chapter ten; and in book sixteen against the same, chapter twenty-one. And in particular he bears witness that the books of the Old Testament are from God. my servant; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be prospered wherever you go. Let not this book of the Law depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it by day and by night, that with observance you may do altogether as it is written in it: for then you will prosper in your ways, and then you will have good success. 1 Tim. 4. v. 13. Give attendance to the reading. John 5. v. 39. Search the Scriptures. The sixth: That to which the faithful of old even made the doctrine of the Apostles themselves conform is assuredly the canon or rule of faith and of good works. But to Sacred Scripture the faithful of old even made the doctrine of the Apostles themselves conform. Therefore, etc. The major is evident of itself: for what was the rule of every doctrine in the primitive Church, that same ought also now to be the rule; since to one truth there is of necessity one rule, and that perpetual. The minor is proved from Acts 17:11, where it is recorded that the Bereans received the word of God preached by Paul with all eagerness, daily searching the Scriptures whether these things were so. 2 Pet. 1:18 - 19. We ourselves heard this voice brought from heaven, when we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have a more sure prophetic word, you do well to give heed to it. The seventh: Whatever Scripture is a lamp to our feet and a light to our paths, and the foundation upon which we are built; that is truly the canon or rule of faith and of good works. But Sacred Scripture is a lamp to our feet and a light to our paths, and the foundation upon which we are built: as is clear from Psalm 119:105; Eph. 2:20. The eighth, from things cognate: Sacred Scripture is called canonical by all Christians: therefore it is a canon, that is, a rule.

To these arguments we add both the agreement of orthodox antiquity, and the testimonies of our adversaries. Tertullian, in the book Against Hermogenes, chap. 1, by the rule of truth understands Sacred Scripture. St. John Chrysostom says, homily thirteen on Genesis: Therefore I pray and adjure, that, with all other ears shut, we follow to the line the Canon of Sacred Scripture. And in homily thirteen on the second epistle to the Corinthians he calls Scripture a safe and exact balance and norm and canon (ἀσφαλῆ καὶ ἀκριβῆ ζυγὸν καὶ γνώµονα καὶ κανόνα), that is, the most exact scale and standard and rule of all things. St. Basil, book one Against Eunomius, calls Scripture the canon of rectitude and the norm of truth (κανόνα ὀρθότητος καὶ γνώµονα ἀληθείας), the canon of right and the norm of truth. St. Augustine, tome seven, book 2 Against Cresconius the Grammarian, chapter thirty-one: For we do no wrong at all to Cyprian, when we distinguish any of his letters from the canonical authority of the divine Scriptures. Nor without cause has the Ecclesiastical Canon been established so very salutarily for watchfulness, to which certain books of the Prophets and Apostles belong, which we should by no means dare to judge, and according to which we freely judge concerning other writings, whether of the faithful or of the unfaithful. Rufinus, in the Exposition of the Creed, after he had enumerated the books of Sacred Scripture, says: These are the things which the Fathers have enclosed within the canon, from which they willed the assertions of our faith to be established. St. Thomas Aquinas, first lecture on 1 Tim. 6: The doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets is called canonical, because it is as it were a rule of our intellect. He does not say “as it were” in order to lessen the dignity of Scripture, but to show a comparison, as if he were saying, it is the likeness of a rule. For the particle “as it were” in this place is a sign of comparison, not of diminution. Robert Bellarmine, book 1 On the Word of God, chap. 2, section thirteen, says that Sacred Scripture is the most certain and most safe rule of believing. And in book four On the Word of God Not Written, chapter twelve, section ten, he says: Scripture, because it is a rule, has this, that whatever it contains is of necessity true and to be believed; and whatever is repugnant to it is of necessity false and to be rejected. Andradius, at the beginning of book three of the Defense of the Council of Trent, writes: By no means does the opinion of those displease me who say that the Scriptures are for this reason called canonical, because they contain the canon of piety, faith, and religion, that is, the rule and norm, brought down to us from heaven by the supreme favor of God, in the fullest measure. Thus far the confirmation of our opinion. Bellarmine on the contrary, although in book one On the Word of God, chapter two, he taught that Sacred Scripture is the most certain and most safe rule of faith, to which the faithful have always been recalled, and without which the Church cannot err; nevertheless, disagreeing with himself, in book four On the Word of God Not Written, chapter twelve, section eight, says that it is not the proper and principal end of Scripture to be the rule of faith. He says this in order to lessen and diminish the authority of Scripture. He has slight arguments, which we shall briefly discuss. 1. Scripture is a certain kind of memorandum useful for preserving and fostering the doctrine received from preaching.

Therefore its proper and principal end is not to be the rule of faith. RESP. The antecedent, taken exclusively - as if Sacred Scripture were only a memorandum, and not at the same time properly and chiefly the canon of faith - is denied. For then it ought not to be called canonical, but rather “memorandatory,” as being from its proper and principal end: since it is more fitting that a thing be denominated from its proper cause than from an improper and foreign one. Bellarmine proves the antecedent by three testimonies of Scripture. The first is Rom. 15:4: Whatever things were written, were written for our learning, that through the patience and consolation of the Scriptures we might have hope. The second is 2 Pet. 1:13: But I think it right, so long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by way of reminder. The third is in the same epistle, chap. 3:1: Behold, I now write to you, beloved, this second letter, in which I stir up your pure mind by way of reminder. RESP. None of those testimonies proves the antecedent in the exclusive sense, namely, that Scripture is only a memorandum. But the first testimony rather proves that Scripture has been written not only to remind, but also to teach us: because Paul expressly says, Whatever things were written, were written for our learning. To teach is more than to remind. For we are reminded of those things which we previously knew; but we are taught also those things which we previously did not know. Thus teaching extends more widely than reminding. Then Peter does not speak exclusively, but indefinitely; whence, even if we grant that Scripture avails for reminder, nevertheless it does not follow that it avails only for reminder: and this would be contrary to Peter’s deed, who in both epistles excellently teaches the chief mysteries of the Christian religion. But if he teaches, therefore he delivers doctrine, and not merely a memorandum.

Therefore, etc. The assumption is proved: because there are many things to be believed which are not in Scripture. Then, in Scripture there are very many things which of themselves do not pertain to faith, that is, which were not written for this reason, because they necessarily had to be believed, but are necessarily believed because they are written; as is clear concerning all the histories of the Old Testament, concerning also many histories of the Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles, concerning Paul’s salutations in the epistles, and other things of that sort. RESP. Bellarmine commits the fallacy of many questions, because he joins two middle terms whose rationale is different. The first we grant: namely, if the proper and principal end of Scripture is to be the rule of faith, then it ought to contain all things which pertain to faith. And it does contain all: nor is there anything which must be believed for salvation which is not in Sacred Scripture. The second we deny. If the proper and principal end of Scripture is to be the rule of faith, then it ought to contain only those things which of themselves pertain to faith, which must necessarily be believed. For, first, it ought to contain not only those things which are of faith, but also those which

are of good works, whose documents and examples are set forth in the histories of the Old and New Testaments and in the Apostolic salutations and in other parts of Scripture. For we affirm Scripture to be the rule both of faith and of good works. Second, to say of all the histories of the Old Testament that they were not therefore written because they necessarily had to be believed, is impious and blasphemous. For thus was written the history of the creation of all things; likewise the history of man’s fall; the history of the promises made concerning the Messiah in Paradise to Adam and Eve, then to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David; the history of the Church’s beginning, propagation, government, perpetual preservation, and marvelous deliverances; likewise the history of other things whose sum stands in the Apostolic Creed; because those things necessarily had to be and must be believed for salvation. For who, except an impious man, would dare to deny that it has always necessarily had to be believed that God created heaven and earth and all things that are in them? that the seed of the woman must crush the serpent’s head, etc. Third, even if certain histories are not equally necessary, because many can be saved without the knowledge of many histories; nevertheless all are in their way necessary, some to the being of faith, others to the better being. Fourth, Bellarmine accuses God, as if he had inspired to the Prophets and Apostles very many things to be proposed to the Church which nevertheless were not necessary, and therefore superfluous and idle; he accuses the Prophets and Apostles, as if they rashly and in vain had written many things which are not necessary, and on the contrary had omitted many things which must necessarily be believed; finally he accuses Sacred Scripture itself, as if it contained many superfluities, and yet a little before he accused it on account of the defect of many necessary things. Indeed, the accusation of any human writing would be quite serious, if someone were to say that many necessary things are lacking in it, and on the contrary that many things in it are delivered which are superfluous and not necessary. The Holy Spirit, forsooth, ought to have consulted Bellarmine or the Roman Pope, when he inspired Scripture to the Prophets and Apostles, that he might know which things were necessary, which were not, which were to be revealed and dictated, which to be omitted. Fifth, Bellarmine prefers the Creed to Scripture: he affirms that the Creed contains all and only those things which of themselves pertain to faith, and that it is truly said and is composed with that end, that it be the rule of faith: but he denies that Scripture contains all things, he denies that it is chiefly assigned to this end, that it be the rule of faith. But this is very strange: that the Creed, which is a certain brief rule of faith, as Bellarmine says, should contain all things to be believed; but Scripture, which is so long and so copious, and from which all the articles of the Apostolic Creed are taken and must be proved, should not contain all. Sixth, nor is this simply true, that the rule of faith ought to contain only those things which precisely and of themselves pertain to faith and are necessary to salvation: because in the Apostolic Creed there is mention of Pontius Pilate, which of itself and precisely is not necessary to salvation; otherwise the Fathers in that most celebrated Nicene Creed, Athanasius in the Creed received by the Church, and likewise other Fathers in their Creeds, would by no means have omitted it.

RESP. This is a refutation of false contraries: for these things do not conflict, that Scripture helps us in this pilgrimage and that it is the rule of faith and of good works. For Scripture is such a help by which it comes about that we believe, by which we are made wise unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ Jesus our Lord, by which the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work; and therefore it is the rule of faith and of good works. IV. Scripture is not one continuous work, such as the rule of faith ought to be, but contains various works - histories, sermons, prophecies, songs, letters, etc. Therefore it is not the rule of faith. I answer: The antecedent is false. For Scripture is one continuous work and therefore a rule, even if it varies in manner, now by histories, now by sermons, now by prophecies, now by songs, now by letters, teaching us what we must believe, what must be done; for it always teaches us to believe the same things, not some in the histories, others in the sermons, others in the other parts; just as one and the same Spirit is the author and inspirer of all the parts of Scripture. Then, granted but not conceded, that Scripture is not one continuous work, nevertheless it by no means follows that it is not a rule. For the major proposition that was omitted, namely that a rule must be some continuous body, would have to be restricted to mechanical rules, and would not be true of rules so called by a metaphor: otherwise even the body of Civil Law would not be a rule of justice in forensic cases, because besides laws it contains many histories and sacred matters. Thus far it has been explained that Holy Scripture is the canon or rule of faith and of good works. The second question is, of what sort a canon and rule Holy Scripture is, whether total or partial. We affirm that Holy Scripture is the total canon or rule of faith and of good works. This is confirmed by the following arguments. First: Whatever alone is the canon or rule of faith and of good works, that is the total canon or rule. But Holy Scripture alone is the canon or rule of faith and of good works. Therefore it is the total canon or rule. The major is self-evident; the minor we prove by some prosyllogisms. First. Whatever, without any doubt on the part of the disputing parties, is the word of God or divinely inspired, that is the canon or rule of faith and of good works. But Holy Scripture alone, without any doubt on the part of the disputing parties, is the word of God or divinely inspired; but about the unwritten word it is disputed whether there is any now, and if there is, what it is. Therefore Scripture alone is the canon or rule of faith and of good works. The major of this prosyllogism is plain of itself. For a dispute cannot be undertaken unless first some common principle be agreed upon with the adversaries, as Bellarmine himself says, tome one of the Controversies, first Preface near the end. The canon or rule of judgment ought to be such that both parties of the disputants are subject to it; just as also in a law-court the canons or rules of judgment are necessarily the laws and customs to which both litigating parties submit themselves.

The minor is most certain, as St. Augustine says, tome seven, in the book On the Unity of the Church, chapter three: “There are certainly the Lord’s books, to whose authority we both consent, we both believe, we both serve: there let us seek the Church, there let us discuss our case.” Or let the Romanists bring forward, besides Holy Scripture, some other word of God which, without any doubt on the part of the disputing parties, is truly the word of God. The Romanists make an exception and bring forward the word of God not written. But that cannot be a rule of judgment between us and the Papists. For it is necessary that the rule of judgment be a common principle, granted by both litigating parties. But the unwritten (agraphon) word of God which the Papists vaunt is not a common principle granted by both litigating parties; for about the unwritten word of God it is disputed whether there is any now, and what that is. Therefore that is not a rule of judgment. Second prosyllogism of the first argument: That to which alone God now wills all the faithful to be bound, that alone is the canon or rule of faith and of good works. But now God wills all the faithful to be bound to the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture alone: Therefore, etc. The major is most certain: because it belongs to God alone to prescribe to the Church the canon or rule of faith and of good works. The minor is clear from Luke 16:29, where Abraham says: “They have Moses and the Prophets: let them hear them.” And verse 31: “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though someone rise from the dead.” Isaiah 8:20. Deuteronomy 12:32. John 5:39. Revelation 22:18: “Indeed I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to these things, God will lay upon him the plagues written in this book: and if anyone takes away anything from the words of the prophecy of this book, God will take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy city and out of the things which are written in this book.” This sacred attestation is added to this book, so that nevertheless it may be the common seal of all the books of Holy Scripture. For as to the book of the Apocalypse (Apocalypsēōs) nothing is to be added, nothing to be taken away: so neither to the other books; and therefore we must cling to and acquiesce in divine Scripture alone, after its canon was sealed by the Apostle John, who outlived all the Apostles, with a final and so vehement attestation. From this the ancients gathered, namely Tertullian in the book Against Hermogenes, chapter twenty-two, where he says: “But whether all things were made from some underlying matter, I have nowhere yet read. Let the workshop of Hermogenes show that it is written. If it is not written, let him fear that ‘woe’ destined for those who add or take away.” Thus Tertullian refers to the whole Scripture what John says of the Apocalypse: for what is common to all the divinely inspired books is so said of one that it is not detracted from the others. John Duns Scotus in the Prologue on the Sentences, question three, folio ten, column two of the Venetian edition of the year 1506: “Just as the theology of the blessed has a terminus, so does ours, from the will of God revealing: now the terminus set by the divine will as touching general

revelation is those things which are in Holy Scripture, since thus it is had in the last of the Apocalypse: ‘Whoever shall add to these things, God will add to him the plagues which are added in this book.’ Therefore our theology de facto is about nothing except those things which are contained in Scripture, and about those things which can be elicited from it.” Third prosyllogism: That from which alone the Prophets, John the Baptist, Christ himself, the Apostles, and the apostolic men following them and other true Christians, in the instruction of the faithful, confirmed and examined all the dogmas of religion, that alone assuredly is the canon or rule of faith and of good works. But from Holy Scripture alone the Prophets, John the Baptist, Christ himself, the Apostles, and the apostolic men following them and other true Christians, in the instruction of the faithful, confirmed and examined all the dogmas of religion: not however from the unwritten word of God. Therefore, etc. The major is true: for whatever once was a canon and rule must be to us today the same canon and rule. For as truth is one and perpetual, so its rule also must necessarily be one and perpetual. The minor is certain even by Bellarmine’s confession in book one On the Word of God, chapter two, the first four sections: to which we add these things. From Scripture alone did the Lord Jesus confirm to his Apostles that the Messiah or Christ must suffer, die, and rise from the dead, Luke 24:27, 32, 44. The Apostle Paul at Thessalonica disputed from the Scriptures, explaining and setting before their eyes that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, as it is read Acts 17:2 - 3. The same testifies that he said nothing beyond those things which the Prophets and Moses foretold would come, Acts 26:22. Clement of Alexandria reports that the Apostle Peter in a certain sermon said, Stromata book six, page 288 of the Commelin edition, “We say nothing apart from Scripture” (ouden ater graphes legomen). But that the Apostle Paul in Acts 17:28 used the testimony of Aratus, a pagan poet, to prove, was for this reason, because he was speaking to Gentiles, to whom Holy Scripture was unknown, and who would not have accepted the authority of Holy Scripture unless converted to the faith of Christ; whereas the testimony of a pagan poet of repute among themselves had much weight with them. For it is indeed lawful among unbelievers and heretics to use those testimonies which they themselves acknowledge as principles of confirmations: just as Justin Martyr, Athenagoras the Athenian, a Christian philosopher, Tertullian, Augustine, Arnobius, when they acted against the Gentiles, used the testimonies of the Gentiles’ philosophers, historians, poets, and other writers approved by the Gentiles. But whenever they had to do with the faithful or with those believing the Holy Scripture, they brought forward testimonies from divine Scripture alone to prove the dogmas of faith: as is attested by the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, in which, page 215 of the Commelin edition, Justin Martyr says that what he asserts he will prove from the Sacred Letters; whence Trypho says in the same place: “Nor would we have endured you as you argue, unless you referred everything to the Scriptures, from which also it is your endeavor to bring forward demonstrations.” This same thing Constantine the Great, the emperor, advised to the bishops gathered in the first Nicene Synod against the Arian heresy, whom, as Theodoret recounts, Ecclesiastical History book one, chapter seven, in the Paris Greek edition of Robert Estienne of the year 1544, he addressed in this manner: “For the evangelical and

apostolic books and the ordinances of the ancient prophets clearly teach us what we ought to think about the Deity; therefore, having expelled hostile contention, let us take from the divinely inspired words the solution of the questions sought.” That is: for the evangelical and apostolic books and the divine sanctions of the ancient prophets plainly instruct us what we ought to think concerning the Deity. Therefore, expelling hostile contention, from words divinely inspired let us take the solution of the questions. The same was observed by St. Augustine in his disputations with the Donatists: as he says, tome seven, in the book On the Unity of the Church, chapter three: “There are certainly the Lord’s books, to whose authority we both consent, we both believe, we both serve: there let us seek the Church, there let us discuss our case.” And soon after: “Let those things be taken away from the midst which we rehearse against each other, not from the divine canonical books, but from elsewhere.” And a little after: “If the Church of Christ is designated in all the nations by the divine and most certain testimonies of the canonical Scriptures, whatever they may bring and from wherever they may recite, who say, ‘Behold, here is Christ, behold, there,’ let us rather hear, if we are his sheep, the voice of our Shepherd saying, ‘Do not believe.’” And presently he concludes: “Therefore let us seek it in the holy canonical Scriptures.” And in chapter five: “This also I forewarn and propose, that we should choose whatever things are open and manifest: which, if they were not to be found in the Holy Scriptures, there would by no means be any way whereby closed things could be opened and obscure things illuminated.” And in chapter sixteen, page 366 of the Proben edition of the year 1528: “Therefore, removing all such things, let them, if they can, demonstrate their church, not in the speeches and rumors of Africans, not in the councils of their bishops, not in the letters of any disputants whatsoever, not in lying signs and prodigies - for even against these we have been prepared and made cautious by the word of the Lord - but in the prescription of the Law, in the predictions of the Prophets, in the songs of the Psalms, in the voices of the very Shepherd, in the preachings and labors of the Evangelists, that is, in all the authorities of the canonical holy books. Nor in such a way that they collect and recount those things which are spoken obscurely or ambiguously or figuratively, which each may interpret as he will according to his own sense: for such things cannot be rightly understood and expounded unless first those which are most plainly spoken are held with firm faith.” In the same chapter: “Let them show, not except by the canonical books of the divine Scriptures, whether they themselves hold the Church.” And presently: “The Lord Jesus himself, when he had risen from the dead, and to the eyes of the disciples - “ to offer his body to be seen and to be handled with the hands, lest they should nevertheless suppose themselves to suffer any deceit, I judged that they ought rather to be strengthened by the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms, etc. And in chapter nineteen: But if they are unwilling to understand, it is enough for us that we hold that Church which is shown by the most manifest testimonies of the holy and canonical Scriptures. Thus therefore Christ, the Apostles, and all who after them were truly faithful drew testimonies only from the canonical Scriptures for the confirming of the dogmas of faith and of divine worship, whenever they had to do with those who embraced the Scriptures.

Fourth prosyllogism: That alone by which the heavenly doctrine has hitherto been preserved, lest it either perish by forgetfulness, or vanish by error, or be corrupted by the audacity of men; that alone also which has hitherto been provided by God so that assurance (ἀσφάλεια, asphaleia), that is, a steadfastness not tottering, of the faith might be had in the Church of God: that assuredly alone is the canon or rule of faith and of good works. But this has been done by holy Scripture alone: Therefore, etc. The assumption is evident from Luke 1:1, 2, 3, 4: Since many have undertaken to compose a narrative of the things of which full assurance has been made among us, as those delivered them to us who from the beginning were themselves spectators and ministers of the word: it seemed good to me also, having traced all things out thoroughly from the first, to write them to you in order, most excellent Theophilus, that you may recognize the assurance (ἀσφάλεια, asphaleia), that is, a steadfastness in no way tottering, of those things which you were taught by word of mouth. Phil. 3:1: To write the same things to you is indeed not irksome to me, but for you it is safe. 2 Pet. 1:19: We have the more sure prophetic word, to which you do well that you take heed, etc. Fifth prosyllogism: That above which in divine matters one ought not to be wise, that alone is the canon or rule of faith and of good works. But above holy Scripture in divine matters one ought not to be wise: Therefore holy Scripture alone is the canon or rule of faith and of good works. We prove the minor from 1 Cor. 4:6: That in us you may learn not to be wise above what is written. Gal. 1:8 - 9: Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you besides what we preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preaches a gospel to you besides what you received, let him be anathema. That this is to be understood of holy Scripture the holy Fathers show. St. John Chrysostom, in the exposition of the epistle to the Galatians: Paul (and when I say Paul, I say Christ himself - for he it was who guided his mind) sets the Scriptures even before angels descending from heaven; and that very fittingly: for although angels be ever so great, yet they are servants and ministers. But all the Scriptures did not come to us from servants, but from the Lord God of all. St. Augustine, in the seventh volume, book three against the letters of Petilian the Donatist, chapter six: Whether concerning Christ, or concerning his Church, or concerning any other thing that pertains to our faith and our life, I will not say “we,” who are by no means to be compared with him who said “but even if we,” but simply what he added with assurance: If an angel from heaven announce to you besides what you have received in the legal and evangelical Scriptures, let him be anathema. Sixth prosyllogism: Whatever rule is most certain, most well known, and most safe, that assuredly alone is the rule of faith and of good works: Holy Scripture alone is the most certain, most well-known, and most safe rule: Therefore, etc. Both premises are granted by Bellarmine, book one On the Word of God, chapter two, section five through fourteen.

Seventh prosyllogism: If holy Scripture alone is not the norm of faith and of divine worship, then there is no certainty of faith and of divine worship. But it is most absurd even to think that there is no certainty of faith and of divine worship: Therefore it is necessary that holy Scripture alone be the norm of faith and of divine worship. The consequence is most firm: for there can be no certainty of faith and of divine worship, unless there were one, certain, perpetual norm, in all respects self-consistent and by God certainly delivered, to which the whole Church, even to the end of the world, would be so bound that in matters of faith nothing agreeing with this should be rejected, and nothing dissenting from this should be received. For if there were more norms of the truth of faith and of divine worship, while yet truth can be only one and simple, consciences would find nothing in which they could safely rest. For every man is a liar. And thus all true knowledge of God and religion would be removed from the world. Therefore we must necessarily conclude that holy Scripture alone is the canon or rule of faith and of good works. And accordingly from holy Scripture alone the dogmas of faith and of good works are to be sought; from holy Scripture alone the arguments or means of concluding are to be drawn for the confirmation of the dogmas of the Christian religion, whether one treats with the children of the Church, or with heretics and those set outside the bosom of the Catholic Church, yet who have and receive holy Scripture as the undoubted word of God, and believe that it can make a man wise unto eternal salvation, and can make the man of God perfect, and accordingly rest in that alone as in a sufficient measure and rule of faith and of good works, and the sole principle of the dogmas of religion and of theology. But as for others, who either do not receive holy Scripture, as the Gentiles, as the Mohammedans, or who establish more principles of religion besides Scripture, among them arguments or means of confirmations and refutations must be sought from those principles which they themselves posit and admit; not from those which they do not admit, from which it would be in vain to deal and dispute with them. For example: Christ and the Apostles, treating of religion with the Jews and Christians, because they received the prophetic books, from those they confirmed true dogmas, from those same they refuted false opinions; as is to be seen Matt. 12 and 15 and 22 v. 12 and following; Luke 24 v. 25, 26, 27, 44, 45, 46; Acts 2 v. 22 and following, and chap. 3 v. 20, 21, 22, 23, and chap. 4 v. 10, 11, 12, and chap. 9 v. 22, and chap. 13 v. 32, 33, 34, 35, and chap. 18 v. 28, and everywhere in the Apostolic epistles. The same Apostles, treating with Gentiles who did not admit or were altogether ignorant of the prophetic books, did not draw arguments from those books, but from the light of natural reason, as Paul and Barnabas did among the Lystrans, Acts 14 v. 15, 16, 17; or then both from the natural light and from the testimonies of those authors whom they received, as Paul did among the Athenians, Acts 17 v. 22 and following, whom he taught concerning the true God and his worship partly from propositions clearly known by the natural light, partly from the testimony of Aratus the heathen poet. The same Paul, writing to the faithful, although he confirmed the articles of the Christian faith and the doctrine concerning the sacraments and the true worship of God - things known only by divine revelation - solely from holy Scripture, yet concerning morals did not hesitate to bring forward sentences of the heathen poets and to accommodate them to holy use, because to those faithful the

heathen poets were known and by them highly esteemed. Thus Justin Martyr, Lactantius, Augustine, Theodoret in the Cure of Greek Affections, and other ancients disputing against the Gentiles refuted them from their own writings. Against those same Gentiles the light of natural reason is to be brandished, and by conclusions drawn from premises known by the light of nature they are to be convicted. The Romanists set up more principles of religion, namely holy Scripture - by which they understand also the apocryphal books - divine and apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, the definitions of councils approved by the Apostolic see, the decrees of the popes, the common consent of the holy Fathers, the unanimous judgment of the scholastic doctors and especially of Thomas Aquinas, and the natural light, that is, propositions clearly known by the natural light, of which they say David speaks in Ps. 4:7, “The light of thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us”; some add the practice and custom of the Church. From these therefore arguments sought have force for convicting the Romanists; from these it is lawful to infer conclusions for overthrowing the erroneous opinions and sentences of the Romanists. Although they ineptly try to prove the light of natural reason from the seventh verse of the fourth Psalm, which also they cite with a corrupt wording: for it ought to be rendered, “Lift up upon us the light of thy countenance, O Lord”; then by a bad exposition they pervert it: for they interpret the light of the face of God as natural reason, whereas David means the grace and good will of God, who lifts up the light of his countenance over us, when he declares his grace and good will toward us by sure evidences, namely by irradiating our hearts with his Holy Spirit, kindling saving faith in our hearts, generating hope and charity in us, diffusing in our hearts a sense of his love toward us. In sum: All dogmas whatsoever are to be sought and confirmed or refuted from congenial principles - natural things from natural principles, supernatural things from supernatural principles; accordingly, the dogmas of faith concerning things that are above nature and concerning the worship of God unknown by nature are to be sought and confirmed only from holy Scripture; but the things that are known by nature, from natural principles; the things that can be perceived by the external senses, from the judgment of the senses, as Luke 24:39. I say, from the judgment of the senses, because to sense is to judge; and he who senses, judges in some way, as Aristotle says in the second book of the Topics, chap. 4. The common consensus of the Fathers who taught in the Christian Church after the Apostles is not a principle of the dogmas of the Christian religion. For, first, that common consensus of all cannot be had concerning most dogmas. Then it is only human; but it is necessary that the principle of divine religion be divine. And the authority of one and another, nay even of many Fathers, concludes only probably what is intended, especially if there are other Fathers and Doctors who defend the contrary altogether, as Cosmas Morelles confesses in the Relation of the Frankfort Colloquy, held at the autumn fair in the year 1609, published at Cologne in quarto in the year 1610, page sixty-nine. This is the first argument. The second: Whatever is a canon must be a total, not a partial, not a halved, not a maimed canon:

Holy Scripture is a canon: Therefore it is total and not partial, not halved, not maimed. The major is certain from the definition of canon: [Greek text], that is, A rule is an infallible measure, admitting or receiving no addition and subtraction; as Varinus defines it. Thus Theophylact on Philippians chapter 3: “A rule,” he says, “and a measuring line has neither addition nor subtraction.” St. Basil the Great, book one Against Eunomius, page 209 of the Henricus Stephanus edition in octavo of the year M DIXX, rightly and gravely rebukes the heretic Eunomius, because he calls the faith of the Fathers a “canon,” and at the same time says that it needs more exact addition. And forthwith St. Basil the Great adds: [Greek text], that is, It would also be a mark of his extreme ignorance, if anyone should wish to inquire further in this matter. For surely a rule and a measuring rod, provided nothing is lacking in them so that they are not a rule and a measuring rod, need no addition whereby they might be made more exact. Addition belongs to that to which something is lacking. But that rule and measuring rod - if anything is lacking to them - ought not even to be called by those names properly. Thus Thocius, in Oecumenius on Philippians chapter 3: “Faith,” he says, “is like a canon,” [Greek text]. “… that is, just as if you take something away from the Canon, or add something to it, you have corrupted the whole; so also in faith.” The minor too is certain. For that Sacred Scripture is the Canon we have amply proved from Scripture itself, and the orthodox Fathers attest with unanimous consent, and many adversaries themselves confess it. Third: Sacred Scripture is either the total Canon of faith and good works, or it is not a Canon at all. But it is a Canon; therefore it is total. The disjunctive proposition is certain: because a measure must be adequate to the thing measured; a rule must be made adequate to the thing to which it is applied; there ought to be the most apt fitness between the rule and that of which it is the rule. If therefore our faith is longer or broader than Scripture, then Scripture is not the rule of faith; or, if it is, it must necessarily be adequate to faith. Accordingly, the disjunction in the proposition is immediate. Fourth: Whatever is the most exact rule of all things, that is a total Canon. Sacred Scripture is the most exact rule of all things; therefore [it is] total. The major is self-evident. The minor is [proved] by the ancient Fathers. St. John Chrysostom, on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, homily thirteen at the end, says, “[Greek text],” that is, “the most exact balance of all things and the gnomon and rule.” That he understands Sacred Scripture itself is clear from the corollary added; for immediately he subjoins: “[Greek text],” that is, “Wherefore I ask and beseech you all, that, as to what seems to this man or that concerning these matters, making no delay, you should consult the Sacred Scriptures about all these things.” St. Augustine, volume three, book two On Christian Doctrine, chapter 9: “In those matters that are set openly in Scripture are found all those things which contain the faith and the morals of living.”[1] And in volume seven, book two Against Cresconius the Grammarian, chapter thirty-one: “For not without cause has that most healthful watchfulness, the Ecclesiastical Canon, been

established, to which certain books of the Prophets and Apostles belong, which we should not at all dare to judge; and according to which we should freely judge concerning the other writings, whether of the faithful or of the unfaithful.”[2] Here it is declared first that there is one Ecclesiastical Canon; then that it is Sacred Scripture; third, that all writings are to be judged according to Sacred Scripture. St. Basil the Great, letter eighty, page 714 of the Froben edition of the year 1566: “Let Scripture, divinely inspired, be set as arbiter by us; and to those with whom doctrines are found to agree with the divine sayings, to them altogether also let the suffrage of truth be added.”[3] St. Gregory the Great, Roman Pontiff, in the Moral Exposition on Job, book eighteen, chapter fourteen: “He who prepares himself for the words of true preaching must needs take the origins of causes from the sacred pages, so that he may refer everything he speaks to the foundation of divine authority, and on it may he make firm the edifice of his discourse.”[4] St. Augustine, volume five, book nineteen of the City of God, chapter eighteen: “He believes also the Holy Scriptures, both the old and the new, which we call canonical, whence the faith itself has been conceived, by which the just man lives.”[5] And in volume six, book II Against Faustus the Manichee, chapter 5: “Canonical Scripture is placed on a certain lofty seat, to which every faithful and pious intellect should be in service.”[6] Bellarmine picks up on these two sayings of Augustine, book 4 On the Word of God, chapter 12, section 10. He says that Augustine never says that Scripture alone is the rule, but that he says Scripture is the rule to which the writings of the ancient Fathers ought to be examined, so that we may receive those that are consonant with Scripture, and reject those that are contrary to Scripture. Reply. Although Augustine does not add the exclusive particle, nevertheless the sense requires it. For if from that Scripture the faith is conceived by which the just lives, then surely Scripture is the perfect rule of faith and life; and therefore also the only rule. If Sacred Scripture is, as it were, the Lady and Queen, to whom EVERY faithful and pious intellect ought to be in service, then assuredly it is a perfect rule, and consequently the only rule. And this [follows]: Augustine nowhere establishes two Canons, two rules for judging of doctrines, but recognizes and hands down a single Canon, a single rule, as is evident from the book cited a little before, book 2 Against Cresconius the Grammarian, chapter 31. To these testimonies of the Fathers are added the opinions of the Schoolmen. John Duns Scotus, in the Prologue to the Sentences, question 3, folio 10, column 2, of the Venetian edition of the year 1506, says: “Just as the theology of the blessed has a term, so does ours from the will of God revealing. Now the term set by the divine will as to general revelation is of those things which are in Sacred Scripture, since thus it is had in the last chapter of the Apocalypse: ‘Whoever shall add to these things,’ etc. Therefore our theology de facto (that is, indeed, in truth; a French phrase, de fait, that is indeed, in truth) is only about those things which are contained in Scripture and about those which can be elicited from it.”[7]

Durandus, in the preface to the books of the Sentences: “Universally, concerning those things that touch faith, one ought to speak to those things which Sacred Scripture hands down, lest anyone fall into that [word] of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 8: ‘If anyone thinks that he knows anything, he has not yet known how he ought to know.’ For the measure is not to exceed the measure of faith. Sacred Scripture expresses the measure of faith. What could be said more clearly? Universally, about matters of faith one must speak according to Scripture; Scripture is the measure of faith; this is not to be exceeded.” Therefore Sacred Scripture is the most exact rule of all doctrines of faith and of good works, by the testimony of the Fathers and Schoolmen; and accordingly it is a total and not a partial Canon.[8] Thus far it has been plainly proved that Sacred Scripture is the total rule of faith and of good works. But Bellarmine, book 4 On the Word of God, chapter 12, section 10, affirms that although Scripture was not made chiefly to be the rule of faith, nevertheless it is a rule of faith, not total but partial: for the total rule of faith is the word of God, or the revelation made by God to the Church, which is divided into two partial rules, Scripture and tradition. This assertion of Bellarmine is new, ridiculous, downright heretical, absurd, and incoherent (ἀσύστατος). It is new: because, so far as I know, no one before Bellarmine contended that there are two partial rules of faith. For although Augustine says in book 3 On Christian Doctrine, chapter 2, that “the rule of faith is to be taken from the plainer places of the Scriptures and from the authority of the Church,” nevertheless he does not set up two rules, but one: for his opinion is that true faith is to be sought from the plainer places of Scripture, not however understood in just any way, but with the voice, guidance, and teaching of the true Church going before, which fore-arms us against the snares of heretics. And although Vincent of Lérins, in his little book against profane innovations of heresies, chapter 1, says that a man ought to fortify his faith in a twofold way, first indeed by the authority of the divine Law, then next by the tradition of the Catholic Church, that is, as he explains himself in chapter 2, by the authority of ecclesiastical understanding, or true interpretation of Scripture, which the true Church hands down against heretics: nevertheless, for that reason he by no means acknowledges two partial rules of faith, nor does he say that the Canon of the Scriptures is partial, because presently in the second chapter he teaches that the Canon of the Scriptures is perfect, and for himself more than sufficient for all things. But he teaches that the authority of ecclesiastical understanding is to be joined to it, because (he says) “on account of its very height Sacred Scripture is not received by all in one and the same sense, but the utterances of the same [Scripture] one and another interpret in different ways. For Novatian expounds it in one way, Photinus in another, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius in another, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another, Iovinian in another, Pelagius, Celestius in another, and lastly Nestorius in another. And therefore it is very necessary, on account of such great mazes of so various error, that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be drawn according to the norm of the ecclesiastical and catholic sense.” Thus Vincent shows quite clearly that Sacred Scripture is the total Canon, because it is perfect and for itself more than sufficient for all things;

but that its true interpretation is in the true and Catholic Church alone, not among heretics. And consequently, by the word “tradition” he understands the interpretation of Scripture which the Catholic Church hands down, and not some other word of God besides Scripture, such as the Papists contrive, and wish to be another Canon or another rule. The same assertion of Bellarmine is ridiculous: because it is foolish to call something a rule and to deny that it is total; since that is not a rule which does not measure the measured thing totally - just as if one should say that an ell is a half-ell with respect to the same thing. It is heretical: because he has borrowed from the heretic Eunomius such a rule of faith as needs an addition. For that heretic, lest he should seem to innovate anything, astutely set up for himself the Tradition of the Fathers (thus he calls their doctrine handed down concerning the Holy Trinity) as a rule; and at the same time he said that it needed a more exact addition or delimitation (ἀκριεεσερας ωροσθικης). Thus Bellarmine, lest he should seem utterly to reject Scripture, grants that it is a rule of faith, but not chiefly, rather partial; and at the same time contends that it needs a more exact addition of traditions (ἀκριεεσερας ωροσθικης πααγδισεον). But Basil the Great rightly refutes and laughs at both him and this other man, from the nature of a rule, because whatever is a rule admits absolutely no addition for its perfection, book one Against Eunomius. The same opinion of Bellarmine is absurd, because absurdities follow from it. For if Scripture is only a partial rule and not a total one, then it follows, first, that something can be a Rule which nevertheless deceives and admits addition - which plainly overturns the nature of a rule. Second, that an imperfect rule can nonetheless make the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished for every good work; for this Scripture can do, by the witness of Paul, 2 Tim. 3:15, 16; and consequently that the effect is much more noble and excellent than its efficient cause. But that which is imperfect and partial should make the man of God perfect - Finally, the assertion of Bellarmine is incoherent (ἀσύστατος), first because it overturns itself. For if Sacred Scripture is only a partial rule, it is not a rule at all: because the definition of a rule does not belong to it; for a Rule is an infallible measure, admitting no addition or subtraction. Thus Bellarmine takes away what he had given before: he grants that it is a rule, but by saying that it is a partial rule and not a total one, he denies that it is a rule at all. Second, because it overturns another opinion of the same Bellarmine. For he said above that Scripture cannot be a rule, because it is not a continuous body. But the written and unwritten word is a less continuous body, which nevertheless he, taken together, sets as a total rule. So much on the second Question. Quaestio III. Whence Sacred Scripture has canonical authority Answer. It has that from God alone, whether it be considered in itself, or with respect to us. And we confirm it thus. 1. The one whose it is to prescribe to the Church the Canon of faith and good works - to the Church, from him alone Sacred Scripture has canonical authority.

But it belongs to God alone to prescribe to the Church the canon of faith and of good works; therefore from God alone Sacred Scripture has canonical authority. II. From him who is Lord of Sacred Scripture, it has canonical authority. But God alone is Lord of Sacred Scripture: therefore, etc. III. The immediate voice of God has canonical authority from God alone: Sacred Scripture is the immediate voice of God: therefore, etc. No one but a wicked man would deny the major; because the voice of God has all the authority it has on account of God and from God, not on account of the Church and from the Church. To the minor the Papists take exception: that Scripture is not the immediate phōnē (“voice”) of God, but only rhēma (“utterance”), that is, the Word of God, logos (“word”). Reply. It is falsely denied that Scripture is the immediate voice of God. For it is immediately inspired, pronounced, and dictated by God to the prophets and apostles. God spoke in the prophets and apostles the things which they wrote; whence the prophets, not only speaking viva voce but also writing, again and again inculcate, Thus says the Lord. The same God through Sacred Scripture and in it speaks to us; the same bids us hear Scripture, Luke 16:29. Nay more, concerning the preaching of his word to the Gentiles after the ascension into heaven he says, John 10:16, I have also other sheep which are not of this fold; them also I must bring; for they will hear my voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. Christ after the ascension into heaven did not speak before them viva voce in his own person, but by the apostles and by Scripture; and yet he says, They will hear my voice. And generally of the true faithful he says, v. 27, My sheep hear my voice. Therefore even now we hear the voice of Christ; but where does it sound, if not in sacred Scripture? Therefore sacred Scripture is the immediate voice of God. Then even if it were granted that Sacred Scripture is not the immediate voice of God, but only the Word of God, nevertheless it would in no way follow from this that it had canonical authority from any other source than from God. Again Stapleton takes exception: God speaks Scripture by the voice of the Church. Therefore Scripture is not the immediate voice of God. Answer. The argument is false; for Scripture is the voice of God both when the Church utters it and when it is read privately; and God spoke Scripture before that Church of which we are now disputing existed; for he published Scripture not through the Church, but through the extraordinary ministry of the prophets and apostles.

Thus far we have treated of the authority of Sacred Scripture as divine and canonical; hereafter it must be explained which books truly are Sacred Scripture and have that authority. These are they who are called in the Christian Church not equivocally but univocally and properly canonical, namely those which are truly divine, delivered by God through the prophets and apostles to the Church, in order that they might be the most certain and infallible rule of faith

and of the worship of God, and of a life pleasing to God; whose authority for confirming ecclesiastical dogmas that come into controversy is, among all who are truly faithful, fit without contradiction. And just as all the sciences and disciplines have their proper and native principles, from which both precepts for teaching and reasons for confirming and conclusions are drawn - since no instruction or disputation about controverted matters can be conducted rightly unless it is clear from which principles firm arguments and unshaken reasons may and ought to be derived - so also the principles of the Christian religion are contained in the truly canonical books of Sacred Scripture, from which at the first the Christian faith and religion have been constructed, and into which at last the same is resolved, so that it is brought to a terminus in them, or else there will be a regress into infinity, in which, since faith never comes to a terminus, it necessarily vanishes. This the Romanists themselves confess: Peter of Ailly, bishop of Cambrai, cardinal of the Roman Church, in the Sentences, first book, question 1, article 3, has it thus: From this description it is clear what the theological principles are. For they are the very truths of the Sacred Canon, since to them the final resolution of the theological discourse is made; and from them in the first instance all the theological conclusions are drawn. Moreover, theological principles are not known, properly speaking, but believed. For none of those things for which faith is required is science (knowledge) properly so called; there is no science of principles (Greek: τῶν ἀρχῶν). No one has knowledge of any truth unless he plainly knows the principles or premises from which it is inferred; neither the musician nor the opticist or perspectivist has knowledge of his conclusions unless he plainly knows the principles. Therefore he does not believe the principles, but plainly knows them, although that plain knowledge in him has been generated by geometrical or arithmetical demonstrations; for it is impossible that the conclusion should have greater plainness than the premises. Therefore, where the premises are only believed, the conclusion is believed and not known, strictly and properly speaking. The faith of the principles is prior to that of the conclusions; although through demonstrated conclusions the faith of the principles becomes better known. These same books that are truly and divinely canonical are called ἐνδιαθήκοι (endiathekoi), that is, testamentary, because in them is contained the Testament of God or covenant between God and men, both Old and New. The truly divine and canonical books of the Old Testament are these: the Pentateuch, or the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; the Triteuch, namely the three following books, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth - for thus these three books are styled by Athanasius in the Epistle to Marcellinus on the Interpretation of the Psalms, volume one, page 74 (Commelin edition) - the two books of Samuel, which in the Latin Vulgate edition are also called First and Second of Kings; the two books of Kings, which in the Vulgate version are Third and Fourth of Kings; the two books of Chronicles, or Paralipomena; one of Ezra, one of Nehemiah, one

of Esther; Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. These alone of the Old Testament books are univocally and properly canonical. But of the New Testament all are truly, univocally, and properly divine and canonical, none excepted. All others that are outside these, although by long-standing custom they are listed in the biblical codex, as is commonly held, nevertheless are not, properly, truly, and univocally divine and canonical, and therefore are not fit for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas. These are: the additions to the book of Esther, the book of Baruch, the additions to Daniel, the book of Tobit, Judith, all four books of the Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus or the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, the Prayer of King Manasseh of Judah, and finally Third and Fourth of Esdras. These books are called by Jerome in the Prologus Galeatus, by Hugh the Cardinal of St.-Cher, and by others, by the Greek name Apocrypha, that is, “hidden,” because they were not delivered to the Church with sure attestation of the Spirit of God, so that they might be laid up in the chest of the Church as archetypes (Greek: ἀρχέτυπα), and so that the Church might be taught openly from their authentic canon; but they were only permitted like human writings for those who wished to read them. Yet one may not amiss judge that “apocryphon” (Greek: ἀπόκρυφον) means whatever is away from the holy crypt (Greek: κρυπτῆς ἁγίας), that is, whatever is absent from that holy crypt, cupboard, repository, treasury, and library of the books divinely delivered to the Church, which by Epiphanius in the book On Weights and Measures is called “Aron,” that is, the ark or chest of the Church, in which the books written by the prophets at the command of God and delivered to the priests were laid up and kept; so that “apocryphon” is what is not testamentary (Greek: τὸ µὴ ἐνδιαθεκον), that is, whatever is not deposited in the canon of the divine covenant with the Church by the command and authority of God. Whence they are “worthy of hiding” (Greek: ἄξιον κρύψεως), more deserving to be concealed than to be read, as Athanasius judges in the Synopsis of Sacred Scripture, page 134, volume 2 of the Commelin edition. Certain men, as Rufinus, expounding the Apostles’ Creed, bears witness, distinguished the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, the little book of Tobit and Judith, and the books of the Maccabees from the apocrypha, and called them ecclesiastical, but not canonical; nor were they willing that they be produced for confirming the authority of faith from these. They called them “ecclesiastical,” because in the Church they were preferred to other human writings and were read to the catechumens on account of moral precepts and certain illustrious examples. This distinction of the properly canonical books in the Old Testament from the apocryphal or ecclesiastical is confirmed by the truly divine canon, that is, the Hebrew, delivered by God through the prophets to the Church.

Secondarily, the authority of the ancient Church is added: for the early Fathers and the legitimate Christian councils, indeed even the sounder Romanists, openly separated the properly canonical books from the rest; let their testimonies be consulted in our Catholic Harmony, chapter one, thesis one.

Moreover, this most true doctrine has various adversaries. For some deny that all or some books of Holy Scripture are divine and canonical; others, on the contrary, contend that certain apocryphal [books] are divine and canonical. The Libertines, who call themselves spiritual, fanatical and giddy men, who, the Scripture being set aside, wing their way to private revelations of the spirit, deny that all the books of Holy Scripture are divine, and therefore canonical. These men contemptuously call the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture the written letter, and deny that it is the word of God by the following sophisms, which we shall refute briefly. I. The word of God cannot be corrupted by a false interpretation; the written letter can be corrupted by a false interpretation; therefore the written letter is not the word of God. Answer. The consequence is denied, because there are four terms, on account of an ambiguous middle. For to “be corrupted by a false interpretation” either signifies to have in itself the fault of a false sense inherent, in which sense, if it be taken, each premise is false; or it signifies to be depraved by a false sense affixed by heretics out of an error of mind, so that that corruption and falsity is in the mind of the heretic abusing Holy Scripture - in which sense, in each premise there is a fallacy of accident: for that corruption is attributed to the word of God and to Holy Scripture only per accidens, not per se. Therefore the conclusion is false. II. The word of God is God himself; the written letter is not God himself; therefore, etc. Answer. The proposition is denied, because the word of God is not the very essence of God, but a declaration of God’s attributes and works. III. Christ is the word of God; the written letter is not Christ. From the Church - Holy Scripture has canonical authority from God alone. But it belongs to God alone to prescribe to the Church the canon of faith and of good works; therefore Holy Scripture has canonical authority from God alone. II. From him who is Lord of Holy Scripture, it has canonical authority. But God alone is Lord of Holy Scripture; therefore, etc. III. The immediate voice of God has canonical authority from God alone; Holy Scripture is the immediate voice of God; therefore, etc. The major no one except an impious man would deny: because the voice of God has every authority it has because of God and from God, not because of the Church and from the Church.

To the minor the Papists make an exception: that Scripture is not the immediate logion (λόγιον, “oracle”) or voice of God, but only rhema (ῥῆµα, “utterance”), that is, the word of God. Reply. It is falsely denied that Scripture is the immediate voice of God. For it is immediately inspired, pronounced, and dictated by God to the Prophets and the Apostles. God has spoken. Therefore the written letter is not the word of God. Reply. The consequence is denied, because there are four terms on account of the ambiguity of the major term, which is “the word of God,” which is understood one way in the major premise and another in the conclusion. For in the major premise the essential or substantial Word is understood; but in the conclusion, the accidental, namely the spoken (προφορικόν) or the written (γεγραµµένον), the uttered or the inscribed. IV. Most men long conversant with the written letter do not understand nor grasp the word of God: Therefore the written letter is not the word of God. Reply. The fallacy of ignorance (τοῦ ἀγνοίας) is committed. For the ignorance and incapacity of men cannot bring it about that Scripture is not the word of God. Moreover, they do not busy themselves in Scripture well and as they ought, but superficially, negligently, and without calling upon God, who alone gives understanding of Scripture. The fanatics argue to the same effect as if they were to say: Most men who have been conversant with the books of Cicero do not learn to speak and write Latin; therefore those books are not by Cicero, who spoke and wrote in Latin. V. The word of God is not a killing letter: Scripture is a killing letter, 2 Cor. 3:6. Therefore Scripture is not the word of God. Reply. The word of God is not a killing letter, namely per se. Scripture is a killing letter, not per se, nor with respect to the characters with which it has been written, but per accidens: for unless the Spirit of God makes the external ministry of preaching or reading of Scripture efficacious, then it kills, that is, by the judgment of God it frightens minds and stirs up hatred and rage against God - not by its own fault, but by the fault of men. Therefore the argument proceeds from the fallacy of accident. VI. The word of God is spirit and life, John 6:63. Scripture is not spirit and life, because it is set in opposition to the life-giving Spirit in 2 Corinthians 3:6, when the Apostle says, “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” Therefore, etc. Reply. The argument proceeds from what is said per se to what is said per accidens. The word of God is spirit and life, per se; Scripture is not spirit and life, per accidens, by human fault, not by any defect or fault of Scripture. But let us leave aside those Libertines, who overturn all the principles of piety and true religion. Other fanatics denied and rejected as divine the books of Moses and of all the other Prophets; others only one or another book of the Old Testament; others the books of the New Testament. The Manichees, the Marcionites, and certain others, whose sects were not so well known among Christian peoples, condemned the books of Moses and the Prophets, says St. Augustine in tome six, book one against the adversary of the Law and the Prophets, chapter 2.

For the Manichees and those who followed their insanities, 1) invented two principles, one good, which they called light and the God of light and the God of the New Testament; the other evil, which they called darkness and the prince of darkness and the God of the Old Testament: they blasphemed that not the God of light, but the prince of darkness, savage, cruel, bloodthirsty, was worshiped by Moses and the Prophets. 2) They added that Moses and the Prophets by their very age had grown old and vanished, that they are trees grown old and dried up, fit only for destruction, since the Apostle says Heb. 8:13, “That which grows old and ages is near to vanishing.” 3) They twisted likewise that saying of Christ, Matt. 11:13, “All the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.” 4) They raved in asserting that Moses is first struck by Christ’s sentence when he says John 10:8, “As many as came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.” But I reply briefly to the first: St. Epiphanius, among others, in book two against heresies, against the Manichees’ heresy, which with him is the sixty-sixth, refutes the two principles of the Manichees by a brief line of reasoning as follows: Those two principles of the Manichees are either separated or not. If not separated, therefore they are not two, but one; but if separated, each is therefore limited and thus imperfect and finite, and so neither is God. But that the prince of darkness created heaven and earth and spoke to Moses and the Prophets is refuted by countless places of the New Testament, among which that one is notable in the prayer of the holy Apostles, cast out from the priestly council, Acts 4:24 - 25, in which they address God thus: “Lord, you are that God who made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; who by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of David your servant said, ‘Why did the nations rage, and the peoples devise vain things?’” To the second. The Old Testament, insofar as it consisted in commands of rites, in the distinction of foods, days, and peoples, and in figures and shadows, was fulfilled and antiquated by the coming of Christ, as is confirmed by the Apostle’s authority in Heb. 8:13; but it by no means follows from this that the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets concerning God, and concerning the covenant and the Law of God (which is the soul of the Old Scripture), has grown old or expired. Nor does Abraham send us to trees grown old and dried up, when he says Luke 16:2, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.” And Christ when he says John 5:39, “Search the Scriptures” - namely the portion of Moses and the Prophets - “because they are they which testify of me.” And vv. 46 - 47: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” And Peter when he writes 2 Pet. 1:19, “We have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place - “ To the third. The Law as to the shadows, the Prophets as to the oracles announcing the coming Christ, lasted until John. Where, when, says Epiphanius against heresy sixty-six, John preached in the desert and showed, “This is that Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” there was no further need of Prophets to come and preach to us the coming of Christ from a virgin.

But as to the substance of the doctrine of the Law and the Prophets, by the coming of Christ it was by no means antiquated, as the Lord himself testifies, Matt. 5:17, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” To the fourth. The Prophets sent by God did not come before Christ, but with Christ, because they did not wish by pride to go before him, but humbly bore him speaking through them, as St. Augustine says in tome six against Faustus the Manichee, book sixteen, chapter twelve. For that heralding Spirit who was in the Prophets was the Spirit of Christ, 1 Pet. 1:11. Christ by his Spirit formerly spoke and preached in the Prophets, as in Noah, 1 Pet. 3:18, 19, 20. But those came “before Christ,” not who in time preceded the incarnation of Christ, but who were not sent by God, who were unwilling to come with Christ, that is, with the Word of God, but brought their lies to men; who, before Christ enlightened them to preach his truth, wished to anticipate him, in order to vaunt their own deceit. From this Augustine proves in the cited book and chapter that the Manichees are thieves and robbers. A certain Ptolemy also once rejected the books of Moses (as Epiphanius reports, heresy 33) on the ground that of one part of them the author is not the true God but the maker of the world, who is a certain middle divinity between God and the devil; of another part Moses; and finally of a third part the elders of the synagogue. Zacharias refutes this heresy in Luke 1:70, where he testifies that God - namely, the true God - spoke by the mouth of the holy Prophets, who were from the age (that is, from the foundation of the world): and therefore also by the mouth of Moses. Christ refutes the same, who in Luke 24 makes the books of Moses equal to the books of the other Prophets: for, as it is in v. 27, “beginning from Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” Likewise in v. 44 he says: “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me must be fulfilled.” He asserts their authority likewise in John 5:46 - 47, “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” The Apostle Paul refutes the same when he affirms that all, that is, the whole Scripture is divinely inspired, 2 Tim. 3:16. The Sadducees accepted the books of Moses as divine, but rejected all the other Prophets; therefore Christ confuted them, who denied the universal resurrection of all the dead, solely from the books of Moses, Matt. 22:31 - 32. But the other Jews themselves, especially the Pharisees, refuted the Sadducees. Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, did not openly repudiate the Prophets, yet he denied that they ever prophesied of Christ, as can be understood from the fragments of his commentaries which are recited in the fifth Synod, session 4. But Christ himself refutes him, who, after reading the passage Isa. 61, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he has sent me to heal the brokenhearted,” etc., added: “Surely today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing,” Luke 4:21. Peter the Apostle refutes the same when in Acts 10:43 he says, “To him all the Prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him will receive remission of

sins through his name.” Finally the whole New Testament refutes him, in which again and again the testimonies of the Prophets about Christ are alleged and explained by the Evangelists and the Apostles. Certain Jewish Rabbis reject the book of Job, who think that Job himself never lived among men, as it is in the Talmud, order 4, tractate 3. But God himself refutes the Rabbis, who is a most ample witness that neither is the history of Job fictitious, nor was Job himself not truly holy and acceptable to him, when in Ezekiel 14:14 he says, “Even if these three men were in it, Noah, Daniel, and Job, they would by their righteousness deliver only themselves,” says the Lord Jehovah. The same is repeated vv. 16 and 20. Bellarmine affirms, in book one On the Word of God, chapter five, section twelve, that authority is taken away from that same book by Martin Luther in the Table Talk, where he says, under the title “On the Patriarchs and Prophets,” that he does not believe all things were done as they are narrated in the book of Job; and again, under the title “On the books of the Old and New Testament,” that the book of Job is as it were the argument of a fable set forth to propose an example of patience. But, first, that book of Table Talk is not by Luther, nor was it published with Luther’s approval or even while he was living; rather it is a rhapsody patched together without judgment and understanding. Next, he who ascribed it to Luther did him an injury, and impudently imputed to him a stain unworthy of him. We by no means determine to labor here or hereafter over such spurious writings - just as the Papists themselves do not labor over writings published under the name of the Apostle Peter and the Roman Pontiffs, which nevertheless are not theirs. The Psalms of David were repudiated by the Nicolaitans and the Gnostics as human - or rather profane - songs composed without any divine afflatus, as Philastrius reports in the catalogue of heresies, chapter 127. Eusebius writes, Church History, book seven, chapter twenty-five, that Paul of Samosata removed from the Church’s use those psalms which were sung to Christ as though recently devised and newly invented. But many places of Scripture refute the Nicolaitans and the Gnostics: “These are the last words of David,” says the author of 2 Sam., chapter 23, verse…

wilderness,” etc.; which words are Psalm 95 according to the Hebrew numbering. But as to what Eusebius writes, that Paul of Samosata removed from the Church those psalms which were sung in praise of Christ, it seems that this is to be understood not of Davidic psalms, but of hymns made in honor of Christ by the devout zeal and pious industry of Christians.

Some repudiated Ecclesiastes of Solomon, as Philastrius testifies in the catalogue of heresies, chapter one hundred and thirty-two, because it seems that Solomon composed that book in extreme old age, when he had been depraved by love of women, and because in that book he established the highest good in bodily pleasures, and thus opened the way to the philosophy of Epicurus or Aristippus. Bellarmine also writes, Book 1 On the Word of God, chap. 5, section 15, that Martin Luther, in the Table Talks, in the title On the Books of the Old and New Testament, says that the author of the book entitled Ecclesiastes seems to him to be without greaves and spurs, to ride only in slippers, as he himself used to do when he was still in the monastery. But as regards the heretics whom Philastrius mentions, and who, moved by two arguments, repudiate the book of Ecclesiastes, they in the first argument commit the fallacy of many questions, conjoining those things about which the judgment is diverse. For that Solomon wrote the book of Ecclesiastes in extreme old age we grant readily. But what is further added, that he did so when he was depraved by love of women, is ambiguous: for it can be understood in two ways, either that Solomon, before the writing of this book, had been depraved, but, repenting from that depravity, wrote this book; or that he, remaining depraved, composed this book. The former sense is true, the latter false. For Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes, led by the Spirit of God, wished before his Church to testify to his serious repentance, and to lead all away from the pursuit of vanities, and on the contrary to train all in the way of true piety. Accordingly he begins the profession of his repentance with these words: “Vanity most vain,” says the Ecclesiastes (that is, Solomon delivering a penitential discourse in the Church of God), “vanity most vain; all these things are vanity”: and everywhere in the whole book he confesses the matters in which he has sinned, and acknowledges their vanity. But he comprehends the sum of true and saving endeavor in the last chapter with this exhortation: “Fear God himself and keep his commandments, because this is the whole of man. For God himself will bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.” Hence the judgment of the ancient Jews was, as St. Jerome testifies on the first chapter of Ecclesiastes, that this book was composed by Solomon after he had repented; which judgment the same Jerome seems to approve in the Commentary on Ezekiel, chapter forty-three. Against the solution given, some reply that the opinion of St. Augustine is always to be thought more probable, who, on Psalm 126 and often elsewhere, writes that Solomon was reprobated by God, because Holy Scripture most gravely reproves his old age, and nowhere adds anything about repentance. I answer: That judgment of Augustine is rather rough and too harsh, and not to be followed by us. For that Solomon was not reprobated by God, but is to be numbered among the elect, not light arguments show in the Didascalia on the eternal predestination of God delivered by us. But that

Holy Scripture most gravely reproves the old age of Solomon is to be understood of the beginning of his old age: for when he was already growing old, his heart was depraved by women; not, however, of his extreme old age, in which, having been reproved by God and, after long experience gained of very many things, and the vanity of his former pursuits acknowledged, he at length repented, and wished the book of Ecclesiastes to be a perpetual testimony of his repentance for all posterity. But what Augustine thinks, that Scripture nowhere adds anything about Solomon’s repentance, is refuted by the book of Ecclesiastes, which is wholly penitential; it is refuted by the Second Book of Chronicles, in which, chapter eleven, verse seventeen, it is said that the Jews with Rehoboam the son of Solomon walked in the way of David and Solomon for three years; whence it can be gathered clearly enough that Solomon repented after his fall. Moreover, Bellarmine tries to demonstrate by four reasons that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes before his fall. The first is that in 3 Kings 4 and 11, and in Ecclesiasticus chap. 47, when the deeds of Solomon are recounted in order, it is told of his books before his loves. The second is that he wrote this book when the wisdom received as a divine gift was still with him, as is evident from chapter two: and that it is not likely that the light of heavenly wisdom could at the same time dwell with that depravity of heart of which it is read in 3 Kings 11, “And women turned away his heart,” and, “When he was already growing old, his heart was depraved by women, so that he followed strange gods.” The third reason is that Solomon, in chapter two, enumerating all his pleasures and their instruments, makes no mention of wives and concubines. The fourth reason is that it is incredible that from a mind so soft and effeminate, such as Solomon’s was when he was enslaved to the loves of seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, there could proceed such grave sentences as stand in this book. By these reasons Bellarmine endeavors to prove that the book of Ecclesiastes was composed by Solomon before he began to love. I answer to the first reason. This proposition is weak and not necessary: Whatever is earlier in the order of narration is earlier in time. This proposition is overthrown by many examples of Scripture, by common usage, and by the consensus of the learned. That saying of the Hebrews in the Commentaries is well known, that there is no before or after in Holy Scripture. As to Ecclesiasticus, the book is Apocryphal. To the second. We grant that the book of Ecclesiastes was not written by Solomon while he was involved in the depravity of heart and given over to loves; but when he was wise again, having been endowed by God with repentance. But with respect to the two testimonies of Scripture which Bellarmine alleges, in the exposition of the first he is deceived by the fallacy of composition and division. For Solomon does not mean this, that he wrote the book of Ecclesiastes when as yet the wisdom received as a divine gift was first with him; but he merely proclaims this, that he was great and increased with all commodities and delights, even at that time when wisdom still remained

with him. The Vulgate translation of the second testimony is bad: for instead of what it has, “and when he was now an old man,” it ought to be translated, “and when he was now growing old,” that is, when his old age was beginning. But he wrote this book in extreme old age after his return to the Church, from which he had been for a while absent. To the third reason. Solomon indeed makes no mention of his loves in chapter two, but elsewhere he confesses them, as in chapter seven, vv. 25 - 26: “I turned myself to know the wickedness of folly, and the foolishness of madness. And I found something more bitter than death, to wit, that woman whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are bonds: he who is good before God is delivered from her; but the sinner is taken by her. See, this I found,” says the Ecclesiastes. The fourth reason concludes nothing against us, because we do not say that Solomon wrote this book when he was serving base loves and strange gods, but after he had cast them away. Therefore, as he first wrote other things when he was wise: so he penned the book of Ecclesiastes when repenting. The first argument by which the heretics reject Solomon’s Ecclesiastes has been refuted. The second argument is that in that book Solomon established the highest good in bodily pleasures, and thus opened the way to the philosophy of Epicurus or Aristippus. I answer: That is false. For so far is it from the case that Solomon’s Ecclesiastes establishes the highest good in the pleasures of the body, that rather he exhorts all mortals, as a severe and vehement master of morals, with most weighty speech, to contempt of human things and to the reverence of God, following the example of his father David, who, repenting, says in Psalm 51:14 - 15, “Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and sustain me with a free spirit. I will teach the transgressors your ways, that sinners may be converted to you.” Such is that exordium of Ecclesiastes: “Vanity of vanities, says the Ecclesiastes, vanity of vanities: all these things are vanity.” Such is that peroration: “The sum of the matter, after all has been heard: Fear God himself and keep his commandments, because this is the whole of man. For God himself will bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing; whether that be good or evil.” Nor indeed do the middle parts differ from the beginning and the end; of which let these few be by way of sample. Chap. 2:2, “Of laughter I said, It is madness; and of joy, What does this do?” and v. 14, “There is an advantage of wisdom over folly, as there is an advantage of light over darkness.” Chap. 3:17, “God will judge the righteous and the wicked.” Chap. 4, last verse, “Watch your foot when you go to the house of God; and be ready to hear rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools; for they do not consider that they do evil.” And chap. 5:1, “Let not your mouth be quick, and let not your heart hasten to utter anything before God: for God is in heaven and you upon earth: therefore let your words be few.” And v. 6, “Do not permit your mouth to cause your flesh to sin; and do not say before that Angel, It was an error: lest God might be angry at your voice and destroy the work of your hands.” And v. 7, “Fear God himself.” And chap. 7:1 - 2, “A good name is better to a man than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day in which he is born. It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting.” Chap. 8:11 - 12, “I know it will be well with those who fear God, who shall fear before him. But it will not be well with the wicked, nor will he

prolong his days like a shadow.” Chap. 9:18 - 20, “Wisdom is better than strength, although the wisdom of the poor man is despised and his words are not heard. The words of the wise, spoken softly, are to be heard rather than the shout of a ruler among fools. Wisdom is better than weapons of war; but one sinner destroys much good.” And chap. 10:16 - 17, “Woe to you, O land, when your king is a child, and your princes eat in the morning. O blessed land, whose king is of noble birth, and whose princes eat in due season for strength and not for luxury.” Chap. 11:9, “Know that for all these things God himself will bring you into judgment.” Do these things savor of Aristippus? Or did ever such severe precepts come forth from the workshop of Epicurus? The assailants of this book reply, that it is asserted in it, chap. 3:19, 20, 21, that the soul of man perishes together with the body like the souls of beasts; and, furthermore, that the enjoyment of eating and drinking is not to be despised; and, in chap. 5:18, 19, 26. I answer: In chapter 3:19 and the following Solomon does not teach what is to be thought in truth concerning the soul of man, but what, before repentance, when he was immersed in the pleasures of this world, he had held as a position. from that opinion which he had conceived from the outwardly apparent likeness of events that are common to good and evil men: just as those words are not the judgment of one prescribing what is to be followed, but a confession of his sins, among which there was also a perverse judgment about the human soul. But in chapter five, verse 18 and the following, he teaches that the use of resources acquired by honest labor to sustain this life is lawful and granted by God. This by no means makes him measure all things by bodily pleasure, but rather that he might rebuke the greedy and sordid, who prefer to defraud themselves of the necessary and lawful supports and conveniences of human life, than to take away even the least from their heap of money. These things briefly against the assailants of the book of Ecclesiastes. Luther by no means rejected this book; and as to the Table-talk which Bellarmine alleges, it is a spurious writing, glass (as they say) for a pearl. Some heretics rejected the Song of Songs of Solomon, as Philastrius reports in chapter one hundred and thirty-three, who thought it profane and written not by the inspiration of the Spirit of God, but by the breath of Cupid, and that nothing else was contained in that Song than the love- talk of King Solomon and the daughter of Pharaoh his wife; and for that reason that no name of God is found in the whole book. Edmund Campion the Jesuit also, in the first reason among his ten petty arguments, with which, relying on them, he assailed the ministers of the English Church in the cause of faith, ascribes to Sebastian Castellio, who published a Latin Paraphrase of the Bible, that that lecherous scoundrel judged the Song of Songs to be worth no more than a ditty about a sweetheart and an amorous conversation with the maids of the court; and he alleges Beza as witness in the Preface to Joshua, and in the margin the Preface of Castellio to the Song. Answer. The heretics who denied that the Song of Songs is divine and written by the Spirit of God were moved by false arguments. First, because that Song does not comprise the love-talk of King Solomon and the daughter of Pharaoh, but sets forth the account of spiritual betrothals and

the sacred union of Christ with the Church as she sojourns on earth, and the dialogue of Christ the bridegroom with his Church the bride. Nor is that bride who is celebrated in this song the daughter of Pharaoh; for the things said about that bride by no means fit the daughter of Pharaoh, as in chap. 1, v. 5: “I am black, I am like the tents of the Scenite Kedarites”; and v. 6: “Do not look upon me because I am swarthy, because the sun has gazed upon me; wherefore the sons of my mother, inflamed with anger against me, made me keeper of the vineyards, so that I have not kept my own vineyard for myself”; and v. 8: “O fairest among women, go forth by the footsteps of the flock and feed your kids above the tabernacles of other shepherds.” And chap. 5, v. 1: “The watchmen found me, who go about the city; they struck me, they wounded me; the watchmen of the walls took away my veil from me.” Who would believe that the daughter of King Pharaoh and the wife of King Solomon was either a rustic woman and fed goats, or was struck, wounded, and despoiled by the watchmen of the walls? Moreover, lest there be any occasion to suspect that the daughter of Pharaoh is praised in this song, Christ willed to have written about his bride such things as can be fitted to no single woman, and which would rather disgrace a woman than adorn her; of which sort are these, chap. 6, v. 14, according to Tremellius’s division: “Your neck is like an ivory tower; your eyes are like most artful pools at the most frequented gate; your nose is like the tower of Lebanon looking toward Damascus.” The second argument likewise is false. For, first, at chap. 7, v. 10, according to Tremellius’s division, or chap. 8, v. 6, according to the common division, the divine name Jah is read, though compounded with another word, “a flame of Jah,” that is, of Jehovah, just as it is often read compounded with other words, as the word “Hallelu-Jah” shows. Second, though it be not read more often, yet it is declared by an equivalent, suitably and fittingly to the present aim. For whereas in other books God is repeatedly called Jehovah, Lord, Mighty God, the Almighty, as the gravity of the matters treated requires; yet in songs of love, in which the Son of God is conversing with the Church, that is, the bridegroom with the bride, he rightly omits those names which are fitted to strike terror, and calls himself only a bridegroom, father, friend, lover, and beloved - names which pertain to the stirring up or cherishing of love. But as for Sebastian Castellio, a singular wrong has been done him by Campion. For in that brief preface which Castellio prefixed to this book, that Jesuitical slander has none of this - no “ditty,” no “sweetheart,” no “maids of the court,” no “amorous conversation,” nothing of the sort. Summing up the substance of that book in a few words, truly, learnedly, chastely, these are the first: A dialogue of the Savior and the Church; he adds that the Savior’s zeal for the Church is represented here. And in the arguments of chapters 7 and 8 he says that the form of the Church is wonderful; that she is the only one, taught and sustained by Christ, bearing rich fruits. In short, he explains everything about the beauty of the Church. Now we see both how highly Castellio valued this song, and how outrageous the Jesuit’s slander was, whom it did not shame so openly to lie about Castellio, a pious man, esteemed with good reason by the Academy of Basel, employed for the professorship of the Greek language, and by no means a lecherous scoundrel. But this is the license of the Jesuit school - to slander, to say whatever one pleases, to speak ill, to do wrong to the living and the dead.

But Campion brings forward Beza as a witness, by whom in the Preface to Joshua this was alleged against Castellio. Answer. I have not seen Beza’s Preface; and if any does exist, without doubt the Jesuit has used it not in good faith. Then even if Beza had said or written something of the sort about Castellio, it would not be necessary for us to contend about it. For neither do we take upon ourselves this, that we should defend whatever any one has anywhere either written or said. If anyone has written something more petulantly, or less worthy of the authority of the Scriptures, he will surely not have me as his patron; and through me it shall be free for anyone to refute his opinions in entire books. Daniel the Prophet, finally, Porphyry rejected; about whom Jerome writes thus in the Preface to the Commentaries on Daniel: “Porphyry writes the twelfth book against the Prophet Daniel, not willing that he, in whose name it is inscribed, should have composed it, but some one who was in Judaea in the times of Antiochus, who is called Epiphanes; and that he did not so much speak things to come as relate things past. Finally, whatever he said up to Antiochus contains true history; but if he thought anything beyond, because he did not know the future, he lied.” Answer. Porphyry is refuted, first, by the divine testimony of Christ, who in Matt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 cites Daniel as a Prophet who spoke by divine inspiration about things to come. Second, by Flavius Josephus, who, even among the heathen, earned great credence; who in book eleven of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter eight, attests that to Alexander the Great, when he came to Jerusalem, the volume of Daniel was offered by the priests, and that the place of chapter eight was shown to him, where Daniel had foretold and himself explained that the ram would be overthrown by the he-goat, that is, the King of the Persians by the King of the Greeks. Now Alexander the Great preceded Antiochus Epiphanes by more than one hundred and fifty years. If, therefore, the book of Daniel was exhibited and read to Alexander the Great, how can it be that it was written only in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes? Next, we deny that Daniel lied in the prediction of future things. For since Porphyry himself admits that the book of Daniel, whatever it said up to Antiochus Epiphanes, contains true history, and thus that the events have given most ample credence to the predictions about things to be done up to Antiochus Epiphanes, this also proves that the rest was not false. The fulfillment of all those things which had been predicted up to Antiochus Epiphanes confirms the credibility of the others. But Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius have abundantly replied to Porphyry’s madness. Thus have been refuted the fanatics who reject either all or some books of the Old Testament, as if they were not divine and canonical: now the fanatics must be refuted who repudiate the books of the New Testament by the same argument. Of these, some reject the whole Scripture of the New Testament, others certain books, or certain parts of some books.

They use, moreover, these arguments by which they infer that the Scripture of the New Testament is not written.

Answer to the first argument. A fallacy of homonymy is committed in it: for “New Testament” is said homonymously (homonymously, ὁµωνύµως), now for the reconciliation of the Church of elect men with God, ratified by the blood of Christ; now for the doctrine of this reconciliation, both proclaimed by voice and set down in letters; now for the cup of the Holy Supper, according to the words of Christ, “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” Of which meanings the first is proper; in the rest there is the trope of metonymy; and all these, in efficient cause, form, end or use, are purely spiritual - no one will deny it. But since the significations of “New Testament” are several, we must see which is the question between us and the Libertines. It is not a question about the grace of reconciliation, which must of necessity be inscribed and sealed by the Holy Spirit of God on the hearts of believers for salvation. But the question properly is about the doctrine: and that its sentences concerning the reconciliation of the elect with God are so spiritual that they could not and ought not to have been preached by voice and written with the pen for the necessity and use of the Church, is a senseless figment. As to Jeremiah’s oracle, it is an inept paralogism, from positing the end to the negation of the means, to reason thus: “I will write my law in their hearts”: therefore it could not or ought not to have been written on paper. For God writes his law, that is, the grace of reconciliation, within (esothen, ἔσωθεν), inwardly, with the finger of his Spirit upon our hearts; but without (exothen, ἔξωθεν), through doctrine proclaimed, heard, written, read, meditated. Nor are they contrary, to be written on hearts and to be written on paper. For the knowledge of the moral law, although inscribed naturally on hearts - whence it is also called the law of nature - could also be written on stone tablets and papyrus, and by the most weighty counsel of God it ought to have been. More inept is the implication in the allegation of the other saying from 2 Cor. 3:3, “You are an epistle written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God”: therefore the nature of the doctrine of the New Testament does not permit being written with ink. For the Apostle, in writing this very epistle and others, was assuredly writing the doctrine of the New Testament; nor was he writing with the Spirit, but with ink, albeit by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Then too he calls not the doctrine of the New Testament, but the Corinthians themselves in this place, the epistle of Christ; that we have no need of other commendatory letters to you, or of yours to others, that we may be held for true Apostles of Jesus Christ: for you yourselves, such as you now are, made by Christ through our ministry, are to us in place of an epistle, for the writing of which, as it were, we have spent our effort, since we were, as it were, the pen of Christ by which you were inscribed - you, I say, are to us in place of an epistle. read and understood by all, by which both we ourselves are abundantly commended to you and, in turn, through you to others. Just as a disciple who has made splendid advances is a letter of commendation for his teacher. To the second argument the answer is, that Scripture in itself is the killing letter, is denied. For the Apostle calls not Scripture or the characters, but the external doctrine, with the efficacy of the Holy Spirit separated, the killing letter. This letter kills sinners by the preaching of the Law per se, by the preaching of the Gospel per accidens. For the Law condemns sinners absolutely: “Cursed be he that does not perform the words of this Law by doing them,” and all the people shall say, Amen. Deut. 27. 26. The Gospel condemns none but unbelievers: “Unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.” John 8. v. 21. In the same way the external use of the Sacraments without inward justification, regeneration, and sanctification of the heart through Christ and the Holy Spirit is a letter: as Paul in Rom. 2. 29. says that circumcision of the heart is in spirit, not in letter. In sum, both the external preaching, reading, and hearing of the word, and the use of the Sacraments, are referred to a dead letter unless the Spirit of Christ inwardly teach the heart, regenerate it, govern it, so that a man in his whole life may obey God. Therefore Paul, establishing the distinction between the Old and the New Testament, and calling the Old Testament the letter killing, but the New Testament the Spirit making alive, by no means means this, as though the former could have been written, the latter cannot: but that the Holy Spirit uses for the making alive of those spiritually dead not the ministry of the Law but of the Gospel preached, and that not the Law but the Gospel is properly the organ of the Spirit who makes alive. For the Law, demanding most perfect obedience and denouncing a curse on those who do not render it, is nothing but deadly: but the Gospel, offering the remission of sins in Christ Jesus, is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, Rom. 1. v. 16. So much for the fanatics who reject the whole Scripture of the New Testament as though it were not divine and canonical. Concerning certain books of the New Testament - namely, the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, second Peter, second and third John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John - some doubt; some deny that they are divine and canonical books, not only among the Romanists, but even among those who are called Evangelicals. But the opinion of these men is erroneous, because it is the opinion of a few; it ought not to be fastened upon the community of the Evangelical or Reformed Church; just as the opinion of a few Papists ought not to be attributed to the whole Papist community. We shall consider each in order: and first, On the Epistle to the Hebrews

The Epistle to the Hebrews was formerly not received by the Latin Church, as Jerome testifies in his Commentaries on the sixth chapter of Isaiah, although he himself says it is Paul’s. For he says: “Whence also the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which Latin custom has not received: ‘Are they not,’ he says, ‘all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation’?” And in the Epistle to Dardanus, whose beginning is, “It is asked, O Dardanus, most noble of Christians and most Christian of nobles,” he thus writes: “This epistle which is entitled To the Hebrews is received as Paul’s the Apostle’s, not only by the Churches of the East, but by all the writers of Churches of the Greek tongue of old, although many think it to be either Barnabas’s or Clement’s: and that it makes no difference whose it is, since it is the work of an ecclesiastical man, and is celebrated daily by the reading of the Churches. But if Latin custom does not receive it among the canonical Scriptures, neither indeed do the Churches of the Greeks receive the Apocalypse of John with the same freedom; and yet we receive both: following by no means the custom of this time, but the authority of the ancient writers.” From these testimonies of Jerome it is plain that the Epistle to the Hebrews was formerly repudiated by the Latin Church. Eusebius in the third book of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter three, says that among the Latins there is held a doubt about the epistle which is written to the Hebrews. Our Churches, reformed according to the prescript of the word of God, receive this epistle most religiously, and acknowledge it as divine, canonical, and apostolic: both because they believe it to have been immediately inspired by the Holy Spirit, and because everywhere in it they find a truly divine conformity with the prophetic and apostolic doctrine concerning the person and office of Christ, which topics it treats so clearly that all the Greeks write that it is most apostolic: assuredly it is a key opening the door to a right understanding of the Old Testament. The Roman Church also receives it, although it uses certain arguments not very firm, such as indeed Bellarmine recites, the refutation of which we shall leave to those who assail this epistle; but the defense of those arguments to the Papists: lest we make another’s cause our own. The arguments of those who hesitate to number this epistle among the divine and truly canonical are few, and can be refuted by a few [arguments]. First. Whatever epistle prudent antiquity doubted, that ought not to be reckoned among the divine and canonical and apostolic: But prudent antiquity doubted the Epistle to the Hebrews. Therefore, etc. Answer. The major is denied, because the doubt of certain persons about some canonical Scripture is not a true and sufficient cause for excluding it from the divine canon. For the canon of Holy Scripture does not depend on the judgment of men, whom God often permits for a time to go astray. Then the minor is ambiguous: for it can be understood either of the whole of antiquity, or of a part of it. If it be understood of the whole of antiquity, it is denied: because the Epistle to the Hebrews was always received by the Greek Church, and in the Nicene, Laodicean, and Carthaginian Councils was acknowledged as canonical; only by the Latin or Roman Church was it not admitted for a time, or by certain Latin Fathers, whose error does not pertain to the common judgment of the Church. Surely the particular deed of certain men, or rather the particular error of

certain men, is not the common judgment of the Church. Therefore let the advice of Augustine have place, which he gives, tome 3, book 2 On Christian Doctrine, chapter 8: “In the canonical Scriptures let him follow the authority of the Catholic Churches as much as possible, among which surely are those which have deserved to have apostolic sees and to receive epistles. He will hold therefore this method in the canonical Scriptures, that he prefer those which are received by all the Catholic Churches to those which some do not receive. But among those which are not received by all, let him prefer those which the more and the graver receive to those which the fewer and Churches of lesser authority hold. But if he shall find some received by the more, others by the graver, although he cannot find this, yet I think they ought to be held of equal authority.” Second A book whose author is uncertain is not divine and canonical: The Epistle to the Hebrews is a book whose author is uncertain. Therefore, etc. They prove the assumption, because this epistle, although by many it is ascribed to Paul the Apostle, does not have prefixed at the beginning the name of the Apostle Paul, as all his other epistles have. By others, however, it is ascribed to Luke, by others to Barnabas, by others to Clement the Roman. Answer. First, the major, understood universally, is denied: for the authors through whom the books of Judges, Ruth, Job were written are uncertain, and yet it does not follow from this that those books are not canonical. For a book is not reckoned canonical from the name of the amanuensis, but because it is believed to have been inspired and dictated by the Holy Spirit. Rightly indeed Gregory the Great in the Preface to the exposition of the book of Job, chapter 1, says: “Who wrote these things is sought very superfluously, since nevertheless the author of the book is faithfully believed to be the Holy Spirit. He therefore wrote these things, who dictated these things to be written. He himself wrote, who also was the inspirer of that work, and through the voice of the scribe transmitted to us his deeds to be imitated.” If, when we had taken up the letters of some great man, we were to read the words, and were to ask with what pen they had been written, it would surely be ridiculous if we were eager not to know the author of the letters and to understand the sense, but to inquire with what pen the words of them had been impressed. Since therefore we know the matter, and hold the Holy Spirit as the author of that matter, why do we seek the writer? What else are we doing, except, while reading the letters, prying into the pen? Then the minor, understood simply, is likewise denied. For the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is uncertain to some; but not simply to all. For the most ancient fathers testify that it is the Apostle Paul’s: as Clement the Roman in a certain epistle of his to the Corinthians, as Eusebius reports, book 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 38. Clement of Alexandria, in the same Eusebius, book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 11, thus discusses the Epistle to the Hebrews, that it is manifestly Paul’s the Apostle’s: but that it was written in the Hebrew tongue, as to Hebrews: and by Luke, who was Paul’s disciple, translated into Greek: whence also its style seems more like that little book which Luke wrote concerning the Acts of the Apostles. And as to the fact that it does not have there the usual superscription, that is, “Paul the Apostle,” he shows this to be the reason, because a prejudice had arisen among the Hebrews about Paul’s name, lest they should receive his sayings: and therefore that he prudently avoided it, lest immediately at the beginning, when Paul’s name was seen, its reading be rejected. And after a little he also adds these

things: “And as the blessed presbyter used to say, because the Lord, the Apostle of the Almighty, is said to have been sent to the Hebrews. Therefore out of humility Paul, who had been appointed to the Gentiles, did not write himself the Apostle of the Hebrews, either out of regard for the honor of the Lord, who had said that he was sent to the sheep of Israel, or because he seemed to be the Apostle of the Gentiles.” The same think Athanasius in the first tome, the third oration against the Arians, page one hundred and ninety-second; and in the second tome, book 7 of the Synopsis of Holy Scripture; the Council of Laodicea, chapter fifty-ninth; Jerome in the Commentaries on the sixth chapter of Isaiah, and in the Epistle to Dardanus; Rufinus the Presbyter of Aquileia in the exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, section thirty-fifth. But Theodoret in the argument of this epistle thus says: “It is nothing to wonder at if those who labor under the Arian disease rage against the apostolic letters, and separate the Epistle to the Hebrews from the rest, and call it spurious. For those who move their tongues against God and our Savior, what would they not have dared against his well-wishers and high-sounding heralds of the truth? For the voice of the Lord himself is: ‘If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you.’ But it behooved them, if nothing else, certainly to revere the length of time, in which the pupils of the truth have continually read this epistle in the Churches. For from the time that the Churches were made partakers of the apostolic letters, from that time also they receive the benefit of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But if not even this is enough to persuade them, certainly they ought to have believed Eusebius of Palestine, whom they call the patron of their decrees. For he also confessed that this epistle is of the most divine Paul: and he asserted that all the ancients held this opinion about it.” They reply against this solution, and deny that Paul is the author of this epistle: and they bring forward several arguments for their denial, which we shall set forth one by one and refute.

III. The Apostle Paul was not converted to the faith by the other Apostles. But the author of this epistle, chap. 2, places himself in the number of those who were converted to the faith by the Apostles: for he says, v. 3, How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which, when it had begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him, God bearing witness with signs and wonders, etc. Therefore the author of this epistle is not the Apostle Paul. Answer. I deny the minor, and it is not proved from the place alleged; for the author is not treating of his own conversion to the faith, but of the confirmation of the Gospel which he had preached among the Gentiles, and which afterwards, going up by revelation, he set forth to the whole Church and privately to those of repute, lest by any means he should run or had run in vain. But those who were of repute added nothing to Paul. Rather, on the contrary, when they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision had been entrusted to Paul, just as that of the circumcision to Peter (for he who was effectual through Peter in the apostleship of the circumcision was also effectual through Paul among the Gentiles); and when James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, had recognized the grace given to Paul, they gave the right hands of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, that these should exercise the apostleship among the Gentiles, but they themselves among the circumcised. They only admonished that they should remember the poor; which very thing they were eager to do, as is read Gal. 2:2, and likewise v. 6 and the following. Paul therefore set forth to the other Apostles the doctrine of the Gospel which he had preached, not because he doubted of it, but because it was being spread abroad that he disagreed with the rest of the Apostles, which might have impeded the course of the Gospel. He aimed to remedy this inconvenience when he met with the other Apostles, who did not add even the least thing to that doctrine which he had preached, but only confirmed it by their consent, not for Paul’s sake but for the sake of others who had been somewhat disturbed by a rumor spread about Paul. A confirmation was also added from the miracles heard of which the other Apostles were doing. A like passage exists at 1 Pet. 1:12: which things have now been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, into which things the angels desire to look. From this place it might likewise be gathered that that epistle is not Peter’s, since he seems to exclude himself from the number of the Apostles and to include himself in the number of disciples converted by the Apostles. But the Apostle speaks by synecdoche, as though he were one of the number of those who were converted by the Apostles. A like synecdoche is 1 Thess. 4:15, 17, where Paul speaks as though he himself were going to be one of those whom the Lord, coming to the universal judgment, will find alive. Moreover, when the author of the epistle to the Hebrews says that the doctrine of salvation was confirmed by those who had heard the Lord, it does not follow that he himself had not heard the Gospel from the Lord, and so exempts himself from the order of the Apostles; but he speaks κατὰ κ (according to a certain respect), since his words are to be understood of the time of Christ’s lowly state, in which he began at the beginning of his preaching to have salvation declared by others of the Apostles; yet he does not exclude the time of Christ’s glorious state, in which he learned the Gospel from the Lord himself, as he professes in Gal. 1:11 - 12.

Nor is it absurd that in Heb. 2 he uses the plural number when he says, it was confirmed to US: because it was confirmed not to him alone, but also to Barnabas, Gal. 2:9, and to other believers with whom the Apostle numbers himself; just as Isa. 64:6 says: We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as a most filthy rag; and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And what Bellarmine says, that Isaiah speaks in the person of the people and not of himself, because in the same place he invokes God with a long speech, is plainly inept; for not only the Prophet but the whole Church there invokes God, as the text itself most evidently shows. Indeed, even if the doctrine of the Gospel had not been confirmed to Paul himself by the other Apostles, but only to other believers, still the use of the plural number by synecdoche would not be absurd, of which, and indeed of a far harsher kind, examples exist in Scripture, as Eph. 2:3; 1 Pet. 4:3; 1 Thess. 4:17; Matt. 27:8, where it is reported that the disciples of Christ were indignant that Mary, the sister of Lazarus, had poured the precious ointment on Christ’s head, whereas not all were indignant, but Judas Iscariot, as may be seen John 12:4. A like synecdoche is Matt. 27:44: The robbers who were crucified with Christ reviled him; whereas only the other one reviled him, as may be seen Luke 23:39. IV. So argues Cardinal Cajetan in his commentary on this epistle: The author of this epistle, chap. 1:5, proves that Christ is the Son of God from those words 2 Sam. 7:14: I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a son. But that proof is not solid: for the words alleged are understood literally of Solomon, and only from the literal sense are firm arguments taken. Therefore either this author is not Paul, or Paul argues unsoundly. Answer. It is false that the author of this epistle argues unsoundly; it is also false that the words alleged are to be understood literally of Solomon alone. For since in those words there is a typic prophecy of Christ composed, the literal sense too is composite, one part of which is of the type, the other of the truth of the type; and accordingly it is necessarily expounded both of Solomon as the type, and of Christ as the truth of the type. Therefore it is rightly proved from that that Christ is the Son of God. V. The same Cajetan argues thus. At Heb. 9:3 - 4 the author says that in the ark there was an urn having manna, and Aaron’s rod that had budded, and the tables of the law; but in 3 Kings (1 Kings) chap. 8 only the tables are reported to have been in the ark. Therefore either Paul lies, or the author of this Epistle is not Paul. Answer. The Latin translation is faulty, for it ought to be rendered in this way: But after the second veil was the Tabernacle which they call the Holy of holies: having a golden censer; and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold: in which, namely, Tabernacle. For the relative must be referred not to the nearer noun ark (κιβωτός), but to the more remote noun tabernacle (σκηνή), as required by the authority of Scripture and the credibility of sacred history: the golden urn having manna, and that rod of Aaron which blossomed, and those tables of the covenant. For in several places of Holy Scripture the relative pronoun is referred to the more remote noun, as Gen. 10:12; 1 Sam. 7:17; 2 Sam. 21:14; 2 Chron. 36:9; Ps. 99:6 - 7; Esth. 9:25; 2 Thess. 2:9; Mark 1:45 and 6:14; Matt. 26:52; John 1:29. So also in this place of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

VI. The same Cajetan and Erasmus of Rotterdam argue thus: The author of this epistle, chap. 9:20, speaking of a testament properly so called (διαθήκη is the Greek rendering), which is confirmed by the death of the testator, alleges the words Exod. 24:8, where according to the Hebrew truth there is no mention of a testament, but of a pact or covenant; for in the Hebrew it is ‫( ברית‬berith). Therefore either Paul did not know the Hebrew language, or the author of this epistle is not Paul. Answer. The Hebrew word ‫( ברית‬berith), as also the Greek διαθήκη (diathēkē) and the Latin foedus, signifies in general any disposition, institution, or declaration of will, counsel, or promise, or whatever of the like sort, whether that disposition proceeds from one, or from several, whether by the mere engagement of one party, or by mutual response and restipulation between the parties. And in this way Tertullian, a weighty author and not unskilled in law, commonly expounded it. Now a certain species of this disposition is a testament, likewise a covenant strictly taken for a mutual compact entered into between parties, containing mutual obligation. Examples of the general signification of the Hebrew word ‫ ברית‬are these: Gen. 6:18: I establish my covenant with thee, says God, that thou mayest enter into the ark, etc. But this is not a covenant strictly taken, but a disposition established gratuitously by God promising. Likewise Gen. 9:9; Lev. 24:8; Num. 18:19; and chap. 25:12; Job 31:1. Therefore the Hebrew noun ‫ ברית‬is not necessarily everywhere to be expounded of a covenant thus strictly taken for a contract entered into between different parties and comprising mutual obligation. The same is to be maintained of the Greek noun διαθήκη, which the LXX interpreters continually use in expounding that Hebrew word. Likewise the Latin word foedus is used generally by classical authors, as by Virgil, Georgics 1: Straightway she (Nature) imposed these laws and eternal covenants upon fixed places, At that time when first Deucalion cast stones into the empty world, Whence men were born, a hard race. And Aeneid 1, about the winds: But the almighty Father hid them in dark caverns, Fearing this, and piled upon them a mass and loftier mountains besides; And he gave them a king who, by a sure covenant, Should know, at his command, both to restrain them and to give loose the reins. Therefore the author of the epistle to the Hebrews did not err, nor did he depart from the Hebrew truth, alleging the saying from the book of Exodus and expounding the Hebrew word ‫ברית‬ by the Greek word διαθήκη. Rather, it is unjust to wish everywhere to restrict to a special sense a word that has its proper general signification. Thus far as to the second argument of the adversaries: there follows the third. Whatever fights against the doctrine of the Lord and gives aid to the error of the Novatians is not divine and canonical. The epistle to the Hebrews fights against the doctrine of the Lord and gives aid to the error of the Novatians.

Therefore it is not divine and canonical. The assumption is proved: for the Lord says, Matt. 11, Come unto me all; but this epistle excludes those who have once sinned. For so it has in chap. 6: It is impossible to renew again unto repentance those who were once enlightened. And in chap. 10 it affirms that there remains no sacrifice for sins for those who sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth. And in chap. 12 Esau did not find a place for repentance. Answer. I deny the assumption, as also its proof: for none of the places alleged from this epistle clashes with Christ’s saying; for although he invites all who labor and are heavy laden to himself, yet he does not teach that all who are invited obey and come and repent. Then in chaps. 6 and 10 the Apostle is not speaking of just any sinner, but of apostates who maliciously and obstinately oppose the knowl… they blaspheme the known and well-tested heavenly truth, and thus sin against the Holy Spirit. Then these passages are no more at odds with that saying of Christ than is what the Lord himself says in Matt. 12:31 - 32: Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to men; but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven to men. And whoever speaks against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the age to come. And in chap. 12, when it is said of Esau that he did not find a place for repentance, it must not be understood of Esau’s repentance, but of the repentance of God and of Isaac; so that the sense is: Esau could not obtain by his tears that God or Isaac should repent of the blessing of the firstborn being transferred to Jacob, because Esau had formerly made nothing of the right of primogeniture and had sold it to his brother Jacob. Whence this also follows, that this epistle does not favor the error of the Novatians. Fourth. No translation of a Pauline epistle from Hebrew is truly divine. The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, which we have in Greek, is only a translation of Paul’s epistle from Hebrew: therefore it is not truly divine. The assumption is proved: for Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 1, chapter 38, and Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 11, think that the Epistle to the Hebrews was first written by Paul in Hebrew and then translated into the Greek tongue by Luke; others think it was turned into Greek by Clement. Answer. The assumption is denied, and the proof errs by begging the question. For those Fathers pronounced such a thing about the Epistle to the Hebrews only from opinion, not from certain and infallible truth. It is not consistent that it was written in pure Hebrew, such as the Old Testament consists of; for that language at that time was no longer common. And that it was written in the corrupted Hebrew which the common people then used from a mixture of several languages is not even likely. Rather, it ought to have been written in Greek, both because the Greek language was then common to the Hebrews and held in high esteem - as is plain from the writings of Philo the Jew and Flavius Josephus - and because the Holy Spirit willed that that epistle should provide for not merely some particular church, but for the universal Christian Church.

Fifth An epistle which is not recognized nor ever cited by the most ancient Fathers is not divine and canonical: The Epistle to the Hebrews is not recognized nor ever cited by the most ancient Fathers, as by Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, Arnobius: therefore it is not divine and canonical. Response. The consequence is denied, because from mere particulars nothing follows; for each of the premises is only particular. Then the major proposition, even if it were universal, would still be false: for a citation of some book made by the Fathers is not the criterion (kritērion, κριτήριον) of its divinity; and the omission of a citation in the writings of the Fathers is not an infallible sign that some book is not divine, because some Fathers wrote little, some were not very frequent in alleging passages of Scripture, and many writings of certain ones have perished. The minor proposition is not only particular; for although some most ancient Fathers do not seem to recognize and cite the Epistle to the Hebrews, yet others, and those more ancient, recognize and cite it, as Clement the Roman in his epistle to the Corinthians, as Eusebius relates in Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chapter 39; and Clement of Alexandria in the same Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 11. But also it sins by the refutation according to several points asked: for to be recognized as divine and to be cited differ, and the rationale of each is not the same. For some writing can be recognized as divine and yet not be cited. Then the consequence from a most particular authority negatively is not valid: They do not cite, therefore they do not recognize. In addition, some author is sometimes not cited by name, whose words or thoughts, although in other words, are nonetheless adduced; and this is to cite by equivalence (kat’ isodynamon, κατ’ ἰσοδύναµον), per aequivalens. Lastly, the proof of the minor commits the sophism according to multiple questions, because the case of the Fathers alleged is diverse. For Tertullian, in the book On Modesty, brings many things from the Epistle to the Hebrews, although he ascribes it to Barnabas out of a Montanist taste, who wished by this feigned example to confirm their communication of the Paraclete. Cyprian also cites the same in the book On the Twofold Martyrdom, if the book is his. As for Lactantius and Arnobius, what wonder is it if they did not cite this epistle, since both they wrote little and are sparing in using the Scriptures. Finally, we set against these all the Greek Fathers, by whom it was always received as divine and as Pauline; and almost all the Latins after Lactantius; and we establish that the doubt of two or three Latin Fathers ought not to be preferred to the most certain confession of all the others. So much on the Epistle to the Hebrews: there follows On the Epistle of James. The Epistle of the Apostle James our Churches acknowledge to be truly divine and canonical, and they embrace it as such without controversy. But those who contradict make use against it of the following objections. First. No adulterine epistle is truly divine and canonical. The Epistle of James is adulterine, as Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 2, attests, whose very words are: [Greek], that is, it is to be known that it is indeed adulterine; not many of the ancients, to be sure, have made mention of it. Therefore it is not truly divine and canonical.

Answer. The assumption is denied; and in its proof the question is begged, because the judgment of Eusebius is not sufficient for producing faith; and furthermore, Eusebius argues from a particular testimony. For it does not follow: Not many of the ancients have made mention of it; therefore it is adulterine. For not all of the ancients wrote; nor do all the books of those who did write survive; and some were sparing in citing the Scriptures. Second. The Epistle of James greatly departs from the analogy of apostolic doctrine; for in chapter 2 he ascribes justification not to faith alone but to works, whereas Paul in Romans 3 says that a man is justified by faith without works: therefore it is not truly divine and canonical. Answer. The antecedent is denied; and its proof assumes as contraries what are not contrary. For Paul understands by justification and by faith and by works something other than James. When Paul in Romans 3 [says] that we are justified by faith without works, by justification he understands absolution from eternal death and the obtaining or acquisition of the right to eternal life; by faith, the righteousness of Christ which we embrace with firm trust of heart resting on the evangelical promise of divine grace and of eternal life to be given on account of Christ; and by works, all human works, both those which precede faith and those which follow; for he excludes all human works from the causes of justification before God. But the Apostle James, when he says that a man is justified by works and not by faith only, by justification understands knowledge before men, that is, a demonstration and outward manifestation of the inward justification obtained from God; by faith, any sort of knowledge of God and the outward profession of the mouth by which one declares that he assents to the Gospel and believes in Christ; by works, only those works which, as effects of faith, follow the one justified. Bellarmine answers this objection otherwise: He says that Paul speaks of first justification, whereby a man is just from unjust, and that by the name of works he understands works which are done without faith and grace, by the sole powers of free will; but that James speaks of second justification, whereby one from just becomes more just, according to that in the last of the Apocalypse, He that is just, let him be justified still; and that by the name of works he understands works which are done with faith and with the help of the grace of God. For just as a man cannot beget himself or raise himself from the dead, yet after he is born he can nourish and increase himself by his own work; so a sinner cannot make himself just; yet when he is just, he can by his works increase his righteousness. But Bellarmine answers amiss. First, he posits a twofold justification before God, first and second, whereas there is only one. Then he says that by the name of works Paul understands works which are done without faith and grace, by the sole powers of free will; but Paul understands all human works, even those which are done by believers and the regenerate, as is confirmed by the example of Abraham and the testimony of David in Rom. 4. For these men had faith and grace, and yet it is predicated of them that they were justified by faith before God without works. Third, he says that James speaks of second justification whereby one from just becomes more just; but in fact James speaks of the outward attestation of the justification obtained before God, demonstrated before men by good works and the fruits of holiness, as he himself explains in evident words, and as the ordinary Gloss and Thomas Aquinas acknowledge; not, however, of a degree of justification

before God whereby one from just becomes more just. Fourth, Bellarmine falsely applies the saying in the last of the Apocalypse, He that is just, let him be justified still, to justification before God; for the angel in that place of the Apocalypse does not speak of an increase of the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified before God, or of an increase of justification before God, but of the righteousness in us, begun by the regenerating Spirit, by continual progress and augmentations, so that the sense of the angel is: Do not seal this book, but set it open to all, that he who is just and holy, by the light also of the word of this prophecy, may go on still without ceasing and make progress in the pursuit of righteousness. This interpretation the very hypothesis and the scope of the angel cry out. Fifth, he ineptly compares the augmentation of the righteousness by which we are justified before God with the nourishment of a man; since that likeness rather overthrows his opinion. For just as an infant brought forth into the light cannot nourish and increase himself by his own work, but must be nourished and increased by the work of another; so we, while we live in this life, in which we are infants if we compare this our state with that which shall be in heaven, as Paul does in 1 Cor. 13, cannot nourish and increase ourselves by our own work, but we are nourished and increased still by the works of Christ living in us (Gal. 2:20). Sixth, he falsely posits that a man increases by his works the righteousness by which he has been justified before God, so that by them he is justified more before him. For the righteousness of Christ alone justifies us before God; and that cannot be increased by us. They press: In this epistle, at the end of chapter 2, he says: As the body without the spirit is dead, so also that faith which is without works is dead. Thus he makes works the cause of the life of faith, just as the soul is the cause of the life of the body. But that clashes with Scripture, which teaches that faith is the efficient cause of good works. Answer. There is a homonymy in the name spirit; for in the place in James it is not taken for the soul which is the other part of man, but for the respiration or breath which is breathed through the mouth and is the evidence (tekmērion, τεκµήριον) of the life of the body. So good works are the evidence (tekmērion) of living faith. They press again: He establishes the extreme unction of the Papists in chap. 5. Therefore he clashes with Scripture. Answer. The antecedent is denied: for he does not establish the extreme unction which death follows, but the miraculous one which health and the preservation of life follow. They press further: He attributes to the unction not only the health of the body but also of the soul: therefore he clashes with the analogy of faith. Answer. The antecedent is denied: for health is attributed not to the unction or oil, but to the prayer of faith, that is, to the faith itself from which the prayer is conceived. Third. This epistle is mute about the work of Christ and the doctrine of faith, and only preaches about works; whereas the Apostles are wont always to insert something about the doctrine of faith: therefore this epistle is not divine and apostolic. Answer. First, the antecedent is denied: for it treats of the work of Christ and the doctrine of faith. He says that Jesus Christ is God and Lord straightway in chap. 1, v. 1; that wisdom is given by God, v. 5. To the doctrine of faith pertains v. 12:

Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for, having been proved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those by whom he himself is loved. Likewise v. 17 - 18: Every good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change nor shadow of turning. Now because he - he willed, he begot us by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of the things which he created. And v. 21: Wherefore, laying aside all filthiness and the overflow of malice, with meekness receive that ingrafted word which is able to save your souls. And ch. 2, v. 23: Thus the Scripture was fulfilled which says, But Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God. And ch. 5, v. 8: The coming of the Lord draws near. v. 9: Behold, the judge stands before the doors; and v. 11: The Lord abounds in tender mercy and is compassionate. And v. 15: The prayer of faith will save the one who is afflicted, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. This promise is certainly evangelical: therefore it treats of the work of Christ and the doctrine of faith. Second, even if nothing or few things pertaining to the doctrine of faith were extant in this epistle, it would nonetheless be apostolic: for the apostles had to teach not only about faith, but also to exhort to good works, as Christ commanded them. Matt. 28:20: teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded you. And the apostles did that, as the epistles of Paul, Peter, and John show. Third, likewise in the Old Testament certain books have little about Christ, as the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes of Solomon: for in the Proverbs especially chapter eight treats of Christ, and in Ecclesiastes something, the last chapter: will they therefore not be divine books? Fourth. James’s epistle ch. 1 v. 25 and ch. 2 v. 12 calls the law of liberty the law of the Old Testament; but Paul calls it the law of bondage, Gal. 4. Therefore it is not divine and apostolic. Answer. A fallacy of false opposites is committed, or of taking as opposed things that are not opposed. For the same moral Law is the law of liberty and of bondage, in a different respect. It is of liberty, indeed, insofar as it freely, without respect of persons, accuses all men (Rom. 3:20; 1:32), and it leads us to Christ the Lord, the author of true liberty (Gal. 3:24); and for the regenerate it is no longer a yoke of bondage, but is kept by them freely and of their own accord, nor does it hold them under fear as slaves, since the Spirit of God fashions them to willing obedience (1 John 5). But it is of bondage, insofar as for the unregenerate it is the letter that kills and the ministry of death, and it burdens and presses them. Fifth. This epistle is pseudepigraphal (ψευδεπίγραφος): therefore it is not divine and apostolic. The antecedent is proved: because it is attributed to the apostle James, whose it is not. Answer. The antecedent is denied, and its proof as well, insofar as from this it is said that this epistle is not of the apostle James. They reply, and strive to prove that it is not of the apostle James, by these arguments. First: If this epistle is of any James, it will surely be of him who was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and of whom so much is said in the Acts of the Apostles and in the epistle to the Galatians. But that this man was not truly an apostle of the Twelve is clear from Jerome, in the commentary on Galatians ch. 1, who says that those err grievously who say that that James is one of the Twelve.

Answer. There are two apostles of Jesus Christ who bear the name of James: one is the son of Zebedee and brother of John, before whose eyes our Lord transfigured himself (Matt. 17), called, by way of distinction (διακριτικῶς), the Greater, who in the twelfth year after Christ’s ascension into heaven, as some wish, or, as Eusebius notes, in the year of Christ 43, that is, about the eighth year after the passion of Christ, at the order of Herod Agrippa, was slain with the sword (Acts 12:2). The other is the son of Alphaeus, called, by way of distinction (διακριτικῶς), the brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19), the Just, and Oblias, and the Less, who lived longer than the former. For he took part in the Jerusalem synod described in Acts 15, and held about the year of Christ 49, and was crowned with martyrdom in the year of Christ 63, as Abraham Bucholcer notes in the Chronological Index. He therefore is rather judged the author of this epistle. But as to Jerome’s testimony, he does not say that those err who hold that this James is one of the Twelve, but those who say that he is the brother of John and the one whom Herod ordered to be beheaded. In the book Against Helvidius he teaches that he is of the number of the Twelve apostles. Second: The author of this epistle does not use the customary apostolic salutation, but in a profane manner only says, James, a servant of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are in the dispersion, greeting. Therefore it is not likely that it is of the apostle James. Answer. The antecedent is denied: for the salutation which the author of this epistle uses is also employed by other apostles and is by no means profane, as the synodical epistle which is read in Acts 15 proves, in which the salutation is as follows: The apostles and the elders and the brothers, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and in Syria and in Cilicia, greeting. Indeed, if the salutation of James were profane, in which James calls himself a servant of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, much more ought the salutation of the apostles in the said epistle, Acts 15, to be held profane, who do not profess themselves servants of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ. But no one who is truly catholic has ever blamed their salutation as profane: therefore neither is that of James to be reproved. Third: The author of this epistle brings forward testimonies from the epistles of Peter and Paul; therefore James was not an apostle, but someone of the apostles’ disciples. Answer. The antecedent is denied: for as the other apostles, so also James wrote this epistle by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Then even if it were granted that the author of this epistle took something from the epistles of Peter and Paul, nevertheless from that it would by no means follow that he must be excluded from the number of the apostles. For the prophets of the Old Testament, as Daniel and Ezra, took whole pieces from the annals of the Gentiles, and Paul brought forth sentences from Gentile poets; yet no one for that reason judged that Daniel, Ezra, and Paul should be removed from the order of the writers of divine Scripture. Why then should it not be permitted a prophet or some apostle, at the instigation of the Holy Spirit, to bring forward something taken from another prophet or apostle? Surely the writers of the New Testament brought forth many things from the books of the Old Testament; and Mark the Evangelist seems to be, as it were, the attendant and abridger of Matthew, as St. Augustine writes in the fourth volume, On the Harmony of the Evangelists, book 1, chapter 2.

Fourth: The author of this epistle does not call himself an apostle of Christ, as Paul does; therefore James is not an apostle, but some disciple of lower rank. Answer. The consequence is denied: because Paul also, in the epistle to the Philippians, in both to the Colossians, and to Philemon, does not call himself an apostle of Christ, nor does John in the epistles and in the Apocalypse: yet no one would from that have concluded that Paul and John, the authors of the said epistles, are not apostles. These things about the epistle of James: there follows On the Second Epistle of Peter. We likewise hold this epistle to be truly divine and canonical. But those who depart from this common judgment are led by a few arguments of little weight, which we will set forth and refute. First: In former times there was doubt in the Church about the second epistle of Peter, and even now some doubt; therefore it cannot be judged truly divine and canonical. The antecedent is proved by testimonies. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chapter 3, writes in this way: The apostle Peter has left us very few monuments of his preaching. For there is one epistle of his, about which no one at all doubted. For as to the second, there is uncertainty for many; yet by very many it too is received to be read. The same is written by Jerome and Origen. Thomas Cajetan also refused to number it among the canonical epistles. Answer. First, the consequence is denied: Many doubted this epistle; therefore it is not canonical. For not all doubted. Certainly the Synod of Laodicea and the third of Carthage judged that the epistle of Peter must be held; and from this epistle, no less than from the former, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril, Augustine, and other Fathers took testimonies. Then the authority of those whom Eusebius hints at is very weak: for he keeps silence about who it is by whom there was doubt about this epistle; therefore there is no need to defer to them any more than to unknown men. Second: The Syriac translator did not translate the second epistle of Peter; therefore it is not truly divine and canonical. Answer. The omitted major proposition is denied, namely, Whatever the Syriac translator did not translate, that is not truly divine and canonical. For he did not translate either the beginning of chapter eight in the Gospel according to John, namely the story of the woman taken in adultery and not condemned by Christ, or verse seven of 1 John 3; yet who would deny that these are truly divine and canonical? Third is that of Erasmus of Rotterdam: The style of the second epistle is different from the style employed by Peter in the first epistle; therefore it is not by the apostle Peter, and so not canonical. Answer. The antecedent is denied: for there is no dissimilarity of style, but rather great congruity, since in it too is the style which the Greeks call Asiatic (Ἀσιατικόν), that is, grandiloquent, having long periods and hyperbata familiar to the apostle Peter on account of that vehemence of speaking with which he was endowed. Jerome, Question 11 to Hedibia, replies that the diversity of style, if there be any, arose from the diversity of the translator. For Peter did not always use one and the same translator. But that answer does not please: for the apostle Peter needed no translator, but had received the gift of tongues equally with the other apostles (Acts 2), and he diligently cultivated the gift received, and was, moreover, immediately taught by God. Then even if there were some

dissimilarity of style, nevertheless from that it would not follow that it is not Peter’s: for who would wonder if, as Peter’s age increased and the subject-matter differed, it seemed good to the Holy Spirit at some point to inspire a style unlike that? That the epistle is by the apostle Peter is taught not only by the inscription, but also by other circumstances, as that he says he writes these things as an old man and near to death, to confirm those whom already before he had instructed in the former epistle (ch. 1:12 - 13 and at the beginning of chapter 3). Likewise that in ch. 1, v. 18 he says that he was one of those who on that holy mountain saw the glory of Christ and heard this voice brought down from heaven: This is that Son of mine, that Beloved, in whom I am well pleased. But that this epistle is truly divine and canonical is abundantly proved by the harmony of the whole doctrine delivered in it with the first epistle of Peter and with the other sacred books. For it contains most excellent things about the dignity and authority of the Gospel, about the excellence of faith, about the fruits of faith, about the future judgment, etc. In many things it agrees with the first epistle, as what is said in ch. 1, vv. 3 - 4 about the promises of Christ agrees with what is read in the former epistle, ch. 1, v. 5; what is said about the dignity of the prophetic Scripture in ch. 1:20 with what is in the first epistle 1:11 - 12; what is said about Christian morals with what is in the first epistle ch. 2; what is said about the ark of Noah in ch. 2 with what is had in the former epistle, chapter 3. On the Second and Third Epistle of John These two epistles are of the apostle John and divinely canonical; for in doctrine they altogether agree with the first epistle, and they entirely exhibit the genuine style of the apostle John. Wherefore the most ancient Fathers did not doubt to ascribe them to the apostle John. Irenaeus the martyr, disciple of Polycarp, quoting from the second epistle in book 1 Against Heresies, chapter 13, says: “John, the disciple of the Lord, in the catholic epistle teaches … not even to greet them” (Iωώννης δε, τοκυριον µαγιιησ ελσπεινετν καλυθίαν αυικν, µηδε χαιχειν αυτεισ υῳ καόν). He says, “not even to greet them; for he who says ‘Hail’ (chairein) shares in their evil works. And with good reason: ‘There is no peace for the ungodly,’ says the Lord” - that is, John indeed, the disciple of the Lord, extends their condemnation further, since he is unwilling that they should even be greeted by us. For “he who says to them ‘Hail’,” he says, “communicates in their evil works.” And rightly. For there is no peace for the wicked, says the Lord. But these words of John are not had in the first epistle, but in the second, verse ten and eleven. Tertullian, in the book On Prescriptions against Heretics, chapter thirty-three, alleging the seventh verse from that same second epistle, attributes it to John the author of the Apocalypse, whom he recognizes as none other than John the Evangelist, as his citations everywhere show. Aurelius, bishop of Chullaba, in the Carthaginian Council over which Cyprian presided, citing from that same second epistle verse ten and eleven, expressly says that it is of the apostle John. Athanasius, in the Synopsis of Holy Scripture, attributes all three epistles of John to John the Evangelist; and the Council of Laodicea acknowledges these same as canonical and pronounces that they ought to be read in the Church and received into authority - so that I add nothing of other councils and Fathers.

But those who deny that these two epistles are of the apostle John and canonical use weak arguments, which we shall rehearse and refute in a few words:

• First: The author of these epistles calls himself not an apostle, but a presbyter or elder. Therefore they are not by the apostle John, and hence not canonical. • Answer: The consequence is denied. For Peter also, 1 Epistle 5:1, calls himself a fellow- presbyter, and yet he was an apostle. • Second: There were two Johns, of whom one was an apostle, the other was called the elder, according to Papias, as Eusebius relates, Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chapter 39, and Jerome, On Illustrious Men, under “John.” Therefore it was not the apostle John, but the other, who was the author of these epistles. • Answer: The antecedent is denied: for Papias does not attest this. Eusebius misunderstood Papias, and Jerome imprudently followed Eusebius, who had taken a wrong lead. A better interpreter of Papias is Irenaeus, the disciple of Papias, in those very words which Eusebius cites and seeks, by misinterpreting, to overturn.

On the Epistle of Jude. Some attempt to prove by the following arguments that this epistle is not truly divine and canonical, which we shall briefly confute:

• First: The author of this epistle is not an apostle. Therefore it is not truly divine and canonical. The antecedent is proved from the inscription, because Jude does not name himself an apostle. • Answer: The antecedent is denied. For the author of this epistle is an apostle: this is evident from the fact that he was a servant of Jesus Christ, the brother of James, expressly numbered among the apostles of Jesus Christ, and distinguished from Judas Iscariot in Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13. By Matthew, chapter 10, verse 3, he is [called] Thaddaeus, which is a Syriac name and signifies the same as the Hebrew Iudas; for both signify “confessor”; whence he who is “Iudas” among the Hebrews is called “Thaddai” or “Thaddaeus” among the Syrians. By surname he was called Lebbaeus, Matt. 10:3, that is, a stout-hearted man, or “dear heart.” In John 14:22 he is expressly called “Judas, not Iscariot.”

And as to the fact that in the inscription he does not call himself an apostle, it is ill inferred from this that he is not an apostle. See above at the end of chapter twenty.

• Second: An epistle written by one who lived after all the apostles, and who cites from their writings, is not divine and canonical. But such is this epistle. Therefore, etc. The assumption is proved because this Jude asserts that he lived after the apostles, when he says in verse 17, “But you, beloved, remember the words which were previously spoken by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,” and in the following verse he cites what is had in 1 Tim. 4:1, and 2 Tim. 3:1, and 2 Pet. 3:3: namely, “that in the last time there would be scoffers, who would walk according to their ungodly lusts.”

• Answer: First, the major proposition labors under the fallacy of several questions rolled into one. For that an epistle written by one who lived after all the apostles is not canonical is conceded; but that one written by someone who cites something from the apostles’ letters is for that reason not canonical is denied. For nothing hinders the Holy Spirit from inspiring in some prophet or apostle the very same thing which he had inspired in other prophets or apostles; nor does anything hinder, but that by the instigation of the Holy Spirit some one of the apostles should repeat and confirm - both by his own repetition and by other arguments - that which had been previously written by others. For if James in the apostolic synod, Acts 15:14 and following, repeated and confirmed what had been said by Peter; and in 2 Pet. 3:15 there is cited what Paul wrote, Rom. 2:4.

Second, the assumption is in part denied: for this Jude did not live after all the apostles, but together with the apostles, and he himself, together with John the Evangelist, outlived all the other apostles, as all the Fathers with one consent have handed down; and for that reason each of the two made the closing bracket of the divine canon. Assuredly, this Jude lived down to the times of the emperor Trajan. In part, however, it is conceded: for because he wrote his epistle later than Peter and Paul, therefore he could rightly cite their epistles; just as Micah 4:1 - 3 adduces a prophecy from Isaiah 2, word for word. Likewise other prophets received from Moses, the apostles from the prophets; but all were inspired by God for these their sayings.

• Third: Jude did not preach in Greece, but in Persia. Therefore, if he had written anything, he would not have written in Greek, but in Persian. • Answer: The consequence is denied. Even if he preached the Gospel in Persia, if we believe Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 2, chapter 1; yet because he was writing his epistle not to the Persians, but generally to the faithful scattered through the whole world, whence it is called Catholic, he rightly wrote it in the Greek language, which was then the most common. Then again, it is not necessary that, in writing letters, one should use the language which is received in that city or region in which he happens to be, but rather that which those to whom he writes understand. Otherwise, if this line of argument is to have force - “Jude preached in Persia; therefore he ought to have written in the Persian language” - then this too will have force: “Matthew preached the Gospel in Ethiopia; therefore he ought to have written it in the Ethiopian language”; and likewise this: “Paul wrote at Rome to Timothy, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; therefore he ought to have written in Latin, not in Greek.” But the reasons why the whole New Testament ought rather to have been written in Greek than in Hebrew or Latin or another language will be set forth below, when the authentic edition of the New Testament is treated. • Fourth: This epistle was formerly not received by some, as Eusebius testifies, Ecclesiastical History, book 2, chapter 23. Therefore it is not truly divine and canonical. • Answer: Nothing follows from mere particulars. For even if it was not received by some, yet it was approved and received by more, indeed by almost all the Churches, as Eusebius there testifies. Therefore the private act of some is not to be preferred to the public consent

and judgment of the Church. Those suspended their judgments, to whom it was not yet clear that it is divine; others, and indeed more, who observed that it is divine, received it with certain faith. • Objection is urged: But it is doubted whether it is the apostle Jude’s epistle. • Answer: Then we are to doubt believing what he did not doubt to write; and by that reasoning we either call into question the good faith of the public notaries whom Christ used, or we accuse as a forger some author and impostor foisting under another’s name his own writings upon the Churches. Therefore let us do what the ancient Church did, and compare this epistle with the other apostolic ones, and we shall discover the epistle to be truly apostolic. • Fifth: Whatever epistle adduces matters handed down nowhere else in the Scriptures, but drawn from apocryphal books - that epistle is not divine and canonical.

But this epistle does that: for it reports the story of the dispute between Michael the archangel and the devil about the body of Moses, and a certain prophecy of Enoch - of which nothing is read in the approved Scriptures, but [only] in apocryphal books. Therefore it is not divine and canonical.

• Answer: First, the major proposition is false. For even certain things taken from profane books are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and accommodated to pious use, being brought by the prophets and apostles into the sacred books: for example, the edicts and decrees of the kings of the Chaldeans and Persians in the books of Daniel and Ezra; the sentence of Aratus in Acts 17; of Menander in 1 Cor. 15; of Epimenides or Callimachus in Tit. 1; and concerning Iannes and Iambres who withstood Moses, whether [said] from the Talmudic tractate On the Offerings, chapter “All public offerings,” or from a tradition taken from the mouth of the Fathers, 2 Tim. 3:8; and the prayer of Moses, Psalm 90, inserted into the book of Psalms; and the words of Moses, Heb. 12:21, which are found nowhere in the books of Moses. Yet who would exclude those prophetic books and these apostolic epistles from the number of divine and canonical books?

Second, the story of the contention of Michael the archangel and the devil about the body of Moses is not drawn from any apocryphal book, but from Zechariah 3:1 - 2, as a comparison shows. For Jude does not speak about that body of Moses which on Mount Nebo was buried by God himself, but about that of which Moses prophesied and which he foreshadowed by various ceremonies and types, whose antitype was Jehoshua the priest (Zech. 3:1 - 2). That body is both Moses’ and Christ’s: Moses’, in so far as he prophesied of it by oracles, figures, sacrifices; Christ’s, however, it is called “the body” (Col. 2:17) in so far as in Christ there is the fulfillment of Mosaic prophecies, types, sacrifices. Third, the prophecy of Enoch was without doubt propagated by the Fathers to their descendants by tradition and by viva voce, until it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to carry it by the apostle Jude into Holy Scripture; just as also the prayer of Moses which stands at Psalm 90 was long propagated from hand to hand by the elders to their descendants until it was brought into the book of Psalms.

Since therefore it is free to the Holy Spirit to insert into the sacred books, and to sanctify through the prophets and apostles, even those things which are not written - indeed even those that have issued from profane authors - it does not follow from the writings into which they have been inserted, among which also is this epistle, that they are to be exempted from the number of divine and canonical [books].

• Objection is urged. Rather, Jude took Enoch’s prophecy from a written book: for Tertullian, in the book On Female Dress, contends that the book of Enoch is canonical; and Augustine, City of God, book 15, chapter 23, affirms that Enoch wrote certain things, since in his epistle Jude says this; and Bede, on this epistle, says that in the time of Jude the book of Enoch, true and canonical, was in the hands of men, although it does not now exist; similarly Cajetan says that Jude cites the book of Enoch not as apocryphal but as prophetic. • Answer: That cannot be gathered from this testimony of Jude. For Jude does not say, “Enoch wrote” (egrapse), that is, wrote, but “prophesied” (proepheteusen), that is, prophesied. Next, that some book written by Enoch existed in the time of Jude ought not to be said; for it would have been canonical, inasmuch as to the…

…had been written by a Prophet with the authority of religion, and had been in the divine Canon delivered to the Jews, to whom were entrusted the oracles of God, Romans 3:2. But the Jews had no such book in their Canon. Therefore it is not necessary to understand the word “prophesied” (προεφήτευσεν, proephēteusen) of writing. So much on the Epistle of Jude: next follows On the Apocalypse of John Those who attack the Apocalypse of John and contend that it is neither by the Apostle John nor a divine and canonical book, are led rather by conjectures than by arguments. First, they say that Gaius, an ancient author, in the dialogue of his Disputations, affirms that this book is by the heretic Cerinthus, as Eusebius reports, Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chapter 28. Second, that Dionysius of Alexandria and Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 23, waver as to whether it is by the Apostle John, or by another John. Third, that among the Greeks this book was not received, as St. Jerome testifies in the letter to Dardanus. Fourth, that the author of the book pronounces blessed those who keep the things written in it, and especially says in chapter 1 and in the last chapter, “Blessed is he who keeps the words of this prophecy,” although on account of its obscurity no one understands this prophecy. Fifth, that Dorotheus, bishop and martyr of Tyre, in the Compendium of Lives in which he writes about John’s Gospel, and Anastasius, make no mention of this book.

Sixth, that the author of the book everywhere obtrudes his name, saying, “I, John, I, John,” as if he were writing a bond, not a book - contrary to the custom of the Apostles, who, when narrating their visions, refrain from such a manner of speaking, as Peter and Paul; and whereas otherwise the Apostle John, recounting things more modestly about himself, nowhere sets forth his name in the Gospel, but indicates himself by certain marks, namely, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Seventh, that in the Greek codices the title is not “of John the Apostle” but “of John the Theologian.” Eighth, that this book has nothing of Apostolic gravity, but only a popular history of events sketched out under figurative wrappings; and further, that there is nothing in the sentences worthy of Apostolic gravity. Ninth, that there is a great dissimilarity of style between this book and the Gospel and Epistle of John the Evangelist, which that Dionysius of Alexandria confirms by three arguments, as Nicephorus reports, Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 23: first, from the whole character and conduct of the discourse; then, that whereas many things are common to the Gospel and the Catholic Epistle of John, this book does not have even a single syllable in common with them; lastly, that John also excelled in the gift of speech, while this our writer at some points uses rustic barbarisms and solecisms. Tenth, that this book was omitted by the Council of Laodicea in its Catalog of Canonical Books. Eleventh, that this book has in chapter 22, verses 18 and 19, a terrible adjuration conjoined with a curse for the preservation of the book’s entire truth - such an adjuration as is found in no divine and canonical book. Answer to the first conjecture: it begs the question; for the assertion of Gaius alone is not sufficient for attributing this Apocalypse to Cerinthus. The argument, indeed, which Gaius uses is very weak. He says that the heretic Cerinthus teaches that after the resurrection there will be an earthly kingdom of Christ at Jerusalem for a thousand years; the same is taught, he says, in this Apocalypse, chapter 20. Therefore Cerinthus, its author, spread it as if it had proceeded from a great Apostle. Certainly, a book which teaches the same things as the impious heretic Cerinthus is in no way truly divine and canonical. But that the book of the Apocalypse teaches the same things as Cerinthus is denied. For Cerinthus taught that in those thousand years the kingdom of Christ at Jerusalem would be earthly, and that men in the flesh would again have a manner of life subject to lusts and vices, would celebrate nuptial festivities, and would give themselves to other works of corruption, as Gaius himself writes; and what Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, adds (as Eusebius relates, Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chapter 28): because Cerinthus was devoted to his belly and gullet and to lust, he declared that those things were to come which his own peculiar lust dictated to him; he proclaimed that the incitements of the belly and of the parts below the belly were to be satisfied with foods, drinks, marriages. And, that he might seem to say something more sacred, he said that the legal festivities were to be celebrated again, and the carnal sacrifices to be slaughtered again. The same Cerinthus taught, as St. Irenaeus the Martyr records, book 1 Against Heresies, chapter 24: that the world was not made by the first God, but by a certain power very

much separated and distant from that primacy which is over all things, and ignorant of the God who is over all. And he claimed that Jesus was not born of a Virgin (for this seemed impossible to him), but that he was the son of Joseph and Mary like all other men, and that he surpassed all in righteousness and prudence and wisdom; and that after the baptism Christ descended into him from that primacy which is over all, in the form of a dove; and then he announced the unknown Father and performed miracles; but in the end Christ was again revealed apart from Jesus, and Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, being spiritual. Now if Cerinthus were the author of this Apocalypse, why did he not also sprinkle upon it these his dogmas? But so far is he from doing this, that, on the contrary, sure testimonies can be fetched from this book against those errors; so that it may be sufficiently apparent from this single reason that it did not proceed from Cerinthus. As to chapter 20, in which there is mention of a thousand years, it recounts none of the things about which Cerinthus babbled impiously: nothing about the lusts of the flesh, nothing about foods, drinks, marriages, nothing about festivities to be celebrated at Jerusalem, nothing about sacrifices to be slain. Therefore that conjecture of Gaius against this book is vain and trifling. Rather, this is more likely: that Cerinthus, in order to prove his delirium about the thousand years, abused certain testimonies from this book, twisted into a false sense. Nay more, Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, asserts that he did this; for he says that Cerinthus was eager to acquire for his fictions the authority of a great name, according to a perverse understanding of this Scripture, as Eusebius recounts from Dionysius, Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chapter 28. But if someone should therefore gather that this work was published by Cerinthus under the name of an Apostle, by the same reasoning he will ascribe all the other sacred books to heretics, because there is none whose authority heretics do not abuse. Answer to the second conjecture: the hesitation of one or another is not a necessary proof for overturning the authority of any book. Then, to Dionysius of Alexandria and Eusebius as doubters we oppose other Fathers who affirm that this book is by the Apostle John: among whom are Justin Martyr in the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, page 240; St. Irenaeus the Martyr, book 5 Against Heresies, chapter 21; and these are much more ancient than Dionysius of Alexandria and Eusebius, and nearer to the Apostles; Tertullian, book 3 Against Marcion, chapter 24, and book 4 against the same Marcion, chapter 5; Origen, homily 7 on the book of Jesus Nave, that is, Joshua; Athanasius, in the second volume, in the Synopsis of Holy Scripture; Epiphanius, heresy 51, where he asserts that those are heretics who do not receive the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse; St. John Chrysostom, homily 3 on Psalm 91; likewise St. Jerome, in the book On Illustrious Men, on John; Andrew, archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in the prologue of the Commentary on the Apocalypse of John. Finally, Eusebius himself assigns it to the Apostle John in the Chronicle for the year of Christ 96. Answer to the third conjecture: nothing is proved from a particular case. Only by some Greeks was the book of the Apocalypse not received; for other Greeks received it and held it as divine, namely Justin Martyr, Origen, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Andrew of Caesarea in the places cited. And besides these, Gregory the Theologian, Cyril of Alexandria, and much more ancient than these, Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, as Andrew of Caesarea reports in

the prologue of his commentary; likewise Theophilus of Antioch, Melito of Sardis, and Dionysius of Alexandria, Greeks of the most ancient and learned bishops, as Eusebius testifies, Ecclesiastical History, book 4, chapter 24 and chapter 26; and book 7, chapter 23, where Dionysius affirms that many brethren agree with him; and furthermore the Council of Ancyra, which is earlier than the first of Nicaea, as is seen in the first tome of the Councils, page 300. The private judgments of certain persons do not take away the public credibility of any book. Answer to the fourth conjecture: first, the obscurity of a book is by no means a reason why it should not be divine and canonical; for in the Prophets of the Old Testament also many things are obscure, especially in Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, whose books nevertheless are God-breathed (θεόπνευστοι) and canonical. Then we grant that very many things are obscure in the book of the Apocalypse: since the things written in it exceed and rise above the measure of human hearing, and there is in it a certain hidden and recondite and altogether admirable sense for all, as Dionysius of Alexandria writes in his letter, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 23; where Dionysius adds: “I admire and revere, even if I do not understand. And thus I think, that certain divine mysteries are covered by human words, discerning them not so much by my judgment as believing by faith; and therefore I do not reject the things I do not understand, but I admire them all the more, the less I grasp them.” But besides, along with the things that are obscure to us, there are also very many most clear precepts of life, such as about constancy in persecutions, about guarding against heretics, about fleeing false prophets, about having sins in hatred, etc. And the argument and scope of the whole book is none other than that it might train us to perseverance and patience amidst so many and so various vicissitudes of things - most cruel persecutions, apostasies, heresies, schisms, conflicts. This, indeed, is a most clear and most manifest matter, as Bellarmine admits. Nay more, clear teachings of faith are everywhere set forth in this book: about God, about divine providence, about the worship of God, about the person, office, and benefits of Jesus Christ, about angels, about the Church, about faith and repentance, about Christian consolation in afflictions and persecutions for the sake of true faith, about the last coming of Christ and about eternal life. And in the visions themselves some things are immediately explained: as in chapter 1, the seven stars and the seven lampstands; and in chapter 6, the smoke of the incenses; and in chapter 12, what is understood by that woman and the Dragon; and in chapter 17, what the mystery of that great harlot and of the beast that carries her means; and in chapter 19, what the fine linen garment signifies. Answer to the fifth conjecture: the consequence does not hold from a particular negative testimony; for, over against the two who did not mention this book, there are the Councils of Ancyra and the third of Carthage, and very many Greek and Latin Fathers, who not only mention it, but also acknowledge it to be a divine book, and everywhere… from it they also bring forward testimonies to confirm the dogmas of faith and of divine worship, as besides those mentioned above, Cyprian, Augustine, and others.

We answer to the sixth conjecture, first, that when the author of some prophetic book presses his own name upon the writing, it by no means follows from this that that book is not divine and canonical. For it is one thing to write history, another to write prophecy. For the truth of history depends rather on something other than the writer; but in prophecy, because it foretells a future thing, in order that its certainty may be established, who does not see that this is required before all else: by whom that prophecy was disclosed, by whom it was written, we should understand? Therefore we see that not only at the beginnings of the prophecies, but also in almost each of the visions, nothing is recorded with such anxious care as the name both of God who reveals and of the prophet who writes. Let even Jeremiah alone be an example, who at the least a hundred and twenty times presses his own name; for thus altogether it had to be done, lest he should seem to seek hiding-places, as the false prophets were wont. Likewise in Daniel from chapter seven very frequently there occurs: ‫( אני דניאל‬ani Daniel), “I Daniel.” And how often does Isaiah press “Isaiah the son of Amoz”? And John was not accustomed to this in the Gospel. I grant it: for he was writing history, in which it befell him, as it did to none of the other disciples, that he was compelled to speak about himself mutely. But Paul himself also did not do this. Certainly he did not do it in that place where he treated expressly of his visions: but when he asserts the excellence of his office, how loftily, how magnificently does he say that he is that Paul, designated an Apostle not from men nor through men, but by Jesus Christ; what then? when he proclaims those his contests, does he assume another’s person? Now as to the name John, it is found in this whole book only in five places, and in three of those places it is that “I John”: namely chap. 1, v. 9, with such a description of himself added as by itself is more than sufficient to remove every suspicion of arrogance; likewise chap. 21. 2. and chap. 22. 8, in which places he merely records what he saw, so that there can be no doubt about the credibility of the vision. Therefore the consequence is, rather, that conjecture is not only trifling, but also argues inexperience; and moreover it is full of slander: indeed that remark is far too inconsiderate, that this writer urges his “I John” as if he were writing a bond, not a book; as Theodore Beza, the light of the theologians of the former age, answers in the Prolegomena to the Apocalypse of John. In sum: it was done from necessity and for the public good, that John somewhere expressly set down and repeated his name, in order to confirm the public authority of his writing. We answer to the seventh conjecture that the title “Apocalypse of John the Theologian” vindicates the Apocalypse for John the Evangelist, whom no one is ignorant to have been called “the Theologian” par excellence (κατ’ ἐξοχήν) by Athanasius in the Synopsis, by Dionysius the Areopagite in the letter to the Apostle John, and by other ancients, because concerning the eternal Deity of Christ and his consubstantiality (ὁµοουσία) with the Father no one among men has written more openly or more divinely. Thus also by St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory Nazianzen the Theology is often called that outstanding doctrine divinely disclosed concerning the Son of God. Therefore in the Complutensian edition of the Bible the title of that book is thus: The Apocalypse of Saint Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian.

We answer to the eighth conjecture, that nothing in this book does not breathe a divine gravity, since almost all things are taken from the prophets of the Old Testament. And there is frequent mention of the types and ceremonies of the Old Testament, as of the tree of life, the manna, the altar, the ark of the covenant, the temple, the tabernacle, Mount Sion, the city Jerusalem, Babylon: in order that the truth of the types and the fulfillment of the Old Testament may be shown in the New. Then, what they say, that it embraces the commonly known history of events - how can that be true, since (if you except a few things) it does not narrate past events, but foretells future ones? Finally, in the gravity of its sentences it yields in nothing to the Prophets of the Old Testament. We answer to the ninth conjecture, first, that difference of style is by no means to be wondered at in a different subject-matter. For in the evangelical history and in the epistles, although under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless he speaks out of his own apprehension; here he receives what he hears. There he in part narrates what was done, in part teaches; here in almost the whole book he treats of future things, and indeed with words prescribed; and do we wonder that he does not use the same expressions? Nay, who ever laid down this law for any writer? What is more, very many things are dictated to him in the very words of the Prophets of the Old Testament, by that same Spirit, to wit, who once through them was uttering these very things. Accordingly, it ought to seem wonderful to no one that, since the matter was different, he used a different style. Next, it is false that this book has not a single syllable in common with the Gospel of John: that appears at least from the comparison of chapter one, verses five, seven, and nineteen, thirteen, so that we need not now introduce other places. Third, it is by no means fitting to accuse of barbarisms and solecisms him who ought not to depart from the prophetic manner and character of speaking: and so far the less is it right to suspect that anything forged is here foisted upon the Church, to use again the words of Theodore Beza. We answer to the tenth conjecture, that by the Council of Laodicea the Apocalypse of John is omitted in the catalogue of sacred books, not because it is excluded from the Canon, but because the Synod judged that, on account of its difficulty, it could not be read to the people. For to the Council - just as the occasion for the framing of that canon plainly shows - the purpose was to declare which books ought publicly to be read from the pulpit in the Church, at that time namely when as yet from the event the sense of many of the visions could not be ascertained. For after that time most of the visions only then began to be fulfilled. We answer to the eleventh conjecture, that that most weighty adjuration with its severe denunciation of punishments in verses 18 and 19 of the last chapter is indeed set down in this one book alone, but pertains equally to all the divine and canonical books. For the Apostle John, who lived last of all the Apostles, sealed the Canon of Scripture with an apostolic and plainly divine closing, and banished all other things, in order that it might be permitted to no one - neither to a Council, nor to the Church, nor to an angel, nor to the world - under a divine show to add anything to, or to take anything away from, the Word of God.

Accordingly the divine Canon, and by John last sealed, no man, nay no angel, can or ought to increase, diminish, or change. Therefore this sacred adjuration is the common seal of all the books: whence the perfection and fullness of Scripture is gathered from Tertullian, in the book Against Hermogenes, chapter twenty-two: “I adore the fullness of Scripture.” And soon after: “But whether all things were made out of some underlying matter, I have nowhere as yet read written: if it is not written, let Hermogenes’s workshop teach; if it is not written, let them fear that woe which is appointed for those who add.” John Duns Scotus, in the Prologue to the Sentences, question three, folio ten, column two, of the Venetian edition of the year 1506: “As the theology of the blessed has a boundary, so also does ours, from the will of God who reveals: but the boundary fixed by the divine will as to general revelation is of those things which are in Sacred Scripture, since thus it is held in the last chapter of the Apocalypse: ‘Whoever shall add to these things, God shall lay upon him the plagues written in this book,’ etc. Therefore our theology de facto (that is, really) is about nothing except those things which are contained in Scripture and those things which can be elicited from them.” From the refutation of those conjectures it is clear that the divine and canonical authority of the book of the Apocalypse of John must be had, believed, preached, and maintained in the Christian Church. So much concerning the books of the New Testament which certain men have excluded from the number of the divine and canonical. Certain persons have not received certain passages of certain books as divine and canonical, namely, the last chapter of Mark; and the history of Christ’s weeping over the city of Jerusalem, Luke chapter nineteen; and of Christ’s bloody sweat and the appearance of the angel and the consolation with which he strengthened Christ, Luke 22; likewise the story of the adulteress at the beginning of John chapter eight; and verse seven of 1 John 5, “There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.” That the last chapter of Mark was not received by all, Jerome records in the third volume of the letters to Hedibia, question three, adding the reason why it was not received, namely because it disagrees with the narrative of the other Evangelists, in verses one, two, eight, nine, fourteen. His words are: “Either we do not receive the testimony of Mark, which is reported in a few Gospels, with almost all the books of Greece not having this chapter at the end; especially since he seems to relate things different and contrary to the other Evangelists.” Others add a second reason from the second volume, book two Against the Pelagians, where on page 291 he reports that in some copies, and especially in Greek codices, at the end of Mark’s Gospel it is written: “Afterwards, when the eleven were reclining at table, Jesus appeared to them, and reproached their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him risen. And they excused themselves, saying: This age is the substance of iniquity and unbelief, which by unclean spirits does not allow the true power of God to be grasped: therefore

now at last reveal thy righteousness.” Where the words “And they excused themselves,” and what follows, smell of Manichaeism, and are not in the copies of today; and from the place cited of Jerome it appears that they were not received by others even of old. We answer to the first reason, that Mark’s chapter sixteen by no means disagrees with the narrative of the other Evangelists. For in the first verse the Greek verb ἠγόρασαν is not to be rendered in Latin by the perfect “emerunt” (“they bought”), but by the pluperfect “emerant” (“they had bought”): lest anyone think that only after the sabbath was past the spices were bought by the women; for in Luke chapter twenty-three, verses fifty-five and fifty-six, it is said that, after observing Christ’s burial, having returned from the tomb, they prepared spices and ointments, and indeed they rested on the sabbath according to the commandment. For the Greek aorist tenses do not always signify the perfect, but the indefinite past, also the imperfect, also the pluperfect, according to the requirement of the place; nay even the future in the subjunctive, the infinitive, and the participle; and even the present tense in the subjunctive and the participle. Wherefore the first verse ought to be rendered thus: “And the sabbath having intervened being now past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome had bought spices (namely already before, after they had returned from the burial of Christ), in order that when they came they might anoint Jesus.” Thus the aorist verb has the signification of the pluperfect. “ἡτοίµασαν” (they prepared), Luke 24:1, ought in fact to be rendered, “they had prepared” (paraverant). Then in the second verse, “ἀνατείλαντος ἡλίου” should not be rendered “after the sun had risen,” in the perfect past, but “while the sun was rising,” in the present or the imperfect past; otherwise it would conflict with what precedes, “very early”; it would also conflict with the other Evangelists, Matthew, Luke, and John. For in Matt. 28:1 he says that the women went to the tomb “at daybreak” (τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ), when it was getting light; but Luke says, chap. 24, “at deep dawn” (ὄρθρου βαθέος), the very early dawn; John also, chap. 20:1, “early, while it was still dark,” that is, in the very morning twilight, when the light was dim and doubtful, when it had scarcely begun to grow light. Accordingly that expression, “ἀνατείλαντος ἡλίου,” in this place of Mark amounts to as much as “ἀνατέλλοντος ἡλίου,” “as the sun was rising.” Therefore a Greek manuscript exemplar of the New Testament of venerable antiquity, which belonged to Cardinal of Ragusa and is now in the Library of the Academy of Basel, has “while the sun was still rising” (ἔτι ἀνατείλαντος ἡλίου), that is, under the very rise of the sun. If this passage of Mark be rendered and expounded thus, it will not disagree with the other Evangelists. Nor does verse eight clash with the other Evangelists. For when Mark says, “they said nothing to anyone,” this must be understood of those met on the way, if any unknown persons happened to meet them; but when they had received the message from the angels, they ran straight to the disciples and apostles of Christ, as is reported by Matthew, the first [Evangelist], chap. twenty- eight, verse eight; Luke 24:9.

Nor does what Mark says in verse nine, that Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, conflict with what Matthew says in chapter 28:1, “late on the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week” (ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς µίαν σαββάτων). For Matthew’s phrase must be rightly expounded: because “ὀψὲ τῶν σαββάτων” (“late of the sabbaths”) amounts to the same as “with the Sabbath finished,” the week finished - namely that week in which Christ suffered; just as Thucydides used to say “ὀψὲ τῆς ἡµέρας” (“late of the day”), which we express as “with the day finished and gone by.” The word “ὀψὲ,” wherever it stands alone, signifies evening or late; but if it governs a case, it takes the sense either of a time that is definite or that is past. Nor does the fourteenth verse contradict the other Evangelists: for “ὕστερον” (“later on”) ought not to be taken as if that appearance of Christ had been the one and simply the very last; rather, Mark, for brevity, compresses all the appearances of Christ, risen from the dead, before the disciples, and says that Christ appeared “last,” namely several times from the very day of the resurrection until the ascension, as is clear from verse nineteen; so that “ὕστερον” in this place is the same as “µετέπειτα,” “afterwards.” To the second argument we answer: the addition which Jerome cites suits the person of the apostles not at all, and, having been impudently ascribed to Mark by some, was rightly rejected, because it proceeded neither from God nor from Mark. Therefore the whole chapter was not to be rejected on that account, but the human addition prudently to be driven away from the divine word. Nor was that addition in all the exemplars, but Jerome says it was only in some exemplars; and because it was not commonly received by the Church, therefore, when Jerome had adduced it against the Pelagians, he was unwilling to make use of it, but brought forward undoubted divine and canonical Scriptures to confute the Pelagians. Therefore the sixteenth chapter of Mark has, and from the beginning has had, divine and canonical authority, as is evident from Irenaeus the Martyr in the third book Against Heresies, chapter eleven; from the Council of Carthage celebrated by Cyprian; and from the Synopsis of Athanasius; and from Augustine’s third book On the Harmony of the Evangelists, chapter twenty- four; and from other ancient Fathers who alleged it to confirm doctrines. But when Bellarmine says that it should be held as divine and canonical for this reason, that it is received by the Council of Trent and is read in the Church, he imposes “what is not as what is” (τὸ µὴ ὂν ὡς ὂν). For if before the Council of Trent it had not been divine and canonical, it could not and ought not to be declared such by the authority of the Council, any more than by the public reading. As to the history of Christ’s weeping over the city of Jerusalem and of the bloody sweat, etc., the fact that some erased it was the particular act of certain men, not the common judgment of the Church of God. Therefore we care nothing for what a few - and they unknown - did. The reason that moved them is this: because weeping and the weakness and distress of soul would not befit Christ. But they stumbled at what is in the beginning: for even in John 11:35 it is read that Christ wept; and he makes for our salvation, that all our natural infirmities, “blameless” (ἀδιάβλητας), not culpable, were assumed by Christ.

As to the story in John 8 of the adulteress not condemned by Christ, it was from the beginning written in the Gospel by John, but later was called into doubt and erased by the boldness of the Novatians, who urge purity in the Church and in each of its members, and drive away the weak who have been overtaken by some lapse. Therefore that it “was not of certain faith” must be understood only of some persons, ill-informed about the truth of the matter; but what is this to the universality of the Church? Bellarmine’s arguments by which he tries to prove that this story is canonical - namely, because it is read in the Church and cited by the Fathers - are weak; since in the Church even apocryphal and human writings are read and cited by the Fathers. Finally, as to verse seven of 1 John 5, it was from the beginning in the epistle of John. For Cyprian cites it in the Treatise On the Unity of the Church, or, as others allege, On the Simplicity of Prelates, section five; and Athanasius near the end of that disputation which was by him privately held at Nicaea against Arius; nor did Arius reject its authority, which assuredly he would not have admitted, if it had not been in the epistle of John. Later, indeed, it was deleted by the Arians, when they had greater power under Constantius and Valens, in many exemplars. Therefore this verse is divine and canonical. Let it therefore remain fixed and firm, that all the books of the Old Testament which are in the Hebrew canon, and all the books of the New Testament as well, are truly divine and canonical.

In the preceding chapter we refuted those who denied that the books of the Old and New Testament, either all of them or some of them, are divine and canonical; now the Papists are to be refuted, who contend that certain books are truly divine and canonical which are not such. For they contend that the additions to the book of Esther, the book of Baruch, the additions to Daniel, likewise the books of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, that is, Jesus the son of Sirach, and the two Maccabees are univocally and properly divine and canonical. Accordingly, we must first reply to their arguments, then bring forward and defend the arguments of our own position against the apocryphal books. Some of the Papists’ arguments are common for all these books, some particular to the several ones. Let us first look at the common ones. The first is this: Whatever books are acknowledged and held by councils, Roman pontiffs, and the ancient Fathers as truly and divinely canonical, these are truly and divinely canonical. But the additions to the book of Esther and of Daniel, and the other books already enumerated, are acknowledged and held by councils, Roman pontiffs, and the ancient Fathers as truly and divinely canonical:

Therefore they are univocally and properly canonical. The minor is proved, because by the Third Council of Carthage, canon forty-seven, by the Council of Florence, and by the Council of Trent in session four; by the pontiffs, Innocent I in the letter to Exuperius and the bishops; finally by the Fathers, St. Augustine in book two On Christian Doctrine, chapter eight, Isidore in book six of the Etymologies, chapter one, Cassiodorus in book one of the Divine Readings, Rabanus in book two On the Institution of Clerics, and others - the aforesaid books are counted and are held in the canon.444546 Answer. First, the major premise suffers from the fallacy of several questions, for in it things are conjoined concerning which the judgment is dissimilar. As to councils, not all have the same standing: some have divine authority; therefore, if they affirm anything, it is without any doubt true. But other ecclesiastical or episcopal councils have only human authority; therefore, if they affirm anything, it is not forthwith true. Likewise, the authority of the Roman pontiffs and of the other Fathers is only human; therefore, their sayings do not of themselves merit belief. Now the major premise, understood of episcopal councils, whose authority is only human, as also of the pontiffs and the Fathers, is false: for neither the judgment and decree of episcopal councils, nor of the Roman pontiffs, nor of the Fathers can bring it to pass that some book be univocally and properly canonical which God himself did not deliver and commend to the Church through the prophets and apostles, and command to be canonical. For it belongs to God to prescribe to his Church the canon of faith, of religion, and of his worship; and it by no means belongs to the Church to make for itself or for others the canon of faith and of good works. Much less does it belong to the Church, which is God’s handmaid, to constitute for herself the precepts of faith and divine worship, than it belongs to unskilled rustics to draw up books about the due, lawful obedience owed to princes, kings, and emperors. For between man and man there is always some proportion; but between man and God there can be none. The canon of divine religion can be nothing but divine, that is, prescribed and confirmed by God himself through the prophets and apostles; whence also the completion and confirmation of the canon pertains to the apostolic ministry: St. Augustine, Against the Manichee, chapter five: “Distinct from the books of those who came after is the canonical excellence of authority of the Old and New Testament, which, confirmed in the times of the apostles, through the successions of bishops and the propagations of churches has been set, as it were, in a certain seat on high, to which every faithful and pious intellect does service.” From this testimony of St. Augustine it is clear that the canon of the Old and New Testament is not a fiction, but, confirmed by the apostles and received through succession, has been propagated down to us. Wherefore it is not placed in the authority of any ecclesiastical council celebrated after the age of the apostles, or yet to be celebrated, to define which book is to be received as canonical. Indeed, nor is it within the power of the whole Church, however true and pure, to make something divine out of a human matter and to impose it as divine. If it is not within the power of the true and pure

Church, much less is it within the power of a corrupt and faulty Church or its council; least of all within the power of a guilty Church, or a council constituted of guilty Fathers. Therefore the major is false. Second, even if the major premise were granted, nevertheless the conclusion would be false, because the proof of the assumption likewise suffers from the fallacy of several questions: therefore one and the same reply cannot be given to all the parts of the proof, but a distinct reply to each. The Third Council of Carthage, as a legitimate episcopal council - we acknowledge as episcopal, at which St. Augustine also was present and subscribed: but the forty-seventh canon, in which Tobit, Judith, the two books of the Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus are reckoned among the canonical Scriptures, is adulterine and supposititious, because it was composed at the time when Boniface I was bishop of Rome, as is clear from its clause, namely: “Let this also become known to our brother and fellow-bishop Boniface, or to the other bishops of those parts, for the confirming of this canon.” But this council was held in the time of Pope Siricius, as the title of the Council shows in the first volume of the Councils printed at Cologne (Colonia Agrippina) in the year one thousand sixty-seven, and the forty-eighth canon, in which it is said: “Concerning the Donatists it has pleased us to consult our brothers and fellow-bishops Siricius and Simplicianus,” of whom the former was the Roman, the latter the bishop of Milan. Wherefore, overcome by the force of the truth, Laurence Surius, a Carthusian monk, who arranged and published those volumes of the councils, set down this note to the forty-seventh canon: “Although this forty-seventh chapter in the present copy is treated as some chapter of this council, nevertheless in other certain books of the councils it is said to be of the Council of Carthage, to which the number is not added, perhaps the seventh (which was held under Boniface, although in it this canon is not found), [namely] the twenty-fourth chapter, held after the twelfth consulship of Honorius and the eighth of Theodosius, whose year falls under Pope Boniface.” From this confession of Surius and from the acts of the Councils it is clear that this canon is falsely ascribed to the Third Carthaginian, so that, under the pretext of greater antiquity, authority might be secured for it. And yet Bellarmine and the other Papalists are not ashamed to allege a forged and supposititious canon to prove [their point]. Moreover, Gentianus Hervetus, for his own side, later removed Surius’s annotation. Next, even if it be granted, though not conceded, that this canon is genuine of the Third Council of Carthage, nevertheless it would not be fit to prove [the point]. Because if the books in dispute were not canonical at the time of the apostles by whom the canon was confirmed, they could not afterwards be made canonical by any council at all. For the Church cannot make canonical books that are not canonical; because it cannot give to others the canonical and divine authority which it itself does not have. Then this chapter is only a proposal and not a sanction: for what need would there have been to request a resolution which had pleased from the beginning of the Apostolic Church, and which the Council of Laodicea had approved? That it is a proposal is clear enough from the things that are added: “Let this also become known to our brother and fellow-bishop Boniface, or to the other bishops of those parts, for the confirming of this canon.” If all the books encompassed by this canon had been canonical from the beginning, they would by no means have needed human confirmation, nor would it have

been necessary to await the judgments of other brethren. Moreover, that it is a proposal is clear from the clause that immediately follows, when the framers of that canon say: “Let it also be permitted that the passions of the martyrs be read, when their yearly days are celebrated.” But books properly and truly divinely canonical are not read by the request of a council, but are to be read by divine mandate. Furthermore, even if it were not a proposal but a decree, and its authority availed, nevertheless it would by no means establish the Romanists’ cause. For we are disputing about the sacred canon of faith, but the alleged chapter deals with the sacred canon of ecclesiastical reading, as the words of the chapter show: “It has pleased [us] that, besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing be read in the Church under the name of divine Scriptures.” And when the books have been enumerated, it is subjoined: “Let this become known to our brother and fellow- bishop Boniface, or to the other bishops of those parts, for the confirming of this canon, because we have received these things from the Fathers to be read in the Church. Let it also be permitted to read the passions of the martyrs, when their yearly days are celebrated.” But not all the books which the Church reads for the edification of the people must also be brought forward to confirm the authority of faith, as is plain from St. Jerome’s Preface to the books of Solomon and from Rufinus’s exposition of the Creed. Indeed, not even the Papists themselves receive all the decrees of this Council. For they by no means approve that, in the first chapter, all the African bishops are commanded to receive the Paschal observance from the Church of Carthage; whereas the Paschal observance was once for all defined in the Synod of Nicea, so that, in what pertains to it, the custom of the Roman Church should prevail. [Nor do they approve] that in the second chapter several primatial sees are named, whereas the Papists wish only the Roman to be the first. The Romanists reply that the Third Council of Carthage was confirmed in the Trullan, that is, the sixth general Synod. Answer. Although in Canon Law, in the sixteenth distinction, in several chapters, canons of the sixth general Synod are approved, nevertheless they are refuted by the most learned doctors of the Papal party with many arguments as injurious to the Roman Church. Pighius calls the acts of the Trullan Synod “parengrapha,” and tries by certain reasons to show that they are by no means genuine. Melchior Canus, in De locis Theologicis, book 5, chapter 6, says that the canons of that Synod do not have ecclesiastical authority. Next, in that Synod not only the Carthaginian but also the Laodicean Council is approved, which, concerning the number of sacred books, is at odds with the judgment of the Council of Carthage and of the Papal party. Then even if the canons of the sixth Synod were genuine, nevertheless they ought not straightway to be received, because the Papists themselves disapprove certain of them. The Council of Florence, which they say was celebrated by the consent of the Latin and Greek Fathers and the legates of the Armenians, deserves no authority among the orthodox, either for antiquity, or for form, or for the account of bishops. Likewise we neither acknowledge the Council of Trent as legitimate, nor defer anything to its authority, for the most weighty reasons and causes which the Electors, Princes, and Estates of the Empire, the Protestants, recounted and fully explained in the grievances set forth against the

restitution or continuation of the Council of Trent, convoked by Pope Pius IV in the year 1562. We will only briefly enumerate them here. 1. Because the Council of Trent was convoked unlawfully and against manifest right by him who had no right to convoke it, namely by the Roman Pontiff, who by no divine or human right, nor even by the authority of the most ancient canons, nor by the examples or custom of the purer ancient Church, has any such power; who has no right to summon the Protestants, since no jurisdiction or superiority belongs to the Roman Pontiff over the Protestants, nor even the power in execution to command or to forbid; who, together with his cardinals, bishops, and adherent prelates, is one of the parties of the litigants, to wit, a defendant and one who in a council ought publicly to be arraigned and accused of the most grievous crimes, namely of false doctrine, idolatry, the profanation and corruption of divine worship; of the Simoniacal heresy; and - to add some things from the protestation against the brutish thunderbolt of Pope Sixtus V hurled against Henry IV, now King of France and of Navarre, and Henry Bourbon, Prince of Condé - the Roman Pope is guilty of impiety; of tyranny in the Church he has seized; of a corrupted religion; of sacrilege; of high treason, impaired, violated, trampled underfoot; of treason and hostile factions; of forgery, that is, of documents that are falsified and corrupted, etc.; who finally had already condemned Luther and the other Protestants before any examination of the cause. 2. Because that council was not safe, namely, being held at Trent, a place convenient for the Pontiff to rage against the Protestants and in many ways suspect. 3. Because it consisted only of bishops and theologians of one party, namely the Pontifical faction. 4. Because it was not free, but servile, since not even the Papal bishops and theologians themselves dared to decree otherwise than pleased the Roman Pontiff, to whom they had been bound by oath, and who sent from Rome the opinions to be decreed at Trent. Whoever uttered a freer voice was removed from the assembly, as Peter Paul Vergerius, bishop of Justinopolis, Jerome Vida, and others. 5. Because it was not Christian, that is, assembled in the name of Christ, since in it Christ alone was not the supreme judge, nor the Holy Scripture alone the rule of judging. 6. Because it was a rabble of men covered over with various crimes, the very shadow of whom - much less their fellowship - all good men ought deservedly to detest and to flee far away. 7. Because it was a council of simoniacs, who had bought sacred offices from the Roman Pontiff and sold sacred things. 8. Because it was compounded of men following a wholly new kind of doctrine, brought into the Church by popes and monks, full of horrible errors, impiety, and idolatry, and of men championing the Pope’s tyranny over Emperors, Kings, and the whole Church. 9. Because it made impious decrees and promulgated them to be observed under anathema. 10. Because, like other Papal councils, it kindled rather than quenched discords; and so it was and still is a torch and trumpet of wars in the Christian world. 11. Because the president of that council was the Roman Pope, a proud despiser and condemner of the Estates of the Empire. 12. Because the Council of Trent was held for this end, that all the Evangelicals might be forced to desert the cause of the truth of the Gospel, which they cannot desert without certain peril of conscience. For so many and such grave causes the Council of Trent is illegitimate and therefore has no authority with us.

Nay further, very many Papists to this day have refused to receive the Council of Trent, such as the Kings and Parliaments of France, though the Roman Pontiffs have incessantly demanded that it be accepted in France. Other Papalists also, in this very matter, have preferred the truth to following the Council: thus Sixtus of Siena, even after the Council, did not hesitate to cut away, as alien, the additions to the book of Esther, in book 1 and book 8 of the Bibliotheca sancta,48 as Bellarmine himself admits in book 1 De verbo Dei, chapter 7, section 1. And Benedict Arias Montanus, in the royal Bible work, in the title of the New Testament, says: “There have been added to this edition also books written in Greek” (he is speaking of the book of Tobit, Judith, etc.), “which THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, FOLLOWING THE HEBREW CANON, COUNTS AMONG THE APOCRYPHA.” Moreover, at the fourth session, in which the decree concerning the canonical books was promulgated, as if a sport were being acted, few in number of bishops were present, who yet all would have hurried thither eagerly, if they had learned that there was to be business about bishoprics and abbacies (as afterwards happened), prebends, annates, tithes. Now if the kings of France, who are Most Christian and firstborn sons of the Roman Church, if the parliaments of France, if other Papists do not accept the Council of Trent, how much less are we the Reformed bound to accept the decrees of that council? The Papists cannot bind us Evangelicals by an authority by which the Papalists themselves are unwilling to be bound. We have thought good thus to answer concerning the councils alleged: now we answer to the testimonies of the Roman Pontiffs and the Fathers. The testimony produced under the name of POPE INNOCENT has no authority for proof. For the letters which are ascribed to Innocent I and to other Roman bishops who lived in the first centuries and are called decretals, are for the most part either composed and foisted in, or corrupted and interpolated, by some later writer, a flatterer and hireling of the popes; because their style is at odds with the Latinity which was vernacular to the Roman bishops in that age, indeed also in some following ages, as can be proved from their genuine writings. And especially the letter to Exuperius ascribed to Innocent is an injury even to Priscian. For how elegant are the phrases, “to dwell” - they were commanded: likewise, on account of the succession of offspring, that the use of wives was reEixatum; likewise, from another tribe no one had been commanded to approach the priesthood; likewise, to these a pardon of ignorance is remitted! But I pass over those inept and downright monastic phrases with which that letter abounds, whence it is manifest that that letter, together with other similar ones, is spurious. Next, even if those letters were not spurious, nevertheless they would have no force for proving: first, because in them the testimonies of Holy Scripture are foully depraved; for example, in that same letter to Exuperius these sayings are twisted to the prohibition of the marriage of priests: “Be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.” Levit. 11 and 20. “Abstain for a time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer,” 1 Cor. 7. “To the pure all things are pure,” Tit. 1. “I would that all were even

as I myself,” 1 Cor. 7. “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit,” Rom. 8. Second, because many heretical things are asserted in those letters; as in that very letter to Exuperius, it is denied that priests using lawful wives are heard by God, and it is affirmed that Eucharistic communion is as it were a viaticum for those about to depart from this life, that by extreme communion men at the last moment of life are rescued from everlasting destruction. Third, because various marks of the mystery of iniquity appear in those same letters; such as, even in that very letter to Exuperius, the primacy of the Roman See, the distinction of clerics and laics on account of holiness, the abuse of the Lord’s Supper. Fourth, because many false things are contained in those letters; as in this letter to Exuperius five books are ascribed to Solomon, whereas it is certain that only three are Solomon’s. The decree of GELASIUS, which is extant in the second tome of the Councils, page three hundred and eighteen of the aforesaid Cologne edition, lacks authority: first, because that decree is at odds with the decree of the Synod of Laodicea, which was confirmed by the sixth general Synod; likewise it is at odds with other ancient orthodox Fathers, who enumerated differently the books truly Canonical, as is shown in our Catholic Harmony. Second, because it corrupts the Scriptures by false interpretation: for to that saying of Christ, “You are Peter,” etc., it says that the Roman Church, being preferred to the other Churches, obtained the primacy. Third, because it contradicts Scripture when it says: “Although no one can lay another foundation than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus, nevertheless for our edification this same holy Roman Church, after those Scriptures of the Old and New Testament which we have regularly received, does not forbid that more Scriptures be received,” which it then enumerates, namely of Councils and of the Fathers. Fourth, because it unjustly calls heretics those who deny that Peter and Paul were crowned with martyrdom at Rome at one time, on one and the same day, under Caesar Nero. Yet a heretic is no one but he who stubbornly defends an error striking at the foundation of Christian doctrine. Heresy is properly in questions of the Christian faith. Fifth, because it excluded the book of Nehemiah, truly Canonical, from the roll of the Canonical. Sixth, even if this decree had force to prove, nevertheless it would help the Papists little; because it enumerates among the Canonical only one book of Maccabees and one of Ezra, and therefore excludes the other books of Maccabees and of Ezra from the number of the Canonical. AUGUSTINE, in book two On Christian Doctrine, chapter eight, does indeed number among the Canonical the books of Tobit, Judith, the two of Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus; but then he calls them Canonical equivocally (homonymously, ὁµωνύµως), and in the progress of time, when he had made greater advance, he wrote more cautiously about them. For in tome five, book eighteen of the City of God, chapter thirty-six, he writes thus: “From this time among the Jews, the temple having been restored, there were not Kings but Princes up to Aristobulus, the reckoning of whose times is found not in the Holy Scriptures, which are called Canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of Maccabees, which not the Jews, but

the Church holds as Canonical, on account of the intense and marvelous sufferings of certain martyrs, who before Christ came in the flesh strove even unto death for the law of God and bore most grievous and horrible evils.” Thus Augustine distinguishes certain books, among which are also the books of Maccabees, from the Holy Scriptures which are called Canonical, that is, from those which are truly delivered by divine inspiration, and which simply and entirely would be the rule not only of morals but also of faith. Then he says that they are held by the Church as Canonical; but whether simply and absolutely, whether so as to be wholly and at once the rule of faith and of morals? by no means; but on account of examples of the constancy of the martyrs. Therefore in one sense Augustine called the truly divine books Canonical, and in another sense the rest, among which are also the books of Maccabees. Moreover, in tome seven, book two Against the Second Letter of Gaudentius, chapter twenty-three, he says: “This writing indeed, which is called of the Maccabees, the Jews do not have as they have the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms, to which the Lord bears witness as to his witnesses, saying: It behooved that all things written concerning me in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms be fulfilled; but it has been received by the Church not unprofitably, if it be read or heard soberly, especially on account of those Maccabees who for the law of God, like true Martyrs, suffered from persecutors things so unworthy and horrible.” If Augustine had held the books of Maccabees as univocally and properly Canonical, would he have separated them from those books to which the Lord bears witness as to his own witnesses? would he say of them that they have been received by the Church “not unprofitably,” with such caution to be employed in reading and hearing them, saying, “IF they be read or heard SOBERLY”? would he have restricted their use to the examples of the martyrs? The same, in book seventeen of the City of God, ch. 20, says concerning the books of Solomon: “Three have been received into Canonical authority: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. But the other two, one of which is called Wisdom, the other Ecclesiasticus, by reason of some likeness of style, custom has prevailed that they be called Solomon’s. But the more learned do not doubt that they are not his; nevertheless the Church has of old received them into authority, especially the Western.” A little later he adds concerning these two books: “But against contradictors they are not brought forward with such authority, since they are not written in the Canon of the Jews. But in those three, which it is agreed are Solomon’s, and which the Jews hold as Canonical,” etc. Thus Augustine plainly distinguishes in authority the three books which are agreed to be Solomon’s from the other two which he says were received by the Western Church; for the Eastern Church never received them into such authority. From this comparison of Augustine’s writings it is evident that the testimony alleged from book two On Christian Doctrine, chapter eight, is by no means valid to prove that the books of Maccabees and the others which Jerome refers among the Apocrypha are properly Canonical. What has been received in Law, that later laws derogate from earlier, and what is commonly said, “afterthoughts are wiser” (ὕστεραι φροντίδες σοφώτεραι), let this also have force in this place. Augustine wrote the first two books On Christian Doctrine before he became a bishop; afterwards, having become a bishop, he completed the third and added the fourth, as he himself testifies in

book two of the Retractions, chapter four: but the books On the City of God and Against the Letters of Gaudentius he wrote when he had long been a bishop, and therefore had made greater progress and had come to a more confirmed judgment, as is evident from that same second book of the Retractions, chapters forty-three and fifty-nine. The testimony of ISIDORE, from book 6 of the Etymologies, ch. 1, is by no means firm, because in the book On Offices he likewise says that the Old Testament was constituted by Ezra into twenty-two books, that there might be held in the Law as many books as there are letters. I reply the same about the testimony of RABANUS Maurus: for he says in book two of the Institution of Clerics, ch. 54, that the whole Old Testament was distributed by Ezra into two and twenty books, that there might be as many books in the Law as there are letters. In sum, if Councils or the Roman bishops or other Fathers have numbered among the Canonical the books of Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, and the others which are not in the Hebrew Canon, they called them Canonical in another sense than those which are enumerated in the Hebrew Canon. Councils and Fathers are interpreted in this way by the Papists themselves: for thus THOMAS DE VIO CAJETAN, CARDINAL of St. Xystus, who was the legate of the Roman Pontiff against Luther in Germany to Charles V and a pillar of the Papist Church, writes at the end of the Commentaries on the History of the Old Testament at chapter ten of Esther: “In this place,” he says, “we conclude the Commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest, namely, the books of Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees, by the divine Jerome are reckoned outside the Canonical books and are placed among the Apocrypha, together with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is evident in the Helmed Prologue. Do not be disturbed, novice, if you find somewhere these books reckoned among the Canonical either in sacred Councils or in sacred Doctors. For both the words of the Councils and of the Doctors are to be brought back to the file of Jerome. And according to his opinion to Chromatius and Heliodorus the bishops, these books (and if there are any others like them in the canon of the Bible) are not Canonical, that is, they are not regular, for establishing those things which are of faith. Yet they can be called Canonical, that is, regular, for the edification of the faithful, as being received in the canon of the Bible and with authority. With this distinction you will be able to discern the sayings of Augustine in book two On Christian Doctrine and the things written in the Florentine Council under Eugenius IV, and the things written in the provincial Councils of Carthage and Laodicea, and by Innocent and Gelasius and the Popes.” So far Cardinal Cajetan, who, besides approving the judgment of Jerome, says that the different one is new and ambiguous. Likewise Sixtus Senensis in book one of the Bibliotheca, and Stapleton in book nine, chapter six of the Principles of the Faith, doctrinal, distinguished the books into Protocanonical and Deuterocanonical. The Protocanonical are those which are enumerated in the truly divine Canon, which the file of Jerome has approved, which our Churches acknowledge as truly Canonical. The Deuterocanonical are those which by some Councils and Fathers are sometimes called Canonical, because they propose some rule of morals and examples. But properly they are not Canonical, but Apocryphal, because they are not at once the rule of faith and of morals certainly prescribed by divine authority.

Thus to the first common argument the answer has been given: the second follows. From which books the orthodox Fathers have alleged testimonies, those are properly and univocally Canonical: But from the additions to the book of Esther and of Daniel, and from the other books about which there is now controversy, the orthodox Fathers have alleged testimonies. Therefore, etc. Answer: I deny the consequence, because from pure particulars nothing follows. The major proposition, understood only particularly, is conceded - namely of the books of Moses, Joshua, and others which are in the divine Canon; understood universally, however, it is denied. For not only the Fathers, but also the Prophets and the Apostles have brought forth some things from the Gentiles or other human writings; as Daniel, ch. 4, from the Babylonian Commentaries, the proclamation which proceeded from King Nebuchadnezzar, and in ch. 6 the edict of Darius concerning reverencing the God of Daniel; Ezra ch. 1, the edict of Cyrus king of Persia, and ch. 6 the edict of Darius the Bastard; the Apostle Paul alleged, Acts 17:28, a sentence from Aratus, “for we are indeed his offspring” (tou gar kai genos esmen), and 1 Cor. 15:33 from Menander, “bad company ruins good morals” (phtheirousin ēthē chrēsta homiliai kakai). And 2 Tim. 3:8 from the Talmudic books. the names of the Egyptian magicians Jannes and Jambres who resisted Moses, and, Titus 1:12, the verse from Epimenides, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies” (Krētes aei pseustai, kaka thēria, gasteres argai); the Apostle Jude, vv. 14 - 15, the Prophecy of Enoch. Nevertheless it by no means can be granted that those books from which those Prophets and Apostles quoted are canonical, much less truly and univocally canonical. Indeed also the Prayer of Manasseh, ascribed to the Jewish king, and the third and fourth books of Esdras are sometimes cited by certain holy Fathers, as is stated openly in the little preface set before the Prayer of Manasseh and the third and fourth book of Esdras in the edition of the Bible of the Latin Vulgate version, revised by order of Sixtus V, Roman Pontiff, and printed at Antwerp in the Plantin press in the year 1599;51 and yet the Council of Trent placed them outside the series of canonical books. Likewise Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, page thirty-nine of the first volume of the Commelin edition, cites the book of the Shepherd, which they commonly assign to Hermas, and calls it “most useful,” and yet it is not canonical. From these instances it is clear that not all the books from which the orthodox Fathers have alleged testimonies are truly and univocally canonical. This Bellarmine himself is forced to admit in book 1 On the Word of God, chapter 18, section 19, where he writes to this effect about the book of Enoch, from which the Apostle Jude is thought to have quoted a prophecy in his epistle: I answer, although Tertullian in the book On Female Dress contends that the book of Enoch is canonical, and Bede, on this epistle, says that in the time of Jude the book of Enoch, true and canonical, was in the hands of men, even if it does not exist now, nevertheless it seems more probable that the book is apocryphal. Moreover, as St. Jerome on Titus 1 and St. Augustine in City of God book 15, chapter 23, and book 18, chapter 38, say, even in the apocrypha there is something

true, and this Jude brought forward, yet he did not therefore approve the whole book; just as also Paul in Acts 17, 1 Corinthians 15, and Titus 1 brings forward testimonies from heathen poets, Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides, yet he did not on that account consecrate those poets. Thus Bellarmine does not concede that whatever writing is straightway canonical, even if the Apostles have brought something from it. How much less, then, will a writing be straightway canonical on the ground that the Fathers, who are far inferior to the Apostles, have cited testimonies from it? The same Bellarmine in book 1 On the Word of God, chapter 20, admits that the Fathers bring testimonies from the book of Hermes, which is entitled the Shepherd, and likewise from Third and Fourth Esdras; yet he himself lists these among the apocrypha. Similarly John Driedo, one of the chief Papists, writes in On the Catalogue of Scripture, book 1, chapter 4, to difficulty 4: Cyprian, Ambrose, and the other Fathers cite sentences from the book of Baruch, from Third and Fourth Esdras, not as from canonical books, but as from books containing certain pious doctrines, etc. Since therefore the major proposition, understood universally, is false, the conclusion also must be false. Reply of the Romanists: But the Fathers cite these books, about which there is now controversy, as sacred and divine: therefore they are properly and univocally canonical. Our rejoinder: The consequence is denied, because from mere particulars nothing follows. For the major proposition is suppressed, namely: The books which the Fathers cite as sacred and divine are properly and univocally canonical. This is only particularly true; for it is the customary practice of the best Fathers, Greek and Latin alike, not only to cite the truly canonical books, but also the apocrypha with honor: as Ambrose, volume 3, page 27 of the Froben edition, year 1538, in the oration on the death of his brother Satyrus, brings forward as consolations from Holy Scripture things which are read in Fourth Esdras, chapter 10. Clement of Alexandria often cites the book of the Shepherd just as if it were divine. Is it therefore equitable for us to regard Fourth Esdras and the Shepherd as truly canonical? Third. A common argument follows for these books. All the books which are called “sacred” by the Fathers are properly and univocally canonical. But these books, about which there is now controversy, are called “sacred” by the Fathers. Therefore, etc. Answer. The major proposition, understood without distinction and limitation, is false; because not all the books which the Fathers call sacred are so called in the same way. For some are called sacred univocally, others equivocally. Those that are called sacred univocally, that is, in reality and in truth, are properly and univocally canonical. But these books about which there is now controversy are called sacred equivocally, that is, by a certain likeness, from the opinion or institution of men: just as by Cajetan the Cardinal episcopal councils are called “sacred,” and the Fathers “sacred,” in the words cited a little above at the end of our answer to the first argument. So too the canons of episcopal councils and of canon law are called “sacred.” Thus by jurists laws are called “sacred,” indeed even “most sacred.” The letters by which the emperors Valentinian and Marcian convened a council are called “sacred” in volume 2 of the Councils, pages 8, 9, 10.

Fourth. Whatever books have been publicly received in the churches are univocally and properly canonical. But these books have been publicly received in the churches. Therefore, etc. Answer. The major proposition is false; for an instance can be given against it. For Eusebius in book 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 3, says of the book of the Shepherd that it is δεδηµοσιευµένον, that is, publicly received in the churches, yet he numbers it among the spurious (ἐν τοῖς νόθοις). But if the major must be conceded, then it must be limited and restricted thus: Whatever books have been publicly received in the churches, namely for the authority of dogmas, are truly divinely canonical. But that these books, about which there is now controversy, were publicly received in the churches for the authority of dogmas is denied: because, as Jerome bears witness, they were received only for the edification of the people with respect to morals, on account of the precepts of morals and the examples which are contained in them. Therefore the conclusion does not follow. Fifth. Whatever books are called simply and absolutely “Scriptures” by the Fathers are properly canonical. But these books about which the question is, are called simply and absolutely “Scriptures” by the Fathers. Therefore, etc. Answer. The major proposition is denied; for not all the books which the Fathers simply call “Scriptures” are properly canonical, but only those which are truly divine Scripture. Sixth. All the books which are divine Scripture are univocally and properly canonical. But these books about which there is controversy are divine Scripture. Therefore they are univocally and properly canonical. They prove the minor: because Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogue, book 2, chapter 3, calls the book of Baruch “divine Scripture”; likewise Theodoret in his exposition of this book; Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel, book 6, chapter 19. So too Cyprian and St. John Chrysostom call the Hymn of the Three Youths “divine,” etc. Answer. The consequence is denied, because there are four terms on account of the ambiguity of the middle. For “divine” is said homonymously (homōnymōs): either strictly (kyriōs), properly, that which “according to truth” (kat’ alētheian), by its nature or origin is divine, because it is purely God’s, from God or according to God; or improperly (akyrōs), that which “according to opinion” (kata doxan), by human opinion and presumed judgment, by human institution and positive law, is in a certain likeness and image divine. The major proposition, understood of divine Scripture said strictly (kyriōs), is conceded. But the minor proposition is true of divine Scripture said improperly (akyrōs). But if “divine Scripture” in the minor proposition is taken in the same sense as in the major, then the minor is false; nor does the authority of the Fathers suffice to prove it, who call those books about which inquiry is being made “divine Scripture” improperly (akyrōs), just as also Origen thought the book of Hermes, entitled the Shepherd, to be divinely inspired, in book 10 on the Epistle to the Romans, which nevertheless Bellarmine judges apocryphal in book 1 On the Word of God, chapter 20, section 6. The letters of the Empress Pulcheria to Leo I of Rome are called “divine syllables” in volume 2 of the Councils, page 8. Therefore the conclusion is null.

Seventh. Whatever books are called “canonical” by the Fathers are univocally and properly canonical. But these books about which there is controversy are called “canonical” by the Fathers: as St. Augustine in the Preface to the Speculum says that he will collect sentences from the canonical books, and he includes Tobit; the Fathers say the same of the others. Therefore they are univocally and properly canonical. Answer. The consequence is denied, because there are four terms, on account of homonymy in the middle. For “canonical books” are said in a twofold way, either univocally or equivocally. “Canonical” univocally are those which contain the divine truth divinely in matter and form, that is, which not only as to the things, but also as to the words and phrases and the order, are divinely inspired; and which by divine authority have been given publicly to the Church and sanctified, so that they might be a rule of truth in faith and morals. And these are those which God wrote or approved through the Prophets and Apostles, and sealed and sanctified by the authority of the Spirit. “Canonical” equivocally are those which, as to their several parts, do not everywhere correspond divinely to the first and divine truth, nor have been given and sanctified to the Church publicly by divine authority, but have been held canonical by human choice and human authority. The major is true of the books which are called canonical univocally; the minor and its proof are of those which are called canonical equivocally. Therefore the argument does not go through. Eighth. Whatever books are holy are univocally and properly canonical. But these books are holy. Therefore - Answer. I distinguish: Whatever books are holy, namely divinely so, are univocally and properly canonical. But that these books are holy divinely is denied. The Papists reply: What the Apostles allege is divinely holy; these books the Apostles allege; therefore they are divinely holy. Answer. First, there is the fallacy of the non-cause in the major proposition. For it is not because something is divinely holy that the Apostles adduce whatever they adduce; but because the Apostles adduce it, it is thereby sanctified divinely which previously was not holy. Thus Tertullian wisely says, Ad uxorem, book 1, chapter 8: “Follow a manner of life and associations worthy of God, mindful of that little verse sanctified by the Apostle: ‘Bad company corrupts good morals.’” Likewise the Holy Spirit through Paul sanctified the sentence of Aratus, and τὸ οτινος ἐτµδε. But the edict of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 4, was sanctified through Daniel the Prophet. Second, the minor proposition is false. The Papists try to prove it thus: because in Rom. 11:34 and 1 Cor. 2:16 Paul cites from the books of Wisdom, ch. 9:13, “For who has known the mind of the Lord?” Likewise what is read in Heb. 1:3, “Who, being the brightness of his glory and the character of his subsistence,” they say is taken from ch. 7 of Wisdom; and Rom. 12:19 from Ecclus. 28:12, “Beloved, do not avenge yourselves,” etc. Answer. I deny that the Apostle Paul cites anything from the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus; just as neither in the Index of testimonies from the Old in the New Testament, cited by Christ and the Apostles, which is - In the Bibles reviewed by order of Sixtus V and printed at Antwerp, not even a single book which Jerome says is outside the Canon is listed from which a testimony is alleged in the New Testament. Next, with respect to Rom. 11:34 and 1 Cor. 2:16, Heb. 1:3, and Rom. 12:19, Paul does

not cite them from elsewhere, as is clear from the context and form of the discourse. But if he does adduce them from elsewhere, then rather he adduces them from the undoubtedly canonical books, just as he takes the first passage from Isa. 40:13, as Thomas Aquinas testifies on Romans 11, lecture five, and Cajetan, and the Rheims translators in the English version. Bellarmine, De Verbo Dei, book 1, chapter 7, section 8; and chapter 6, section 2; and chapter 9, section 3. But the passage Rom. 12:19 is from Deut. 32:35. NONUM. From whatever books, publicly in the Church, in the very solemnities of sacred rites, readings are chanted or recited, those are univocally and properly canonical: But from these books, publicly in the Church, in the very solemnities of sacred rites, readings are chanted or recited. Therefore, etc. Response: The major premise is false. For even from the books of the Fathers - such as Augustine, Leo the Great, Eusebius, Isidore, and others - readings are recited among the very solemnities of the Romanists’ sacred rites, as is clear from the Roman Breviary, restored by decree of the Council of Trent and published by order of Pope Pius V; and yet the Fathers’ books are not canonical, much less truly divinely canonical. Next, as to the minor, what Church is that whose example is put to us as an argument? The custom of the Roman Church carries little or no weight with us, much less that we should acknowledge in it the force of so great an argument. Therefore the conclusion collapses. DECIMUM. Whatever books used once to be read in the Church even before the times of Jerome, those are properly canonical: But these books used once to be read in the Church even before the times of Jerome: Therefore they are properly canonical. Response: I distinguish. Some books used to be read in the Church from the ambo - that is, from the step of the bishops or the pulpit of preachers and presbyters; others also from the step of the Readers. Again, some books were read both for confirming the authority of doctrines and for the edification of the people in the worship of God and in morals; others only for the edification of the people in morals. Now whatever books used once to be read in the Church from the ambo of bishops and presbyters, and for confirming the authority of doctrines, those are properly canonical; but the books in question were read only from the step of the Readers and solely for the edification of the people in morals, and especially of catechumens. Therefore they are not properly canonical. Our position is confirmed by the Fathers themselves. Athanasius in the Synopsis of Holy Scripture says: Besides these (namely the canonical books which he had enumerated) there are still other books of the Old Testament that are not canonical, which are read only to catechumens, the Wisdom of Solomon, etc. And in the thirty-ninth Festal Epistle: But for the sake of greater clarity I will of necessity add this as well, knowing that there are also other books outside those enumerated, which indeed do not constitute the Canon, but have been set forth by the Fathers to

be read by those who first come forward and wish to be simply instructed in the word of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach and Esther (that is, the additions to the book of Esther; for otherwise in the Synopsis of Holy Scripture he teaches that the book of Esther is to be reckoned among the properly canonical) and Judith and Tobit and the teaching which is called of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. Here it should be noted that the ancients in the Church also read the teaching which is called of the Apostles and the Shepherd, which books even by the confession of the Papists are apocryphal. Augustine in book 1 On Predestination, chapter 14, says that the book of Wisdom has deserved in the Church of Christ to be recited from the step of the Readers in the Church of Christ through so long an age, etc. And Jerome, in the Preface to the book of Solomon: Therefore, just as the Church indeed reads the books of Judith and Tobit and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures: so also let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines. Hence it is clear that although these books were once read in the Church, nevertheless they are not properly canonical. Objection. But Rufinus used this argument in book 2 against Jerome; Therefore these books, because they were read in the Church, are properly canonical. Response: First, Rufinus’s testimony is not suitable, because he is a man inflamed with anger and hatred against Jerome: for who wrote with greater intemperance of soul than this Rufinus when he inveighed against Jerome? He who brings forward a writing condemned by the votes of all good men to support his cause betrays and destroys it. Second, it is fairer and more reasonable that we should listen to and follow Rufinus writing when calm and collected. Indeed, in a didactic writing which he penned outside the heat of anger, namely in the Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, commonly ascribed to Cyprian, he says: Yet it must be known that there are also other books, which are not canonical but were called ecclesiastical by the ancients: such as the Wisdom of Solomon, and another, the Wisdom of the son of Sirach, which book among the Latins is called by this very general name “Ecclesiasticus,” by which title not the author of the little book but the quality of the Scripture has been designated. Of the same order is the little book of Tobit and Judith and the books of the Maccabees. But in the New Testament, the little book which is called the Pastoralis or of Hermas, which is called the Two Ways or the Judgment of Peter - these all they indeed willed to be read in the Churches, yet not to be brought forward for the authority of confirming from these the faith. It should be observed that Rufinus, in the number of those books which the ancients wished to be read in the Churches, also lists the book which is called the Pastoralis or of Hermas, and likewise another which is called the Two Ways or the Judgment of Peter; which books the Papists themselves confess to be apocryphal. Therefore neither are those about which there is now controversy properly canonical on the ground that they were once read in the Church. UNDECIMUM. Whatever books the Fathers bring forward to confirm the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines, those are properly canonical:

But the Fathers bring forward these books to confirm the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines: Therefore they are properly canonical. Response: This argument is almost the same as the second; therefore the same reply could be made. But because the second is more general, while this is narrower, dealing only with citations to affirm the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines and arising from the solution of the preceding argument, therefore we answer distinctly. The major proposition, as it is enunciated universally, is false: because the Fathers often bring forward for confirming the authority of doctrines even other books which nevertheless are apocryphal, as Bellarmine himself confesses about the Shepherd of Hermas in book 1 On the Word of God, chapter 20, section 6; and about Third and Fourth Esdras, sections 7 and 8. The same Fathers also bring forward the books of the Gentiles to confirm the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines, as Justin Martyr in the Second Apology, Theodoret in the Cure of the Greek Affections, Lactantius, Augustine, etc. Objection. Properly canonical books are brought forward to confirm the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines; But these books are brought forward to confirm the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines: Therefore they are properly canonical. Response: The consequence is denied, because from pure affirmatives in the second figure nothing follows. So much for the common arguments with which the Papists contend for these books: a few particular ones follow for the individual cases. For the additions to the book of Esther: If the Councils and Fathers, numbering the book of Esther among the canonicals, spoke of that volume which the whole Church then used, namely, one having also those appendices about which the question is now raised, then those appendices also are univocally canonical. The antecedent is true. Therefore so is the consequent. Bellarmine attempts to prove the assumption from the Council of Laodicea, the Third Council of Carthage, Innocent I, and others; to which he adds Athanasius and Jerome. I answer: The proof of the assumption labors under the fallacy of multiple questions; for in regard to some testimonies it is conceded, in regard to others it is denied. For the Council of Laodicea, Athanasius, and Jerome lay down nothing of the sort which Bellarmine asserts. For the Council of Laodicea, as even the Jesuit Franciscus Costerus admits in his Enchiridion, forbade that anything which is absent from the Hebrew Canon in the Old Testament be read in the Churches and received into authority; and Coster adds the reason, lest the faithful, many of whom had been converted from the Jews, be irritated and offended if those things which are not extant in the Hebrew were read publicly in the Church. But Athanasius in the Synopsis of Holy Scripture plainly refers the additions to the book of Esther to the non-canonical Scriptures, as is clear from these his words: Therefore the canonical books of the Old Testament are twenty-two, equal in number to the Hebrew letters - for among the Hebrews there are just so many elements of letters. Besides these, however, there are still other books of the Old Testament that are not canonical, which are read

only to catechumens: the Wisdom of Solomon, whose beginning is, Love righteousness, you who judge the earth. The Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, whose beginning is, All wisdom is from the Lord and with him it is forever. Esther (that is, the additions to the book of Esther, as is clear from the following beginning, which is a chapter of the apocrypha), whose beginning is, In the second year, when Artaxerxes the great was reigning, on one day of the month Nisan, Mordecai, son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kisai, of the tribe of Benjamin, saw a dream. From these it is evident that Athanasius held those additions to be non-canonical; but concerning the truly canonical book of Esther a little later he says that it belongs to another certain canonical volume. Jerome likewise does not acknowledge those appendices as canonical, as is evident from his Preface to the book of Esther: The book of Esther (he says) is known to have been vitiated by various translators; which I, bringing it up from the archives of the Hebrews, have translated more exactly word for word. The Vulgate edition drags this book here and there with ragged borders of words, adding those things which could be said and heard on the spur of the moment; just as in scholastic exercises it is customary, when a theme has been taken up, to devise with what words the one who suffered the injury or the one who did the injury could have spoken. But you, O Paula and Eustochium, since you have been eager to enter the libraries of the Hebrews and have verified the contests of the translators, taking the Hebrew book of Esther, inspect our translation word by word, that you may be able to recognize that I have added nothing by way of augmentation, but with faithful witness have simply delivered, just as it stands in the Hebrew, the Hebrew history in the Latin tongue. Nor do we seek the praises of men, nor do we dread reproaches. For, caring to please God, we do not at all fear the threats of men: since God scatters the bones of those who desire to please men; and, according to the Apostle, those of this sort cannot be servants of Christ. If Jerome had regarded those additions as truly canonical, he would have written to us differently - he would not, assuredly, have made as little of them as the treatment of some scholastic theme: nor yet would he have omitted those with such confidence, not fearing other men’s prejudgments, nor caring for them. But what is to be thought about the rest of the testimonies has been shown partly above in the refutation of the first common argument, and partly stated of each in its own place. The first peculiar argument of the Papists for the book of Baruch. The book of Baruch is cited by the ancient Fathers under the name of Jeremiah; Therefore the book of Baruch is univocally canonical. Bellarmine proves the antecedent in book 1 On the Word of God, chapter eight, section four, by the induction of several Fathers, namely Clement of Alexandria, Ambrose, etc. Answer: Illogically (ἀσυλλογίστως), from a figurative enunciation, the conclusion is gathered as if proper. The antecedent is true only figuratively: for the Fathers use a synecdochic expression when they cite the book of Baruch under the name of Jeremiah. For since the booklet of Baruch is small, yet otherwise useful, and in some respects to be preferred to the other apocrypha, both lest it should fall out of use, and that it might be easier to find in the Biblical codex, it was by human liberty and authority appended, after the manner of an appendix, to the book of Jeremiah, as being the greater; just as the booklet of Ruth is coupled with the book of Judges, and the book of Esther

with the books of Ezra and Nehemiah; in the same way also all the twelve Minor Prophets are bound together into one book. Hence, by synecdoche, the Fathers allege under the name of Jeremiah that which is not properly his. It is objected: Baruch was Jeremiah’s scribe; Therefore what is written by Baruch is rightly reckoned to be Jeremiah’s. Answer: The consequence is denied, because not everything Baruch wrote he wrote as Jeremiah’s notary, but only that which, by command and with Jeremiah dictating by divine inspiration, he wrote: just as not everything a notary writes is thereby authentic, but only that which, by command and under public faith, he has drawn up as a notary. Then the antecedent is denied, if its sense be that Baruch was Jeremiah’s notary in this very book now in question, by taking down from Jeremiah’s mouth. For these things Baruch wrote in Babylon, in the fifth year, on the seventh day of the month, at the time when the Chaldeans seized Jerusalem and burned it with fire, as is read in Baruch 1:2, when Jeremiah had long before been dragged against his will into Egypt, where he died. Third, this book was not even written by Baruch, because it was written in the Greek tongue, which neither Baruch nor the people of God, then carried away to Babylon, used. It is objected further: The Fathers judged this book to be a part of Jeremiah’s prophecies: Therefore it is a part of them. Answer: I restrict the antecedent. For only certain Fathers judged this book to be a part of Jeremiah; for not all so judged, as Jerome shows, in his preface to Jeremiah: “We have passed over the book of Baruch, his notary, which among the Hebrews is neither read nor had, awaiting all these curses from our rivals.” But those Fathers who thought it to be a part of Jeremiah were imbued with a human opinion and erred: we, however, are by no means bound to the errors of the Fathers. The second. Something is cited from the book of Baruch in 2 Maccabees, chapter 2. Therefore the book of Baruch is properly canonical. Answer: The reasoning proceeds from a non-cause as though it were a cause. A citation made in the book of the Maccabees is not a fit cause why the book of Baruch should be properly canonical: both because the book of the Maccabees is apocryphal, and one apocryphal book cannot by its testimony confirm the authority of another apocryphal book; and because not even a citation in a book properly and certainly canonical is a sufficient argument to prove the canonical authority of the book from which something is cited, as was shown above in the refutation of the second common argument. A proper argument for the additions to Daniel. The whole book of Daniel is properly canonical: But the whole book of Daniel is with the additions extant in Theodotion’s Greek edition: Therefore, with the additions extant in Theodotion’s Greek edition, it is properly canonical. The minor is proved, because it is credible that the ancient councils, Laodicea and the Third of Carthage, and the ancient Fathers using the Greek edition, when they reckoned Daniel in the number of the holy Scriptures, spoke of that book which was had in the common Greek codices, in which these additions are.

Answer: The minor proposition is denied: because the whole book of Daniel is as it is in the Hebrew canon, without those additions. But the proof of the minor rests on mere opinion and conjecture: “it is credible,” says Bellarmine. But whence is it credible? We deny that it is credible. And we distinguish the several questions which Bellarmine mixes together. For the case of the two councils that he adduces is different. The canon of the Council of Laodicea is genuine and treats of the properly canonical books which at that time it willed to be read publicly in the Church, the reading of the non-canonicals being forbidden: therefore it also forbade those additions to be read in the Church. But the 47th canon, attributed to the Third Council of Carthage, is spurious, and joins the Ecclesiastical books with the properly canonical ones: by human pleasure, and not even by sanction, but only by request. Nor indeed did the ancient Fathers, or at least not all who used the Greek edition, receive those additions: for even from among the Catholic Christians, Bellarmine himself reports in book one On the Word of God, chapter nine, section two, that Julius Africanus once regarded the story of Susanna as spurious. Of other Fathers also Jerome bears witness in the preface of his Commentaries on Daniel to Pammachius and Marcella: “I am amazed that certain carping critics (µωµψίµοιρους, mōmpsimoirous) are indignant with me, as though I had cut short the book, whereas both Origen and Eusebius and Apollinarius and other ecclesiastical men and Doctors of Greece confess, as I have said, that these visions are not had among the Hebrews, nor do they think they ought to answer Porphyry on behalf of those things which afford no authority of Holy Scripture.” Let Bellarmine therefore see who those ancient Fathers are who acknowledged those additions as properly canonical Scripture. It is moreover a wonder that Bellarmine should set so much store by the edition of Theodotion, who indeed after the coming of Christ was an unbeliever, although some call him an Ebionite, who is in a further sense a Jew, as Jerome writes in the same preface. Bellarmine therefore has need of other arguments by which he may prove that Theodotion’s additions are properly canonical. A proper argument for the book of Judith. The First Nicene Synod, the first and most celebrated of all the general synods, so reckoned the book of Judith into the number of the sacred books that it judged it to be fit for confirming the dogmas of the faith: as Jerome testifies in the preface to Judith, where he opposes the authority of the Nicene Synod to the opinion of the Hebrews who do not acknowledge this book. Therefore it is properly canonical. Answer: First, the antecedent is denied: for nothing of the sort is found in the Acts of the Nicene Synod, and Athanasius, who took part in the Nicene Synod, denies this book to be canonical both in the Synopsis of Holy Scripture and in the thirty-ninth Festal Letter; and the Council of Laodicea does not list it among the canonicals, although it was held shortly after the Nicene and would by no means have opposed it, since it was of the orthodox Fathers, was approved by the Roman Pontiff, and is brought forward by Bellarmine himself to confirm the authority of dogmas. Then, to prove the antecedent, the witness Jerome is produced, who testifies nothing of the sort: for he does not affirm from his own judgment that this book was numbered by the Nicene Synod among the sacred books, but, reporting another’s judgment, says, “This book is read to have been reckoned by the Nicene Synod in the number of the holy Scriptures.” Here Jerome calls the holy Scriptures equivocally, in a broader sense, the Ecclesiastical books, that is, those which were read in the Church for a sacred

use, namely, the edification of the people as to morals; as is clear from his preface to the books of Solomon, in which he says: “The Church indeed reads the books of Judith and Tobit and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures.” Then he says only “is read,” to show that he speaks from another’s judgment: nor does he add where it is read that the book of Judith was reckoned by the Nicene Synod among the sacred books: whence Erasmus of Rotterdam rightly noted that Jerome does not affirm that this book was numbered among the holy Scriptures by the Nicene Synod. Besides, Jerome does not oppose to the opinion of the Hebrews the authority of the Nicene Synod: but by concession (συγχώρησιν), that is, by granting the hypothesis of those requesting a version of this book, he says: “But because this book is read to have been reckoned by the Nicene Synod in the number of the holy Scriptures, I yielded to your request, nay to your demand, and, laying aside occupations by which I was sharply constrained, I gave to this one a little night’s work, translating rather sense for sense than word for word.” Therefore Jerome was asked to make the book of Judith into Latin: those who had asked used this argument, because the Nicene Synod is read to have reckoned it in the number of the holy Scriptures. Accordingly Jerome does not deny that, but, bidding that the credit rest with the author, writes that he translated the book, both on account of that authority and on account of the request of good men. But the inference does not hold from what is said secundum quid, or on hypothesis, to what is said simply. That this was Jerome’s judgment is clear both from the same preface to the book of Judith, in which he expressly says that its authority is judged less fit for strengthening those things which come into controversy; and from the preface to the books of Solomon, in which he more clearly explains his judgment, in these words: “As therefore the Church indeed reads the books of Judith and Tobit and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also let it read these two volumes (namely the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.” If Jerome had thought that the book of Judith had been held by the Nicene Synod as univocally and properly canonical, he would not have written this about the Church; he would have contradicted the Nicene Synod itself. Finally, granted but not conceded that the book of Judith was reckoned by the Nicene Synod in the number of the holy Scriptures, nevertheless this does not help the adversaries’ cause, but harms it. For if that Synod decreed this book to be properly canonical, why did it not in the same decree include the rest also about which we dispute? Accordingly, the remaining ones which it omitted it excluded from the number of the holy Scriptures with a very serious prejudgment. Proper arguments for the Wisdom of Solomon. The book of the Wisdom of Solomon is placed by Melito of Asia in his letter to Onesimus in the catalogue of the holy Scriptures: Therefore it is properly canonical. Bellarm., book 1 On the Word of God, chapter thirteen, section two. Answer: The antecedent is false, as will be plain to anyone merely looking into book four of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, chapter twenty-six: for, enumerating the books of Solomon, Melito says that the Proverbs are named, even Wi-

he indicates Wisdom. Eusebius explains this more plainly in the same book 4, chapter twenty- two, when he testifies that Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and other ancient Fathers called the Proverbs of Solomon “wisdom endowed with every virtue” (παναρετον σοφίαν), that is, wisdom furnished with every virtue, or instructing in every virtue. II. All the books of Solomon are properly canonical. The book of Wisdom is Solomon’s: Therefore, etc. The assumption is proved by Bellarmine, book 1 On the Word of God, chapter 13, section four, by the authority of the ancients, because all the ancients, he says, assert this book to be Solomon’s; and he cites Eusebius, book four of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter twenty-two, and says that Hegesippus and Irenaeus and the whole chorus of the ancients judged this book to be Solomon’s. He adds also Tertullian, On Prescriptions; Cyprian, the Sermon On Mortality; Hilary on Psalm 127; Ambrose, Sermon 8 on Psalm 118; Basil, book 5 Against Eunomius; Epiphanius, in the heresy of the Anomoeans, to cite this book under the name of Solomon. Answer: Both premises are denied. For the major proposition is false, because not all genuine (γνήσιον) books written in any manner by Solomon are univocally canonical, to say nothing of those books attributed to him through erroneous opinion or custom. For he wrote many things by merely human diligence, for the richness of knowledge of various matters, and not by the inspiration of the divine Spirit for the authority of religion: just as he spoke three thousand sentences or proverbs, and his songs were five above a thousand. He also spoke about plants: from the cedar that is in Lebanon to the hyssop that springs out of the wall: finally he spoke about beasts and birds and creeping things and fishes; as is read in 1 Kings 4:32 - 33. The assumption likewise is false: for although Wisdom is called Solomon’s, nevertheless it is not Solomon’s: to be called is one thing, to be is another. The proof of the assumption is likewise false: for, first, not all the ancients assert this book to be Solomon’s; as, for instance, St. Jerome in the Preface to the books of Solomon calls it a pseudepigraph; and St. Augustine, volume three On Christian Doctrine, book 2, chapter 8, says: There are three books of Solomon, the Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For those two books, the one which is entitled Wisdom and the other which is entitled Ecclesiasticus, are said to be Solomon’s on account of a certain likeness; for Jesus the son of Sirach is most constantly affirmed to have written them. And although he retracted this - that Wisdom was written by Jesus the son of Sirach - in book 2 of the Retractations, chapter 4, when he more correctly recognized that it is not established concerning that, yet in the book which has the title Mirror, which stands in volume 3, he says that it does not appear who is the author of the book of Wisdom; nevertheless in the same place he says that the more learned in no way doubt that it is not Solomon’s. Page six hundred and eightieth, Froben edition of the year 1528. The same writer says thus in volume five, book 17 of the City of God, chapter 20: He (namely Solomon) too is found to have prophesied in his own books which three have been received into canonical authority: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. But the other two, of which the one is called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, by reason of a certain likeness of style, have by custom come to be called Solomon’s. But that they are not his, the more learned do not doubt. John Driedo the Papist, book 1 On the Scriptures and Dogmas of the Church, chapter 4, at the fourth difficulty, concludes that this book was not composed by Solomon. Some, moreover, among the

ancient writers, affirm it to be Philo the Jew’s, as St. Jerome testifies in the Preface to the books of Solomon, and Isidore, book six of the Etymologies, chapter 2. The same is said by Papist doctors. St. Bonaventure writes in the Commentaries on this book: The first efficient cause, in the mode of a compiler, was Philo, the wisest of the Jews, who was in the times of the Apostles: he also writes that Rabanus affirms this same thing. And John Capistran, in the Preface to the Mirror of the Clergy, says that Philo spoke in the person of Solomon. By these instances we have forcefully broken Bellarmine’s universal affirmation. Next, those Fathers whom Bellarmine alleges either by “the Wisdom of Solomon” understand the book of the Proverbs of Solomon, or else speak synecdochically and from common opinion. For Eusebius, book four of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter twenty-two, does not speak of the pseudepigraphal book of Wisdom, but of the Proverbs of Solomon: for thus the Greek words have it in the Paris edition of Robert Estienne of the year 1544: “not only this man (that is, Hegesippus), but also Irenaeus and the whole chorus of the ancients called the Proverbs of Solomon ‘wisdom endowed with every virtue’ (οὐ µόνον οὗτος [scil. Ἡγήσιππος] ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἰρηναῖος καὶ πᾶς ὁ τῶν παλαιῶν χορὸς παναρετὸν σοφίαν τὰς Σολοµῶνος παροιµίας ἐκάλουν).” But this passage of Eusebius in Rufinus’s version, published at Basel by the Froben presses in the same year 1544, is depraved in this way: “But both this very man and Irenaeus and the whole chorus of the ancients said that the book which is entitled Wisdom is Solomon’s, as also the Proverbs and the rest.” Therefore, by a faulty version Bellarmine was either deceived or wished to deceive, when he rather ought to have followed the truth of the Greek text. The other Fathers too are accustomed, by the name “Wisdom of Solomon,” to understand the book of Proverbs, as Cyprian does in the Third Book of Testimonies to Quirinus, chapters 16, 20, and 56. So Athanasius in the decrees of the Nicene Synod, citing the saying Prov. 8 “Before all the hills he begot me,” says that this is contained in the book of Wisdom. But if any cite the pseudepigraphal book of Wisdom under the name of Solomon, as Tertullian does in the Prescriptions against heretics, chapter 7, Cyprian in On Mortality, section 16, Hilary on Psalm 127, etc., they do it synecdochically and by catachresis (συνεκδοχικῶς and καταχρηστικῶς): because when the Hellenist Jews had fastened together the ethical books into one corpus, they inscribed that corpus, synecdochically, with the name “Wisdom of Solomon”: whence it followed that later men of less learning, or ignorant of the Hebrew canon, and especially Christians, thought all to be by the same author - namely, Solomon. A clear example of this synecdochical way of speaking is in Cyprian’s Third Book of Testimonies to Quirinus, chapter sixteen, right at the beginning: for concerning the good of martyrdom he says that testimonies stand in the Wisdom of Solomon, and he adduces two, the first of which stands in Prov. 14:25, but the other in Wis. 5:1 and following. So too in the same book, chapter fifty-three. But from this it by no means follows that Wisdom is Solomon’s pseudepigraph (ψευδεπίγραφον), because from a figurative way of speaking an improper conclusion is wrongly inferred as proper.

Proper arguments for Ecclesiasticus. Solomon’s books are properly canonical and divine. Ecclesiasticus is a book of Solomon: Therefore, etc. The minor proposition is proved by Bellarmine, book one On the Word of God, chapter fourteen, by the authority of Cyprian, book 3, epistle 4, citing chapter 7, and of other Fathers. Answer: The major proposition, taken universally, is false. But if it be taken particularly, the consequence is faulty, from purely particulars. Next, the assumption is false: because in the Prologue of Ecclesiasticus, which, as well as the book itself, the Council of Trent wills to be received by all as sacred and canonical under pain of anathema, Jesus the son of Sirach testifies that the book was written in Hebrew by his grandfather Jesus, but by himself translated into another language; and Epiphanius, in the heresy of the Anomoeans, which is the seventy-sixth with him, says that Ecclesiasticus is by the son of Sirach, page four hundred of the Greek edition of Hervagius, Basel, year 1544, which passage Bellarmine himself alleges. Therefore it is not Solomon’s book. But as to the proof of the assumption, the Fathers alleged by Bellarmine brought forward Ecclesiasticus under the name of Solomon synecdochically and from common opinion. But an improper conclusion does not follow from a figurative way of speaking; for it does not hold: The Fathers cite Ecclesiasticus under the name of Solomon: Therefore it is truly Solomon’s. Bellarmine replies: it could easily have come about that Jesus son of Sirach, having carefully collected sentences of Solomon, put them together by himself into one volume. Thus each author could be said. Answer: This is denied; for the Prologue - which, as truly divine, sacred, and canonical, is acknowledged by the Papists by the sanction of the Council of Trent, and is set forth in the Bibles revised and published by order of Sixtus V - testifies that Jesus, the grandfather of Jesus Sirach, himself wrote this book in Hebrew, and that it was only translated out of Hebrew into the Greek language by Jesus the son of Sirach; how Bellarmine is able to reconcile his own opinion with this, let him see to it himself. Nor can it be conceded either that Jesus Sirach’s father, the grandfather of Jesus Sirach, collected sentences of Solomon, since the Prologue by no means says this, and certain chapters refute it openly, especially from the forty-seventh to the end. And if he had collected Solomon’s sentences, he would have said so in good faith, because this above all would have pertained to the highest commendation and authority of the book among all, and to the praise of Jesus Sirach’s father, that he gathered into one volume with such diligence the sentences of Solomon lest they perish. II. All prophetic books are properly canonical: Ecclesiasticus is a prophetic book: Therefore, etc. The assumption is proved: for Augustine, volume one, book two On Genesis against the Manichees, chapter five, citing from the book of Ecclesiasticus these words, “Why does earth and ashes boast?” which stand in chapter 10, calls them prophetic -

Answer: The assumption is false. And to prove it there is brought forward a testimony of Augustine most unsuitable and retracted by Augustine himself in book one of the Retractations, chapter ten, where he confesses that the words of Ecclesiasticus seem to him not rightly called prophetic; and he adds the reason for the retraction, because it is not read in his book whom we are certain to have been called a Prophet. Proper arguments for the books of the Maccabees. I. In the first volume of the Councils, as also in Canon Law among the Canons of the sacred books, the books of the Maccabees are also among them: Therefore they are properly canonical. Answer: The consequence is denied: because there is a begging of the question in the antecedent of this enthymeme. For the Canons of the Apostles, compiled by Clement, are not a legitimate principle from which arguments ought to be sought to confirm the authority of the doctrines of religion: as the following arguments prove.

…deposed. And canon six: A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon is not to undertake secular cares; otherwise let him be deposed. And canon twenty-eight: If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, for money, has received [such], let him be deposed; and let him who ordained him be wholly cut off from communion, just as IV. Because they enact certain excommunications for trivial matters, contrary to the precepts of Christ and the Apostles written in Holy Scripture: for example, if anyone of the sacerdotal order has at some time not communicated in the Lord’s Supper, as one who has stirred up in the people suspicion against him who offered; likewise, if anyone on the Lord’s day or on the sabbath has fasted; etc. V. Because they prescribe a worship of God wholly alien to the New Testament: for in canon three the offering of oil in the lampstand and of incense is approved.

VI. Because they are contrary to Holy Scripture. For canon sixty-eight binds consciences to fasts in Lent, at Easter, and on Wednesday and on the preparation day (Parasceve), against that word of Paul: Let no one judge you in food or drink, etc. VII. Because that very canon eighty-four is not even in all points approved by the Papists themselves: for in it among the sacred books two epistles of Clement are reckoned, and the instructions which are entitled in eight books as delivered to bishops through Clement; which nevertheless the Romanists do not have among the canonical [books]. Likewise, in it three books on the deeds of the Maccabees are numbered among the sacred [books]; but the Tridentine Synod recognizes only two in Session four, the decree on the canonical books. VIII. Because if that canon is to be received, then neither the book of Tobit, nor the book of Judith, nor the Wisdom of Solomon, nor Baruch, nor the Apocalypse of John ought to be counted among the canonical books: for there they are not counted. But the Apostles certainly knew which books were truly canonical, and which were not. IX. Because this canon contains a manifest falsehood. For it mentions the Gospel of John, which all agree was written when the other Apostles were either all, or for the most part, already dead; but these canons relate that they were promulgated by the Apostles themselves, gathered together into one at Antioch. Thus Peresius maintains in the third part of his book on traditions. And in canon 28 Peter himself speaks: “Let him be removed from communion, like Simon Magus, by me Peter.” Therefore Peter, if this canon is true, was present at its enactment. But Peter, who was slain in the time of Nero - how could he have seen the Gospel of John, which was first written and published in the time of Domitian? X. Because it is contrary to the very deeds of the Apostles. For canon seven forbids celebrating the Passover on the same day with the Jews; but John, Philip, and others celebrated the Passover on the same day with the Jews. XI. Because the certain number of those canons cannot be established, which greatly tells against their credibility and authority. For the sixth universal synod, called in Trullo, celebrated at Constantinople in the year of Christ 680, approves and receives eighty-five canons; Zephyrinus, the Roman bishop, who was five hundred years earlier than the Trullan Synod, recognizes no more than sixty. Gratian in Distinction 16 says there are only fifty, and that they are apocryphal. Wherefore even Bellarmine himself, in book one On the Word of God, chapter twenty, section nine and the following, detracts from the credibility and authority of those canons. Accordingly the testimony sought from them on behalf of the books of the Maccabees is of no weight. II. The Church, not the Jews, holds the books of the Maccabees as canonical, as Augustine testifies in book eighteen of the City of God, chapter 36. Therefore they are properly canonical. I answer: The consequence is denied, because it concludes from an equivocation that they are properly canonical - which kind of argument is illogical (alogiston). For when Augustine says that the Church holds the books of the Maccabees as canonical, he calls canonical not by that divine Canon of faith which passed from the Church of the Jews, to whom were entrusted the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2), to the Church of Christians; but by

the ecclesiastical canon of reading, which both consists of the books of the divine Canon, and of others which, written by men not by divine inspiration but by human diligence only, the Church by human authority wished to be read for the edification of the people: on account of certain precepts and examples of piety, and not to be produced for establishing the authority of faith or of ecclesiastical doctrines, as is evident from Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon and Rufinus’s exposition of the Apostolic Symbol. This equivocation Augustine’s very words also openly show, when he says in the book cited: “From this time among the Jews, the temple having been restored, [there were] not kings but princes until Aristobulus, the reckoning of whose times is found not in the Holy Scriptures, which are called canonical, but in other [writings], among which are also the books of the Maccabees, which not the Jews but the Church holds as canonical on account of the very vehement and marvelous sufferings of certain martyrs, who, before Christ had come in the flesh, contended unto death for the Law of God and endured very grievous and horrible evils.” These things are clearer than that they can be obscured: that some Scriptures are holy which are called canonical, others are held as canonical; the former in themselves and for their own sake, the latter on account of the very vehement and marvelous sufferings of certain martyrs, that is, on account of certain examples of singular and admirable constancy in the bearing of torments and of death undergone for the Law of God. But Bellarmine cited Augustine’s testimony truncated, lest the antecedents and consequents in that passage should overturn the argument adduced for the books of the Maccabees; so that now also it can be perceived with what good faith Bellarmine alleges the Fathers.

Thus far the arguments of the Papists, both common and peculiar, adduced on behalf of the Apocryphal books, have been refuted; now the arguments of our position against those same books must be brought forward, and defended against the Papists’ exceptions, if they bring any. The Additions to the book of Esther, the book of Baruch, the Additions to Daniel, likewise the books of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus or Jesus Sirach, and the two of the Maccabees (for the rest even the Papists themselves acknowledge to be apocryphal), are not truly, that is, univocally and properly, canonical; this can be proved both by common arguments and by proper ones. The common arguments, which apply to all the books, are these: First. All the truly canonical books are divinely inspired. None of these books is divinely inspired. Therefore none of these books is truly canonical. The major proposition is beyond controversy, since that saying of Paul is known to all, 2 Tim. 3:16, “All Scripture is divinely inspired,” and that of 2 Pet. 1:21, “For prophecy was not formerly brought by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit.”

The assumption is proved by this prosyllogism: No book that has been amassed and polished by human judgment and human labor and much study is divinely inspired. All these books have been amassed and polished by human judgment and human labor and much study. Therefore none of these books is divinely inspired. The assumption of the prosyllogism is proved thus by an induction from some of these books: For Jesus Sirach, in the Prologue of Ecclesiasticus, confesses that his grandfather Jesus, after he had given himself the more to the diligence of reading the Law and the Prophets and the other books which had been handed down by the fathers, wished also himself to write something of those things which pertain to instruction and wisdom; he also confesses that he made his grandfather’s book Greek only from the Hebrew, and asks that pardon be granted him in those places in which, in following the image of wisdom, he seems to fail in the composition of words. But God-breathed (theopneustoi) books do not arise from human judgment and human will and industry, nor do the authors of them follow an image of wisdom, nor do translators act only from one language into another, nor do they fail in the composition of words, nor do they need pardon. Therefore the book of Ecclesiasticus has been composed and polished by human judgment and human labor and much study. Likewise the author of the history of the Maccabees confesses in the Second Book, chapter 2, verse 24 to the end of the chapter, that, for the sake of abridging that work from the five books of Jason of Cyrene, he undertook not an easy labor, but rather a business full of watchings and sweat, etc. But books truly divinely inspired are not contracted by the Holy Spirit from some profane writer, nor are they penned with so difficult a toil and a business full of watchings and sweat. Concerning the additions to the book of Esther Jerome says in the Preface of that book that the Vulgate edition drags it along with ragged hems of words here and there, adding those things which could be said and heard on the spot; just as it is customary for students in the schools, when a theme has been taken up, to devise with what words he could speak who has suffered an injury or who has inflicted an injury. Concerning the additions to Daniel Augustine says, in the third tome, the second book On the Marvels of Holy Scripture, chapter thirty-two: “As to the pit again, and Habakkuk transferred in the fable of Bel and the Dragon, it is therefore not set in this order, because it is not held in the authority of divine Scripture.” Therefore those additions have been added by human choice. The same is to be determined about the remaining apocryphal books, namely, that they were composed by human judgment and human study. Second common argument. All the truly canonical books of the Old Testament were written or dictated by Prophets: None of these books was written or dictated by any Prophet. Therefore none of these books is truly canonical. The major proposition is most certain. For when the books of the Old Testament are cited in the New Testament, they are cited under the name of Moses and David and the other Prophets. Luke 24:27: Christ, beginning from Moses and all the Prophets, interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things that had been written concerning himself. Luke 16:29: Abraham answered the rich man concerning his brothers: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them,” understanding by Moses and the Prophets the books of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Paul in Acts 24:14 before the governor Felix says that

he so serves the God of his fathers as one who believes all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets; and in Acts 26:22, before the governor Festus and King Agrippa, he professes that he has said nothing beyond those things which the Prophets and Moses foretold would come. Rom. 1:2 he says that he was set apart to preach the Gospel of God, which God promised through his Prophets in the Holy Scriptures. And in chap. 16:28 he says that the mystery which had been kept silent from eternal times has now been made manifest, and through the Prophetic Scriptures, by the command of the eternal God, has been made known to all the Gentiles unto the obedience of faith. 2 Pet. 1:19: the Scripture of the Old Testament is called the “word” (logō). prophetic (προφητικὸς), the prophetic discourse. Heb. 1:1 it is said, “At many times and in many ways of old God spoke to the fathers in the prophets, in these last days he has spoken to us in the Son.” From all these testimonies it is manifest that the major proposition is most true, namely, that all the truly canonical books of the Old Testament were promulgated by the Prophets. We establish the assumption by these prosyllogisms. The first is: No book written after the times of Malachi proceeded from any Prophet. But all these disputed books were written after the times of Malachi: Therefore none of them proceeded from any Prophet. We establish the major of the first prosyllogism thus: If Malachi was the last Prophet of the Jews, between whom and John the Baptist no Prophet at all intervened, then certainly no book written after the times of Malachi is by any Prophet. What goes before is true; therefore also what follows. The antecedent can be gathered from the end of Malachi, which has thus: “Remember the Law of Moses my servant; which I commanded in Horeb, to be borne to all Israel, statutes and judgments. Behold, I am going to send to you Elijah the Prophet, before the day of the Lord comes, great and to be revered; that he may turn the heart of the fathers to the sons, and the heart of the sons to their fathers, lest when I come I strike the land with a curse” - as if he were saying, there is no reason that you should now expect more prophets until Elijah, the Messiah’s forerunner, that is, John the Baptist, as Christ himself interprets. Hence by the confession of all, Malachi was the last Prophet. The second prosyllogism of the assumption. All the Prophetic books of the Old Testament were handed down to the Church, written out in the holy tongue, that is, Hebrew: But these books were not handed down to the Church, written out in the holy tongue, that is, Hebrew: Therefore they are not Prophetic books of the Old Testament.

The third prosyllogism of the assumption. That these books were not written by the Prophets is both attested by the authors of the books and acknowledged by the ancient Fathers. For the author of the history of the Maccabees candidly confesses that he plays the epitomizer of the five books of Jason of Cyrene, who was a Gentile. Jesus Sirach likewise openly confesses that Ecclesiasticus was written by his grandfather Jesus; and if he had been from the number of the Prophets, Sirach would by no means have kept silence, in order to secure authority for the book. Augustine, in the first book of the Retractations, chapter ten, says that the book of Ecclesiasticus is not by one whom we are sure was called a Prophet. The additions to the book of Daniel Jerome and Augustine call fables; but fables were not composed by the Prophets. THIRD ARGUMENT. Common. All the books that are univocally canonical contain divine truth divinely, in matter and in form, in each and every part of them universally, so that, as a whole in themselves, they are infallible in truth: But these disputed books by no means contain divine truth divinely, in matter and in form, in each and every part of them universally, so that, as a whole in themselves, they are infallible in truth: Therefore they are not univocally canonical. That the assumption is most certain we shall prove by several reasons. The first is, because these books conflict with those Scriptures which, without controversy, are truly canonical and the first truth, as the following induction will show through all these disputed books. The additions to the book of Esther conflict with the chapters of that book that are certainly canonical, as is clear from the induction of the clashing places: First, it is said in chap. 11:2 that Mordecai, in the second year of Artaxerxes, was a great man and an official in the king’s court; in the Hebrew there is nothing about Artaxerxes, nothing about Mordecai’s rank, for he lay hidden in obscurity, when Esther, an orphan, was brought to King Ahasuerus, and when Haman was shortly to be hanged, he was only then elevated to courtly rank. Second, in that same chap. 11, v. 3, it is said that Mordecai was of the number of the captives whom Nebuchadnezzar deported with Jeconiah. An unskilled chronologer, who would have stretched the vigorous life of one man from the age of Jeconiah down to the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus (for this is the Artaxerxes whom Bellarmine wishes to be understood), as if Mordecai, with his hundred and sixty-fifth year of age already completed, were still a man of vigorous age, as Bellarmine himself reckons. But nothing of the sort is found about Mordecai in the divine canon; for it was not Mordecai himself in the time of Jeconiah, but Kish, his great-great-grandfather, who was deported, as is read in Esther 2:5 - 6: “A Jew was in Susa the royal city, whose name was Mordecai, son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjaminite, who had been carried away from Jerusalem with Jeconiah.” The pronoun “who” refers to the immediately preceding name Kish, not to the more remote name Mordecai. On which matter Joseph Scaliger in the sixth book of De Emendatione Temporum, page 555 of the Plantin edition, year 1598.

Bellarmine makes two exceptions or replies: First, that it is not unbelievable that Mordecai by the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus had already surpassed the year 165, since long afterward St. Paul the Hermit reached the year 115, as St. Jerome attests, and Bellarmine himself saw an old man of one hundred and five years so robust and vigorous that he seemed likely to outlive many more years. Second, that what Scripture says, that Mordecai was transferred to Babylon with King Jehoiakim, can rightly be understood even if Mordecai had not yet been born; for he could have been transferred, not in himself, but in his ancestors, just as Zerubbabel and Joshua are said to have returned to Jerusalem from the captivity which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away, 2 Esdras; and yet Zerubbabel is said to have been born in the captivity, Matt. 1, and the same is likely for Joshua the son of Jozadak. And in Gen. 46 and Deut. 10 it is read that seventy souls entered into Egypt with Jacob, in which number are included the two sons of Joseph, who were born in Egypt, nor can it otherwise reasonably be said that they entered into Egypt, except because Joseph, in whose loins they were, had entered into Egypt. We reply to the first exception, that the comparison in it is exceedingly dissimilar: for St. Paul the Hermit reached the 115th year of age, but then he was decrepit and died, and he was still fifty years short of 165; so that it is superfluous to add anything about Bellarmine’s old man. But concerning Mordecai one would have to maintain that he, at the year of age 165, still had a vigorous body, because only twelve years afterward, that is, at 177 years of age, he was raised to the highest administration of the kingdom, and then for many years presided over a most busy and toilsome office in the Persian court. Surely, if Bellarmine’s conjecture were true, Mordecai would have surpassed in strength and vigor Moses, who died at the year of age one hundred and twenty; Deut. 34:7. And because that would truly have been miraculous in Mordecai, Scripture would by no means have kept silence. As to the second exception, first Bellarmine fabricates that Scripture says what it nowhere says - namely, that Mordecai was transferred to Babylon with King Jehoiakim; therefore Bellarmine’s interpretation is idle and by no means solid, because it has a glassy subtlety. Next, in 2 Esdras, or the book of Nehemiah, chap. 7:7, it is not said that Zerubbabel and Joshua were deported into Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, but that they went up to Jerusalem from the captivity of that deportation which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away. Third, neither in Gen. 46 nor in Deut. 10 is it said that seventy souls came with Jacob into Egypt. Moses speaks otherwise. For in Gen. 46:26 - 27 it is read thus: “All the souls which came with Jacob into Egypt, who came out of his loins, besides the wives of the sons of Jacob, all the souls were sixty-six. But the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two souls: thus all the souls of the house of Jacob, who came into Egypt, were seventy.” Thus Moses first says how many souls entered with Jacob into Egypt, namely sixty-six, that is, those who came out of his loins; then he recounts the general total of Jacob’s family that came into Egypt, including together Jacob, Joseph, and his two sons, and says that they were in number seventy. But Deut. 10:22 reads thus: “With seventy souls your fathers went down into Egypt; but now the Lord your God has made you as the stars of heaven for multitude.” Who does not see that Moses is not precisely numbering how many went down into Egypt with Jacob, but is

speaking “as in the whole” (hōs en holō), as they say, for the sake of a round number, which is customary with historians. Accordingly Bellarmine does not interpret Moses, but a phrase born in the Jesuit brain and fastened upon Moses. Thus far two places have been shown in the additions to the book of Esther which conflict with Scriptures that are certainly canonical. Third, in those additions the husband of Esther is said to have been Artaxerxes, namely Longimanus, as Bellarmine wishes; but Scripture, which is without controversy canonical, says that it was Ahasuerus, that is, that great Xerxes. On the contrary, Bellarmine tries to prove in this way that Artaxerxes Longimanus was Esther’s husband: Ahasuerus, Esther’s husband, was either Ahasuerus the father of Darius the Mede, or Cambyses, or Darius Hystaspis, or Artaxerxes Mnemon, or Artaxerxes Longimanus. But he was neither the father of Darius the Mede, nor Cambyses, nor Darius Hystaspis, nor Artaxerxes Mnemon: therefore it remains that he was Artaxerxes. Answer: From an incomplete enumeration the conclusion is faulty: for no mention at all is made of that great Xerxes who was before Artaxerxes Longimanus, and this great Xerxes was Esther’s husband. I will say nothing of the confused review and even the omission of certain other Persian kings. For the kings of the Persians after Cyrus were: Cambyses; upon whose death Smerdis, or Sphendadates as he is called by Ctesias, a Magus who had pretended to be Tanyoxarxes, the brother of Cambyses, usurped the kingdom with an unjust title; therefore he is for the most part not numbered among the legitimate kings; after he was killed, Darius Hystaspis, Xerxes the Great, Artaxerxes makrocheir (µακροχειρ), or Longimanus, Xerxes the younger, who was killed after a few days of rule and therefore is commonly not listed among the kings, Darius Nothus, Artaxerxes Mnemon, Darius Ochus, Arsames, and Darius Codomannus. Of these, that Xerxes the Great, who waged wars against the Greeks, was the husband of Esther, whom Ctesias calls Amestris (Ἀµεστρίς), previously named Hadassah before she came to the king’s bed, and she was not the wife, but the mother, of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Fourth, it is read in the truly canonical history that Haman was an Agagite; but the Agagites were by race Amalekites; whereas those apocryphal additions say that he was by nation a Macedonian. Let the Papists teach us how he who is an Agagite can be a Macedonian. Bellarmine brings forward this objection, but he corrupts it in order to evade it, and answers nothing, because he did not find what to answer. Fifth, it is reported in chaps. 11 and 12 that Bigthan and Teresh, eunuchs, conspired against the king in the second year of his reign; but in chap. 2, which is truly canonical, it is read that that conspiracy took place in the seventh year of Ahasuerus. Bellarmine excepts that the account of the plot which is had in chap. 12, in the Latin Bibles, pertains to the beginning of the book and that there the plot is narrated by anticipation, and that it was in the seventh year, not however in the second, as seems to be gathered from chap. 11, whose words ought from - tended only to Mordecai’s dream, not also to the eunuchs’ treachery.

Reply. Bellarmine’s exception is plainly refuted by the context and the continuation of chapters 11 and 12. For in the last verse of chapter eleven it is said that Mordecai, having awakened after the dream which he had seen, kept it in his mind and by every method wished to understand it until night; and immediately at the beginning of chapter twelve it is subjoined that, as he was resting with Bigthan and Teresh in the vestibule, he understood their conspiracy. Therefore there was not, between Mordecai’s dream and the eunuchs’ plot, an interval of five years, as Bellarmine dreams, but of one day. Now the appearance of anticipation, which Bellarmine says the historian used, is fictitious and runs counter to the narrative’s context. Sixth, it is said in chapter 12, v. 5, that the king gave to Mordecai court service and, before Haman’s misdeeds, grants and gifts because he had detected the conspiracy of Bigthan and Teresh; but in chapter 6, v. 3, in the true divine history it is said that nothing had been conferred upon him until the day when Haman was hanged, namely only many years after the conspiracy was uncovered. Bellarmine denies that this has difficulty: Nay rather, it has, in such a way that Bellarmine has not dissolved it, but increases it; since, whether he will or no, he is compelled to confess that Mordecai did not have a reward for the discovery of the treachery when the king ordered the annals to be read back to him; yet that afterward he had a very great reward, which is described in chapter six. If Mordecai received honors and gifts for detecting the plot only after the annals had at length been reread by the king, as Bellarmine admits, then the narrative of chapter twelve is false, in which it is read that, after court offices and gifts were given to Mordecai, Haman sought to harm him and the Jewish people. Seventh, it is said in chap. 12, v. 6, that Haman sought to do evil to Mordecai and the Israelite people because of those two eunuchs of the king; but the true divine history in chap. 3 tells a quite different cause of Haman’s offense and anger against Mordecai, namely because Mordecai would not worship Haman, although the king had commanded that all should bow themselves to Haman, bending the knee before him. Then it is by no means likely that one so favored with great honors by the king would have wished to avenge the just punishment which had been exacted upon the conspirators. Eighth, it is narrated in chap. 15 that the king, with an angry countenance, gazed upon Esther as she came to him, and that she suffered a swoon; but the contrary is said in chap. 5.2, namely that Esther, when seen by the king, obtained favor in his eyes. Ninth, it is said in chap. 16, v. 13, that Haman sought the queen Esther along with her whole people for destruction; but the true history records that it was unknown to the royal court, and thus even to the king himself and to Haman, that Queen Esther was of the Jewish people and that Mordecai was Esther’s kinsman, until the queen herself, on that very day on which Haman was hanged, declared it to the king. Tenth, chapter sixteen contains letters of King Artaxerxes, both in argument departing very far from those letters whose summary the true divine history recounts in chap. 8, v. 11 and the following, and also differing from the form of the rescripts of the Persian kings, which rescripts the

books of Daniel and Ezra, and even that of Esther itself, prove in several places could never be changed; but those spurious letters show that the rescripts of the Persian kings were wont to be changed. All these things plainly demonstrate that those additions stitched onto the book of Esther clash with truly canonical Scripture, and can in no way be reconciled with it. The Additions to Daniel likewise clash with truly canonical Scriptures. For, first, in chapter thirteen, verse forty-five, it is said that Daniel was a little boy or a younger boy when king Astyages, to whom Cyrus succeeded, held Babylon. But in the first chapter of Daniel it is recorded that Daniel was led into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar the Great together with King Jehoiakim of the Jews, and, in order to provide services to the king, was educated for three years by Ashpenaz, the prefect of the courtiers, that is, master of the court; and, when that period was completed, he served the king with esteem and great dignity; and in the second chapter it is recorded that he was appointed ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and was the highest prefect of the praetorium and chief chamberlain (as the emperors in the Code call him). Now Daniel was led into captivity in the year of the world 3354, according to the computation of Abraham Bucholcer; but the end of the Chaldean monarchy falls, according to the same, in the year of the world 3434. Therefore there are eighty years from Daniel’s captivity to the end of the Chaldean monarchy; to which add as many years as Daniel could have had when he was led away captive, and with which he was already of capacity and fit to understand all wisdom and to receive knowledge; for the king Nebuchadnezzar had ordered such boys to be chosen. Who then will be persuaded that Daniel, the Chaldean monarchy having ended, that is, now at least ninety years old, was still a little boy? Bellarmine excepts that the history of Susanna happened long before the times of Cyrus, when Daniel indeed was a boy, and therefore deservedly is placed by the Greeks at the beginning of the book. But what is said at the end of chap. 13 about Astyages and Cyrus is not referred to the history of Susanna just narrated, but is the beginning of another history under Cyrus. Accordingly, in the Greek codices the history of Susanna is the first chapter of the whole book; but those words about the death of Astyages are put at the beginning of the last chapter, where the history of Bel’s destruction and the dragon’s killing is narrated. Reply. Bellarmine begs the question and asserts things which are at odds with the context of those additions. Next, the Greek edition to which Bellarmine appeals, and in which those additions are arranged in the manner Bellarmine says, is the new one thus adorned by the authority of Sixtus V, Roman Pontiff; but the older Greek editions - the Aldine, the Complutensian, and others - have a very different order. From this it is clear what is to be ascribed to the new Sixtine Greek Edition. Second, in that same chap. 13 it is said that Astyages reigned in Babylon before Cyrus; but the true divine history has nothing about Astyages, and records that from the captivity of the Jewish people Nebuchadnezzar the Great reigned in Babylon, then Evil-merodach his son, then Belshazzar his grandson, to whom Cyrus succeeded (2 Chron. 36.20), who willingly granted the administration of Babylon to Darius the Mede, whose name had previously been Cyaxares, as appears from Dan. 6, the first and last verse; with which agrees what Xenophon writes in the eighth book of the Education of Cyrus.

Third, in that same chap. 13 it is narrated that Daniel’s name became known by the conviction of the false witnesses who had accused Susanna; but from chap. 1 and the following it is clear that it became known in a very different way. Fourth, the things said in chapter fourteen about Daniel’s being sent into the lions’ den clash with those recounted in chapter six in almost all the circumstances. Fifth, in those additions, as they are held among the LXX interpreters, Daniel is said to have been from the priestly tribe; but in chap. 1 it is plainly written that he was from the tribe of Judah. The book of Tobit likewise clashes with the Scriptures that are certainly canonical. For, first, it introduces the angel Raphael as one who lies: because this Raphael lies in saying that he is Azarias and the son of Ananias, chap. 5, v. 15; which good angels never do, as the Holy Scriptures attest. Second, it establishes a hierarchy of seven angels, chap. 12, v. 15, and sets forth things such as Paul, although he was caught up to the third heaven and appointed teacher of the Gentiles, was unwilling to utter, 2 Cor. 12.2. Third, that Raphael says that he is one of the seven angels who stand before the Lord - understand, as it were, as secretaries and messengers, and those who carry the prayers of the saints to the Lord. But truly canonical Scriptures say that a thousand thousands serve him and ten thousand times ten thousand stand before him, Dan. 7.10. The same teach that there is one Mediator, who carries the prayers of the saints to God, who Mediator is Jesus Christ the Son of God. But what this Raphael puts forward is magical and Talmudic, proceeding from the Jews, who assign the day of the Sun to Raphael, the day of the Moon to Gabriel, the day of Mars to Samael, the day of Mercury to Michael, the day of Jupiter to Tzidiel, the day of Venus to Hanael, the day of the Sabbath to Repharjel, and make them the chief ministers of the whole administration of divine government. The book of Judith likewise clashes with truly canonical Scriptures. For, first, the history which is recounted in it is said, chap. 5, v. 23, to have happened in the time of Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians, after the return of the Jewish people from captivity, and after the temple of Jerusalem had been leveled to the ground, which is added in the Greek text. But the true divine history acknowledges no Nebuchadnezzar, monarch of the Assyrians, after the return of the people from the Babylonian captivity, but teaches that the Assyrians were subject to the monarchies of the Persians and the Medes. Bellarmine makes three exceptions: first, that the history of Judith is to be referred to the times of Manasseh, whom the king of the Assyrians captured and led away to Babylon (2 Chronicles 33), but God, when he repented, freed him from captivity and brought him back to Jerusalem. Bellarmine, however, leans on this argument, that at that time there lived the high priest Eliakim, of whom mention is made in the book of Judith and in 4 Kings 18, who was the successor of Shebna the unclean pontiff, whose deposition is foretold in Isa. 22. The second is that in Judith 5. it is not a matter of the last Babylonian captivity, because the Babylonian captivity was carried out by one people, the Chaldeans, but that one in Judith 5 by many nations; because the Babylonian captivity was general, in which all were led away, whereas in Judith 5 many are said to

have been led away. The third is that the words about the temple having been leveled to the ground (Judith 5.21) are spurious in the Greek text, because Jerome, who most faithfully translated the book from the Chaldee, did not set them down. Reply. First, Bellarmine refers the history of Judith to the times of Manasseh on a false argument, because neither Shebna nor Eliakim were priests, but prefects of the royal house, that is, prefects of the praetorium and great masters of the court, as they now call them, as is clear from 4 Kings 18 and Isaiah 22. The same is evident from the genealogy and catalog of the priests in 1 Chronicles 6, in whose survey no Shebna, no Eliakim appears. Second, in Jer. 34. it is read that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and all his forces and all the kingdoms of the earth under his dominion, and all the peoples, attacked Jerusalem: therefore not one nation of the Chaldeans alone. Then not all the Jews were led away captive by Nebuchadnezzar, but very many. Wherefore Bellarmine’s reasons do not prove that in Judith 5 it is a matter of a captivity other than the Babylonian. Third, those Greek words in Judith 5. are not spurious, both because they were long ago received, as the testimony of the holy Fathers shows, and because they were also retained in the Roman Edition from the Vatican Library, as also in the Plantin Edition of the year 1584, with an interlinear translation. Second, in chap. 9, vv. 2 - 3, the deed of Simeon the murderer - who, with the help of his brother Levi, slew the Shechemites by treachery and plundered their city, as is read in Gen. 34 - is, I say, extolled by Judith with the highest praises; which deed is condemned by the Holy Spirit through the patriarch Jacob, Gen. 34.30, and more plainly in chap. 49.5. Ecclesiasticus, or the Book of Jesus the son of Sirach, likewise contains manifest errors that conflict with the books that are truly divine and canonical. For, first, in chap. 46 (Vulgate) it is said that Samuel (the true one, namely) prophesied after his death. But God does not will that the dead be consulted or that truth be learned from the dead, as is clear from Deut. 18.11, Isa. 8.19, Luke 16.30. Then, if it were established that the souls of the departed return to many errors would arise from this: for demons could assume human forms and say that they are such-and-such men, and that they have risen from the dead, and they would therefore spread many false dogmas, and that with a view to deceiving and destroying men, as Athanasius pronounces in a similar argument, in the book of Questions to Prince Antiochus, question thirty-five, volume two of the Commelin edition, page 284. Moreover, the soul of no saint, much less of a prophet, can be called back by diabolic arts, as Tertullian, treating of Samuel himself, teaches in the book On the Soul, chapter 57. Likewise other Fathers teach that it was not the true Samuel, as Justin Martyr in the book of Questions and Answers to the Orthodox, question fifty-two; Jerome, volume nine, in the Commentaries on Matthew, chapter 6, says that in the phantom of Samuel the pythoness spoke to Saul: “Tomorrow you will be with me.” Augustine, volume three, book two On Christian Doctrine, chapter 23, twice calls that cloaked old man, summoned by the pythoness, the image of Samuel. In the same volume, book 2 On the Marvels of Scripture, chapter 11, it is said that the one who appeared to Saul was not the true Samuel, but the devil, who transforms himself into an angel of light - although Erasmus of Rotterdam judges that the books On the Marvels of Holy Scripture are not Augustine’s. And in volume four, book two To Simplician, question three, Augustine says

that it is simpler for us to believe that the spirit of Samuel was not truly aroused from his rest, but that some phantom and imaginary illusion was brought about by the devil’s machinations; and he confirms this with more arguments in the same place. He repeats the same in the book On the Eight Questions of Dulcitius, question six. And in the book On the Care to Be Taken for the Dead, chapter 15, he bears witness that to many it seems it was not Samuel himself, but an evil spirit. And in the book of Questions on the Old and New Testament, chapter twenty-seven, he denies that the true Samuel appeared to Saul; although Erasmus of Rotterdam judges that that book of Questions on the Old and New Testament is not Augustine’s - which does nothing to harm our position: for if that book is not Augustine’s, but some other author’s, then, besides Augustine, several other ecclesiastical Doctors judged that the true Samuel did not appear to Saul. In canon law itself, Cause 26, Question 5, chapter Nec mirum, it is expressly taught that it was not the true Samuel, but Satan, lying in the guise of Samuel. This error, therefore, in the book of Ecclesiasticus is not to be tolerated. Second, in chapter 48, verse 10, he says that Elijah the Tishbite himself is going to come again in his own time, to allay the angry judgment of the Lord joined with wrath, so that he may turn the heart of the father to the son and establish the tribes of Jacob. But this sufficiently proves the ignorance of the author of the book, who is blind in the promises concerning the kingdom of Christ. For we know from the testimony of Christ our Savior that the other Elijah who was to come is John the Baptist. The books of the Maccabees likewise conflict with the truly canonical Scriptures. First, in book 1, chapter 1, there is a reference to the prophecy of Daniel 9:27 concerning the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, as though that were fulfilled when Antiochus Epiphanes set up an idol in the Jerusalem temple. But Christ, Matthew 24, asserts that that prophecy was to be fulfilled in the siege and destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple. Wherefore Cajetan the Cardinal did not hesitate to affirm, on Matthew 24, that the author of the history of the Maccabees is wrong about Daniel’s prophecy. But the Holy Spirit is never wont to err in interpreting Scripture. Bellarmine excepts that in the book of the Maccabees there is no mention of Daniel’s prophecy, but only that Antiochus’s idol is called the detestable idol of desolation: Reply. Even if the author does not name Daniel, nevertheless the very words which he adduces and which appear in Daniel plainly show that he had regard to Daniel’s prophecy. For thus he says in verse 57: “They constructed the abomination of desolation upon the altar.” But in Daniel 9:27 it is said, “upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate; even until the consummation, and that determined, desolation shall be poured out upon the desolate.” If the author of the history of the book of the Maccabees had regard to this prophecy, he undoubtedly erred. But if he had regard to the prophecy of Daniel 11:31 and 12:11, in which likewise there is mention of the abomination that makes desolate, then he cannot be accused of error; although the author of the history understood not the idol of Antiochus, which was the statue of Zeus Olympius, as Bellarmine interprets it, but an abominable altar, by which the worship of God lay desolate, as is evident from verse 62 of chapter 1 of book 1 of the Maccabees; and that Antiochus’s altar was set upon the altar of the Lord, Josephus teaches in book 12 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter 7.

Then, in book two of the Maccabees, chapter 1, it is said that the Jews were led away into Persia. But from the truly canonical books it is certain that they were led away, not into Persia, but into Babylon. Bellarmine replies that the author of the book calls Persia not only that region which is properly called Persis, but also the neighboring ones; and that this is evident from 1 Maccabees 6, where the messenger who came to Antiochus in Babylon is said to have come to him in Persia; likewise that Chrysostom in the sixth homily on Matthew said that the Jews were delivered from the Persian captivity. Reply. This new chorographer fashions whatever chorography he wishes. But Persis is not Babylonia; nor does it include Babylonia. Then the example adduced from 1 Maccabees 6 is false. For indeed Antiochus intended to return to Babylon, but he died in the mountains of Persis, as is read in 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees 1 and 9:28. Therefore that messenger had to have come into Persia, since Antiochus was fleeing from Elymais. Chrysostom’s way of speaking also does not help the Papists: for he calls it the Persian captivity, not because the Jews had been led away into Persia, but because they were still kept in captivity by the king of the Persians, who had seized the Babylonian monarchy. Thus Bellarmine plays on an equivocation, Third, in that same second book of the Maccabees, chapter 2, it is related that Jeremiah hid the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant in a certain cave of Mount Nebo, and said that that place would be hidden until God should again gather his people. But these things are not consistent with those facts from which it is clear that Jeremiah could not have hidden the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant, since he was in prison until the day when Jerusalem was taken, where he was when Jerusalem was captured, as is read in Jeremiah 38, last verse. It is likewise established that the Chaldeans either plundered everything or burned it or hewed it with axes. Moreover, while the temple was standing intact, Jeremiah would not have entered the Holy of Holies, into which by divine command it was permitted to no one to enter except the high priest, and that once a year; nor would the priests and princes, who were most hostile to Jeremiah, have allowed these things to be carried away while the temple stood, because they did not believe Jeremiah when he foretold the destruction of the city and the temple. Then the Jews, returned from the Babylonian transportation, never had these four, namely the ark of the covenant, the mercy seat, that is, its cherubim, the Urim and Thummim with its breastpiece, and the anointing oil, as all the Hebrews, for as long as memory runs, confess; and this agrees with the sacred history, Ezra 2:63 and Nehemiah 7:65; and it is also repeated by Nicholas of Lyra on Maccabees 6. Bellarmine excepts three things: first, that Jeremiah could have hidden those things either in the time of Jehoiachin, or Jeconiah, who at Jeremiah’s persuasion surrendered himself to King Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah 29; or when the city was captured, because Jeremiah was held in high esteem by King Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah 39. Second, that those things were not taken away by the soldiers is clear from Jeremiah 52, where even the smallest things that were taken away are enumerated; but no mention is made of the ark and the tabernacle. Third, that the discovery of the things hidden by Jeremiah either is to be made a little before Christ’s coming to judgment, as

Epiphanius wishes in the Life of Jeremiah, or that it is to be understood mystically, that the ark will appear - that is, that Christ will come in the flesh in a new gathering of the people - as Rupert explains. Reply. First, the whole exception consists of mere conjectures. That Jeremiah did not hide those things in the time of Jehoiachin or Jeconiah is certain: because six years after the deportation of Jehoiachin or Jeconiah, the ark was still in the Jerusalem temple, as is evident from Ezekiel 9:3 and chapter 10:1 and the following, where it is indicated that the glory of Jehovah then still sat upon the cherubim, namely upon the ark of the covenant, and afterwards departed. Second, Bellarmine argues from a particular authority negatively, and therefore badly: “There is no mention of the ark and the tabernacle in Jeremiah 52 among the things that were taken away by the Chaldeans; therefore the ark and the tabernacle were not taken away.” Then it is no wonder that no mention of them is made in Jeremiah 52: for the Chaldeans carried off the bronze, silver, and gold, Jeremiah 52:17 and the following; but the wooden things, to which belong the ark, the tabernacle, and the other things, were burned with the temple, Jeremiah 52:13. Third, Bellarmine again plays the guesser and soothsayer concerning the time when the ark was to be found again. He says that either that would happen at the last time before the day of judgment, or that it has already happened mystically at the time of Christ’s coming in the flesh. Thus he only opines; he affirms nothing certain, and does not know at what time the discovery of the ark ought to have taken place, nor even whether that discovery is to be understood properly or mystically. Such is the certainty in Jesuit theology. But besides, he relies on the writing of Epiphanius On the Life of Jeremiah, which is known to be pseudepigraphal and spurious. Then he shows that a certain interpretation of Scripture cannot be sought from the Fathers by the fact that he brings forward dissenting interpretations of the Fathers: Epiphanius interprets the discovery of the ark one way, Rupert another. Which therefore is to be followed? Moreover, if Epiphanius’s interpretation is true and to be admitted, then the legal types would have to be restored in the consummation of the Gospel of the Christian Church - which conflicts with the Old and New Testament, which teach that the legal types had to be abrogated, Christ fulfilling them. But if Rupert’s mystical interpretation is true, why was it necessary for that ark and tabernacle to be kept in a cave? Fourth, in that same second book, chapter fourteen, the deed of Razias, or Rezaiah, who killed himself, is commended, on the ground that he did it nobly and manfully. But this conflicts with the precept of the Decalogue, “You shall not kill,” namely neither yourself nor another. Bellarmine excepts that the deaths of Eleazar in book 1, chapter 6, and of Razias in book 2, chapter 14, are narrated in Scripture, not praised - or at least not praised as though they acted piously and holily - but as though, in human judgment, boldly, manfully, and bravely. Reply. We do not censure Eleazar’s deed: for it was an act of martial courage. The deed of Razias, or Rezaiah, is praised by the author of the second book of the Maccabees contrary to the truth of law and the duty of history, by harping on the words “nobly, manfully,” and in wondrous ways extolling Razias.

Fifth, in book two, chapter 12, the perverse zeal and superstitious deed of Judas Maccabaeus is praised, who ordered a sacrifice to be offered for the dead - indeed for men bound and polluted by sacrilege - because they had pilfered things consecrated to idols contrary to the prohibition of Deuteronomy 7, and had hidden those accursed things under their garments, and, slain in that crime, had perished. But Judas Maccabaeus on this account was not to be praised, who ordered that such a sacrifice be made for the dead. Moreover, whatever is done in religion without a divine precept displeases God, and merits censure, not praise. Then self-willed devotions (ἐθελοθρησκείαι) have always been condemned in the divine Scriptures. Then for those who remained in sacrilege and thus, even by the Papists’ own concession, in mortal sin, no sacrifice ought to have been offered. Bellarmine excepts three things: First, that to pray for the dead whose being in heaven or in hell is not certain is pious and religious. Next, that it is enough to oppose Augustine, who from this very passage proves that to be pious to pray for the dead in Epistle 61 to Dulcitius, in the first book On the Morals of the Church, chapter twenty-three, and in the book On Care for the Dead, chapter one. Therefore there is so great a difference between the spirit of Augustine and of Calvin, that Augustine, because he believes the books of the Maccabees to be canonical, infers from that that it is pious to pray for the dead; but Calvin, because he thinks it is evil to pray for the dead, concludes from that that the books of the Maccabees are not canonical. Third, that Judas piously supposed that those for whom he ordered sacrifice to be offered, at the point of death had conceived sorrow for their sin before God, and had found mercy with the Lord, as those words signify: What was he considering, that those who had received their sleep with piety would have the best grace laid up? REPLY. First, to pray for the dead, that their sins may be forgiven them by God, is not pious and religious: because it rests neither on a precept of God nor on any proved example of the divine Scripture. Second, the first two passages are adduced from Augustine falsely: for although Augustine in them cites the second book of Maccabees, yet by no means does he from this deed of Judas prove that it is pious to pray for the dead: indeed he does not even make mention of this question or of the deed, but in the Epistle to Dulcitius he treats the title Against the arrogance (auchereia) of the Donatists, who were trying to defend themselves by the example of Rahab, which example Augustine does not defend, indeed he does not ascribe to the books of the Maccabees the authority of canonical letters, from which he not obscurely distinguishes them, when he says that the Donatists, pressed by the utmost lack of examples, after searching all ecclesiastical authorities, scarcely found an example in the books of the Maccabees, in which there are very many things of those men also who are praised by the truth of those letters, either not suitable for the present time, or even not rightly done at that time. But in the first book On the Morals of the Catholic Church, chapter twenty-three, the books of the Maccabees are indeed called Scriptures, but equivocally and in a broad sense; yet they are not there called canonical, nor is anything there about prayer for the dead, nor about this deed of Judas. Finally, the book On Care for the Dead, although it treats this question, nevertheless contains so many hesitations that, by its own chill, it ought rightly to quench the heat of foolish zeal, if anyone is eager to be a patron of prayers for the

dead. Certainly with chilly plausibilities it will set at ease those who were previously anxious. For this is its one prop, because the custom has prevailed that prayers be said for the dead, that this office is not to be despised. Third, Judas did not suppose that those who had perished under the anathema had, at the point of death, grieved for their sin and obtained mercy from God: nor does the author of the history say that Judas thought this, but only inserts, as is his wont, his own judgment about Judas’s deed, being so skilled in the Law, as to praise sacrifices for the dead, which plainly is contrary to the Law. Then even if Judas had thought that, yet it would only have been an opinion in favor of the soldiers, whose service he needed, and not certain knowledge conceived from any declaration of repentance of those dead men, since nothing is narrated of their repentance, but rather those things are recounted from which it is gathered that they did not repent, v. 40 & Thus it has been abundantly proved that these disputed books clash with the truly canonical Scriptures, and therefore do not contain divine and first truth: and thus far indeed the first reason - The second reason is, because certain of those books so fight with themselves that they cannot be reconciled: As in chapter three of the book of Tobit, verse seven, in the Latin Vulgate edition, it is said that Sara the daughter of Raguel dwelt in Rages, a city of the Medes: and in chapter four, verse twenty-one, it is said that in the same city dwelt Gabelus, to whom Tobias the Younger had been sent by his father. And in chapter six it is said that Tobias came with Raphael into that city Rages, and there took Sara as wife: Yet in chapter nine it is said that Tobias the Younger, after he had celebrated the wedding with Sara living in Rages, a city of the Medes, sent Azarias or Raphael with servants and camels into Rages, a city of the Medes, whither he went and brought Gabelus back with him. These things are irreconcilable (adiállakta). Bellarmine answers, either that there were two Rages in Media, or certainly that in chapter three Rages is not called the city itself, but some neighboring place, just as he is said to dwell at Rome who dwells at Tusculum, or elsewhere in the Roman countryside: that this opinion is the more common and the true one. REPLY. We deny it. For if there had been two cities or two places by this name in Media, something would have been added for the sake of distinction, that they might be distinguished from each other, which we see done elsewhere in Scripture: as Bethlehem Judaea is said, Matt. 2. v. 1., to distinguish it from the other which was in the tribe of Zebulun, that is, in lower Galilee. If Abel is the name of two towns, the one of the Manassites, the other of the Ephraimites: the town of the former is, for the sake of distinction, called Abel-Bethmaacha, but that of the latter Abel- Mehula. Then Bellarmine will not persuade Cicero that he dwells at Rome who dwells at Tusculum. Likewise the first and second book of Maccabees clash with each other. For in the first book, chapter four, Judas Maccabaeus is read to have cleansed the temple in the one hundred and forty- eighth year, one year before the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, who died in the year 149, as is read in the same first book, chapter six, verse sixteen. This is contradicted by the second book, in whose tenth chapter it is held that Judas cleansed the temple two years after the death of Antiochus.

Bellarmine excepts, that the two years of which 2 Macc. 10 treats are not to be understood after the death of Antiochus, but after the profanation of the temple. REPLY. The order of the narrative in the second book of Maccabees attests otherwise, whatever Bellarmine may invent. Then in the first book, chapter six, it is said that Antiochus Epiphanes died in Babylonia in his bed, from anguish of mind, because his affairs had not succeeded as he had wished: But in the second book, chapter one, it is narrated that he himself was overwhelmed with stones and cut in pieces in his limbs in the temple of Nanaea, that is, of Diana, as Josephus interprets, as if he said “maiden”; And again in the second book, chapter nine, verse twenty-eight, it is said that he died a wanderer in the mountains, namely of Persia, both from an internal pain of his bowels, and because he fell from his chariot on the journey. He must have been a monster, whose life so many deaths in such different places took away. Bellarmine, making an exception, acknowledges that in all these places the subject is Antiochus Epiphanes, but denies that they conflict: because it is not necessary to affirm that Antiochus Epiphanes perished in the temple of Nanaea because it is said that he fell: for he can be said to have fallen, since his army was routed and put to flight: Just as in Gen. 14 the divine Scripture relates that the king of Sodom fell in battle, who yet a little later, alive, went to meet Abraham the victor. In the same sense Antiochus is said to have fallen, since his army was slain and struck; and he himself, having escaped in disgraceful flight, perhaps also wounded, on the very journey, seized with pains of the bowels, fell from the chariot, and afterward, thus sick, could have come to Babylon, and there, with grief of mind added from the message brought to him of the ill success in Judaea by his men, at length could have died. REPLY. First, Bellarmine could have slipped out more easily, if he had denied that Antiochus is said to have died at Babylon, since in 1 Macc. 6:16 it is not expressly said; and if he had said that in 2 Macc. 1 it is to be understood not of Antiochus himself, but of the commander who preceded Antiochus with the soldiers, as slain in the temple of Nanaea: but so as to entangle himself more, he grants that Antiochus died at Babylon in his bed, and says that the same Antiochus fell in the temple of Nanaea, since his army was routed and put to flight: and that the verb “to fall” is to be taken in the same way as in Gen. 14:10 concerning the king of Sodom, whom Scripture relates to have fallen in the battle, and yet a little after to have met Abraham the victor while living. But in 2 Macc. 1 Antiochus is not said to have fallen in the temple of Nanaea in the Greek text, whose words are v. 13: “κατεκόπησαν ἐν τῷ τῆς Ναναίας ἱερῷ,” that is, the forces of Antiochus were cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea. Wherefore the Latin Vulgate version, which has, “he fell in the temple of Nanaea,” is faulty or at least ambiguous. Faulty, if the verb “fell” is referred to Antiochus. Ambiguous indeed, because the same verb can be referred either to Antiochus or to the army of Antiochus: therefore it can be excused, if it be said that that verb “fell” is to be understood of that army, of which the preceding words in the version speak: for the whole verse is: “When he himself, the leader, was in Persia, and with him an immense army, he fell in the temple of Nanaea, deceived by the counsel of the priests of Nanaea.” And from the Greek text it is certain that the verb “fell” is to be referred to the army; but Bellarmine falsely refers it to Antiochus. Then the example brought

from Gen. 14:10 does not prove Bellarmine’s interpretation, asserting that Antiochus fell because his army was routed and put to flight: for the king of Sodom “fell,” that is, he cast himself down and of his own accord rushed into a pit or well, that he might look to his own safety and by hiding might escape the hands of his enemies, which also happened; therefore afterward he goes to meet Abraham the victor. But as to the place of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes it must be determined thus. He did not die at Babylon, but when he had in mind to return to Babylon, after he had fled from Elymais, having tried in vain by force at Persepolis to plunder the treasures of Nanaea or Diana, a message came to him, while he was still making his way through the mountains of Persia, from Judaea, which reported that his forces in Judaea had been routed and put to flight, the camp plundered, the temple at Jerusalem recovered by the Jews and religion restored: which message having been received, he was so, by a divine judgment, confounded and with grief of mind, because he had not been able to carry out what he had planned, broken, that he suddenly fell into a very violent disease, by which, still lingering in the same mountains of Persia, he perished. 1 Macc. 6. 2 Macc. 1 and 9:28. Moreover, in 1 Macc. 9 Judas is said to have been slain by the army of Bacchides, in the one hundred and fifty-second year, namely of the reign of the Seleucids: But in the second book, ch. 1, v. 10, he is said to have written a letter in the one hundred and eighty-eighth year. Which, if it were true, he would have written it in the thirty-sixth year after his death. Other Papists make different exceptions, all of whom Bellarmine himself refutes, and maintains that the number of the years 188 is not the beginning of the following letter, which Judas wrote, but the end of the preceding one, as the Greek codices show, in which, after those words, “In the year 188,” a division is set. REPLY. That exception is false, as the inspection and comparison themselves, both of the Latin version and of the Greek text, plainly show. Certainly the Antwerp edition of Arias Montanus of the year 1584, and the Frankfurt Greek of the year 1597, refer the number of the year 188 to the following letter of Judas, not to the preceding: Nor did Vatablus distinguish otherwise, who compared and followed the Greek codices most diligently. Then if the Greek edition is rather to be followed here than the Latin; then the Latin is false. Why then has the Latin been pronounced authentic by the Tridentine fathers, from which it is permitted to no one under any pretext to depart under pain of anathema? Further, in book 2, ch. 10, Antiochus Eupator, the son of Epiphanes, is written, after taking the kingdom, to have placed Lysias over affairs: But from book 1, ch. 6, v. 13, it is clear that Lysias had presided over affairs long before, and that he appointed as king Antiochus, the son of Epiphanes, whom he had brought up as a youth, and gave him the name Eupator. To this Bellarmine makes no exception: Likewise, the narrative of chapter eleven differs much from chapter six of the first book of Maccabees, and also from Josephus. Moreover, the story about certain miraculous victories of the Jews, ch. 13, v. 19 and following, does not agree with 1 Macc. 6:31 and following.

Furthermore, the narrative of ch. 14, v. 16 and following of 1 Maccabees either shakes the authority of Josephus, or, by the contrary authority of those (which to me seems certainly more certain), they are shaken. These contradictions of the first and second book of Maccabees are so evident that they can by no true defense be reconciled, if the Latin Vulgate version approved by the Tridentine Synod is retained. Therefore, since all these things hang so badly together among themselves, they offer manifest signs of falsity, and prove that the books of Maccabees do not contain divine truth. This is the second reason. The third reason is that these disputed books contain fabulous tales and things alien to historical faith. For concerning the additions to Daniel, Jerome himself writes in this way in the preface to Daniel: “Among the Hebrews, Daniel has neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the tales of Bel and the Dragon; which we, because they are spread through the whole world, have set forth with a stake placed in front and striking them down” (i.e., we have prefixed a pole and killed them). And Augustine, in the third volume, second book of the Marvels of Sacred Scripture, chapter thirty-two, says: “As to the pit again and Habakkuk’s being transported, in the tale of Bel and the Dragon, for this reason it is not placed in this order, because it is not held in the authority of divine Scripture.”[1] In like manner it is fabulous and alien to the fidelity of history that the Jews in Babylon should have had juridical or judicial assemblies under Joakim; that they elected, moreover, annual magistrates who would govern the people; that jurisdiction of the mere imperium was in their hands, that is, the criminal inquiry and sentence of capital law, under an alien dominion; that even a youth, who had never received the legitimate power of bearing magistracy, recalled the people into judgment and instituted a new hearing of the crime; that an examination of witnesses was conducted by him; finally, that more freedom and a greater liberty were procured by him in the royal city of the Babylonians than ever was permitted to their own nation among the Jews in their commonwealth and their own region. Surely such things are not granted to the conquered, to captives and exiles among their victors. In the book of Tobit, the story of Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, despoiled of seven husbands by the demon Asmodeus, proceeds from the portentous fables of the Jews, who in the Syrian tongue call Asmodeus the prince of the demons, by which name he is nowhere called in the canonical Scriptures. In the book of Judith, ch. 1, it is said that after the return of the Jewish people from captivity, Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians fought against Arphaxad king of the Medes, who had built Ecbatana, which is alien to the truth of history. For at the time when Nebuchadnezzar reigned, the Assyrian monarchy had been overthrown; and after the return of the Jewish people from captivity, not Nebuchadnezzar, but Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, and other Persian kings held sway. Bellarmine excepts, that the history of Judith befell after the return of Manasseh from Babylonian captivity, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was still reigning.

Reply. Not even so can the historical credibility of the book of Judith be maintained. For many things show that the events recorded in it could not have taken place after Manasseh’s return from captivity. First, in the fourth chapter it is narrated that Joakim, or, as the Latin Vulgate has it, Eliakim the High Priest who was at Jerusalem, did everything that was necessary to resist Holofernes, both in the kingdom of Judah and in the neighboring places. Yet in the time of Manasseh no Joakim or Eliakim presided over the high priesthood, nor is it likely that he rather by letters managed the affairs of the kingdom than the king did. Bellarmine excepts, that it is not to be wondered at that Eliakim the priest wrote to all the Hebrews and then went around all Israel to exhort them to steadfastness; because even in the time of Hezekiah the same Eliakim, although he was not yet high priest, did many things in the king’s name, as is clear from 4 Kings 18; and Isaiah had foretold in ch. 22 that Eliakim would be as it were a father to all who dwell at Jerusalem. And then especially it is credible that the highest and most perilous matters were transacted by the high priest, when king Manasseh had returned from captivity and had turned seriously to God. Reply. No Joakim or Eliakim in the time of Hezekiah or Manasseh was high priest, as is clear from the catalogue in 1 Chronicles 6, where the priests are listed who were until the Babylonian captivity, among whom there is no Joakim or Eliakim. Moreover, in the time of Hezekiah the high priest at Jerusalem was Azariah, 2 Chronicles 31:10, 13. Then Eliakim, of whom 4 Kings 18 and Isaiah 22 speak, was not high priest, but prefect of the royal household, that is, steward, as was said above. Besides, at that time it was not granted to the high priest to handle the political affairs of the kingdom, which kind of power the Roman Pope by force usurps for himself in the Christian realms. Second, in that same first chapter it is narrated that the Babylonian envoys sent by Nebuchadnezzar were treated as nothing by the Jews and sent back with ignominy. But if Nebuchadnezzar had sent envoys to the Jews after Manasseh had been released from captivity, it is not likely that the Jews would have made light of them and sent them away with ignominy; for the Jews had already experienced both the power and the clemency of the Babylonians. Third, it is reported in the fifth chapter that when Holofernes learned that the people of the Jews were preparing their defense, he, enraged, summoned all the leaders, and asked them carefully about the people, about the region, about their cities, about their power, about the kind of their warfare, about a king or prince, as if he had never heard anything about the nation of the Jews. Yet the Chaldeans had already previously brought war upon this people, had ravaged Judea, had taken Jerusalem, had led king Manasseh away to Babylon, as is read in 2 Chronicles 33:11. Therefore, it is not even likely that the things Holofernes inquired about could have been unknown to him. Fourth, Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, states in ch. 5, v. 21, that the Jerusalem temple of God was leveled with the ground when the people were led captive into a foreign land; for thus the Greek text has it in the edition of Arias Montanus printed at Antwerp by Plantin, 1524: “… Et captivi ducti sunt in terram non propriam, et templum Dei eorum factum est in pavimentum, et

civitates eorum captae sunt ab adversariis” (Greek text cited). But either, as Bellarmine would have it, the history of Judith did not take place in the time of Manasseh, or it clashes with true history, which relates that the temple was leveled with the ground only in the time of Zedekiah. Bellarmine excepts that this about the overthrow of the temple is only in the Greek, not however in the Latin version. Reply. So much the less authority does the Latin Vulgate edition have, which does not even agree with the Greek text. In the second book of Maccabees, ch. 1, there are recounted fabulous and fictitious miracles: the hiding by the priests of the sacred fire taken from the altar in a dry well; its conversion into a thick water; and the kindling, in the presence of Nehemiah, of the sacrifice and a great pyre from that water. If so great a miracle had been done in the presence of Nehemiah, either he in his own book or some other prophet contemporary with him would have recorded it, or at least the Jews, so eager to extol their nation that they have not overlooked even the minutest things that could contribute to its exaltation and commendation, would have noted it in their books. In the second chapter of the same book the story is plainly fabulous about the hiding of the ark of the covenant by Jeremiah, to be found again when the people were brought back from captivity - a story which not even the most shameless Jews would approve, among whom it is common that the five ornaments which were in the first temple, among which is the ark of the covenant, were lacking in the second. Therefore, since these disputed books both clash with the truly canonical Scriptures and even fight against themselves, and recount many fabulous things and matters alien to historical faith, it is manifest that they by no means contain divine truth, and therefore are not truly and univocally canonical. Thus far the third common argument: it follows. Fourth. Whichever books the ancient Catholic Church read only for the edification of the people in morals, and not, however, for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas - these are not truly and univocally canonical. These disputed books the ancient Catholic Church read only for the edification of the people in morals, and not, however, for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas. Therefore they are not truly and univocally canonical. The major is most certain; for God gave all the truly canonical books to the Church not only for the edification of the people in morals, but also for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas, as is clear from 2 Tim. 3:15 - 16. The assumption is manifest from the testimonies of the ancient Fathers. Athanasius, in the Synopsis of Sacred Scripture, says of these disputed books that they are read only to catechumens; and in the thirty-ninth festal Epistle, that they were set forth by the fathers to be read by those who first draw near and wish to be simply taught the discourse of piety, that is, moral instructions leading to piety, not dogmas pertaining to the truth of faith. Jerome, in the Preface to the books of Solomon, says: “Therefore just as the Church indeed reads Judith and Tobit and the books of Maccabees, but does

not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also let it read these two volumes (namely Jesus the son of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon) for the edification of the people, not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.” Rufinus, presbyter of Aquileia, in the exposition of the Apostles’ Creed ascribed by others to Cyprian, in sections thirty-five and thirty-six, after he had spoken about the truly canonical volumes: “These are what the Fathers have enclosed within the canon, from which they wished the assertions of our faith to be established”; a little later, enumerating the books disputed between us and the Papists, he says of them: “All these they indeed wished to be read in the churches, but not, however, to be produced for the authority of confirming the faith from them.”[2] Hugh Cardinal of St. Cher, in the Exposition of Jerome’s Prologue to the books of Kings, says of these books: “Such the Church receives, not for the proof of the faith, but for the instruction of morals.”[3] Fifth. All the books of the Old Testament that are truly canonical are in the Hebrew canon; these disputed books are not in the Hebrew canon; therefore, etc. The major is most certain; because whatever books were believed by the Jewish Church to be from God, so as to serve for the authority of religion - these are in the Hebrew canon. But all the books of the Old Testament that are truly canonical were believed by the Jewish Church to be from God, so as to serve for the authority of religion; therefore all the books of the Old Testament that are truly canonical are in the Hebrew canon. The major proposition of the prosyllogism is determinate or limited; for two sorts of books were written in the time of the Old Testament: some by divine inspiration for the authority of religion; others by human diligence for a fuller knowledge of matters either political or philosophical, as Augustine distinguishes in book eighteen of the City of God, chapter thirty-eight. Now not all those books were believed by the Jewish Church to be from God, but only those that ought to serve for the authority of religion. For to what end would books political or philosophical be believed by the Church? But that all the books pertaining to the authority of religion are in the Hebrew canon is manifest. First, because Ezra the prophet and priest, who after the Babylonian captivity reviewed and restored all the books of the Old Testament, as Bellarmine himself teaches and confesses in book two On the Word of God, chapter one, section six and the following, did not place more books in the divine canon than those which are now in it.[4] Next, neither the prophets, nor Christ, nor the apostles ever accused the Jewish Church of having diminished and torn apart the canon of the prophetic books, or of having cut away any prophetic books. But if it had done so, it would have entangled itself in a very great crime, and they would have upbraided it with so great and so detestable a crime. or the prophets, or Christ himself, or the apostles would have upbraided them. For if the deed of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, who took care that the scroll of the prophet Jeremiah be cut up and burned, is so greatly condemned in Jer. 36; if the Jews were severely rebuked by Christ and the apostles because they misinterpreted some Scriptures, much more would they have been rebuked for the violation and casting away of so many books. For it is far more wicked and detestable to remove entire divine books than to interpret certain passages falsely. But never did the prophets, never CHRIST, never the apostles, never any of the ancient Christians accuse the Jewish church of

having rejected any canonical book or cut it off from the canon. Rather, the ancient Jewish church preserved with the greatest care of fidelity all the books divinely inspired and delivered by the prophets, as Josephus is witness in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chapters 9 and 10. Justin Martyr, in the Exhortation to the Greeks, page eleven of the Commelinian edition, says: That even now among the Jews books of piety are kept is a work of divine providence for us. For lest, if bringing them forth from the Church (namely, the Christian [Church]), we should furnish to those wishing to assail us with curses an occasion for alleging that they have been foisted in by us or corrupted, we produce them from their synagogue, so that from the very books preserved among them up to this day it may plainly and manifestly appear that the rights enacted by the holy men pertain to us and to our doctrine. And although in the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, on page two hundred and thirty and the following, he accuses the Jews of having removed many passages from the version of the interpreters, the Seventy, which he lists there; nevertheless he is not speaking about the Hebrew canon, and he does not so much as mention by a word these disputed books, which he by no means would have omitted if they had once been delivered by God to the Jews and afterwards cut out by them. Next, Bellarmine himself, by the most weighty arguments and testimonies, book 2 On the Word of God, chapter 2, proves that the Jews by no means corrupted the Scriptures, and he extols the incredible reverence of the Jews toward the sacred books. Hence it is the common judgment of the ancient Fathers that the Jews were the faithful trustees of the sacred books, and the scribes and librarians of the Christians. The minor proposition of the prosyllogism is likewise certain from the testimony of the apostle Paul, Rom. 3:2, where he teaches that the chief token of the excellence or prerogative of the Jews is that to them were entrusted the oracles of GOD. Sixth. All the books truly canonical in the Old Testament were written in the Hebrew language. But these disputed books were not written in the Hebrew language: therefore they are not truly canonical. The major proposition is Bellarmine’s own, who in book two On the Word of God, chapter one, section nine, says: It is certain that the holy books, besides Ezra and Daniel, were written in the Hebrew language, and in that very [language] in which Adam and Eve, and all the patriarchs spoke. That Bellarmine excepts the books of Ezra and Daniel is not to be understood as though they were not written in the Hebrew tongue, but that in those books there are certain Chaldee [passages], which, namely, were historically copied from elsewhere, namely, examples of royal edicts, letters and acts, which had been entered into the royal records and public annals of the kings of the Babylonians and Persians. For what the Spirit of God dictated to Daniel and Ezra are plainly and purely Hebrew. The minor proposition is beyond controversy. Seventh. All the books of the Old Testament that are truly canonical were approved by Christ or the apostles in the New Testament: But these disputed books were not approved by Christ and the apostles in the New Testament: Therefore they are not truly canonical. The minor proposition is most certain, because CHRIST and the apostles never make use of the testimonies of these disputed books. What piety is it, then, to want to force us to accept those books which Christ and the apostles did not approve? They make an exception: If those books, from whose testimonies Christ and the apostles never make use, are not approved, then all those from which something is

cited will be approved. But the latter is false. Therefore so is the former. Reply. The consequent of the assumption is denied. For from the books from which Christ and the apostles sought no testimonies, they declared by the very deed that they do not approve them. As to the fact that Paul also brought in some [sayings] from those books which are not canonical, nor from the holy prophets, but were written by Gentile poets, in that he accommodated himself to those among whom those poets were held in honor, so that even from their own witnesses they might recognize that the things he affirmed were true; not at all, however, with this end, that he might approve entire books of Gentile poets. From the approval of a single saying or of some part of a book, the approval of the whole book is ill inferred. They make another exception: Christ and the apostles never used the testimonies of Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah; therefore Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah were not approved by Christ and the apostles. Reply. The antecedent is denied: for even if the names of those prophets are not expressly set down in the New Testament, nevertheless their prophecies are not obscurely cited. For example, Obadiah verse eight is alleged in 1 Cor. 1:19; likewise verse 21 is adduced in Luke 1:33. And that testimonies of Nahum are cited in the New Testament, the index of testimonies cited by Christ and the apostles in the New Testament from the Old, appended to the Holy Bible of the Vulgate edition revised by order of Sixtus V, Pope of Rome, and printed at Antwerp by John Moretus in the year 1599, shows. These are alleged in that index: NAHUM I.d. “How beautiful are the feet of those who proclaim peace”: Rom. 10 c. 4.D “What is it that the scribes say, that Elijah must first come?”: Matthew 17 b; Mark 9 b. 4.O “That he may turn the hearts of the fathers to the children”: Luke 1 b. The prophecy of Zephaniah which is in chapter 3, verses 16 - 17, is hinted at in Luke 12:32; and verse eighteen of the same prophecy is not obscurely cited by Christ in Matt. 11:28 - 29. Eighth. Whatever books the ancient Christian and catholic Church expressly excluded from the number of those truly and univocally canonical, those assuredly are not truly and univocally canonical: But the ancient Christian and catholic Church expressly excluded these disputed books from the number of those truly and univocally canonical. Therefore, etc. The minor proposition is most certain. For MELITO, bishop of the church of Sardis, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book four, chapter twenty-six, says that, having undertaken a journey to the East where the preaching of the Gospel began, he carefully inquired concerning all which were the volumes of the Old Testament; and then, listing them, he omits these disputed books. ORIGEN likewise, in the same Eusebius, book six of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter twenty-five; likewise GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS in his poems on the legitimate books of divinely inspired Scripture. ATHANASIUS, in the Synopsis of Sacred Scripture, expressly says that the same are not canonical, tome two, page sixty-three of the Commelinian edition; and [likewise] in the thirty-ninth festal letter, in the same tome, page forty-five. THE COUNCIL OF LAODICEA, in Canon fifty-nine, forbidding the reading in the Church of the books which are outside the canon, and enumerating which ought to be read and received into authority, plainly omits these disputed [books]. This Council was approved in the Sixth General Synod. JEROME also denies that they are in the canon, in the Prologus Galeatus and

the Preface to the books of Solomon; RUFINE of Aquileia, presbyter, in the exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, appended to the works of Cyprian, lection thirty-six according to the edition of James Pamelius the Papist; EPIPHANIUS in the book On Measures and Weights; JOHN DAMASCENE, book four of the Orthodox Faith, chapter eighteen, in the Henricus Petrus edition of the year 1559. Nay, even the Papists themselves deny that these books are canonical and assert that they are apocryphal, as NICHOLAS OF LYRA in his Glossa in the prologue to the apocryphal books; Hugh of St. Victor in the Prolegomena of book one On the Sacraments, chapter seven; BRITO, author of the Glossa on Jerome’s Prologue; HUGH OF ST-CHER, the Cardinal, in the Prologue of the Postils on the book of Joshua; RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR, book two of his Exceptions, chapter two; DIONYSIUS THE CARTHUSIAN at the beginning of his Commentaries on Genesis; ABULENSIS on Matthew, chapter one; ANTONINUS, bishop who has been enrolled in the number of the saints by the Roman Pontiff, part 3, title 18, chapter 5; THOMAS DE VIO, CARDINAL CAJETAN, to the Roman Pope Clement VII, in the preface to Joshua; FRANCIS PICUS, On Faith and the Order of Believing, theorem five. Indeed, even after the Council of Trent, BENEDICT ARIAS MONTANUS, in the title of the Hebrew Bible with the interlinear Latin translation of Santes Pagninus of Lucca, published at Antwerp by the press of Christopher Plantin in the year 1584, says that the Orthodox Church, following the Hebrew canon, reckoned among the apocrypha the books written in Greek (namely Tobit, Judith, and the other disputed [books]). He repeats the same in so many words in the title of the Greek New Testament, as was said above. See our Catholic Harmony, chapter one, thesis one. Thus far common arguments have been adduced against the books disputed between us and the Papists: now follow the proper [arguments] against each singly. Proper arguments against the additions to the book of Esther. First. The additions to the book of Esther do not cohere; they are not aptly connected with those things that are in the Hebrew: therefore they are not truly canonical. The antecedent is proved: for the very things once narrated in the first chapters are again recounted in the added chapters, and indeed in a Greek idiom, with many circumstances changed. But there is no reason why the same author, in the same book, and moreover both in Hebrew and in Greek, should narrate the same events, and indeed in so different a manner. Second. Nicholas of Lyra, at the end of his Commentaries on the book of Esther, did not wish to expound the appended chapters, because they seem to have been fabricated by Josephus or other writers, and afterwards inserted into the Vulgate edition. Lyra’s opinion was followed even after the Council of Trent by Sixtus of Siena in books 1 and 8 of the Bibliotheca Sancta, as Bellarmine himself admits. Therefore the appended chapters are not truly canonical. Proper arguments against the book of Baruch. First. The book of Baruch is pseudepigraphal, that is, falsely ascribed to Baruch. For it appears from the diction at the very beginning that it was written in Greek. But if Baruch had been Jeremiah’s amanuensis, or Jeremiah himself, he would not have been by - … written in Greek, because at that time the Greek language was still entirely unknown to the Jews, nor at that time was there any use of the Greek language in Babylonia.

Second. This book ascribed to Baruch speaks of the time of the Babylonian captivity otherwise than the truly canonical Scripture. For in chap. 6, v. 2, in the epistle which it assigns to Jeremiah, it says that the Jews would remain in Babylonia unto seven generations. Yet the term “generation” is nowhere in the whole Old Testament taken for a decade of years or for two lustra; indeed, not even in the New. Thus a style at variance with the canonical shows this book not to be canonical. Proper arguments against the additions to Daniel. First. The very style indicates that the story of Susanna was forged by some little Greek. For it uses paronomasias and plays upon the words schinos (σχῖνος) and schizein (σχίζειν), prinos (πρῖνος) and prizein (πρίζειν) - a kind of play which could not have been made by Daniel, since he used the Hebrew language, which does not have those plays on the names of those trees and on the words that bear the sense of cleaving and cutting. Schinos (σχῖνος) is the lentisk, a tree ever green and common in Chios, Narbonese Gaul, and Italy, suited for tooth-powders or tooth-scrapers, that is, for cleaning the teeth, exuding mastic in the manner of gum, and by the greenness of its branches and leaves affording a very pleasant shade, der Mastrixbaum (the mastic-tree). A Hebrew name is not found in the sacred letters, nor is there any mention made of this tree in them. Schizein (σχίζειν) is “to split”; prinos (πρῖνος) is the holm oak, ein Steineiche (a kind of oak), in Hebrew called PPyN or PHPIT. Prizein (πρίζειν) is “to saw.” But the Hebrews have no word by which such a play could be made while retaining the meaning of splitting or cutting. Bellarmine excepts, by replying that Origen in his epistle to Julius Africanus says that Daniel did not say “holm oak” nor “lentisk,” but something else unknown to us, to which, however, according to the property of the Hebrew or Chaldean tongue which he used, some word for “cutting” would answer. For he says that the Hebrews have very many words that signify to split or to cut; further, that the Greek translator, not translating word-for-word but according to the sense, and in order to preserve the play, took other similar trees, to which in Greek a play upon the word for cutting would correspond. Reply. First, the conjecture is adokimos (ἀδόκιµος), that is, improbable, which with the same ease with which it is asserted can be denied. Then, that the translator took to himself such authority as to change at his own discretion the names of the trees, is not likely. Third, if these additions are had only from a version, and indeed from a version different from the Hebrew text, therefore they are not authentic. Fourth, it cannot be proved that these additions were written in Hebrew at the beginning. Second. The Seventy translators themselves, acting more faithfully than Theodotion in this matter, inscribed it not as the story of Daniel the Prophet, who was of the tribe of Judah, but as that of another Daniel, the son of the priest Habda, written by Habakkuk the son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi, as Eusebius and Apollinarius report in St. Jerome’s preface to the Commentary on Daniel; and Bellarmine acknowledges that this is not improbable, Book I On the Word of God, chap. 9. If this is so, why then is it assigned to the Prophet Daniel in the Latin Vulgate version? Hence it is manifest that those additions are not truly canonical. Proper arguments against the Book of Judith.

First. The Book of Judith is patched together by some Jew, a lover of superstitions: as appears from chap. 6, v. 6, where it is said that Judith fasted all the days of her widowhood, except on the eve of the Sabbaths and on the Sabbaths, and on the eve of the new moons and on the feast-days, and on the joyful days of the house of Israel. Indeed the days of the Sabbaths and the new moons were holy, and the solemnities joyful from the Law; but to keep holiday on the immediately preceding days together with them is out of Jewish superstition, just as the Jews even now keep holiday on the eves of feast-days throughout the whole afternoon, as though God were about to be in the air among them under that name. The Papists imitate this Jewish custom, who likewise on the eves of feast-days in the afternoon time, which by them is called the “Vesper-time,” are wont to keep holiday, as about to render to God a work of supererogation. Second. The Book of Judith approves an impiety hateful to God. For in chap. 9, vv. 12, 13, 18, Judith asks to be blessed by God in her lies, and applies herself to them, as though officious lies (as St. Augustine calls them) were acceptable to the Lord; and in chap. 10, vv. 11 and 12, many lies of Judith are recounted. Third. The Book of Judith uses words taken from the fables of the Gentiles, namely “Titans” and “Giants,” in chap. 16, v. 8 - of the sort which the Holy Spirit is not wont to employ in the authentic books. It is therefore not truly canonical. Proper arguments against the book of Wisdom ascribed to Solomon. First. The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon is pseudepigraphal, as St. Jerome attests in his preface to the books of Solomon. Second. St. Augustine, in the book On the Predestination of the Saints, chap. 14, relates that the brethren had set aside a testimony quoted from the Book of Wisdom, as one not employed from a canonical book; nor does Augustine there assert that the book is canonical, although he judges it to be preferred to all treatises. Therefore it is not truly canonical. A special argument against the books of the Maccabees. The books of the Maccabees are uniquely denied by the Roman Pontiff to be canonical. For Gregory the Great himself, in his own words, concerning the books of the Maccabees, Moralia on Job, book 19, chap. 16, says: “In this matter we do not act irregularly if from books, albeit not canonical but yet published for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony;” and then from Second Maccabees he relates the death of Eleazar. Therefore the books of the Maccabees are not truly canonical. Thus it has been abundantly confirmed, by arguments both common and proper, that the books which are in controversy between us and the Romanists are by no means truly canonical: hoper edei deixai (ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι, which was to be shown), that we may not suffer a human word to be thrust upon us in place of the word of God.

Thus far concerning the authority of Sacred Scripture: what follows is concerning its necessity. And about this, likewise, there is controversy between us and the heretics. We embrace our position in this theorem: From the time that Sacred Scripture was given by God to the Church, it was and is and will be necessary, not only for the well-being of the Church, but also for the being of the Church. This theorem is to be understood indefinitely: for example, when only the books of Moses existed, those were necessary to the Church; for the Scripture of the New Testament was not necessary in the time of Moses. Now indeed, after the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments has been graciously given by God to the Church, that is necessary: It is surely the height of impiety to contend that Scripture is not necessary, as if God had given something to the Church which it could very well and easily lack. What is it to judge the benefit of God superfluous and idle and to spurn it, if this is not it? For the well-being of the Church Sacred Scripture is necessary, because it is supremely useful to the Church for faith and the true worship of God, Joh. 20. v. 31. These things have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, that one, the Son of God, that one, and that by believing you may have life through his name, Matth. 22. vers. 29. You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. Deuter. 4. v. 2. Do not add to that word which I command you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of Iehovah your God which I command you. For the being of the Church Scripture is necessary, not absolutely, to be sure, but by an ordained necessity: because true doctrine among so many heresies and scandals could not have been preserved, nor can it be preserved, unless for its preservation Scripture had been ordained by God and commended to the Church: And therefore St. John Chrysostom rightly affirms in the first homily on Matthew that depraved doctrines and corrupt morals have been necessarily (ἀναγκαίως) met by means of Scripture, both Old and New. Accordingly Scripture is necessary not only as the resources of this bodily life are necessary, that is, conveniences, which nevertheless this life can also lack, but as daily bread is necessary, without which this life cannot do. For the true food and drink which is taken from the Word of God is the knowledge of the Scriptures, as St. Jerome says on the third chapter of Ecclesiastes; or as the tools of the craft are necessary to a silversmith, as St. John Chrysostom says, homil. 3. on Lazarus. Scripture, I say, is necessary by a necessity not absolute or simple; because God neither was nor is bound to Scripture, so as not to be able to teach the Church without it, if he should will, just as from the beginning of the world up to Moses he taught the Church, when as yet no Scripture existed. But it is by that necessity which they call “ex hypothesi” of the divine disposition, because God willed that the Church at length be bound to the Scriptures.

And indeed by a necessity both of writing and of perpetual existence. By the necessity of writing we understand that incumbent upon the Prophets and Apostles to write out Scripture and to leave it behind to the Church, who wrote not merely on some occasion, but impelled by great necessity. By the necessity of the perpetual existence of Scripture we understand that by which it was and is altogether necessary for the Church, that after the departure of the Prophets and Apostles Sacred Scripture should exist, be possessed, be read, be explained, and be observed as the rule of faith and of good works, until the end of the world. The necessity of writing is established first from the express or implicit divine command to write, as once given to the Prophets, Exod. 17. v. 14. & 34. 27. Jerem. 30. 2. Ezech. 43. 11, so afterwards to the Apostles, Matth. 28. v. 19. where the Lord says: Teach all nations. CHRIST commanded the Apostles to teach the Gospel to all nations. Therefore he commanded that they both announce it by a living voice and write it. For he who orders some thing to be done also commands the ways by which that thing must necessarily be done. Now the ways by which the Apostles could and ought to teach the Gospel to all nations are two, the living voice and writing: when present they taught by a living voice, but when absent, and those who would live after them until the end of the world, they necessarily had to teach by writings, Apocal. I. v. 11, & cap. 21. v. 7. Hence, first, after Christ’s ascension into heaven, in the New Testament a decree concluded in the Apostolic council was written by the will of the Holy Spirit, as is read at Acts fifteen, verse twenty-three. Accordingly, the whole Scripture was written by the divine will, because “ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED,” as Paul bears witness, 2 Tim. 3. v. 16. Hence we infer thus: Whatever Scripture is divinely inspired, that was written by the divine will. But the whole Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture is divinely inspired. Therefore, etc. Whence also the orthodox Fathers say that the New Testament was written by the will of God. For thus says Irenaeus the Martyr, book three against the heresies, chapter one: “For we have not learned the economy of our salvation through others than through those by whom the Gospel has come down to us, which indeed they at that time proclaimed, but afterwards by the will of God they have handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith.” And Augustine, On the Harmony of the Evangelists, book two, last chapter: “When the Evangelists and Apostles wrote the things which God showed and said, by no means must it be said that he himself did not write. For whatever of his deeds and words he did not will us to read, this he commanded to be written by them as though by his own hands.” Then the same necessity of writing is evident from the express Apostolic confession. For thus says Jude the brother of James in his Catholic epistle, v. 3: “I had necessity to write to you, to exhort you that you contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.” Finally, it is evident from the end of the office of the Apostles. For they were given to the world as universal teachers, with respect to times and places, in order that they might teach in the whole world, not only the men of their own age, but also those of the ages to come until the end of the world, Matt. 28. v. 20. Mark. 16. v. 15. Acts 1. 8. Just as the Prophets did not teach, nor ought they

to have taught, only those who heard them preach the word of God with a living voice, but also those absent, and also those who after them would live until the end of the world, as the Apostle shows, Rom. 15. v. 4: “The things written beforehand were written beforehand for our instruction, that through the endurance and the consolation of the Scriptures we might have hope.” Yet neither could they themselves teach with a living voice face to face all the men of their own age, nor transmit an uncorrupted doctrine to posterity, except with the aid of writing; which is indicated, 2 Pet. 1. v. 12, 13, 14, 15: “Wherefore I will not be negligent to remind you always concerning these things, though you know them and are confirmed in the present truth. But I think it right, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to rouse you by way of reminder, since I know that shortly I must put off my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ declared to me. Moreover I will give diligence that you may be able after my departure to call these things to mind.” The necessity of the perpetual existence of Scripture is much more evident from the following arguments: First, because to search and to learn it is enjoined by the divine command upon all men until the end of the world, which command must of necessity be obeyed, both by each of the faithful and by the whole Church. Josh. 1. v. 8: “Let not this book of the Law depart from thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate upon it day and night.” John 5. v. 39: “Search the Scriptures.” 2 Pet. 1. 19: “We have the more sure prophetic word; to which you do well to take heed.” 1 Tim. 4. v. 13: “Give attention to reading.” 1 Thess. 5. v. 27: “I adjure you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren.” But whatever is so often and so sternly commanded by God - to deny that it is necessary is rebellion against GOD. Second, because Scripture contains the doctrine necessary, without which the Church cannot be preserved at any time, John 20. 31. 2 Tim. 3. v. 15. Third, because Scripture has been written for the security (asphaleias) of the faith, Luke 1. 4. Phil. 3. v. 1. This is so plain that Christ himself, even after his glorious resurrection, in order that the faith of the disciples might be firmer and more certain, neither willed nor commanded them to acquiesce in his affirmation alone, but recalled them to the Scriptures, Luke 24. v. 26, 27: “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory? And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things that were written concerning himself.” Fourth, because without Scripture neither can the truth of the heavenly doctrine be received, nor the precipice of errors be avoided, nor the gulf of vices and sins be escaped, nor life be ordered holily, nor any solid consolation now be had. Whence Jerome says: “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” And St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3 on Lazarus, says: “A great defense against sin is the reading of the Scriptures; a great downfall, a deep gulf, is ignorance of the Scriptures; a great loss, to know nothing of the divine laws.” This thing has brought forth heresies; this has introduced a corrupt life; this has thrown all things into confusion. For it cannot be - IT CANNOT, I say, be - that anyone depart without fruit, who enjoys assiduous and attentive reading

of the Scriptures. And again, Homily 2 on Matthew: “This is, he says, that which spoils all things like a sort of plague, because you think that the reading of the divine Scriptures pertains to monks alone; whereas by much more they are NECESSARY for you than for them.” Fifth, because the proximate end of Scripture is altogether necessary. That end is the instruction and preservation of the whole Church in faith and piety, at all times from when it was given by GOD until the end of the world, whether by teaching the truth, or by judging concerning all dogmas. Whence this end is twofold: the doctrinal and the judicial. The doctrinal, inasmuch as Scripture has been written for doctrine, Rom. 15. v. 4; in order that we may believe, and, believing, may have eternal life, John 20. 31. The judicial, inasmuch as Scripture has been given by GOD, that it might be the infallible and perfect standard and rule of judgments concerning dogmas. This judicial end is twofold, directive and definitive. The directive, namely, that all ecclesiastical dogmas be directed to the divine Scripture as to the infallible and unique rule; and whatever departs from it is error or heresy or sin: according to these sayings, Matt. 22. 29: “You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.” Gal. 1. 9: “If anyone should preach a gospel to you besides that which you have received, let him be accursed.” and 6. 16: “As many as walk according to this rule - peace shall be upon them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” 1 Tim. 3. 14, 15: “These things I write to you that you may know how it behooves to behave in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” 2 John v. 10: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, nor say to him, Hail.” The definitive judicial end of Scripture is that it alone, as the voice and sentence of the heavenly Judge, should so define in the Church whatever doubts and disputes there are concerning religion that no appeal be given. Of which definitive judgment Christ speaks, John 5. v. 46, 47: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” Rom. 4. 2, 3: “If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast of, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness’.” Thus from the Scriptures the Apostles decided the very grave controversy in the council, Acts 15. The directive end serves the judging of any private person and layman also, that he may understand the truth in dogmas and beware for himself of errors; but the definitive end pertains to public ecclesiastical judgments, by which controversies of religion are defined. The sixth argument we draw from comparisons: If the commands of a prince must be proved by writing and by the prince’s own letters, and not even to men of exalted rank alleging the orders of princes is credit given without writing, I. 1. C. mandatis Principum l. 1. prohibitum 5. in fin. C. de jure fisci lib. 10; much more, in causes pertaining to the worship of the Deity and to the faith and salvation of the Church, the sacred letters and diplomas of that great King of ours and Lawgiver are required.

The seventh argument is supplied by examples: For the Apostles judged Scripture to be so necessary that they taught nothing outside of it, as their writings most clearly testify. Likewise others, the faithful in the primitive Church, judged it to be necessary for themselves, as the Bereans. Eighth: Holy Scripture detects the sleights of Satan, which without it cannot be detected; as the history of Christ’s temptations shows. From all these things it is clear that Holy Scripture, having been necessarily written by the Prophets and Apostles, must likewise necessarily exist until the end of the world, not only for the well-being, but even for the being of the Church. Now there are two kinds of heretics who deny that Holy Scripture is necessary to the Church: the Anabaptists and the Papists - indeed with a different error, but equally impious, pernicious, and to be shunned. Of the ANABAPTISTS who deny the necessity of Holy Scripture there are two sects: one rejects the whole Holy Scripture as though unnecessary; the other rejects only the Scripture of the Old Testament. The former sect is commonly called the Libertines, who fanatically and madly repudiate the whole Holy Scripture, putting forward the magisterium of the Spirit and repeatedly saying that one must acquiesce in it; nay, even assailing with unworthy jests the Scriptures and the servants of God by whom they were composed and delivered to the Church. Nonetheless, however, they do not cease to use the testimonies of Scripture to defend their madness, if there are any which they can twist to their sense - not because they give credence to them, but only in order to disturb the simple and to seduce them more easily. We shall recite those in order and refute the corruptions of the Libertines. First: Esaias 54. 13 says, “All shall be taught by God”: Therefore Holy Scripture is not necessary for us. I answer. The fallacy is from false opposites; for the internal doctrine of the divine Spirit and the external doctrine of the written word do not mutually abolish one another, but the one confirms and establishes the other. For the Holy Spirit seals Holy Scripture upon our minds; but Holy Scripture is the touchstone by which it is tested whether the inward thoughts of the mind have truly proceeded from the Holy Spirit. For since Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, what authority, what certainty, will the Spirit have among us, unless he be discerned by a divine mark? They reply: It is unworthy that the Spirit of God, to whom all things ought to be subject, be subject to Scripture: Therefore the internal revelation of the Holy Spirit is not to be examined by the external Scripture. I answer. The antecedent is denied: for when we examine the internal revelation of the Holy Spirit by Holy Scripture, we by no means reduce the Holy Spirit to order or into servitude, but only compare him with himself. Nor is it shameful to the Holy Spirit to be everywhere agreeing and conformable with himself, to be consistent with himself in all things, to vary nowhere, whether he teaches us outwardly through Scripture, or inwardly by afflatus. Indeed, if he were required to be

measured by some human or angelic or any other rule, then he would be subjected to an unworthy affront and would be made subject to another to whom he ought not to be; but when he is compared with himself, when he is considered in himself, who will truly say on that account that an injury is being inflicted on him? Therefore this is not disgraceful to him - unless perhaps we count it an honor for him to depart from himself and to degenerate. They press: But in this way he is called back to an examination by us wretched mortals. I answer. We grant it; but he is called back to an examination by which he willed his majesty among us to be ratified. They press again: It ought to be enough for us, as soon as the Holy Spirit insinuates himself into our hearts. I answer. True; yet, lest under the title “Holy Spirit” Satan should creep in. the Spirit; in his own image which he has impressed upon Holy Scripture, he wills to be recognized by us. He is the author of Holy Scripture: he cannot be variable or unlike himself. Therefore, of whatever sort he once presented himself there, such it is necessary that he remain forever. Second: In Jer. 31:33 - 34 God says: I will put my law into their hearts, and all shall know me from the least to the greatest. Therefore Holy Scripture is not needful for us. I answer. This proceeds from a false opposition: for the internal Scripture of the law in the hearts does not take away the external [Scripture] contained in the sacred letters. For that putting of the law into our hearts is nothing else than true illumination and conversion of hearts, and confirmation concerning the remission of sins; as is evident from the context itself. For immediately it follows, They shall all know me from the least to the greatest, says the Lord, because I will pardon their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more. This is what he promises that he wills to engrave and imprint upon their hearts. Third: In John 6:44 - 45 Christ says: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, And they shall all be taught by God. Whoever therefore has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me. Therefore Holy Scripture is not needful for us. I answer. More is inferred than the antecedent bears. For the sense of CHRIST’s words is not that all Christians will understand by divine revelation all the secrets of the Scriptures, in such a way that the Scriptures are no longer necessary to them; but that they will be such as not only to hear the teacher outwardly explaining the word of God, but also to hear inwardly the teacher, God, persuading them to do what they hear. While there is a sermon, all hear and understand what is said, but one believes, another does not believe; one is converted from sin to repentance, another is not converted: the former are said to be taught by God, the latter not. In this sense the Lord brought forward in this place the testimony from the Prophets, John 6:45: It is written in the Prophets, And they shall all be taught by God. Whoever therefore has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me. And the Apostle in 1 Thess. 4:9: Concerning brotherly charity you have no need that I should write to you; for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another. God therefore illumines the intellect, and draws those endowed with living faith to CHRIST, and he

opens to them the sense of the Scriptures - not that, the Scriptures being thrown aside, they may be wise of themselves, but that they may understand the Scriptures and pursue them with greater reverence. We see this in the example of Christ’s disciples, Luke 24:44 - 46. For although they had been drawn by the Father to Christ, although by the Father’s free gift they had recognized him, although they had seen with their eyes him raised from the dead, although he had presented himself to them to be handled, although he had eaten in their sight, nevertheless, lest they should think they were suffering any trickery, he judged the Holy Scriptures necessary for them, that by them they might be confirmed; and he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that it was necessary for all things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me to be fulfilled. Then he opened their mind to understand the Scriptures. And he said to them, Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day. And although the Apostles were abundantly confirmed in the faith of Christ, nevertheless so far were they from rejecting Holy Scripture that thereafter they judged it much more necessary to approve from the Scriptures all the things which they were teaching, as the whole New Testament testifies. Nay rather, from this very sermon of Christ described in John 6 it is evident that Christ judged Scripture to be necessary; since the things which he was saying he confirmed from the writings of the Prophets. Ought not Christ, when bearing witness about himself, to be believed even without other witnesses? He certainly ought; but how great the necessity of the Scriptures is on account of our weakness and for the certainty of our faith, he showed by that very fact that he confirmed his sayings from the Scriptures. Whoever therefore denies Holy Scripture to be necessary does not have the Spirit of Christ which was in the Apostles: accordingly they have not heard from the Father, they have not learned, nor have they come to CHRIST, who draws no one away from the Holy Scriptures but leads to them. Fourth: In Matt. 23:8 it is said: One is your Teacher, Christ. Therefore Holy Scripture is not necessary. I answer. This proceeds from a false opposition: for CHRIST and Holy Scripture are not opposed. CHRIST is our Teacher, because he teaches us, but not only outwardly and in person by his living voice, as he did while he was living on earth, nor only inwardly by his Spirit, but also through the Holy Scriptures and through his ministers speaking from Holy Scriptures. Indeed, even when he was still living on earth, he taught his disciples by the Holy Scriptures; so also after his ascension to the heavens and the effusion of the Holy Spirit from heaven, he taught his Church and willed it to be taught by the Apostles through the Scriptures, and he wills this even to the end of the world. Then, in the place of Matthew alleged, CHRIST forbids only ambition and the affectation of the teacher’s office; and this is clear from the fact that there he reproves the Scribes and Pharisees because they loved to be saluted by men as Rabbi; but he does not forbid learning the Holy Scriptures. Fifth: Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:15, The spiritual man judges all things: Therefore Holy Scripture is not necessary.

I answer. The complete syllogism would be thus: Whoever is a spiritual man judging all things, for him Holy Scripture is not necessary. The faithful are spiritual men judging all things, as is said in 1 Cor. 2:15. Therefore for the faithful Holy Scripture is not necessary. But first the major premise is denied: for the spiritual man, that is, one endowed with the Holy Spirit and by him regenerated and gifted with true faith, judges all things, that is, he easily gives a sure judgment concerning every doctrine that is proposed, whether it is God-breathed (theopneustos) or not; and he does this by daily searching the Scriptures, whether these things are so which he has heard from others or has read in the writings of others, as the example of the Bereans shows, Acts 17:11. Therefore the major premise, which is the point at issue (to krinomenon), ought to have been proved; but instead of it the minor, which is beyond controversy, is proved. Then this is all that Paul intends: that the faithful, endowed with the Spirit of God, understand and discern all doctrines, lest they be deceived. The Libertines press the point and say that Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit alone with no mention made of Holy Scripture, verses 12 - 13: Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that God has graciously given to us; which also we speak, not in words which human wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, joining spiritual things with the things that are spiritual. I answer. Although in these verses Paul does not expressly mention divinely inspired Scripture, nevertheless he did not exclude it from the means of attaining saving wisdom. Rather, in this epistle and in others, indeed even in this very chapter, he confirmed the things which he was teaching from Holy Scripture: he has therefore shown sufficiently that it is necessary for the spiritual man. Sixth: In 1 John 2:20 it is said: You have an anointing from the Holy One and you know all things; and in verse 27: The anointing which you received from him remains in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true and is not a lie; and as it has taught you, you will remain in him. Therefore for us Holy Scripture is not necessary. I answer. The complete syllogism is of this sort: For all whom the Anointing from that Holy One teaches all things, for them Holy Scripture is not necessary. But truly the faithful the Anointing from that Holy One teaches all things. Therefore truly for the faithful Holy Scripture is not necessary. But the major premise is denied; for it is false, because in it are opposed things that are not opposed and do not mutually take away one another. For the internal anointing and the external doctrine of Scripture are not opposed, but agree most excellently: the external doctrine is empty unless the Holy Spirit anoint us inwardly and flood us with understanding. John therefore commends that internal anointing and bids us attend to it, as to that from which the beginning of true understanding and faith flows forth; but he does not reject external doctrine, for he himself was teaching by this very epistle, which surely those to whom he was writing had to read and meditate if they wished to grasp John’s sense and to learn these very things concerning internal anointing. For how would they have learned, unless they had read, since John was not then teaching them in person by a living voice? But Augustine most excellently interprets this passage in

tractate 3 on the epistle of John, in these words: The anointing teaches you all things. What then are we doing, brothers, who teach you (says Augustine), if his anointing teaches us about all things? As if we were laboring to no purpose. And why then do we cry out so much? let us leave you to that anointing, that his anointing may teach you. But now I put a question to myself, and I put it to that very Apostle. Let him deign to hear a little one asking of him: I say to John himself, Those to whom you were speaking had an anointing: you said that his anointing teaches you about all things: Why then did you make such an epistle? what were you teaching them? what were you instructing? what were you building up? Thus far he proposed the doubt; now he subjoins the answer. Therefore it follows in Augustine in this way: Now here see (he says) a great sacrament, brothers. The sound of our words strikes the ears, the teacher is within. Do not suppose that any man learns anything from man. We can admonish by the noise of our voice; if there is not within one who teaches, our noise is empty. So then, brothers, do you wish to know? Have you not all heard this discourse? how many will go out from here unlearned! So far as concerns me, I have spoken to all, but those to whom that anointing does not speak within, whom the Holy Spirit does not teach within, return unlearned. Outward teacherings are certain aids and admonitions; he who teaches hearts has his chair in heaven. But Augustine goes further and refers here that saying of CHRIST which is had in Matt. 23: Do not call yourselves teacher on earth: one is your teacher, Christ. He therefore speaks to you within, when in your heart. And let there not be no one in your heart; let his anointing be in the heart, lest the heart be thirsty in solitude and not have springs by which it may be watered. Therefore the inner teacher teaches, Christ teaches, his inspiration teaches. Seventh: Scripture is not very sure for us unless it be confirmed for us by the testimony of the Holy Spirit: Therefore it is not necessary. I answer. The consequence is denied: because by a certain mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of Holy Scripture and of his Spirit with one another, to give them the Holy Spirit who makes us behold the face of God in the Scripture; so that in turn we may embrace the Spirit of God without fear of delusion, when we recognize him in his own image, that is, in Holy Scripture. By no means did God bring forth his Scripture among men for the sake of a sudden display which by the advent of his Spirit he would immediately abolish: but he sent the same Spirit, by whose power and inspiration he had dictated the Scripture to the Prophets and Apostles and had commended it through them to the Church, that by the efficacious confirmation of Holy Scripture, that is of the written word of God, he might complete his own work. Eighth: In 1 Thess. 5:19 Paul says, Do not quench the Spirit. I answer. Something else is concluded than what Paul intends; for while he exhorts the faithful not to quench the Spirit, he does not bid them follow empty speculations outside of and beyond the written word of God and rest in them; but immediately he subjoins that prophecies are not to be despised, that is, the interpretations of Holy Scripture. By which beyond all doubt he intimates that the light of the Spirit is smothered as soon as prophecies come into contempt; and therefore also of the divine Scriptures.

By these and the like arguments, therefore, the Libertines by no means have proved that Holy Scripture is not necessary, but that the illumination of the Spirit is to be looked for with the written word of God omitted and set aside - which the truly faithful know to be the organ by which the Lord dispenses to them the illumination of his Spirit. Thus the madness of the sect of the Libertines is refuted. The Anabaptists, in order to seem more modest, [say that] of the New Testa- They acknowledge the books of the New Testament to be necessary and admit them; but by frivolous little arguments they drive Moses and the other Scriptures of the Old Testament out of the Christian Church.

By these and the like little arguments the fanatical Anabaptists lead themselves and others into error and keep them captive in it, to which we shall briefly reply. Reply to the first: The Apostle does not say that Moses, but that the veil laid upon the heart of the Jews, is taken away through Christ; and that, not by the expulsion of Moses from the Church, but by the illumination of the Jews and their conversion to Christ. For when the heart upon which the veil has been laid shall have turned itself to the Lord, that veil is taken away, says the Apostle,

Reply to the third: To hear Moses and the Prophets concerning Christ even once he has been exhibited and is present, is not to equal the servant with the master or to prefer him, or to order men to step back from Christ to Moses; but it is to obey the command of Christ already exhibited and present: Search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and these are they that bear witness about me, Johan. 5. 39. Likewise: They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them, Luc. 16. 29. To believe Moses writing about Christ is to believe Christ; as Christ himself, already exhibited and present, says, Johan. 5. 46, 47: For if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? Reply to the fourth: Moses is at odds with Christ in no matter; first, because Moses was a faithful servant in the whole house of God, as the Apostle bears witness to him, Hebr. 3. v. 5; second, because the same Spirit of Christ was in Moses and in the Prophets as is in Christ, 1. Petr.

Reply to the eighth: If for this reason the Old Testament is not necessary, because the New suffices for salvation, then all the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, except the Gospel of John, would be to be rejected, because Johan. 20. v. 31 says: These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, that one, the Son of God, and that, believing, you may have life through his name. Indeed, by this reckoning the single sentence of Christ in Johan. 3. v. 16 would have sufficed: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. But against those fanatics one must set the Apostle’s statement, 2. Tim. 3. 16: “All Scripture is divinely inspired and useful for teaching,” etc. For God, in the highest wisdom and goodness, willed to dispense the Scriptures to us not only for the sufficiency of salvation, but also for security (asphaleia), that is, an unfailing firmness and the fullness of faith, Luc. 1. v. 4. Philip. 3. 1. 1. Johan. 4. The error of the Anabaptists has been refuted; now the error of the PAPISTS, who, in place of Christians, call themselves JESUITS - as though the name “Christians” were too base and therefore offensive to them - must be refuted. They say that Holy Scripture without traditions was not simply necessary. For thus Bellarmine, in book four On the Unwritten Word of God, chapter four, section one, plays captiously in stating the point at issue, as though the question were about a simple, that is, absolute necessity, and only of past time, and not rather about the hypothetical and present necessity of Scripture. Finally, in section five, disclosing his mind about the present necessity of Scripture, he says that Holy Scripture is necessary for us not by a simple necessity, but for well-being, that is, for our benefit. Bellarmine’s meaning is that Scripture is indeed necessary for us, that is, useful, but not so that we could not easily do without it, provided we have traditions; just as, for example, a four- horse chariot is necessary, that is, useful for a journey, but not so that you could not easily do without it and set out on the journey if a two-horse chariot is at hand. From this it appears that the Jesuits make traditions more necessary than Scripture; indeed they deny that Scripture is necessary for us, since here for them “necessary” is the same as “useful.” For not everything useful is necessary, though everything necessary that is good is, in its way, useful. Hence we understand that the Papists make nothing of Scripture, since they deny that it is truly necessary and postpone it to their traditions, which they contend to be necessary. The arguments by which they try to prove their erroneous and blasphemous opinion - sought partly from the various ages of the Church, partly from elsewhere - are to be set forth and refuted. The first is from Bellarmine. If without Holy Scripture the Church of God and religion from Adam to Moses - two thousand years - were preserved in the world by tradition alone, then Holy Scripture is not simply necessary for us either.

But indeed without Holy Scripture the Church of God and religion from Adam to Moses - two thousand years - were preserved in the world by tradition alone. Therefore Holy Scripture is not simply necessary for us. I answer: First, there is a fault of ignorance of the refutation, because the conclusion of that argumentation does not contradict our affirmation and thesis. For although we assert that the Word of God revealed is simply necessary for all for salvation and eternal life, since it is the cause of salvation, nevertheless we by no means say that the written Word of God, that is, Holy Scripture, is simply necessary, as if without it God could not have taught and preserved his Church if he willed; but we say that it is necessary for us by hypothesis of the divine will and disposition - that is, because God willed his Church to be at length bound to the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture, lest it should believe anything as necessary for salvation, or do anything as pertaining to the worship of God, except what he has commanded it in Holy Scripture. And therefore Holy Scripture - which is the revealed Word of God written - is necessary for us as a co-cause (synaition), that is, as an instrumental cause of our salvation, given by God. Second, the consequence of the major proposition is denied, both because it is concluded from a particular against the discipline of Logic, and because the case of the examples is different. From a particular it does not follow in this way: “If then Scripture was not necessary, therefore now it is not necessary; or, therefore it was never necessary, and consequently not now.” That the case of the examples is different is manifest from this: both because the ages of the Church are various, and one age requires one governance, another a different one; and especially from this, that God has appointed a different method which seemed necessary to each age of his. Therefore it is not what could have been done then or can now be done, but what God wills now to be necessarily held and observed by us, that must be looked to. Although therefore from Adam to Moses he preserved the Church and religion without the written Word of God, nevertheless he wills the Church of later times to depend upon the written word, as the testimonies teach, Johan. 5. 39. 1. Tim. 4. 13. 2. Tim.

Third, what is said in the minor - that the Church and religion before Moses were preserved by tradition alone - is false. For before Moses, besides the proclamation of the Word of God made by the Patriarchs by a living voice, there were various rudiments of the Church, such as fire for sacrifices kindled from heaven, Noah’s ark, visions, types, figures, as sacrifices and sacraments whose body was exhibited in Christ Next, religion was never more corrupt than before the flood and thence up to Abraham and Moses, as Genesis testifies in chapters six, seven, and others, and Joshua chapter 24: until by new disclosures true religion was restored to Abraham - who himself too had been a worshiper of idols - and finally the doctrine of religion was consigned to writing by Moses. Augustine teaches, on Psalm 128, that at times the Church existed in Abel alone, at times in Enoch alone, at times in the household of Noah alone, at times in Abraham alone. Therefore sacred Scripture was at length needed of old, because the purity of religion and the Church could not be preserved by tradition alone. For whatever among men is propagated by tradition alone without a written norm cannot remain uncorrupted for long; since in human characters, morals, and life nothing is more slippery, nothing more unstable and changeable. Moreover, that tradition which the Patriarchs used differs, as through and through (ὡς διὰ πασῶν), from the Papists’ traditions: for the Patriarchs’ tradition was truly divine, as all the faithful agree; but the Papists’ traditions are not divine, but human - indeed diabolical - since they forbid marriage and foods created by God for man’s use, which, as Paul bears witness in 1 Tim. 4:1, are doctrines of demons. Thus the first argument has been answered; the second follows, drawn from the second age of the Church from Moses up to Christ. If from Moses up to Christ the Scriptures did indeed exist, nevertheless they were proper to the Jews; but among the other nations, among some of whom there also was true religion and faith, only unwritten tradition was found: then Sacred Scripture is not simply necessary for us. The antecedent is true: For that, besides the Jews, many others belonged to the Church is clear from Job and his friends; likewise from Augustine, who constantly asserts this in book 2 On Original Sin, chapter 24, and in book 1 On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 9, and in book 18 of The City of God, chapter 4. Therefore the consequent too is true.

I answer. First, once again there is a blunder through ignorance of the refutation, on account of the changed state of the controversy. For that Sacred Scripture is not simply necessary we readily concede; but we say that it is necessary on the hypothesis of the divine will and disposition. Second, the assumption is false. For that the Scriptures were not proper to the Jews, but were also read among the Gentiles and most of all among the faithful among them, is attested by the story of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who took care to have the Law translated from the Hebrew tongue into Greek; it is attested by the story of the Eunuch contained in Acts 8. Therefore it is denied that among the Gentiles, after Moses up to Christ, true religion and faith existed by unwritten tradition alone. Third, the proof of the assumption is false, for Job and his friends lived before the times of Moses, since Job was fifth from Abraham among the descendants of Esau, as the blessed Athanasius writes in the Synopsis of Sacred Scripture, page ninety-six of volume two of the Commelin edition. Therefore Job and his friends lived before the Law was given and written by Moses, even if the book of Job was written only after the Law was given, by Moses, as the Hebrews and Origen think; Augustine indeed teaches that there were certain righteous not only among the sons of Israel but also outside that same people, and he adduces Job as an example; nevertheless he by no means holds that Job lived only after the Law was given and written by Moses. Rather, in book 18 of The City of God, chapter 47, Augustine plainly says that Job was three generations later than Israel - that is, Jacob the Patriarch. Bellarmine presses the point. If even in the very people of God, though the Scriptures existed, nevertheless the Jews used tradition more than Scripture, then the latter is not simply necessary for us. The former is true. Therefore so is the latter. He sets about proving the assumption by testimonies of Scripture and by a cause. The testimonies are these. Exodus 13: “You shall tell your son on that day, saying, This is what the Lord did,” etc. Deuteronomy 32: “Ask your father, and he will declare to you; your elders, and they will tell you.” Job 8: “Ask the former generation, and diligently investigate the memory of the fathers.” Judges 6: “Where are the wonders that our fathers told us?” Psalm 44: “O God, with our ears we have heard, our fathers have told us the work that you worked,” etc. Psalm 77: “How great things he commanded the fathers to make known to their sons, that the next generation might know, sons who will be born, and will rise up, and tell them to their sons.” Ecclesiasticus, chapter: “Let not the narrative of the elders pass you by, for they themselves learned from their fathers” - and yet Ecclesiasticus was among the latest writers of the Old Testament. But the cause why the Hebrews used unwritten tradition more than Scripture seems to have been that up to the times of Ezra the Scriptures had not been reduced to the form of books, so as to be easily and conveniently had, but were scattered in various annals and documents, and sometimes through the negligence of the priests were not found for a long time: as is clear from 2 Kings 22, where it is related as something new that in the days of Josiah one volume of the Law of the Lord was found in the temple. But Ezra after the captivity collected all things and at once brought them together into one corpus, adding in Deuteronomy the last chapter about the life of

Moses, and certain other things here and there for the continuation of the history. On which see Theodoret in the Preface to the Psalms; Bede on chapter 9 of book 1 of Ezra; and Petrus Antonius Benter, in his new annotation on Sacred Scripture. Reply. First, again there is a blunder through ignorance of the refutation in the conclusion, as said above. Second, the assumption is false: for it was not the custom of the pious Jews to use unwritten tradition more than Scripture. Third, the proofs of the assumption are false. For the testimonies which Bellarmine adduces about the narration of the works of God do not prove the use of unwritten tradition. For unwritten tradition and narration are not the same: because the things which parents narrate to their children are in no way prevented from being written. And truly, in narrations of the works of God drawn from Sacred Scripture, the pious Israelites, once brought into the promised land, used them in teaching their children, as those very Scripture passages adduced by Bellarmine confirm - except the place from Job, since Job lived before the Law was written. Briefly, the things which the fathers among the Israelites narrated and the children from them asked about and heard concerning the works of God were the very same as were consigned in the Scriptures. How then are those to be ascribed to unwritten tradition? But Ecclesiasticus was not a canonical writer of the Old Testament; therefore he is cited here to no purpose. Then the cause which Bellarmine, a very prudent man, assigns for why the Hebrews used unwritten tradition more than Scripture is false. For the Scriptures before Ezra had been reduced to the form of books, nor were they scattered in various annals and documents, as is quite manifest from Deut. 17:31, Josh. 1, and other places of Scripture. As to what Bellarmine adduces about the Scriptures not being found for a long time, and about a single volume of the Law finally being found in the times of Josiah, in this he tries to impose upon the simple by the fallacy of homonymy. For in the times of Josiah there was found the authentic and original book of the Law (as they call it), that is, the autograph, which Moses had given to the Levites to be kept in the sanctuary, of which Deut. 31:25 - 26 speaks: for this had been neglected when the tyranny of Manasseh and Amon was raging at Jerusalem. From this if Bellarmine were to infer that no other copies of the Law were in the hands of the pious, he would be concluding a universal from a particular contrary to the laws of the syllogism. Finally, Ezra only arranged and set in order the Psalms and other books. The close of Deuteronomy was either added by Joshua, as Sixtus of Siena says in book 1, or Moses himself added it before his death, of which he was already certain, together with the things which were immediately to follow. The third argument of Bellarmine follows, taken from the third age of the Church from the advent of Christ. If from the advent of Christ for many years the Church was without the Scriptures, then the Scriptures are not simply necessary.

The antecedent is true: For Irenaeus in book 3, chapter 4, writes that even in his own time there were certain Christian nations which lived very well by traditions alone without Scripture. Therefore the consequent too is true. I answer. First, again the same blunder of ignorance of the refutation is committed as in the preceding arguments. Second, the assumption is denied, taken universally. For from the advent of Christ the Church had the books of the Old Testament complete, and therefore had the whole doctrine of salvation written down, since as to the sum of the doctrine there is no difference between the Old and the New Testament: for the predictions are described in the Old Testament and their fulfillment in the New. But the books of the New Testament began to be written either in the eighth year after Christ’s ascension, as Theophylact notes on the first chapter of Matthew; or in the fifteenth year, as Nicephorus reports, book 2, chapter 4; or in the twenty-fifth year, as Eusebius, from Irenaeus, records in book 5, chapter 8. But Bellarmine argues badly: The Church was for a time without some books of the New Testament; therefore it was without the Scriptures. Third, in alleging the testimony of Irenaeus Bellarmine sophisticates in two ways. For first, Irenaeus speaks only of certain Churches among the barbarian Gentiles, into whose languages the Scriptures had not yet been translated; but Bellarmine from that concludes universally concerning the Church. Yet from a particular to a universal the consequence does not hold. And this logical wisdom Bellarmine greatly abuses. Then too, by the name “tradition” Irenaeus understands the doctrine written in the Prophetic and Apostolic books, but not yet written in the tongue of those Gentiles to whom it was being delivered: for Irenaeus says that those nations were instructed by the living voice alone, because the Scripture did not yet exist among them in their vernacular tongue. For by “the ancient tradition” Irenaeus understands the Christian faith consigned in the Prophetic and Apostolic writings, as his words show: “To this rule many nations of the barbarians who believe in Christ give assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without paper and ink, and diligently keeping the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Maker of heaven and earth and of all things that are in them, through Jesus Christ the Son of God; who, on account of his exceedingly great love toward his creature, endured that generation which was from the Virgin, himself uniting man to God, and suffering under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and received in glory in splendor; about to come as the Savior of those who are saved and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire the perverters of the truth and the contemners of his Father and of his advent.” He immediately subjoins these words: “Those who have believed this faith without letters are, as to our speech, barbarians; as to judgment and custom and preservation, on account of the faith through which they are most wise and are pleasing to God, living in all righteousness and chastity and wisdom.” But Bellarmine understands by the name “tradition” a doctrine not written in the Prophetic and Apostolic books. Now these two differ far and wide. Wherefore by these arguments he has tried in vain to prove that Sacred Scripture is not necessary for us: For that it is not simply necessary, we readily concede.

So much on the necessity of Sacred Scripture; what follows is on its authentic edition.

The authentic edition of Sacred Scripture is that which has from itself faith and authority, is sufficient for itself, commends, supports, and proves itself, without the aid of any other edition, for the reason that it itself is the prototype of the divine truth handed down by God through the Prophets and Apostles. This, as regards the Old Testament, is Hebrew, and in certain chapters of Daniel and Ezra Chaldee; as regards the New Testament, it is Greek: as the following points prove. Arguments. I. Because the Hebrew edition of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament was inspired immediately by God to the Prophets and Apostles. II. Because before Christ was born there was no other than the Hebrew of the Old Testament; nor after Christ was born any other than likewise the Hebrew of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament which for six hundred years was authentic in the Church of God. For that afterwards the darknesses of Papism or of Antichristianism obscured Scripture and almost crushed the studies of the Hebrew and Greek languages cannot prescribe against the truth of God. III. Because one must necessarily have recourse to the Hebrew edition of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament, if anything in the translations be erroneous, various, doubtful, less emphatic and improper; or if in the articles of the Christian religion something should occur that seems doubtful and difficult, which cannot be decided from the translations; as Augustine bears witness, in the third volume, book two On Christian Doctrine, chapter eleven: “Against unknown proper signs, a great remedy is the knowledge of languages.” And indeed men of the Latin tongue, whom we have now undertaken to instruct, also have need of two others for the knowledge of the divine Scriptures, namely Hebrew and Greek, so that one may return to the preceding exemplars, if the infinite variety of the Latin interpreters has brought any doubt. And a little after: “On account of the diversities of the interpreters, a knowledge of the languages themselves is necessary.” And Jerome, in the Epistle to Sunia and Fretella, in the third volume of the letters, page eighty-one of the Basel Froben edition of the year 1524: “Just as in the New Testament, if ever among the Latins a question arises and there is a variety among the copies, we return to the fountain of the Greek language, in which the New Instrument was written: so also in the Old Testament, if ever there is a difference between Greeks and Latins, we return to the Hebrew truth, so that whatever proceeds from the fountain, this we may seek in the little streams.” The adversaries themselves admit the same; as the Roman Pontiffs in Canon Law, Distinction nine, chapter Ut veterum, from Jerome’s twenty-eighth epistle to Lucinius the Baetican, so decree: “As the trustworthiness of the ancient books must be examined by the Hebrew volumes, so that of the new requires the rule of the Greek speech.” So also Bellarmine, book two On the Word of God, chapter eleven, section seven and the

following, admits that at four times it is permitted (he ought to have said, it is necessary) for us to recur to the Hebrew and Greek fountains, as the Fathers advise: first, when in our codices there seems to be an error of the copyists; second, when the Latin codices vary, so that it cannot be determined with certainty what the true reading is; third, when a word or sentence in Latin is ambiguous; fourth, to understand the energy and propriety of the words. These four causes, on account of which Bellarmine judges that one must go to the fountains, are all placed in the signs or words; but he is silent about the substance, whose symbol is speech and writing itself: which substance is the truth of doctrine, analogous (ἀναλογος) to faith and divine revelation and to other places of Scripture. Likewise Melchior Canus, book two On Theological Places, ch. 15, admits that the fountains must be consulted. To this argument, however, Bellarmine replies, book two On the Word of God, chapter eleven, section four: that it cannot be denied that the fountains of the Scriptures are to be preferred to the streams of the translations, when it is agreed that the fountains are not muddied: but now the fountains in many places flow turbidly. Reply. It is false that the Hebrew and Greek fountains flow turbidly in many places. Rather Bellarmine’s own mind is turbid - perhaps even turbulent - who, by accusing the fountains, declares himself to be of the number of the heretics, of whom Irenaeus says, book three Against Heresies, chapter two: “When they are refuted from the Scriptures, they turn into an accusation of the very Scriptures, as though they were not sound.” IV. Because for one Testament it is necessary that a single Scripture, divinely authentic, be had in a single language, the Old Testament in Hebrew, the New in Greek: for otherwise there would be no end of contentions, unless there were a single authentic edition in which one must rest. And surely it has proceeded from singular divine providence, that each Canonical Scripture should be canonical in one language only, nor be written by the Apostles in the diverse speech of diverse nations. For if the canonical authority of the Scripture of one nation had been conceded to the other, this latter would have become the seed-plot of contentions, which ambitious men would have seized upon in individual nations, so as to ascribe authenticity to their own Scripture, and to despise those of other nations, as we see to happen in the case of translations of it. We therefore give thanks to God that He has most wisely provided that each Testament should be divinely authentic in a single language.

Thus far our opinion concerning the authentic edition of the Scriptures; there follows a refutation of the adversaries who assail it. Some deny that the Hebrew edition is authentic; others deny that the Hebrew Scripture written by Moses and the Prophets has come down to us. That the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is not authentic, certain adversaries try to prove by the following arguments, and especially Wilhelmus Lindanus, whom Johannes Isaac, a German Levite, Professor of the Academy of Cologne, refuted in his Defense of the Hebrew Truth of the Sacred Scriptures, printed at Cologne by Jacob Soter in the year 1559; from which we too shall produce the principal points. First. A text that has a various and doubtful reading is not authentic; the Hebrew text of the Old Testament has a various and doubtful reading. Therefore the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is not authentic. Proof of the assumption. For in the Hebrew Old Testament notes are everywhere added in the margin, and that on account of a doubtful and various reading: as is clear from the most carefully corrected Bibles of Daniel Bomberg printed at Venice, and the editions of Felix Pratensis, namely, who from various most ancient Hebrew codices annotated in the margin various readings. Answer. First, the principal assumption of the argument is false, because the Hebrew text has only a single reading. Then, in the proof of that assumption a false end is alleged for those notes placed in the margin of the Hebrew Bibles. For they were not added in the margin on account of doubt or of a various reading - since there is only one reading - but, according to the command of Moses and the Prophets, on account of the signification of some singular mystery, or because of decorum, or because of euphony, etc. Thus therefore it must be understood, that in certain places of the biblical books there are certain words which, though set in the context of the sentence, are signified to be to be read by means of other words noted in the margin. And that which is inserted into the context is called Kethib, that is, writing or script, because it is only written there, and ought not also to be read; but the vowel-points which that very word set in the text occupies are to be transferred under the word written in the margin, so that by these points the reading of that [marginal word], being thereby formed, may be read in place of that which is in the very context. And therefore the word set in the margin is called Qeri, that is, reading, because, with the points placed in the text as if proper to it, it is read in the place of the other word: as at Genesis 8:17, where, in place of the word NPITT havxe set in the course of the sentence itself, the voice NPPsT hajze, which is noted in the margin, is to be read; that Qeri indicates, namely, the judgment of reading. Thus that DyU tzebosim at Genesis 14 which is in the context must be changed to Dyja tzeboim; the same judgment makes this plain. Therefore what is noted in the margin in the Hebrew exemplars is the true reading; whereas what is set in the context was indeed written for a definite reason, but is by no means read. This, however, is to be taken thus: not as though the emended and original purity of the exemplar, proceeding either from Moses or also from the other Prophets,

after having been injured by certain faults, had been restored by human industry; but that each of those by his own and divine judgment prescribed to the Jews that a word written otherwise in the very context - indeed with the same vowels, yet otherwise, that is, with certain letters changed - should be uttered, not without the signification of a singular mystery. And a certain measure of this rationale of judgment and variety seems to have been attained by the industry of the interpreters, in that it acknowledges that not even the very word set in the text is to be passed over entirely through negligence, as though empty of its own [force]. For example, in Psalm 9:13 the Kethib is DP] hanasim, but the Qeri is DyJa) hanaum. This is not done without cause, but in order to teach that God does indeed not forget the cry of the poor, that is, of the afflicted, yet not of just any persons, but rather of the meek, namely, of those who are humble and gentle. For Dyyqy hanajini signifies the poor, and likewise the afflicted; but Drza hanavim signifies the meek, the gentle, the humble, and the modest. Induced by this rationale, Kimchi, on Psalm 11, not only defends the bare reading as the true one, but also, with respect to the bare writing itself, that is, the script, lends it support by his interpretation and assigns to it its meaning. But as for those who, by their perverse judgments, do not free these varieties of words from the suspicion of fault, and note in these places, as though ambiguous, the ignorance of the scribes: that they indeed do this with a plausible rationale is sufficiently declared, both by the more ancient - Rabbi Jacob and Rabbi Isaac - and, among the more recent, by Elias Levita in the book Massoreth ha-Massoreth, in which he very sharply disputes against those who assert that the Qeri and Kethib were made on account of doubts, and he attacks and refutes their opinion with many arguments. Instance I. Elias Levita in the third preface testifies that in the Hebrew codices there is a different reading, and he sets forth this cause of this diversity, namely, that… Ezra and his Council set the books in order and corrected them; and when they had found some diversity, they followed the greater part of the agreeing books; and when they could not clearly understand something, they wrote one word in the context and another word, from another copy, in the margin. Therefore the Hebrew text has a doubtful reading. I answer: I deny the antecedent. For Elias is so far from writing these things, that he actually affirms the exact contrary, and he most sharply disputes against those who assert that the Qeri and Kethib were made on account of doubts, and he attacks and refutes their opinion with many arguments. For thus does Elias Levita argue: If the Qeri and Kethib are on account of doubts, what will they say about the Qeri and Kethib that are found in the books of the exile, namely in Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Daniel, Ezra, and the Chronicles, which Ezra wrote, and in the book Megillah, that is, of Esther, which Mordecai wrote? For it is certainly established that these very men were of the men of the Great Synagogue. For example, in the book of Ezra, chapter four, verse 2, in the text there is written DPPXJPDPPIAN Ny] velo anachnu cobechim, but they themselves wrote in the margin Py] velo, or with a vav cholem, to signify that it ought to be read with vav. If they did this on account of a doubt, because they did not know whether it should be read Py lo with vav or Nilo with aleph, it must be asked whether Ezra was with them: did he himself not know whether he had written Ney] velo with N aleph, or PyP with vav? And so with the remaining Qeri and Kethib which are in their books. The sense of the

argument is: If the Qeri and Kethib are on account of doubtful reading, then Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Daniel, and Ezra were in doubt as to how they themselves had written; for in their own books they themselves appended the Qeri. But the latter is absurd; therefore so is the former. Now as to the fact that in Ezra chapter four verse two the Kethib has N7y lo with aleph, signifying “not,” by that Ezra wished to signify that the enemies, desiring to build together, did indeed say with the mouth that they had sacrificed to Jehovah, but in reality had not done so. Instance. But after the death of those Prophets the Qeri was written on account of doubt. I answer: The point is begged. For the Jews thereafter, before Christ was born, had no further transmigration, nor did the books perish in those few years; for the time of the men of the Great Synagogue lasted only about forty years, as is proved in Seder Olam and in Chalah of R. Ab the son of David. Moreover, if the Qeri and Kethib had been made on account of doubts, then they would have arisen by some chance in one or another place. But the latter is not the case, because in one and the same word the Qeri and Kethib recur often: for example, twenty times and twice in the Law it is written Tynahra and it is read PPI naharah. Likewise, seven times it is written DPyJOV hepholim and it is read PPIIrIO techorim. Likewise, five times the Kethib has Dei Sphanajum and the Qeri DPJU hanajim; and two contraries, and many others. How did a doubt always arise in every M nabra and Dyyjo hepholim and Dὸiν δῳ hanajim? The sum comes to this: The men of the Great Synagogue, to wit, Haggai, Zechariah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Mordecai, Zerubbabel - besides whom there were joined certain wise men from Harasch and Masger, who in all made up 120 men - these wrote according to the Cabalah, namely that Moses had not read that word for the sake of some mystery, which was known to them, which mystery Moses handed down to Joshua, to the elders, and the elders to the Prophets. This word, namely, they wrote in the margin, how it ought to be read; and Ezra was that scribe who appended the Qeri in the Law of Moses. The same was done in the Prophets and the Hagiographa, in all the words in which they had the Cabalah, by mandate of the Prophets and the Wise of the generations, one from the mouth of another, namely, that certain words ought not to be read as they are written. But in the books of the exile they did not need that tradition; for those very authors were there with them, and when they found some word which seemed to them out of place according to the intention of the subject-matter and the exposition of Scripture, then the author of the book told them the reason why he had written otherwise; then they wrote the word in the margin as it ought to be read. As when they saw in Haggai JOONPDPHPIN] veeraa 6 veecabed, Haggai told them that it was not to be read veecabed, but veecabedah, as though it had PH He at the end; and he told them the reason, namely because of the five ornaments which had been in the first temple and not in the second; therefore that he had written thus. Then they wrote in the margin IDPPJONJ, veccabeda, Qeri. And so they did in all the others which are in the books of the exile. The sum is (says Elias Levita) that the men of the Great Synagogue made the Qeri which are in the Law, according to the mandate of the Cabalah which they had from Moses of great name - peace be upon him; and those which are in the Prophets and Hagiographa, according to the mandate of the Cabalah which they had from the Prophets and the

wise men of the times; and those which are in the books of the exile, according to the mandate of those very persons who were the authors of the books: by no means, however, on account of doubts, as many have thought. These things from Elias Levita. Instance 3. They press further: that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament has a various and doubtful reading. For some read the letters with these, others with other points; as in Deuteronomy chapter twenty-five, last verse, some read Zachar, others Secher. In Psalm four, verse three, some read Kevodi lechlimmah; but others Kevodi sichlimmah. In Psalm seventy-three, verse ten, some read umi, others ume. I answer: If you regard the points, there is one perpetual reading, and by no means a diverse one. As to the examples adduced, they plainly beg the question. For in the opinions of those men there was no other reading before and after Christ was born than there is now: in Deuteronomy chapter twenty-five, verse nineteen, it ought to be read Secher. Then always in Psalm four it has been read, and ought to be read, Kevodi lichlimmah, that is, “my glory to ignominy.” And in Psalm seventy-three, verse 10, it has been read, and ought to be read, ume, that is, “and waters.” But as to the other reading in Psalm four and seventy-three, that recent reading has been concocted by the Jesuits, with impious boldness, to excuse the errors of the old or Vulgate Latin version; and, so far as we know, it exists nowhere in the ancient authors. The adversaries reply to this our answer: they say that our answer is that always, both before and after Christ was born, the system of the vowel points was the same; but that this answer conflicts with the truth of history, because Elias Levita, in the preface to the book Massoreth Hammassoreth, writes that the application of the points was only discovered in the year four hundred and thirty-six after the last destruction of Jerusalem, by the Jews of Tiberias, who have always been held to be, in the Holy Tongue, more cultivated than all the Hebrews; for previously the Hebrew language had lacked the point. I answer: That narration of Elias Levita does not deserve the faith of true history. For by evident arguments it is established that the vowel points and the distinguishing points which are called accents were not at length devised in the books of the Old Testament by the Jews of Tiberias, but were affixed by Moses himself and the Prophets: I. Because the Scripture of the Old Testament has been delivered by God through the Prophets, not only as to the sense, but also as to the words, and therefore also as to the vowels, without which no words can hold together, and as to the distinguishing accents, without which the sense of speech would be thrown into confusion. II. Because the vowel points are the soul of syllables and words, and thus of living pronunciation. The points of the Mosaic Law are like the vital soul in the human body, as R. Nechonia the son of Halthana says in Sepher Habbahir, that is, in the Illustrious Book, who lived before the Deuteroses, or the contexts of the whole Talmud, were composed. And in the Zohar (which book is indeed later, but more celebrated among the Jews, not only expounding the five books of Moses, but also the rest of the Old Testament, and which is written in the more secret Jerusalemite tongue), in the Song of Songs these things are found: “No letters can be uttered this

way or that, unless with points. All the letters (namely, Hebrew) are like a body without a soul (because all are consonants); when the points (that is, vowels) come, the body is set up in its stature.” Now, who, I ask, endowed with any judgment, would deny that Moses and the Prophets, by their writing, represented the living voice - of which the vowels constitute the chief part - to the full? For since vowels alone are for the most part heard in speech, how would the most wise inventors of letters, in fashioning in Scripture the image of speech, have omitted its noble and principal part, and have expressed only the duller and more obscure, namely the consonants? To fasten this upon them is no less absurd, than if someone should affirm that a skilled painter, imitating by painting the figure of a man, either out of ignorance concealed the face and whatever makes a man known and conspicuous, or out of negligence passed them over. III. Because, since a new invention of writing was already at the beginning difficult enough for readers, it is altogether incredible that that difficulty was increased by a lack of vowels. IV. Because thus the whole Old Testament would be made uncertain and doubtful, with others reading in other ways, since there is no consonant to which other and yet other points could not be subjoined or added. V. Because if they were not from the Prophets, we should have to depend, and it would be necessary to believe men, not God. VI. Because if only by the Massoretes the true reading and pronunciation of the Prophets were shown, we should be built upon the foundation of the Massoretes, and not upon the foundation of the Prophets. VII. Because the reading would then no longer be authentic; for the whole would hang upon the judgment of the Massoretes, and not upon the authority of God speaking through the Prophets. And what religion could move anyone to judge that he must acquiesce in the reading of the Massoretes? VIII. Because the writings of the Old Testament, marked with points, were already distinguished before the coming of Christ, and were approved by his most holy mouth, as is evident from Matthew chapter 5, where the Lord says: “Amen I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, yod or one tittle shall not pass from the Law, until all things are accomplished.” By which words he clearly bears witness that the Scripture of the divine Law consists not only of consonants (which are understood through yod, the least of them), but also of apices, by which the points, to be sure, are denoted; and he ascribes to both equal antiquity and authority; then he acknowledges that both have proceeded from the heavenly Father, and he commends them to us with such religion, as those in which the eternal will of God and true salvation alone are contained, for the accomplishment and fulfillment of which whatever is comprehended by heaven and earth is subject. This single testimony of Christ ought to have more weight with us than that of those who affirm that the Hebrew writers were altogether destitute of vowels. But to these men we must not give ear, but to the Holy Spirit, who, according to the testimony of Christ our Master and Lord, seals upon the souls of the elect that the Sacred Scriptures, down to the last tittle, are purely divine.

IX. Because R. David Kimchi bears witness that the points were revealed together with the Law by God. And R. Levi the son of Joseph, in the book PJIDS Sema. lar, agrees with Kimchi himself, affirming that the points were given together with the Law. From these things it is evident that the narration of Elias Levita does not deserve credence; and by no means must it be conceded that the Rabbis only later added the points, as though they had not been affixed by Moses and the Prophets. They urge: But Elias, in testimony to this matter, says that at Rome he - envoys of Prester John had come, who were speaking their own common Arabic language without points. But I answer: I oppose to this Theseus St. Ambrose, who in his Introduction to the Chaldean, Syriac, and Armenian language flatly denies that the language of those envoys was Chaldean, and maintains that it was Ethiopian, or Indian, or certainly Armenian, a certain region of which is called Chaldea. He proves this in fact, because the Armenians write from left to right after the manner of the Greeks and Latins; as also the Indians, whose Psalter John Potken published as if it were Chaldean. They urge again: It has been answered above that the points were handed down together with the letters by God; but to this answer they oppose the story which bears witness that Ezra, with other letters which he had brought from Babylon, transcribed the sacred codices. It is answered: Some indeed think so; but it is by no means likely that Ezra, a holy Prophet and a religious observer of the Law, preferred Gentile and human letters to those delivered and commended by God. They press further: Private Bibles always lacked the points; therefore they were not affixed at the beginning by Moses and the Prophets. It is answered: The antecedent is particular: for not all private Bibles lacked the points, although very many did; but it does not straightway follow from this that they were not affixed by Moses and the Prophets. For it is certain that the public and authentic exemplars did not lack the points. That the private lacked the points, the difficulty of the matter brought it about; that the public did not lack them, the necessity of religion brought it about. They reply to the testimony of Kimchi that there can be no authority to it, since he contradicts himself. For in Niphal Kimchi writes that the arrangers of the pointing set a distinction between the first word of the Niphal preterite and the singular first word of the participle of the same conjugation, assigning Patach to the preterite, Kamets to the participle. Hence they conclude: it appears how little he is consistent with himself; in one place he says that the points were given on Sinai; in another, when he attributes them to several arrangers, he denies that. It is answered: By Kimchi the arrangers of the points are not called the authors of the points, but rather those who, in the long and various exiles and tossings of the Jews, corrected the points carelessly affixed and observed, and called them back to the eternal ordinance of God on Sinai. Thus far the first argument has been refuted: there follows

Second A corrupt text is not authentic; the Hebrew text is corrupt; therefore the Hebrew text is not authentic. They prove the minor both by testimonies and by examples. And first they bring forward the testimony of Elijah Levita, who in his second preface attests that wherever he had learned that some corrected book existed, he had gone there, and that he had found the Spanish to be less corrupt than others. It is answered: Elijah does not write this about the Bibles, but about the Massoreth. For he openly testifies that he went to various places not for the sake of the Bibles, but on account of a corrected Massoreth. Therefore in the Massoreth he commends the diligence of the Spanish Jews because of codices corrected more than others; he also accuses the rashness of scribes, who, having placed certain excerpts from the Massoreth in the margins of the Bibles for ornament’s sake, because they were unskilled and ignorant of the art of the Massoreth, committed many errors. No small occasion was supplied to this matter, because those things which they were writing from the Massoreth in the margins of the Bibles they sometimes wanted to enclose in a picture. Some painted a rose, others a little branch, others other images in which they would write the Massoreth; and thus certain things, in order to fill out the picture, they sometimes added; but certain things, since the picture was not capacious of everything, they sometimes omitted. Now would you take the unskilfulness which Elijah writes about the Massoreth as applying to the text of the Bibles? What, pray, is this consequence: The Massoreth is corrupt; therefore the Bibles are corrupt? Likewise, the Concordances of the Bibles annotated in the margin are corrupt; therefore the text of the Bibles is corrupt? Nay rather, among a thousand copies of the Bible you will scarcely find one that has the Massoreth appended. They urge further and in addition bring forward the testimony of Bruno Amerbach, a man celebrated for his skill in three languages, who in the preface to Jerome’s Psalter asserts that the old manuscript copies of the Psalter differ and vary in many places from the Psalters printed at Venice. “What,” says Bruno Amerbach, “that the ‘Hebrew Truth’ (as they call it), in the favor, as we suspect, of the Jews of our time (for it very much favors their expositions), we have found to be somewhat altered by some man learned in Hebrew? For the Venetian exemplar did not agree in many places with the most ancient codices of Jerome.” It is answered: Bruno Amerbach is speaking about Jerome’s translation, which they commonly call the Hebrew Truth, and by no means about the Hebrew text. Next, he writes that the old translation lacks a sure author and has been corrupted by some knave. But it pleases us to hear Amerbach’s own words. Bruno Amerbach of Basel to the pious Reader, greetings. “It cannot be told how much we rejoice that Latin letters, almost perished in the previous age, have been called back from destruction, first by the efforts of Laurentius Valla, then in recent years wonderfully illuminated by the zeal of Politian and Hermolaus Barbarus. But there is reason why we ought no less to rejoice, namely that at this time we hope much light will accrue to the old and approved Theology from this most thoroughly corrected edition of the works of Jerome: to which

students ought to ascribe it primarily to Erasmus, and somewhat also to us. A few years ago Greek letters emerged, and now - what we report with exultant heart - both in Gaul and in Germany very many cultivate Greek most successfully: which not so long ago was rare even in Italy itself. But also those most sacred Hebrew letters, by which a good part of secret knowledge, that is, of the mysteries of the Prophets, has been handed down to us, have begun to be taught: but not so many embrace them, to wit because exemplars printed in Hebrew type are not at hand. Wherefore, for the benefit of students of this language, and at the same time because St. Jerome, while he expounds the Psalms, either uses their testimony, or very frequently cites the Hebrew reading and the Greek, which is that of the interpreters the Seventy, we have added to this eighth volume, by way of a corollary, a fourfold Psalter, namely the Hebrew and opposite to it St. Jerome’s version, which they commonly call the Hebrew Truth; likewise the Greek, to which there answers over against it the translation which is commonly read as adelos (ἀδηλος), that is, of an uncertain author, sometimes (to say what the case is) [Greek phrase], differing from the Greek exemplar: whether the blame of this is to be cast upon the ignorance of the translator, or upon the carelessness of the copyists, or - as is more likely - upon the bold clumsiness of some knave, I am unwilling to examine for the present. Moreover, we have found that the Hebrew Truth (as they call it), in favor, as we suspect, of the Jews of our time (for it very much favors their expositions), has been somewhat altered by some man learned in Hebrew; for the Venetian exemplar did not agree in many places with the most ancient codices of Jerome. But indeed we have applied ourselves to this to the best of our strength, that, just as our other works, so these might come into men’s hands as corrected as possible.” These are the testimonies they produce: next they bring forward several examples of corrupt places. And first they say that from this it can be easily gathered that the Hebrew text is corrupt, namely that the translations have many things which are lacking to the Hebrew text. It is answered: First, rather the contrary ought to be inferred: the translations have many things which are lacking to the Hebrew text; therefore the translations are corrupt. Next, it must be proved that many things are lacking to the Hebrew text. They try to prove that from Psalm 13, where in the old translation there is this: Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues they dealt deceitfully, the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes. Since these verses are not contained in the Hebrew codices, and yet are cited by Paul as if part of Psalm 13, it is a strong argument that the Hebrew Bibles are corrupt. It is answered: Against this Jerome will abundantly satisfy on our behalf all the pious; whose words in the sixteenth book on the Prophet Isaiah are as follows: “It is the excellent judgment of a most eloquent Orator, that the arts would be happy if only the craftsmen judged about them. And lest I seem to take an example only from profane authors: this is in fact that which the Prophet in other words shows: Blessed is he who speaks into the ears of

those who hear. By which happiness you, daughter Eustochium, have made me a sharer. For when you were reading the little preface of the former book, in which I asserted that the Apostles and Evangelists set down testimonies only from the Seventy interpreters, either in their own words or in those of the Seventy, which agreed with the Hebrew; but if any things were added by others, they altogether neglected them: straightway you brought to me no small little question: namely, that the eight verses which are read in the Churches and are not contained in the Hebrew of the 13th Psalm the Apostle has employed, writing to the Romans: Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues they dealt deceitfully: the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes. When I had heard this, as if I had been struck by a most strong boxer, I began silently to be in a heat, and to mark the stupefaction of my mind by the paleness of my face. A Hebrew, I say, of Hebrews, according to the Law a Pharisee, and trained at the feet of Gamaliel, either did not know these things, or he took advantage of the ignorance of those who would be reading. The one is the mark of an unlearned man, the other of a crafty man for malice; nor of him who would say: And if unskilled in speech, yet not in knowledge. And again: In simplicity and sincerity I announced the word to you. At length, having returned to myself, I asked a space of one day, that my answer might not be an argument of human wit, but the fruit of assiduous reading. And so, running through all Scripture in my mind, I observed that, just as the whole Epistle to the Romans is constructed from the Old Instrument, so also this testimony is woven together out of the Psalms and Isaiah. For the first two verses, Their throat is an open sepulchre: with their tongues they dealt deceitfully, are of the fifth Psalm. But that which follows: The poison of asps is under their lips, is of the one hundred thirty-ninth Psalm. And again, what is said: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, is taken from the ninth Psalm. But the three little verses which follow: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace they have not known, I found in the Prophet Isaiah; which in the sixteenth book of my exposition, which I now desire to dictate, I shall expound. But the last verse, that is, the eighth, There is no fear of God before their eyes, is at the beginning of the thirty-fifth Psalm. Nor let it seem to anyone to be diverse in this, if that which in its own places is said in the singular number is said by the Apostle in the plural, who was writing to many and was driving many examples into one sense. I think your question is solved, and that our rule concerning the translation of the Old Instrument has been shaken rather than moved. And that it is not so much that the Apostle took from Psalm 13 what is not contained in the Hebrew, as that those who did not know the Apostle’s art of interweaving Scriptures with one another sought a suitable place where they might put the testimony assumed by him, which they did not think had been put into Scripture without authority. Finally, all the expositors of Greece who have left to us commentaries on the Psalms as a monument of their learning note these little verses truly and pass them by: clearly confessing that they are not contained in the Hebrew, nor are in the Seventy interpreters, but in the common edition which is called in Greek ‘the usual’ and is diverse throughout the whole world.”

Thus far the reply of Jerome, the sum of which is this: that those verses are not adduced by Paul as part of the thirteenth Psalm, but as testimonies heaped together and woven out of several places of Scripture to confirm the same point. Objection. A certain English exemplar has these verses written in Hebrew in Psalm 1. Therefore the present-day Hebrew codices are corrupt. I answer: That Augustine, Bishop of Canterbury, who purged England of Pelagianism, and of whom that exemplar is believed to have been, lived about three hundred years after the death of Jerome. But if in Jerome’s time these verses were not yet in the Hebrew text, on whose authority shall we believe that after his death they crept in? And it is easy to prove that those Hebrew verses which the English Psalter has are supposititious, adulterine, and translated into the Hebrew language by a wicked and unlearned man out of the Latin. For among other verses there is also this: ascher pihem ala umara male (“whose mouth is full of cursing and deceit”): is this rightly said? is it a Hebrew phrase? do we read anything similar anywhere in the Bible? For the adjective male or meleah, both in the singular and in the plural, is never placed at the end of a sentence where there is a colon or a period. The property of the Hebrew language requires that the governing word precede that which is governed. Therefore it is not permitted in Hebrew to say “spirit full,” “wisdom full,” etc., in such a way that the adjective “full” be put after; rather, it must precede. Then too, in these verses mazzal is put for fortune or misfortune, whereas it means a star or planet; and it occurs only once in the Bible, 2 Kings 23:5, where it is read thus: hamiatterim labbahal laschemesch ulejareach, ulemazzaloth ulechol tzeba haschamajim, that is, “who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and to the moon and to the planets and to all the host of heaven.” In which place the planets are called mazzaloth from the root nazal, that is, “flowed, streamed down,” because they, as Rimchi says, flow in their course. Among the Rabbis indeed it is taken for “fortune,” because they supposed that all things depend on and are ruled by the planets, and thus they ascribed to the planets every good or evil fortune. But the barbarous words of the Rabbis must be distinguished from the Hebrew. If the translator of these verses had had any competence in the Hebrew tongue, or had been even moderately conversant with the Bible, he would readily have noticed that this verse was taken by Paul from Isaiah chapter 59, and with the same words Isaiah used he would have rendered those Latin words into Hebrew. But that it was done otherwise must be ascribed to the special providence of God, namely so that it might be detected by all that these verses are by no means genuine, but adulterine and supposititious. Reply of the adversaries: It has been answered that NyD is put in a pause; to this answer they oppose Psalm 10:7, in which after PPIN ala there follows NyD male. I answer. In the place Psalm 10:7, Ny male is not set at the end of the sentence or at a pause, but in the middle of the sentence; which is clear from this, that there presently follows umirmoto vatoch, to which also ale must be referred. And that this is true the accent Athnach, which is placed under vatoch, sufficiently argues and proves. I conclude that these verses were written according to Latin phrases, and that by one who was plainly ignorant and unskilled in Hebrew and Chaldee phrases; and therefore that they are supposititious and adulterine.

They press again: The Hebrew text was read one way in Jerome’s time, and now it is read another way; therefore today’s text is corrupt. They try to prove the antecedent thus. For in Genesis 6 Jerome translates, “My Spirit shall not remain in man,” but today, according to the Hebrew truth, they translate, “My Spirit shall not strive, shall not contend.” For now they read lo jadon with Daleth, which Jerome read with Lamed. Reply. Rather, Jerome in his Questions or Traditions on Genesis asserts the contrary; for these are Jerome’s words: “And the Lord God said: My Spirit shall not remain in these men forever, for they are flesh. In Hebrew it is written: My Spirit shall not judge in these men forever, for they are flesh; that is, because the condition in man is frail, I will not keep them for eternal torments, but here I will repay to them what they deserve. Therefore it denotes not severity, as in our codices it is read, but the clemency of God, while the sinner here is visited for his crime,” etc. What could be said more vain than to affirm that Jerome read in the Hebrew codices lo ialon (which means “shall not lodge overnight,” not however “shall not remain”), when in express and clear words he says that in the Hebrew it is “shall not judge”? Therefore a different reading is not the cause of the fact that some have translated “shall not remain,” but others “shall not judge” or “shall not contend.” The reading was the same for all; but a diverse and discrepant interpretation arose because they derived this word from a different root. Those who translated “shall not remain” supposed the root to be nadan; of which Rimchi also makes mention under the root nadan in his Book of Roots. But those who translated “shall not judge” or “shall not contend” (which is the better rendering) judged the root to be don, which means, “he contended, he judged, he disputed, he brought a suit.” Nor was this controversy only between the Greeks and the Latins, but even the Rabbis among themselves contended, as Aben Ezra testifies. They press further: The Jews, in defense of their obstinacy and to mock Christians and out of hatred of Christ our Lord, foully corrupted the biblical books. Therefore the Hebrew text is not authentic. Reply. The antecedent is false. For the Jews have always expended great zeal and labor to preserve the sacred books whole, free from every error and corruption, and they have honored them with the highest reverence and religion. Nor do I doubt that by God’s singular and secret counsel it has been provided, and by his nod and power administered, that with such stubborn zeal the Jews keep their books sincere and inviolate. For if they had been of that perfidy - which is almost commonly imputed to them - as they had wished, no mysteries about Christ would have remained intact, no prophecies uncorrupted, no promises inviolate; finally nothing by which they might be in the least hurt would have been left unvitiated by them. But that the Jews are free of this crime, and that they have directed all their effort and strained their sinews to guard the native purity of the Scriptures, the skill of distinguished men in this language has made more plain than that it needs to be supported by many reasons and testimonies of authors. In Baba Bathra it is read that Joab killed his teacher because he had fraudulently done the work of God, when he read Deuteronomy 25:19, Timche Zachar Amalec, that is, “You shall blot out the male of Amalek,” when he ought to have read Zecher Amalec, that is, “the memory of Amalek.” This story, as a notable

example, Jerome also recounts on Isaiah chapter 6; and Capnio, otherwise called Reuchlin, in his little book On the Cabalistic Art. How great, I ask, was the zeal of the Jews here? how great their rigor in punishing those who erred and corrupted the reading? If Joab, a warlike man, handling almost nothing but arms and spending his life as a soldier, so honored the true reading of Holy Scripture with reverence and religion that he judged his teacher, because he slyly and with ill purpose read corruptly Zachar instead of Zecher, to be punished with death - what must we believe other pious, religious, and holy Jews to have done? Reply of the adversaries: Once indeed the Jews, with great tenacity, guarded the native purity of the sacred Scriptures and observed them with the highest reverence; afterward, however, especially after Christ was born, they greatly relaxed from their former ardor. Reply. So far from having relaxed anything of their rigor, they have proved - not to say most religious - much more vehemently superstitious. For they would rather undergo all storms and tempests of adverse affairs, and choose death with the loss of all goods, than knowingly admit the change of a single word. And with such religion, or rather superstition, do they observe the Holy Bible that they never set it down in a place not sufficiently clean, nor handle it with impure and defiled hands; they are most diligent to beware lest perchance it fall to the ground, and many other such things they observe with great superstition. And if by some chance it should happen to fall to the ground, all the Jews of that place are driven to a fast to expiate this committed fault, since they are fully persuaded that by this event a danger is portended and a presage of great evil and misfortune. But why do I tarry with many words in showing these things, since they omit nothing, so far as by care, labor, vigils, counsel they can strive and effect, to keep Talmudic books - to which they assign the next place after the Bible - likewise the Petuschim and Medraschim, and similar works of this sort, sound and whole? Let someone, I beg, examine whether they have ever in these, I will not say altered anything, but whether they have ever conceived in mind such a deed? And indeed I judge it altogether superfluous to seek examples and testimonies from many ages long since past. What a tragedy was stirred up at Cologne in the year 1510 and the following, when Pfefferkorn fought against John Capnio, that is Reuchlin! What did not the Papist theologians do against the Talmud with utmost effort? with what assiduity and diligence did they press Blessed Maximilian the First, that he should abolish the Talmudic books! what terrors, what dangers then hung over the Jews! how grievous and bitter things they suffered! But to come to more recent matters: what storms and tempests did they endure in the last century in Italy, when, all their books taken away and consumed by fire, they themselves also were exposed to extreme danger! Yet neither terror, nor force, nor hope, nor fear, nor promises, nor threats, nor weapons, nor torches could drive them from this purpose and once-conceived opinion and judgment, so that they should alter their Talmud at least in some places where the most absurd opinions are taught and most manifest blasphemies against religion are defended. Therefore, if in our time - when they are subject to the empire of Christians and obey them - they are so superstitious and obstinate in Talmudic trifles that they would rather undergo violence and injury than depart by a hair’s breadth from their opinion and alter anything, with how much more ardent zeal do they regard the Bible and with the highest reverence keep it uncorrupted - which among them by many parasangs

precedes all other books and which they revere, and even adore, as a divine thing. But what need is there to set forth at greater length a matter well known to all pious and learned men, especially to those who have at some time come into conference and conversation with Jews, or have read their books? I for my part think, nay I most firmly believe, that it has been so provided by God, and that this will has been instilled into the Jews by God, that they preserve the Bible sincere and chaste. Moreover it has been established by many laws among the Jews themselves that he who changes anything in the Bible commits an inexpiable sin. And they have added this besides, that if anyone either out of ignorance or out of malice and impiety change a single word, there is danger lest for that cause the whole world perish and be turned into tohu vabohu, that is, into the primal chaos, rude and unformed. And they have brought these reasons for their view, that they believe God created this world on account of the Holy Scripture alone; which opinion they prove in various ways. If therefore anyone corrupt the Holy Scripture, for whose sake the world, according to the Jews’ opinion, was founded, they say that it will be brought back again into tohu vabohu: as many passages in the Talmud, Bereschith Rabba, Tanhuma, and other books show. In Maimonides too it is laid down that if even a single word be wrongly written, that exemplar must immediately be put into an earthen vessel and buried in the house of some studious and learned man, lest anyone ever in the future should use it; unless perhaps some Jew, suffering extreme poverty, should arise who asks for it. For it has been decreed that the use of that book is not to be denied him; but on this condition - so that he may instruct only his own children from it, and never bring it into the Synagogue, or accommodate it to any other use. Hence it is that so great is the agreement and concord of the Bibles, that a codex written by the hand of any Jew cannot be shown which has anything that is lacking in other books, or in which there is lacking what other codices contain, except for those things which pertain to the Masorah and the Qeri and Ketiv. But since Bellarmine himself, in book two On the Word of God, chapter two, against other Papists, namely James, bishop of Christopolis, and Cano the Jesuit, proves with very weighty arguments, as he calls them, that the Jews by no means, out of hatred of the Christian faith, have depraved and corrupted many passages of Scripture, I judge it superfluous to add more here. Furthermore, besides the passages already rehearsed which they maintain are corrupt in the Hebrew text, Bellarmine brings forward certain others: for example, Isaiah 9:6. They say that it must be read, “This is the name which they shall call him, Mighty God, Father of the age to come”; as Calvin contends, Inst. book 1, chap. 13, sect. 9, saying: “Here too the Jews bark, and thus overturn the reading: ‘This is the name whereby the Mighty God, Father of the age to come, shall call him,’ etc., so that they leave to the Son only this, that he be called Prince of peace.” But in the Hebrew sources is JDU NTDrI, vajikra schemo, that is, “and he will call his name.” Therefore the Hebrew sources are not pure. The argument proposed syllogistically is as follows: In those books in which it must be read otherwise than it truly stands in them, those without doubt are corrupt and by no means everywhere pure.

But in the Hebrew books of the Old Testament it must be read otherwise than it truly stands in them: Therefore the Hebrew books of the Old Testament are corrupt and not everywhere pure. The assumption is denied: it is therefore proved in this way, because Calvin contends that it must be read “shall be called,” and not “shall call.” I answer: Calvin does not contend that it must be read otherwise than it stands in the Hebrew text, but refutes the Jews, who by their interpretation pervert that text and refer those epithets, “Mighty God, Father of the age to come,” etc., to the Father, whereas they pertain to the Messiah, that Son of God. Accordingly, not to the letter but to the clearer sense (which, as even St. Jerome bears witness, is the best method of interpreting) he renders “will be called”: because third-person verbs taken impersonally among the Hebrews, in either number, must for the sake of clarity now be rendered for us actively, now passively. Another passage. Jeremiah 23:6. In the same place Calvin wants it to be read, “This is his name whereby they shall call him, Jehovah our righteousness.” But the Hebrew fount constantly has, “he will call him.” I answer. In the cited place Calvin absolutely does not contend how it is to be read in the Hebrew text, as the Jesuit falsely feigns. For Calvin’s words are these: “Nothing more lucid can be sought than Jeremiah’s passage, that this shall be the name whereby the sprout of David shall be called, ‘Jehovah our righteousness’.” Then Francis Vatablus, Xantes Pagninus, and Arias Montanus rendered “they shall call”; and rightly, since Hebrew verbs taken impersonally can in Latin be rendered in either number. Another passage. Psalm 22:17. There is no Christian who does not read: “They have dug (pierced) my hands and my feet.” But in the sources there is in place of “they have dug,” P& and caari, “like a lion.” I answer. Although in common exemplars it is read PJNe, caari, which means “as a lion,” yet, first, the malice of the Jews has not here corrupted the passage of Psalm 22: 1) because the Masoretes themselves, who were Jews, although in many exemplars it is written PJN&, caari, nevertheless testify that in a good part of more emended books they have found it written caru, that is, “they dug.” 2) because if the Jews had wished to corrupt passages about the Messiah, they would also have corrupted other and clearer ones, namely Isaiah chapter 53, Daniel chapter 9, and others. Rather the Papists corrupt passages about the Messiah, as that passage Genesis 3:15 concerning the seed of the woman. 3) because the Papists themselves testify that many Hebrew editions are found in which caari is read, as Andradius in Defense of Trent, book 4, and Petrus Galatinus, book 8, chap. 17. Also Johannes Isaacus, book 2 against Lindanus, writes that he has seen such an edition. R. Jacob the son of Chajim, in the book Massoreth, under the letter Aleph Resh, says: “In part of the more emended books I have found: it is written Caru, and it is read Caari.” And in the same place he subjoins: “Indeed I sought this word PJMo among the words which are written with

vav at the end of words and are read with yod; but I did not find this written in the number of those.” The Complutensian Bible has PINᾧ, caris. That biblical codex was published with the privilege of Pope Leo X, in the year 1520, by the efforts of Cardinal Ximenes. Secondly, even if in all the editions it were PINᾧ, caari, nevertheless it would not follow from that that the Hebrew text is corrupt. Rather an ellipsis of the verb caru, that is, “they dug,” or of some other which the sense of the present passage would require, should be posited: ellipses of verbs of this sort are most usual in Scripture, especially in querens; an example of which can be Psalm 120:7, “I [am] peace” (understand, “I love [peace]”); “but when I speak, they for war” (supply, “shout together”). The sense therefore would be, “like a lion, my hands and my feet,” namely, “they pierced [them]”: so that by this comparison the Lord is set forth as having his hands and feet pierced as by a lion’s teeth. Nor is this comparison alien to the context: for a little before, at verse 14, he expressly compared his enemies to a lion, saying: “They open wide their mouth against me, like a ravening and roaring lion.” The Massorah certainly notes in the margin: Nyθυγγ PITεα beth bithre lischanajja, that is, that there are two in a double signification. Isaiah 38:13, PANᾧ, “as a lion, so he will crush all his bones.” In a double signification, that is, that it signify not only “like a lion,” but also hint at some verb. The Targum embraces both significations, which has: )θῶτῆε VPNε NPINOEPIIPPIM nicotin hecb ccaja. niedai veriglai: that is, “they pierced, even as a lion, my hands and my feet.” Although therefore some exemplars have Caari, yet not all. Nor is it permitted to argue thus: Some exemplars are corrupt; therefore all. Another passage. Psalm 19:5. The Hebrew codices have, “Into all the earth their qav (line) has gone out,” that is, their line or plumb-line; but the Seventy interpreters and Paul in Romans 10:18 have φθόγγος, that is, “their sound.” Therefore either the Hebrew codices are corrupt, or Paul must be censured. I answer. Neither are the Hebrew codices corrupt, nor is Paul to be censured. For the Apostle does not cite the words properly, but does so anagogically; which does not prevent the name qavvah properly to signify “line” or “plumb-line,” but metaphorically “sound.” Therefore it is not a fault of the Hebrew text, which Bellarmine with his censor’s rod determines, nor of Paul as interpreter, but an office of apostolic industry, when by the same Spirit he accommodates the words of David, spoken about the first creation, to the condition of the grace of the Gospel: so that the sense is, “Into all the earth their line or delineation has gone out,” like a sound pervading the world. And Genebrardus the Papist himself admits this in his scholia on this passage, in which he says that the Hebrew name indeed signifies “line,” but that the Seventy interpreters had regard to the sense, which also the Apostle followed. An instance is urged. It is likely that formerly in the Hebrew text there stood Dy(, olam; but now the lamed has been changed into a vav, and thus the text has been corrupted.

I answer. The point is begged. For in that way it would not be Qolam but Qallam that must be read. But Qallam signifies their easiness or levity. Qolam, however, ought not to be written otherwise than with vav, thus Qolam. For without vav it is written only in six places for certain causes; elsewhere always with vav. By Aquila, who was before St. Jerome, it is translated “kanon” (κανών), as the most learned Flaminius has annotated in his Psalter. Another passage. Sometimes entire sentences are lacking in the Hebrew, though they are not lacking either in the version of the LXX or in St. Jerome’s translation. We have an example in Exodus 2, where all that is lacking: “She also bore another, and she called his name Eliezer, saying: The God of my father helped me, and delivered me from the hand of Pharaoh.” I answer. In this place the Latin rather than the Hebrew codices are corrupt. For that obelus which the Latin codices, even the Louvain, have branded upon these words, indicates that the whole sentence also is to be removed from the Latin books; and this the more learned and more sincere Papists also confess. For thus Cajetan writes in his commentaries on this place: “This whole little clause about the second son is superfluous.” But that verse inserted in chapter 2 belongs to chapter 18 of Exodus. Another passage brought by Wilhelm Lindanus. The Jews, according to Justin, mutilated that noble prophecy about the Messiah to be crucified and to reign over the pagans from the tree, in Psalm 95 (or 96 according to the Hebrew numbering). For whereas in the Psalm there is, “God reigned from the tree”: “the phrase, ‘from the tree’,” he says, “the Jews have removed.” Therefore the Hebrew text is not pure. I answer. First, Justin never wrote that the Hebrew text was corrupted by the Jews, but that the Greek text of the LXX interpreters was. The words of Justin are these in the Dialogue with Trypho: “And,” he says, “that they have removed many and entire passages of those books from the translation of those who were with Ptolemy the elder, in which it is clearly shown that this very one is God and man crucified, and that he is pronounced to hang on the cross and to die, I want you to know.” Thus Justin. Nor anywhere else does he write anything about the corruption of the Hebrew text. Secondly, if it is true that the Jews committed so nefarious a plagiarism and removed these words (“from the tree”) from Psalm 96, how then does it come about that neither the Greek nor the Vulgate Latin, nor even St. Jerome’s translation, have these words? Indeed, in the Roman Psalmody (as they call it) these words are inserted; but in the translations used in the Church they are not found. Thirdly, Faber clearly solves this objection, whose authority Augustine Justinian, bishop of Nebo, a man celebrated for skill in many languages, also cites in the Psalter of five languages. For thus he has noted in the margin from Faber: “Deus regnavit. That which is read in the Roman Psalmody, ‘God reigned from the tree,’ is not from the Hebrew truth, but, as I think, added from Christian devotion. Theodulphus indeed followed this paraphrastic edition, who composed a noble

and devout hymn of the passion, where he said: ‘Fulfilled are the things which David sang with faithful song, saying, Among the nations God reigned from the tree’.” These things the bishop of Nebo from Faber. Another passage. Psalm 4:3. The Old translation has: “Sons of men, how long [will you be] heavy of heart? to what end?” But the Hebrew text has, “sons of a man, how long [will you turn] my glory into ignominy?” Therefore the Hebrew text is corrupt. I answer. First, for the conclusion to be true, it is also necessary that this proposition be true: Wherever the Hebrew text disagrees with the Old translation, there it is corrupt. But what sane man would grant that? Since rather the argument ought to be inverted by an equal: Wherever the Hebrew text disagrees with the Old translation, there the Old translation is corrupt. Objection. But the true reading is: PDγ9lyνJλa hebode leb lammah, which the Jews, by changing beth into caph, and by contracting two words, PHUPylebsammah into one, PHPyDP lichlimmah, have corrupted. I answer. This begs the question. For, first, there was no reason why this passage should be corrupted by the Jews, since there is here no mystery about Christ with which they could be pressed. For what is it to the Jews, whether you say: “sons of a man, how long [will] my glory [be turned] into ignominy,” or whether you say, “sons of men, how long [will you be] heavy of heart”? If someone should say that it crept in by chance and lack of skill, namely that at some time someone wrote beth for caph and made one word out of two, he is manifestly the more inept. For it is just as if you were to say: One Jew erred; therefore all erred. How absurd that is, who does not see? Next, that PyPPy DUypHJλS hebode leb lammah is alectical, or rather anything than Hebrew; nor can “heavy of heart” be made from it - why so? For TJ cabod denotes honor, glory, dignity. It is read in Exod. 17 and twice in Ezekiel chapter 3. Nor can it be expressed otherwise in the plural construct; therefore cabod in all the Bibles is not used in the plural number. Moreover, Ja cabed before Py leb is set only in the absolute state, and is never constructed in the construct, whether singularly or plurally. Third, Jerome also translated otherwise than the Vulgate edition has it, namely: “Sons of a man, how long do you, my renowned ones, disgracefully love vanity?” It does not differ from the Hebrew, except that he put “my renowned ones” adjectivally and in the plural, whereas in Hebrew it is substantive and singular. For the noun cabod is not found in the plural number. Objection. But cabed before peh, and lachîn, are put in the construct, as Exod. 4: kebad peh u- kebad lashon; likewise Exod. 7: kabed leb Parho, that is, the heart of Pharaoh is heavy. I answer. I concede it; for there are examples of this. But cabed leb will never be shown. Another passage adduced by Lindanus: Psalm 73:10. The Vulgate has, “and days full shall be found in them”; Jerome, however, “and who full shall be found in them”; but the Hebrews, “and full waters (see: of the cup) are poured forth or expressed for them.” Therefore formerly they read otherwise than the Hebrews now read; and consequently the present Hebrew text is corrupt.

I answer. It cannot be denied that Jerome read this word written with the same letters with which it now is known. For whether you read Qume or Dume, the letters are everywhere the same, but a variety of vowels produces a different reading. But, you say, change vav into jod in the words Dume and read jeme, then the Hebrew text will agree very well with the Vulgate translation (which has “and days”). But this too is false: for even if such a change be made, nevertheless the Hebrew text will not agree with the Vulgate version. For since the Old translation reads “And days,” whence, I ask, will that “and” be derived, if the copulative vav be changed into jod, unless perhaps you should yet borrow another vav from elsewhere, and read jeme with a vav. Another passage adduced by the same: Gen. 49:10. Formerly it was read from the Hebrew text, “until he comes who is to be sent”; but now they read, “until Shiloh comes”: by the former Jews could be pressed more than by the latter. Therefore the present Hebrew text is not pure. It is proved that formerly it was read otherwise: for Jerome interpreted, “who is to be sent.” I answer. Besides Jerome no one else has so interpreted it. For the seventy interpreters have, “until there come the things laid up for him” (ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείµενα αὐτῷ), that is, “until the deposits for him shall come.” And a certain translation, printed at Paris, has: “For whom that perpetual kingdom has been laid up.” From which interpretation it is most clear that the seventy interpreters read Schiloh with the same letters with which it is now seen written in the Hebrew text. They judged, however, that the He placed at the end stood for vav, as sometimes happens. The Chaldee interpreter also votes for this opinion, who translated, “Until the Messiah comes, whose is the dominion.” This same opinion is embraced also by the most ancient Rabbis, whose words are: “King Messiah, whose is the kingdom.” Thus Shiloh is the Messiah so called either, as it were, from schailo, “gifts to him”; or from schiljah, that the Messiah should be born as an infant; or from shalom, that is, “peace,” because he should bring peace to the whole world. Gerardus Veltvvice, a most learned Hebraist, Counsellor and Envoy of the Emperor Charles V, also makes mention of this matter, who among both Christians and Jews had very few like himself in knowledge of the Hebrew and Chaldee tongue, and who composed an entire book in Hebrew with the best and choicest phrases. In that book he writes that Rabbi Jochanan calls the Messiah Siloha. Objection. But Jerome in this place reads Schiloach, as is had in Isa. 8:6; the Jews indeed changed cheth into He. For otherwise cheth and He are also interchanged with each other, as in Cant. ch. 1. I answer. First, even if formerly it had been in the word - so far as is detected (which, however, is not believed) - schiloach, nevertheless from that “he who is to be sent” could not be made; for this would be: ascher (or eschei) jesch lehischschaleth. Second, this place cannot be compared with the place Isa. 8, because there Siloach is the name of a river, not of the Messiah. But on this matter the judgment of Peter Galatinus, a most learned man, is read, book 4, ch. 4, On the Secrets of the Catholic Truth.

Another passage. Elias Levita attests in the second tables of the Massoreth, oration 1, that the letter jod in 52 places is written at the beginning of words and is to be read vav; conversely, in 56 places vav is written and is to be read jod. Likewise, in 70 places jod is written in the middle of a word and is to be read vav, etc. Therefore the Hebrew text is corrupt. I answer. In the Bible, for some mystery, or also sometimes for the sake of euphony or dialect, jod is put for vav and conversely vav for jod; sometimes also an entire word for another. And so in the Massoreth all these things are most diligently noted, as often and in what places they happen. Moreover, the Masters of the Massoreth or also of the Great Synagogue did not doubt about those letters or words; otherwise they would not have indicated how it should be read, and how often and in what places this should occur, but rather, suspending their judgment, would have left the matter itself in doubt. Thus in Isa. 9:6 a final mem is inserted in the middle of a word; and this not for a doubt: for it is known even to boys that a final mem cannot stand in the middle of a word. But Isaiah wished, as R. Schammai teaches in the book Sanhedrin, by the closed mem to signify, by a certain occult art of computation, the number of years from his time up to the time of the Messiah; then he wished by it to intimate the mystery of the calling of the Gentiles, hidden from the age. For since there the Prophet prophesies of the enlargement of the kingdom and Church of Christ, which was to be accomplished by the calling and accession of the Gentiles to the grace of the Gospel - and this was hidden, and would remain hidden until Christ - therefore the Prophet, not without a mystery, wished to intimate this by a closed letter in the middle of a word, contrary to the custom of the holy language. So, on the contrary, in Neh. 2:13 an open mem is used at the end of a word: for the Prophet wished by the very fissure of the letter to paint and set before the eyes the breach of the city and of its walls, so as to show that the city which before had been most fortified, as that which on every side had been well closed and surrounded with very strong walls, was now miserably torn and lay open to the inroads of enemies. The same judgment is also to be given about the rest. This happens in other tongues, especially in poetic writings, in which a certain word is put for a neighboring one for the sake of euphony or also ornament, as Mars for war, Vulcan for fire, Liber for wine, Ceres for grain by metonymy. Likewise “roof” for the whole house; “stern” for ship, “iron” for sword by synecdoche. And olli for illi in Virgil by antistoechon. Similarly a letter is sometimes inserted, as relligio for religio. Sometimes by syncope even an entire syllable is removed, as dixti for dixisti, virum for virorum. Since these and infinitely many other things of this sort are everywhere obvious among authors, to recount them at greater length is superfluous. But would it not be most absurd, if someone should from this gather that the author in whom such things are found is vitiated and corrupt? The same judgment is to be given about the Hebrew text of the Old Testament; tropes and grammatical figures - such are the observations in the books of the Old Testament which are handed down in the Massoreth.

Another passage noted by Lindanus. In the time of Jerome it was read in Psalm thirty-two verse 4, “I was turned in my affliction, while a thorn is fastened”; in Hebrew X. PPPII PJUPPDPOTI nehpachihi leschaddi behorbevonit. εσιX. But now it is read, 3ρῳν ναπPελ θτηυνγ τοrta neopath leschaddi, becharboni hajitz, that is, “my most excellent moisture was turned into the heats of summer.” Therefore the present Hebrew text is corrupt. I answer. The antecedent is false. For from Jerome’s annotations on the Psalms, which he wrote to Sunia and Fretela, and from Jerome’s translation which Bruno Amerbach published, it is plain and clear that in Jerome’s time the Hebrew text was not otherwise than it now is. For thus the Amerbach edition has it: “I was turned in my misery, when summer grew hot.” Another passage adduced by the same. The Jews corrupted the prophecy about Christ, Isa. 7, in the word halma. Therefore the Hebrew text is corrupt. I answer. That the antecedent is false Jerome shows in his Traditions on Genesis. Another. Luther confesses that not only in the edition of the Bible, but that Santes Pagninus and Sebastian Münster also erred, in that he attributed too much to the commentaries of the Rabbis. Therefore the Hebrew Bible is corrupt. I answer. What kind of reasoning is this? By this kind of reasoning, it will be easy to conclude whatever one pleases. For what if the Rabbis erred in their commentaries, and those who attributed too much to them: are there therefore to be errors in the text of the Bible? Another passage objected by Cano. Gen. 8:7. According to the Hebrew text it is read, “The raven was going out and returning,” whereas the Vulgate edition and the LXX and all the Fathers read, “he did not return.” Therefore the divine codices have been corrupted by the Hebrews. I answer. First, the antecedent does not have the Hebrew text correctly expressed: for from the Hebrew, word for word, it sounds, “The raven went out going out and returning,” that is, when he had been sent out from the ark, he went and returned without ceasing, returning to or above the roof of the ark and going away, until the waters dried up, but not returning within the ark itself. Then the Vulgate version is either faulty, because it disagrees with the Hebrew text, or ambiguous, since it leaves it doubtful to what point the raven did not return and seems rather to indicate that he did not even return to the roof of the ark until the waters were dried up. I conclude, therefore, that these arguments are not of such a sort that on their account the integrity of the Hebrew edition ought to be called into doubt. Nay, even if certain errors had crept in through the negligence or ignorance of copyists, yet they would not be of such weight that, in those things which pertain to faith and good morals, the integrity of Holy Scripture should be wanting, as Bellarmine himself confesses in book 2 On the Word of God, chapter 2.

Thus the first question about the Hebrew edition has been dispatched. The second is, Whether the Hebrew Scripture written out by Moses and the Prophets has come down to us. Some deny it, putting forward this argument, that that Hebrew Scripture has perished. We, however, deny that it has perished, relying on the following arguments: 1. Because if the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament ever perished, then it happened either at the time of the Babylonian captivity, or in the persecution stirred up by Antiochus Epiphanes, or at the time of the final destruction of the city of Jerusalem. But it happened in none of those times, since nothing of the sort can be gathered from the canonical books and other ancient trustworthy histories.

Thus much about the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament; what follows is about the Greek of the New.

Three questions chiefly occur about the Greek edition of the New Testament. The first is, who are its authors. The second, whether the whole of it was at the beginning written in Greek by them. The third, whether it is authentic. As to the first question, it is neither very necessary nor very difficult. For it is clear that all the books of the New Testament were written by those Apostles or Evangelists whose names are set at the head of the titles of the several books or Epistles. This is clear to every believer reading or hearing the word of God, both from the testimony of Scripture, of which the titles prefixed to its several books and Epistles are parts, and from the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, bending hearts to believe the whole Scripture as divine and canonical. The Papists, on the other hand, contend that it cannot be had from the Scriptures, but from the Church’s tradition alone, that those books truly are of those Apostles or Evangelists to whom they are ascribed, and not spurious; Bellarmine, On the Word of God, book 4, chapter 4, section 16 and following.

But that it cannot be had from the Scriptures is false, since the beginnings of the books and of the Epistles, from which this is had, are parts of Scripture. That it is had from the Church’s tradition alone is likewise false. Meanwhile we freely confess that we also have this from the Church’s tradition: because the Church, from the time it received these books which we have, has handed them down to posterity by transmission, and has historically borne witness that they are of those Apostles and Evangelists whose names they bear on their face; and this the Church still does and will do until the end of the world. But this tradition is not some unwritten dogma, as the word “tradition” is for the most part used by the Papists, but a work of the office that has been laid upon the Church by God: for it ought to hand on to posterity the books of Holy Scripture and by its testimony commend them to posterity. As to the second question, Whether the whole New Testament was at the beginning written in Greek? we affirm it. For the authentic edition of the New Testament ought to have been Greek: 1. In order that by its reading and preaching all nations might be brought to the Church of Christ. For although at that time the Romans held a very wide empire, yet the tongue of the Greeks, more than that of the Latins, was more widely spread, as Cicero himself bears witness in the oration For Archias the Poet.

On the contrary, Bellarmine objects, On the Word of God, book 2, chapter 7: The Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews were written first in Hebrew; but the book of Mark was written in Latin by Mark himself at Rome, and then by the same man at Aquileia was turned into the Greek language. Therefore the whole New Testament was not from the beginning written in Greek. There are three members of the antecedent: one concerning the Gospel of Matthew, another concerning Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, a third concerning the Gospel of Mark. The first member is proved by the testimony of Irenaeus, book three, chapter one; of Athanasius in the Synopsis; likewise of Jerome, who affirms in the Preface to the Four Evangelists to Damasus that the Gospel was published by Matthew in Hebrew letters; likewise in the Catalogue of Matthew, or book On Ecclesiastical Writers under Matthew, and he says that the very Hebrew exemplar in his time was kept in the Caesarean Library which the martyr Pamphilus had built. He writes the same on chapter 11 of Hosea. Bellarmine says that all think this.

I answer. First, The Gospel of Matthew was not written in Hebrew: because in the time of the Apostles the Jews did indeed speak Hebrew, but not purely, rather with other tongues mixed in, especially Syriac; therefore Matthew would have written in another language rather than in Hebrew.

Proof of the second member, concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews. Jerome, in the Catalogue, under Paul, says that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew. Therefore, etc. I answer. First, The Epistle to the Hebrews was not written in Hebrew; because although at that time the pure Hebrew tongue existed in Scripture, it was nevertheless not vernacular nor in popular use; for there were various dialects among the people, Syriac, Chaldaic, Jerusalemite, Samaritan, and others, which also, according to the conditions of the places where the Jews were scattered, had by then assumed very many changes and corruptions; by which things it had by that time come about that neither was the Hebrew language understood by many, nor this dialect or that by these or those. Certainly the Hebrew language properly so called was in that period neither vernacular nor common, and so in neither way vulgar, so that not even those Hebrews who were then in Judea knew Hebrew well. The Hebrews especially who were living in Asia Minor understood the Greek language as popular in that region. The Greek language, I say, was then common to most of the Hebrews and even vernacular, from which they were called Hellenists, because they used the Greek speech as common or even vulgar. Second, because the Apostle wished at the same time to make provision for the other Gentiles also among whom the Greek language was then in use. Instance. But it is more likely that the Apostle wrote to the Hebrews in Hebrew. I answer. No more certainly than if someone were to say that he wrote to the Romans in Roman, that is, in Latin. But why did he write in Greek to the Romans and not in Latin? Because although at that time the empire was in the hands of the Romans, nevertheless the Greek speech held most parts of the world. Therefore what is said about the Epistle to the Romans as written in Greek may with the best right be said also of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Proof of the third member, concerning the Gospel of Mark. That it was written at the beginning in Latin by Mark is taught by Adrianus Finus, book 6 of the Scourge of the Jews, chapter 80, and book 8, chapter 62; and by Peter Antonio Beuter, who followed Finus, in the eighth and ninth annotation on Holy Scripture. In the Life of St. Peter also, which in the Pontifical of Damasus holds the first place, the same is shown quite plainly. I answer. The point is begged; for the authority of Finus is doubtful, and therefore also that of Beuter who follows Finus. Whatever both write rests on mere conjecture, scarcely with any reason or show of probability. For who besides Damasus (if it is Damasus) is the author of that tradition? Let us hear the fable in his words: Here (suppose at Rome) he (Peter) wrote two Epistles which are called Catholic or Canonical, and the Gospel of Mark, because Mark was his hearer and son by baptism. Behold the witty contrivance, that the Gospel is not Mark’s but Peter’s, and that for two reasons - those weighty ones, to wit - that it is ascribed to Mark. As if in truth more faith and authority would accrue to the Gospel from Mark than from Peter. Let us subjoin another fable, which together with this is set in the same context: “After the entire source of the four Gospels,” he says, “which have been established at his (Peter’s) questioning and testimony, while one writes in Greek, another in Hebrew, another in Latin, agreeing, all things are established by his testimony.” A weighty writer indeed, who, because of the vehemence of his spirit, cannot but say the same thing twice rashly in one period. A prudent and truthful writer, who writes that Peter in the thirty-eighth year after the Lord’s passion was crowned with martyrdom, and yet that he established the four Gospels by his testimony; whereas John the Evangelist is held to have written the Gospel in the sixty-sixth year after the Lord’s passion and, as Eusebius, Jerome, and others report, to have died in the sixty-eighth year. Who would believe that these fables proceeded from Damasus, from the infallible breast of the Roman Pontiff, from the plenitude of knowledge? And yet this is the cause why Jerome, in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, under Peter, writes about this fable, “it is said,” but under Mark brings forward a different story, to which he seems to have given more credence. Elsewhere Bellarmine himself seriously lays down that the holy Scriptures were written not in Latin, but either in Hebrew or in Greek by the Prophets and Apostles, book 1 On the Sacraments, chapter 7, section 9. Thus he fights with himself. To the third question, Whether the Greek edition of the New Testament is authentic? it is now to be answered, We say that it is simply authentic, relying on the arguments already mentioned above, which there is no need to repeat in this place. But Bellarmine, however, in book two On the Word of God, chapter seven, section five and following, grants that it is of the highest authority, but - But he dares to affirm that it is somewhere corrupted, at least through the negligence of copyists, so that it is neither necessary nor safe to correct whatever in the Latin version disagrees with it. He tries to make his assertion plain with several examples.

First, he says that in 1 Cor. 15:47 one ought to read: The first man, of the earth, earthy; the second man, of heaven, heavenly; as not only the Latin version has it, but also Calvin approves, book 2, chapter 7 of the Institutes. But that the Greeks consistently read: the second man, the Lord, from heaven (ho deuteros anthrōpos kyrios ex ouranou, ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ). He says that this depraved reading has remained through the fault of scribes from Marcion’s corruptions, as is evident from Tertullian, book five Against Marcion. Answer. First, it is denied that the Greek text of this passage is corrupted. For the members answer most fittingly, if we say that an antithesis of substance (substantia) and qualities (qualitates) is being made as follows: the first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. For kyrios, LORD, here is Jehovah according to Greek usage, and the same is the Son of God. Paul wrote thus not without reason; but Bellarmine lashes the Scripture without reason. Calvin did not think it should be rashly altered, as that man does, but rightly expounded. The places are Institutes, book 2, chapters 12 and 13, and book 4, chapter 17. But nowhere are these words of Paul brought forward by Calvin except reverently. Next, that this place was depraved in the Greek edition by Marcion is found in no edition of Tertullian, although several exist, those of Rhenanus, Gelenius, Pammelius, etc. Third, rather the Latin Vulgate version of this place is corrupt, because in it LORD has vanished; with that name Paul did not mark the second man lightly, but in order to show that, as to substance, he is not a mere man, as the first man was, but also LORD, that is, Jehovah, who is from heaven - that is, heavenly as to quality - since as to the human nature he is so sanctified by the Holy Spirit that he was conceived and born and lived on earth without all sin, full of grace, truth, righteousness, holiness. Thus the first example is vindicated from Bellarmine’s accusation.

Answer. First, it is denied that the Greek edition is corrupt. Second, Jerome’s testimony is not adequate in this place; for at that time Jerome was serving his own cause, which he was defending in the heat of controversy. But the same man elsewhere, outside the heat of controversy, acknowledges this Greek reading, writing Against Helvidius, and to Eustochium On Guarding Virginity. Likewise all the other Fathers acknowledge it, and in the most manifest sense. Third, here the Latin Vulgate is faulty both as to grammar and as to meaning. For what grammar teaches that in correct Latin one should say, he is solicitous the things of the world, for, he is solicitous about the things that are of the world? But if you look to the sense, what does this mean: and he is divided? Is he who is with a wife divided? Then again, in Greek it is not, and he is divided (kai memeristai), but it is memeristai without the copulative; the copulative prefixed to the verb here

alters the sense. Besides, in the following verse of the Latin edition it proceeds: and the woman unmarried and the virgin, etc. That word unmarried is a stuffing, since it is neither in the Greek text nor does it fit it. Thus the second example is vindicated. Third, Bellarmine says that in Rom. 12:11 the Latin Vulgate has, serving the Lord, but that the Greeks do not have kyriō (to the Lord) but cairō (to the season), douleuontes (serving), that is, serving the time. But that the Latin reading is most true is evident both from Jerome in his letter to Marcella, which begins After the former letter, where he says that in corrected Greek codices it is found not cairō but kyriō; and from Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and other Greek Fathers, who so read and explained it in their commentaries. Answer. What belonged - or belongs - to a few copies is wrongly attributed to all copies; and a universal is established illogically (alogōs) from a particular. So, forsooth, the corruption of the Greek New Testament must be proved! Is this the office or deed of a Catholic man? Fourth, Bellarmine says that it is plain that in very many Greek codices many parts of true Scripture are lacking, as the history of the adulteress, John 8; the last chapter of Mark; the most beautiful testimony concerning the holy Trinity, 1 John 5:7; and others. Answer. Bellarmine argues universally from a particular: Many things are lacking in very many Greek codices; therefore in all. Let us deny that these were lacking in the books of more skilled orthodox men, even if they were lacking in the codices of heretics or the unskilled, which they had from heretics. The Novatians and the Cathari had expunged the story of the adulteress, John 8; the unskilled omitted the last chapter of Mark, who recoiled from the impieties of the Manichees wickedly stuffed into that chapter. The Arians expunged verse seven of 1 John 5. Through such men corrupted books often slipped into the hands of the unskilled, as happened in the former century through the Papists, who corrupted the Old Testament at Gen. 3:15, changing hū (hu’, ‫הוּא‬, he) into hī (hī’, ‫הִיא‬, she), by imposing the circular mark of a Masoretic note, as if it were for yod, and that one should read ipsa, in the royal work of the interlinear Bibles from the first edition. Fifth, Bellarmine says that it is plain that certain things are found in all the Greek codices which are not parts of divine Scripture, as in Matt. 6 the Lord’s Prayer has added to it: For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ages; and that these words are not from the text, but added by the Greeks, can be understood from two things: First, from the fact that Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine expound the Lord’s Prayer, and yet none of them make mention of these words; whereas all those Greek liturgies have these words, but do not continue them together with the Lord’s Prayer. Answer. First, it is false that those words, For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ages, are not a part of divine Scripture. Second, Bellarmine’s reasons are null: The first is from mere particulars: Some Latin Fathers do not have those words, and yet expound; therefore they are not part of Scripture. Those Latin Fathers did not expound them because they did not have them in their own Latin version or in common use, nor did it seem useful to them to disturb their church on that account, after they had long been omitted, just as Jerome once said in a like case, namely when the LXX version was at issue: For what had once

taken hold of men’s ears and had strengthened the faith of the nascent Church, it was just that it should also be approved by our silence. But the Greek edition of the New Testament commonly has those words; the Syriac version has them; Chrysostom has them and expounds them copiously in homily vi. gesima on Matthew; the author of the work on Matthew under the title “Imperfect” has them; Theophylact and other Greeks have them, whose authority in this matter is no less than that of the Latins. The second reason begs the question; it is a leaden sword. For what is the authority of this liturgy even among the Romans themselves, which they know to be not so ancient, particular, and disapproved by themselves? By this argument indeed let them make proof among the Greeks, and, if they can, cut their throats with their own sword; but against us, who do not accept that liturgy, it is very weak. For if this reasoning has force in this argument, why not in the rest? But if it has no force in the rest (and it does not), nothing is made out from a particular. Others press: Luke, chapter eleven, does not have those words; therefore in Matthew they have been stuffed in by another. Answer. The consequence is denied, which does not hold from a particular negative testimony. Luke also does not have many other things which Matthew has, which John has; will those therefore in Matthew and John have been stuffed in by another? They press further: If the Lord’s Prayer is perfect in Luke, then in Matthew that appendix is superfluous which Luke omits. The antecedent is true; therefore also the consequent. Answer. The consequence as assumed is denied: for even if the Lord’s Prayer in Luke is perfect as to the petitions, yet it does not hinder that Matthew could have added a confirmation and conclusion.

Up to this point it has been said concerning the authentic edition of Holy Scripture: it now follows concerning its translation into the common or vernacular tongues. About this several questions are raised: Whether it is necessary to translate Holy Scripture into the common or vernacular tongues. II. Which translations are chief. III. What is to be thought about certain translations. To the first question we answer one way, the Romanists another. Our opinion is this: that it is necessary for Holy Scripture to be translated into the common or vernacular tongues of every nation and people. The arguments for this opinion of ours are most firm: 1. because Holy Scripture is the testament of God, and the instrument of the covenant of God entered into with men, which ought to be communicated and made known to all nations and peoples. 2. because it ought to be read by all, even by the laity, so that they may be fortified against the various deceits of seducers, and so that from them they may fetch arms with which they may fight against Satan and be able to reap the fruit of edification. 1 Cor. 14. Just as, when the father’s testament is set before the eyes of all the coheirs, it is not so easy to be deceived or to deceive. 3. because at the beginning it was preached to each people in the vernacular tongue; and now it ought to be preached: therefore of necessity it must be turned into the vernacular tongues. 4. because after the Apostles it was translated into all tongues, as Theodoret witnesses in the fifth Sermon of the Cure of the Greek

Affections, p. 81 of the Commelin edition; and Augustine in the second book of On Christian Doctrine, chapter five. 5. because this serves to show the excellence of Holy Scripture: as Theodoret in the same sermon teaches by a comparison of the divine writings and the philosophical. But the Romanists’ contrary opinion is, that translations of Holy Scripture into common or vernacular tongues are not necessary. Therefore against our Thesis they make the following objections. Objection One. If from the time of Ezra to Christ Scripture in the Church was not read in the vernacular tongue, but in Hebrew, then now too vernacular versions are not necessary. But the former is true; therefore also the latter. Proof of the assumption. Because the Scripture of the Old Testament was not read in the Chaldean or Syriac tongue, which tongues were vernacular to the Jews after the Babylonian captivity, but in Hebrew, which nevertheless they did not understand. Answer. First, the connected proposition is false: because the usage of the Church of the Old Testament is not to be fetched from the times of Ezra, but from the founding of the world. Now from the beginning of the world the vernacular tongue has always obtained in the Church. Second, the assumption is false in two ways: both in that it denies that Scripture was read in the vernacular tongue by Third, because it is also denied in two ways that the proof of the assumption holds: namely in that it asserts that the Chaldean or Syriac tongue was vernacular for the Jews after the Babylonian captivity. But we of right deny that the Jews could in so short a time forget their native speech, or pass over so suddenly from their mother tongue into another: this is neither true nor likely. Who would judge that an entire nation, in the space, I do not say of seventy, but rather of fifty-nine years, or even, if you look to the last deportation, of fifteen years, had forgotten the vernacular speech? Surely the Prophet Ezekiel, even in the fortieth year of the deportation, taught and wrote in Hebrew. Ezek. 40. And Daniel likewise when the time of the deportation was now finished. In like manner Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, preached and prophesied in Hebrew, as Scripture itself is witness, that is, their books. Then too the Chaldean and Syriac tongues are falsely confused, whereas they are different. Wherefore it is false that the Jews after the Babylonian captivity did not understand the Hebrew tongue. They reply. Thus they did not understand. And this is clear, first, from Neh. 8, where it is written that Nehemiah and Ezra and the Levites read the book of the Law to the people and interpreted it, because the people understood none of the things that were read: but when Ezra interpreted, the people was filled with great joy, because it understood the words of the Law. Answer. There is a fallacy of an impertinently alleged testimony. For in the place of Nehemiah it is not said that the returned Jews did not understand the Hebrew tongue: and from this very place it can be proved that they understood the words read. And four arguments show this. 1. because Ezra is said to have brought the book of the Law and to have read before the multitude of men and women and as many as were by age apt for intelligent hearing. Therefore they were not only hearing, but hearing with understanding, that is, they were understanding the things they heard. 2.

because the people had ears attentive to the book of the Law: to what end indeed is this, unless they had understood what was read? Who can think it likely that the people for so many days and for so many hours daily would patiently lend attentive ears to the reading, unless it had understood what was read? Would it not rather have been affected with the greatest weariness, hearing things it did not understand? 3. because Ezra is reported to have read out of the book from morning until midday for seven days. But who will believe that the most wise Prophet either would have wished or ought to have taken upon himself so great a labor in reading, unless the hearers had been able to understand the things that were read? And certainly it was far from the Prophet’s wisdom to gather a multitude of men, then to come forth into the midst, to open the book, to read with such zeal and with so great a space of hours things which the people in no way understood, and so to weary himself and others in vain. But who does not see that our adversaries, while they dispute against vernacular versions of Scripture, are aiming at these two things: the one, that they may keep the people always in ignorance; the other, that they may hide their errors, lest, namely, the people should notice them. 4. because it is said that Ezra read plainly and distinctly, namely that from the distinct reading the people might better understand all the things that were read. Otherwise it is all one, whether you read rightly or amiss among those who understand none of the things that are read. And would that at least the Papists read Latin distinctly and rightly in the churches, since they take such delight in the Latin tongue in sacred things! They rejoin a third time. But there was great joy among the people because it had understood the words of the Law, Nehemiah, Ezra, and the Levites interpreting them in the vernacular tongue. Answer. First, it is a fallacy of the irrelevant (τῶ αναιες): for they imagine the cause of the joy to have been that words at first not understood by the people, when read, were afterward translated into another tongue which the people understood, which is plainly foolish. For the words of the Law were read publicly and openly on the pulpit, and that reading was drawn out for some hours: then the Scripture read was expounded by opening up the sense and understanding of the words, by a homiletical explanation and a popular accommodation - and this in Hebrew. And from this arose that joy with which the people, as Scripture testifies, was filled, when it heard the Law expounded and declared (not translated from the Hebrew tongue into the Chaldean). Second, that Bellarmine numbers Nehemiah among the teachers and interpreters of the Law with Ezra is the talk of a drowsy man, or of one attending to something else: for Nehemiah did not return into the homeland with Ezra, nor was he a priest or a Levite, nor did he deliver a sermon. A further instance is pressed, by which another argument is brought to prove that the Jews after the Babylonian captivity did not understand the Hebrew tongue. From the New Testament it is plain that the Jewish people in the time of Christ used the Syrian speech. For that, Talitha cumi, Mark 5, and Abba, Mark 14, and Hacheldema, Acts 1, and likewise Golgotha and Pascha, are neither Greek nor Hebrew words: therefore the Jews in the time of Christ did not understand the Hebrew tongue.

Answer. First, the times are confused indiscriminately (anisorētos): moreover the state of different times is quite different. Down to the times of Nehemiah and Alexander the Great the use of the Hebrew tongue lasted among the common people of the Jews; only afterwards did its corruption gain strength, when the kings of Syria had long thrown everything into confusion; and by commerce with governors, foreign soldiers, and finally all the Gentiles, they had confounded the Jewish nation, law, and tongue alike. At which time the Jews used not simple Syriac, but a certain mixed tongue which is called Hierosolymitan, that is, a certain dialect of Syriac: for otherwise the Syrians and Samaritans were so hateful to the Jews that they would, with the greatest contentiousness, have shrunk even from their tongue. Therefore in the time of Christ the Jews in familiar speech bent their language toward the speech of the neighboring Syrians. Whence also it was necessary, on account of the rude multitude, to explain the sacred books in the synagogues by a Chaldean paraphrase. Hence the Targum, that is, paraphrase, the Hierosolymitan and the Babylonian, took origin, with Onkelos and Jonathan as authors. The common speech in the time of Christ was almost Chaldeo-Syriac. We grant therefore that in later times, namely when Christ was manifested in the flesh, the Jews used the Syrian speech, although not pure Syriac but mixed with Hebrew, that is, the Hierosolymitan Syriac. Hence in business and civil contracts the Hierosolymitan Syriac prevailed generally among the common people, but in divine worship Hebrew commonly: thus this was common, that vernacular; and there was great affinity between the two. Therefore indeed the Scriptures were read in the Hebrew tongue, but sermons were delivered in Syriac in the synagogues in the age of Christ, after the text of Scripture had been read in Hebrew. Second, more is concluded than the antecedent allows. For only this follows: therefore besides the Hebrew tongue the Jews also possessed the Syriac; or: therefore the tongue of the common people was not purely Hebrew, but mixed with many foreign and strange words. Third, that the consequence may hold, this proposition must be true: Whoever uses the Syrian or Chaldean speech does not understand Hebrew. But what hinders that both tongues should have been known to the Jews, just as now to many peoples, especially those dwelling on the borders of kingdoms and regions, not only the mother tongue but also that of a neighboring people is commonly known? Surely it is clear enough that to the Jews in the time when Christ was manifested the Hebrew tongue was commonly known, although the Hierosolymitan Syriac was then the vernacular; and this is clear: 1. because in the synagogues they read Moses and the Prophets in Hebrew, which certainly they would not have done if this tongue had been altogether unknown to the people. 2. because the people itself both read and spoke Hebrew, albeit not wholly pure Hebrew, but with a certain mixed dialect. For the title of the cross of Christ, written in Hebrew, was read and understood by many. John 19:19 - 20. And Paul spoke in the Hebrew dialect (tē Hebraidi dialektō), Acts 21:40 and ch. 22; and when at the beginning the Jews heard him speaking in the Hebrew dialect (tē Hebraidi dialektō), they were all the more quiet and gave heed. That they understood the things said by Paul is clear enough from this, that they listened attentively to him until he began to speak of his mission to the Gentiles: then they began to cry out, Away with such a man from the earth, etc. But if anyone

replies that the Syriac tongue, which was then vernacular to the Jews, is in these places of the New Testament called Hebrew, let him nevertheless remember that it was not pure Syriac, but rather a dialect of Hebrew, mixed from the ancient Hebrew and Syriac. They press again. John 7:49. The Pharisees say: This crowd that does not know the Law is accursed. Therefore the Hebrew language was not known to the Jews. Answer. There is an equivocation in the word knows. For the saying of the Pharisees is to be understood not of language, words, and letters, but of the meaning and sense of the Law. For the Pharisees arrogated to themselves the highest knowledge of the Law, and, puffed up with this opinion, despised the people so disdainfully. They press further: When Christ cried out on the cross, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, some said, He is calling Elijah: therefore they were ignorant of the Hebrew language. Answer. Nay, they did not say this because they were ignorant of the language, but because they wished sarcastically to mock Christ, as though he had implored Elijah’s help when he could not free himself, as those ungodly men thought. Therefore it cannot be proved from this that the Jewish people did not understand the Hebrew tongue. Objection Two. The Apostles did not write in just any language, but only in Greek, when they wrote to all peoples; or in Hebrew, or in Latin. Therefore vernacular versions of Scripture are not necessary. Answer. First, there is committed the fallacy παρα τυεπιη ον in the omission of the connected proposition, namely: If the Apostles wrote to all peoples only in Greek, or Hebrew, or Latin, it follows that vernacular versions are not necessary. For this present age is wrongly compared with the age of the Apostles, if you look at languages. For the Greek tongue in the time of the Apostles was most common and was understood by very many peoples; but now it is not so common any longer, nor is it understood except by those who have learned it from teachers in the schools. Then the assumption is in part denied: for the Apostles did not write to the Churches in the Hebrew or Latin tongue.

Since versions of Holy Scripture have been and still are necessary for the Churches scattered throughout the whole globe and clearly using diverse tongues, there must next be explained their distinction and authority. Translations or versions of Holy Scripture into the vernacular tongues are many; yet they are conveniently distinguished into ancient and recent. Ancient versions of the Old Testament: some came forth before Christ was born, others after Christ was born. Before Christ’s birth there came forth the Greek version of the seventy-two interpreters. But the Targum of Jonathan the son of Uzziel is not so much a version as a Chaldean paraphrase.

After Christ was born very many Greek and Latin ones came forth, as also in other languages. The Greek ones which came forth after Christ are: of Aquila, of Symmachus, of Theodotion, and two brought to light by Origen from the recesses of the earth, which are called the fifth and sixth edition. Out of these editions Origen made his Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla. Besides these there were other Greek versions, of Origen, of Lucian the Martyr, of Hesychius and of Sophronius. As for Latin versions, in the time of Augustine they were so many that they could in no way be numbered. Out of the many, however, one was more received, which on that account was called the common and the Vulgate. Another was called the Itala, book 2 of On Christian Doctrine, chapter 15. To these was added the version of Jerome. The recent versions moreover are very many in almost all tongues: Latin, German, French, English, Italian, Spanish, Bohemian, Polish, Dalmatian, etc. The chief Latin ones are those of Xantes Pagninus, Francis Vatablus, Immanuel Tremellius and Francis Junius, of Leo Juda of Zurich, etc. But of the New Testament the most renowned Latin versions are those of Erasmus of Rotterdam and of Theodore Beza. The chief German ones are Luther’s, which the distinguished theologian David Pareus adorned with useful arguments and doctrines for each chapter; the Zurichers’; the Herborners’; in which John Piscator labored especially. So much for the distinction of versions: what follows concerns the authority of the same. Concerning any version whatsoever, whether a Greek of the Old Testament, or of both Testaments Latin, or French, or German, or Bohemian, or another which agrees with the Hebrew and Greek sources, it is asked whether it is authentic: Answer. No version at all of the Bible, produced by human wit and industry after the Prophets and Apostles, even if it agrees as much as possible with the Hebrew and Greek sources, is, in a divine way, absolutely, universally, and without exception authentic; yet it is to be accepted and employed, since the Churches that use a vernacular tongue have need of a version; nor should anything in it be rashly rejected by anyone, unless it be clearly proved to be contrary to the divine sources. But the arguments why no version brought forth by human diligence after the Prophets and Apostles, however excellent it may seem, is authentic without any exception, are these:

CHAPTER XLI. On the Greek version of the Seventy interpreters. The chief versions of Scripture having been indicated, it must now be considered what is asked about certain of them. Concerning the Greek version of the seventy-two, or, as for brevity’s sake it is said in the round number, of the Seventy interpreters, the question is raised. First, whether it is the one that is now had: Answer: The Greek version of the Old Testament which is now had is not of those seventy-two interpreters who were sent to Ptolemy Philadelphus from Jerusalem. 1. Because they did not translate the whole Scripture of the Old Testament, but only the books of the Law written by Moses, as Flavius Josephus testifies, who in the preface to the books of the Jewish Antiquities speaks thus about Ptolemy Philadelphus: For he did not receive the whole account from the translators, when those who had been sent to Alexandria for the explanation delivered only those things which are of the Law; since there are innumerable other things that are indicated through the sacred writings, for instance the history of five thousand years set forth in those, and indeed diverse contents are in these, and many fortunes of cities and mighty deeds of leaders and changes of manners. Likewise in book twelve of the Antiquities, chapter two, and in the second book against Apion the Alexandrian grammarian, he makes mention only of the interpretation of the Law. Likewise Philo the Jew in the second book On the Life of Moses makes mention only of the Law: he says that those seventy-two interpreters translated the Law of Moses into the Greek tongue from the Chaldean, because Abraham, in whose posterity the Hebrew language remained, was a Chaldean. Many indeed of the Fathers write that the whole Old Testament was translated in Egypt by the seventy-two interpreters; but they are more recent witnesses and they disagree with earlier witnesses, who were able to know the matter more exactly. Yet if anyone, moved by the authority of the later Fathers, thinks that the whole Old Testament was translated by those seventy-two interpreters, I judge that he is not to be contended with. 2. Because that translation was most closely suited to the Hebrew sources, as Aristeas, the defender of King Ptolemy, testifies, who says that the proper things were rendered by proper Greek names exactly corresponding to the Hebrew, and that that interpretation was discussed, considered, examined by

many before it was placed in the King’s Library, and that it was acclaimed by all that every single thing had been translated reverently and faithfully, so that nothing could be added, nothing taken away. The same is testified by Philo the Jew. But the version which is now had in very many places disagrees with the Hebrew text; it has many things that are not in the Hebrew, and again it lacks many things that are in the Hebrew; it also has many things at odds with the Hebrew, as Augustine noted some in book fifteen, chapter thirteen of the City of God; and more have been observed by Franciscus Junius throughout the whole Old Testament in the Greek edition printed at Frankfurt in folio by the heirs of Andreas Wechel, Claude de Marne, and Johann Aubri in the year 1597. And Jerome himself in the preface to Paralipomena and to Ezra, and elsewhere frequently warns that that version of the Seventy has been vitiated and corrupted in many and various ways. The faults of the present Greek translation are manifest, which by no means can be excused. For it numbers the years from the creation of the world to the flood as 2242, as is read in the chronology in Augustine and Eusebius and Nicephorus; but in the Hebrew books it is written that no more than 1656 years had elapsed. Thus the Greek departs from the Hebrew number by 586 years. Then from the flood to Abraham the Greek translation counts 1082 years, whereas in the Hebrew truth more than 312 are not found. Thus in the Greek books there are 770 more years than in the Hebrew. Third, in Gen. 5:3, in the Greek books Adam is said to have lived 230 years, or, as it is in certain copies, 330, when he begot Seth; but the Hebrew codex testifies that Seth was begotten when Adam had only 130 years. Fourth, according to the Greek translation, Methuselah survived 14 years after the flood; but from the Hebrew codices we gather that he died in the same year in which the whole earth was overwhelmed by the flood. Fifth, in Jonah 3 in the Greek version destruction is announced to the Ninevites after three days; but in the Hebrew truth, after the fortieth day it is announced. Such is the dissimilarity also everywhere else in the remaining numbers. So much for the first question. Second, it is asked whether that Greek version of the Old Testament which is said to be of the seventy-two interpreters is authentic. Answer: It is not. 1. Because it is not immediately inspired by the Holy Spirit. 2. Because it is in many ways faulty, as Jerome often complains, and as Franciscus Junius shows in the edition of the Greek Bibles. 3. Because Augustine, who paid very great deference to the version of the Seventy, nevertheless judged that it should be corrected from the sources. Third, it is asked whether the version of those passages of the Old Testament which in the New Testament are cited by Christ, by the Evangelists, and by the Apostles is authentic, since it does not seem to agree with the Hebrew sources. Answer: The version of all those passages which are cited by Christ, by the Evangelists, and by the Apostles for the confirmation of the heavenly doctrine which they announced is authentic, because it is approved, sanctified, and inspired by the Holy Spirit dictating the New Testament to the Apostles and Evangelists. For if certain sayings of the

Gentiles, cited by the Apostle Paul from the inspiration of the divine Spirit, are sanctified and made authentic, why should not also those passages of the Old Testament brought forward in Greek be made authentic? Objection is made that the passages alleged from the Old Testament in the New do not answer to the Hebrew sources, but are either contrary to them, or differ from them by a change of words or by omission or addition and by an alteration of the clauses (membrorum alloiōsei), as can be shown from a comparison of all those passages with the Hebrew text. Answer: Those passages are “apparently contrary and of a different form” (euantophane kai heterachēmona), not, however, “contrary in essence” (enantia kath’ ousian), that is, they seem indeed at first sight to be contrary and to bear a different form and a different sense, but in reality they are not contrary to the sources, nor do they have a different sense from them, even if certain changes of words and clauses and of phrases sometimes occur - not made rashly or lightly and without judgment, or beyond reason or against faith, but prudently, with sure judgment, with the highest rationale and with the best fidelity - just as has been declared and demonstrated by the interpreters of the New Testament, both ancient and recent, and especially in a set treatment by Franciscus Junius in the three books of the Sacred Parallels, inscribed to the Most Illustrious Prince WILHELM, LANDGRAVE OF HESSE.

Concerning the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible, which the Antichristian conventicle held at Trent approved, the questions are asked in particular

As to the first question, whether the Latin version is authentic, the Romanists have one opinion, we another. The Romanists affirm; we deny. They try to prove their opinion by the following arguments, to each of which we shall immediately append a refutation. That edition which by the long use of so many centuries has been approved in the Church itself, is authentic. The Latin Vulgate edition by the long use of so many centuries has been approved in the Church itself. Therefore it is authentic. It is answered: First, the major proposition is not true of just any edition, but only of the edition given by God himself through the Prophets and Apostles, namely the Hebrew of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament. Second, it commits the fallacy τξαίανι,

It is answered: The connection labors under the fallacy from the consequent (παρὰ τὸ ἐπόµενον). For the Church no more lacked for nine hundred years a genuine interpretation of Scripture, even if this Vulgate is not authentic, than it lacked when this Vulgate did not yet exist. For, did the Church lack a genuine interpretation of Scripture before the Vulgate edition came forth? Then too, the whole Church was not during all that time Latin. For there were many, indeed very many, Churches of the Greeks and of other peoples. Therefore even if the Latin Church had erred, nevertheless it would not follow that the whole Church of Christ remained in that most long- lasting error. For the Greek Church would not have been in that error. Third, if only from eight hundred years ago a genuine version of Scripture began to be had, as is necessarily gathered from the adversaries’ words, it follows from this either that the Church lacked a genuine version before the present Vulgate was published, or that the Roman Church defected from the ancient Apostolic Church, as one which, having abandoned the version which previously had been authentic, received another as authentic. IV. If the Latin Vulgate edition is not authentic; it follows that the Church, in those things that pertain to faith and religion, cherished the errors of some interpreter I know not who in place of the Word of God. But the consequent is absurd, since the Apostle says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, 1 Tim. 3. Therefore so is the antecedent absurd. It is answered: The assumption is false. For the Church can be mistaken in the Version of certain passages, and yet not cease meanwhile to be the true Church. For this does not overturn the Church, if perchance some passage of Scripture has been somewhat inadequately rendered; and this Roman Church, if it had no other errors besides this faulty translation, and if it rightly and piously understood this its Latin edition, could be the Church of Christ. For in this Latin edition the foundations of the faith are intact, not everywhere, but in very many places. But it, besides the fact that it receives and defends a faulty version as authentic Scripture, also contaminates by its expositions even those things which in it are either well or tolerably translated. Paul’s saying which is cited from 1 Tim. 3 is an encomium (ἀωροσόυ iνυσονν). That Latin version which Augustine and the other Fathers praise, that is authentic. Augustine and the other Fathers praise the Latin Vulgate edition. Therefore it is authentic. It is answered: First, in the major proposition there is the fallacy of taking a non-cause as a cause (παρὰ τὸ µὴ αἴτιον, ὡς αἴτιον). For the commendation, praise, or approbation of the Fathers is feigned to be the cause of authentic authority, whereas it is not. They can praise and approve some version; from which, however, it does not follow that it is authentic. For Augustine also with many words praises the Greek version of the seventy-two interpreters; will the adversaries from this conclude that it is authentic? But they do not today esteem it highly. Second, the assumption begs the question. For how can it be asserted for certain that Augustine and other most holy Fathers praised this Vulgate edition, since it is not clear whether they saw it? Instance. Nay rather Augustine saw it: for this Vulgate version is either Jerome’s, or certainly that ancient common one which Augustine calls the Itala.

It is answered: Again the question is begged. For this Vulgate edition is neither Jerome’s, nor that Itala. That it is not Jerome’s is clear from the following arguments. 1. Because Jerome’s version was altogether agreeing with the Hebrew truth, as he himself professes in the Galeate Prologue and in the preface of the Psalter to Sophronius, which is epistle 133. The same is attested by Augustine in book eighteen of the City of God, chapter forty-three; but the Latin Vulgate in very many places departs from the Hebrew truth.

That this same Latin Vulgate version is not that Itala celebrated by the ancient Fathers is evident from this, because that Itala version was more closely tied to the words which are found in the sources, and translated the sense more clearly and more lucidly, as Augustine testifies in book 2 of On Christian Doctrine, chapter 11. But the present Vulgate version is not such. Therefore the present Vulgate version is rather a Latin version made from Aquila, or Symmachus, or Theodotion. VI. The Hebrews had the authentic Scripture in their own language. The Greeks likewise had the authentic one. Therefore this Latin one also is authentic. It is answered: First, in the major proposition, which is concealed, the error is committed of treating an unequal as an equal (παρὰ τὸ µὴ ἴσον, ὡς ἴσον). For the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New was given to the Church by God through the Prophets and Apostles; therefore it was and still is authentic. But the Latin edition was not inspired by God to the Prophets and Apostles: therefore it is not authentic. Second, the fallacy of many questions is committed. For concerning the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament, that it is authentic, there is by no means to be doubted; but that the Greek edition of the Old Testament was authentic is denied. Third, the Romanists contend that the Latin is to be held as authentic of itself, and not to be examined by the sources. But in this way no translation ever was, or could be, authentic. Fourth, the Latin version is no more to be held as authentic than the German, or French, or Italian, or Bohemian. For if the Latin is authentic, what will happen if it disagrees with the Hebrew and Greek and the editions of other languages? Can they all be authentic, and yet disagree among themselves? Instance. But as the Hebrew Scripture of the Church, being authentic, was in Hebrew; so also for the Latin Church it ought to be in Latin. It is answered: First, there is not the same reason for the Hebrew and the Latin edition, because the Hebrew is immediately inspired by God, the Latin is not. Second, the present Roman Church is not rightly called Latin. For it does not now speak Latin, nor among the Romans does anyone understand Latin, unless he has learned that language from a teacher. Formerly it used to be called the Latin Church, because all at Rome imbibed the Latin language from their nurses, and it was vernacular to all; but now that Church is neither Latin, nor therefore can it truly be called Latin, except because, not being Latin, it absurdly uses Latin rites.

VII. The Latin Vulgate edition is most ancient: Therefore it is authentic. It is answered: First, in the proposition omitted there is the procedure of taking the non-cause as cause: for antiquity is not the cause of an authentic edition. Second, by this argument more authority is attributed to the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament than to the Latin: because the Hebrew and Greek are older than all Latins. IIX The Latin Vulgate edition is the most grave, most august, most free from partisan aims. Therefore it is authentic. It is answered: First, the antecedent is denied. For the Latin Vulgate is in very many places rotten and false: and so it is devoid of weight, sincerity, and majesty. Then I answer by the rule: All these excellences must necessarily be greater in the Hebrew edition of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament, which is that of the Prophets and Apostles and finally of the Holy Spirit himself, than in the Latin, which derives the beginning of its repute and dignity no further or higher than from Jerome’s time and person, if it is Jerome’s. IX. Of Bellarmine, book two On the Word of God, chapter 10, section ten. If the Vulgate edition were not authentic, then poor provision would have been made for the Church. But the consequent is absurd: therefore so is the antecedent. The consequence of the connection is proved: Because in the general Councils of the Church either very few or sometimes none are found skilled in the Hebrew language: therefore poor provision would have been made for the Church, if in serious matters it could not trust the Latin edition, but ought to have recourse to the Hebrew codices, and beg the truth from the Rabbis, its enemies. We can say the same of the Greek language. For although now to some extent many are found who know Greek, yet it has not always been so. For if we believe Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 10, chapter 21, from six hundr… Among those bishops who came together to the Council of Ariminum, there was no one who knew what “of one substance” (homoousios, ὁµοούσιος) might mean; and therefore, when certain crafty Arian heretics proposed to the Synod whether it would wish to worship Christ or the “of one substance” (homoousion, ὁµοούσιον), all shouted that they would not worship the homoousion, but Christ. I answer. First, the consequence of the connected proposition is denied. For it does not follow straightway, If the Latin Vulgate edition is not authentic, that poor provision has been made for the Church. Second, its proof labors under many errors: The first is “from an accident” (para to symbebekos, παρὰ τὸ συµβεβηκός): for that in general Councils very few, or even none, are found skilled in the Hebrew and Greek languages, as Bellarmine says, is not a fault of divine providence, by which good provision has been made for the Church with the Hebrew and Greek edition, in which, unless one trusts, faith perishes; but it happens by the fault and guilt of the Papal Church, which Bellarmine by this argument accuses, as if he were saying: God indeed gave an authentic edition of Holy Scripture, the Hebrew of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament; but our Church does not study, does not foster studies, the assembly is not Christian and learned, but the flock of our bishops and prelates is Arcadian (rustic), even in the very general Councils, because they have not learned the fundamental languages in which God willed the word of life to be written.

And whose fault is it that they have not learned? Their own indeed, but to the common harm of the whole Church. The second error is from ignorance of the refutation (elenchus), because Bellarmine changes the state of the controversy. For he feigns the state of the controversy to be, Whether the Church in serious matters can trust the Latin edition. Hence he argues thus: If the Church in serious matters could not trust the Latin edition, poor provision would have been made for the Church. But the state of the controversy is, Whether the Latin Vulgate version of Scripture is authentic. But as to the question alleged by Bellarmine, namely: Whether the Church can trust the Latin edition. We answer: That the Church in every way and supremely can trust the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament, because it was given by God; but that it ought, in its own manner and degree, to trust the Latin translation, with this twofold caution: The first, in so far as the Latin edition agrees with the divine sources; the second, that the Church beware of the worse version, embrace the better, and neither reject it, nor at least hinder it, obeying the precepts of Christ given through the Apostle, 1 Thess. 5:19, 20, 21: “Do not quench the Spirit; do not treat prophecies as nothing; test all things; hold fast that which is good.” The third error is from the confusion of several questions, which are of very different account, when Bellarmine argues thus: Poor provision would have been made for the Church, if it ought to have recourse to the Hebrew codices and to beg the truth from the Rabbis, its enemies. For the former - namely that the Church ought to have recourse to the Hebrew codices when, on account of a version, some doubt arises - we affirm; but the latter - namely that the Church ought to beg the truth from the Rabbis, its enemies - we have never thought, unless perhaps Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, and the other Prophets who wrote the books of the Old Testament, to whom we have determined that one must have recourse, are, in Bellarmine’s view, Rabbis, enemies of the Church. The fourth error is from the imprudent allegation of the example of the Council of Ariminum. For who is ignorant of what sort the Council of Ariminum was? Although at the beginning it resisted the Arians and confirmed the Nicene Council; nevertheless afterwards it subscribed to a new form of faith, drawn up at Constantinople by the command of the Emperor Constantius: therefore it is strongly urged by the Arians and opposed to the Nicene Council. And yet from this very Council of Ariminum Bellarmine argues concerning the Councils of the Roman Church: truly indeed, but imprudently nonetheless. For let him see himself what honor he pays to Councils by this his comparison. The fifth error is falsehood in that he says that none was found in the Council of Ariminum who understood the word “of one substance” (homoousios, ὁµοούσιος). For many bishops from Greece were present, who knew the Greek language, though they did not have an understood grasp of the force of the term “of one substance” (of the homoousion, ὁµοουσίου). And this can happen to those for whom some language is vernacular, that they have not rightly discerned the force of some word. X. If the Latin Vulgate version is not authentic, then all things which are taught concerning religion will be uncertain. But the consequent is absurd. Therefore so is the antecedent. The consequence of the connection is proved: because we see new heretics, who, despising the ancient edition, apply themselves to new interpretations, to such a degree as to mint editions different and at odds among themselves, that almost nothing certain can be had. Wherefore Martin Luther, in

the book against Zwingli on the truth of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, says: “If the world stands longer, it will again be necessary, on account of the various interpretations of Scripture which now exist, for preserving the unity of faith, that we receive the decrees of Councils and betake ourselves to them.” I answer. First, the connected proposition is denied. Second, its proof is false: For the Romanists seem to themselves to see what they do not see. For the Latin versions which the Doctors of the Reformed Churches have published are not so different that they could not easily be reconciled; and more certain doctrine can be drawn from any one of them, because they agree more with the divine sources, than from the Latin Vulgate, which departs too far from the divine sources. Then certain versions besides the Latin Vulgate have been approved by the Roman Pontiffs themselves, as the version of the New Testament by Erasmus, which Leo X armed with his authority; likewise the version of Xantes Pagninus. Third, even if the versions differed among themselves: nevertheless we acknowledge no authentic edition of Scripture except one, namely the Hebrew of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament; therefore, if on account of the disagreement of versions a doubt occurs, we have recourse to the sources, and in the matter we seek truth, in writing method, in acting order, nor do we shrink. If the Romanists do not hold these things, why should we acquiesce to their conscience, or by what right should we be bound to their conditions? Therefore Luther was not speaking about the versions of Scripture, but about the exposition of certain passages, as regards their sense. But it is one thing to interpret in various ways the sense of these or those passages of Scripture - which even the orthodox Fathers did, as Bellarmine himself shows everywhere in his controversies - another thing to undertake and pour forth various versions of Scripture. To the former Luther had regard in the alleged passage, not to the latter. XI. Melchior Cano, book 2, chapter 13. The scholastic theologians followed this Vulgate edition alone; and the inquisitors of heretical depravity are wont from it to convict and to condemn heretics. Therefore it is authentic. I answer. First, we deny the major proposition which is being glossed over: For not every version that the scholastic theologians and inquisitors of heresy have used is authentic: because not the use of this or that one, but divine authority, makes an edition authentic. Second, we confess that the scholastic Doctors and inquisitors of heresy used the Vulgate edition, but how skillfully, how aptly, is evident from their books and disputations. Of many examples I will adduce one or another. Formerly, in the Latin Vulgate version one read Rom. 13:2: “The things that are of God are ordained.” Hence Thomas Aquinas, easily the prince of the scholastics, concludes in many places that all things are well and rightly established by God; and notably in the Prima Secundae, q. 102, a. 1, from these words he proves that the ceremonial precepts have a cause. A question, forsooth, both excellently set forth and concluded. Who would not marvel at the most absurd handling of Scripture? For the passage was most corruptly translated. First, the noun “powers” was omitted: because in the Greek it is, “the powers that be” (hai de ousai exousiai, αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ἐξουσίαι), that is, the powers that are. Then the words “by God” were joined with the subject of the enunciation, whereas they belong to the predicate: for it ought to be translated thus: “But the powers that are,

are ordained by God.” Third, “ordinata” was read in the neuter gender, instead of “ordinatae” in the feminine gender. But the present Vulgate version, revised by order of Sixtus V, the Roman Pontiff, indeed has “ordinatae,” and joins the words “by God” to the predicate; yet it has omitted the noun “powers,” which pertains to the subject, although it is in the Greek text. So also Heb. 13:16 the Vulgate version still has: “Do not forget beneficence and communication: for by such sacrifices God is merited.” Hence the scholastics and inquisitors of heresy concluded: Our good works merit eternal life. But that version is most foul, whether you consider the words or the sense. For the verb “is merited” is put in the passive, against the precepts of Priscian and the usage of the Latin tongue; and the Apostle’s sense is in no wise rendered. For in the Greek text it is: “For with such sacrifices God is well pleased” (toiautais gar thysiais euaresteitai ho Theos, τοιαύταις γὰρ θυσίαις εὐαρεστεῖται ὁ Θεός). It ought therefore to have been rendered: “For by such sacrifices God is delighted,” that is, such sacrifices are pleasing to God; they please him. Nevertheless, Bellarmine was not ashamed to defend the Vulgate Version of this passage. He says that it is correctly said in Latin, that he “deserves well of” someone who does him a pleasing service. But, first, Bellarmine compares things most dissimilar: for in the version it is read in the passive, “God is merited”; in the pure Latin phrase “to deserve well of” someone, the verb “to deserve” is not passive but deponent, having an active signification. Next, indeed a man can deserve well of a man, but by no means can he deserve well of God: because whatever he does that is pleasing to God, and therefore even if he did all the things he ought to have done, he is an unprofitable servant, as regards God. Third, not even among men can it always be said that he deserves well of someone who does him a pleasing service: as when a servant ministers faithfully to his master. XII. Of the Anglo-Rhemish translators of the New Testament. The Latin Vulgate version of the Bible is the same (as people commonly think, and it is altogether probable) which Jerome afterwards corrected from the Greek by the order of Damasus, the Roman Pontiff. Therefore it is authentic and to be followed in all respects rather than the Greek. I answer. First, the major proposition, which has been craftily omitted, is false. For how can that edition be authentic which Jerome corrected from the Greek by the order of Pope Damasus? Who does not see that the Greek edition, from which the Latin version has been emended, is rather the authentic one and of greater authority than the Latin? Nor does the order of the Roman Pontiff make any edition authentic, but the divine origin or immediate inspiration. Second, there is a begging of the question in the antecedent of the enthymeme: For the Anglo-Rhemists admit that it is only a matter of opinion, and therefore by no means certain and established, whether this Vulgate edition was emended by Jerome. XIII. This is the one which thereafter was almost always used in ecclesiastical offices, in sermons, in commentaries, in the writings of the ancient Fathers of the Church. I answer. First, the major proposition which has been omitted is denied. For use, however long, does not make an edition authentic, but divine inspiration. The only authentic edition is “God- breathed” and “archetypal” (theopneustos, θεόπνευστος; architypos, ἀρχίτυπος). But if from long

use an edition is to be judged authentic, then the Hebrew of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament will be much more authentic, because they were in the Church’s use long before the Latin. Second, the antecedent of the enthymeme is denied: for we have shown above that not the Vulgate alone was used in the Church. XIV. The Sacred Council of Trent defined that this translation alone, out of all the Latin ones, is authentic. Therefore, etc. I answer. First, the principle is begged, because the argument of confirmation is not taken from the proper principle of theology and divine religion, but from an alien one, namely from the decrees of the Council of Trent, which has no authority with us. Second, even if the Council of Trent were of some authority, nevertheless the major proposition, which has been omitted, would rightly be denied: because the decree of the Council of Trent cannot make an edition of Scripture authentic which was not previously authentic, but only divine inspiration [can]. Only archetypal Scripture (ἀρχέτυπος) is authentic; but the Latin Vulgate is not archetypal (ἀρχίτυπος). Therefore it is not authentic. Third, the decree of the Council of Trent rests on this ground alone: that the Latin Vulgate was received in the Church by the long use of ages. But that ground is null; because not even the very longest use makes an edition authentic, but only divine inspiration. XV. The Latin Vulgate so accurately and thoroughly agrees with the Greek, whether you consider the phrases or the words, that for this reason dainty heretics censure it as rude and unskilled. Therefore. I answer. First, the omitted proposition is denied: for congruence with the sources does not make a version authentic, but rather shows the sources to be authentic. Second, the antecedent of the enthymeme is denied. XVI. The adversaries themselves, namely Beza, prefer this to all the other interpretations. Therefore. I answer. First, the omitted proposition is denied: for this does not make an edition authentic, if it is preferred to other interpretations. Second, a fallacy is committed from “qualifiedly” to “simply” in the antecedent of the enthymeme: for the theologians of the Reformed churches do not prefer the Latin Vulgate simply in all things, but only in some places, to other interpretations, as may be seen from Beza’s larger annotations on the New Testament. XVII. In the remaining translations there is the highest dissension and discrepancy. Therefore the Latin Vulgate is authentic. I answer. First, the connection, which has been omitted, of the consequence is denied: for it does not straightway follow, if there is dissension in the remaining versions, that the Latin Vulgate is authentic. Second, the antecedent of the enthymeme is denied. XVIII. It is not only better than all the other Latin translations, but also than the Greek edition itself in those places in which they differ. Therefore. I answer. The antecedent of the enthymeme is denied: because it is blasphemous and impious to prefer a human version to an edition divinely inspired.

Thus far the arguments have been refuted by which the Papists vainly try to prove the authenticity of the Latin Vulgate version. But that it is not divinely authentic, we confirm by the following arguments. First A divinely authentic edition of Holy Scripture must be divinely inspired. For that alone is divinely authentic which, as to matter, form, language, and finally in every way, is from God, delivered by his servants, completely God-breathed (τελῶς θεόπνευστον). Thus the Old Testament in Hebrew, the New in Greek, is divinely authentic. But those who think that what, being a human work, has been turned either into Greek or into Latin, is divinely authentic, are opposed alike to divine religion and to sound reason. For each of these denies that a human work can be equalled to the divine gift given immediately to the Prophets and Apostles without their toil and delivered by them to the Church. Nor can the divine fountains and our streams be equally authentic, nor can they be equated without impiety. But the Latin Vulgate version is not divinely inspired. Therefore it is not authentic. Second Whatever edition by no means can correspond in perfection to the Hebrew and Greek sources, that assuredly is not authentic: But the Latin Vulgate version by no means can correspond in perfection to the Hebrew and Greek sources. For a human work cannot be equal in perfection to a divine work; but the Latin version is a human work; the Hebrew edition of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament is a divine work: therefore, etc. Third Whatever must be brought back and examined by the Hebrew and Greek sources in order that its truth may be ascertained, that certainly is not authentic. But the Latin Vulgate version must be brought back and examined by the Hebrew and Greek sources in order that its truth may be ascertained. The Fathers attest this everywhere, whose testimonies are in our Catholic Harmony, chapter one, thesis nineteen; the Papists themselves likewise confess this, namely Bellarmine in the second book On the Word of God, chapter eleven, section seven and several following. Therefore, etc. Fourth Whatever edition teems with faults and errors, that by no means is authentic: But the Latin Vulgate version teems with faults and errors: therefore, etc. The truth of the assertion can be proved by an induction of almost all the chapters of the Old and New Testament. Now we shall produce only some places, by way of example, more of them to be exhibited, God granting, from the edition of the Bible that we have at hand. Let the first place in the present induction be that which stands in Gen. 3. v. 15: “She shall crush thy head” (IPSA conteret tibi caput). Here the feminine “she” is put in order to detract glory from Christ the Redeemer and transfer it to Mary the virgin. Yet it ought not to be rendered “she,” but “it,” namely the seed of the woman; or “he,” to wit Christ, who is that seed of the woman; because in the Hebrew text there is the masculine pronoun NIPI, hu. And it must be masculine, as the following arguments show. First, because the antecedent Hebrew noun PPII Zerah, to which that pronoun is referred, is masculine.

Second, because the verb u eschupheha, that is, “shall crush thee,” to which this pronoun agrees, is likewise masculine. Third, because the relative is also masculine, θ¬ nu in JUQH Teschuphennu, which is referred both to the noun P Xrah and also to the pronoun NII, hu. Bellarmine objects first that the Vulgate edition varies, because some codices have “Ipse” and some “ipsa”; and therefore it is not against the Vulgate edition if it is proved that “Ipse,” or “Ipsum,” ought to be read. Then he says that it is not improbable that “ipsa” ought to be read, nor is this the depraving of the Papists: for although many Hebrew codices have NII, hu, nevertheless he found in one codex ReIr, hi, that is, “IPSA”; and besides, with the points removed, that Hebrew word Royyt, hu, can be interpreted “IPSA,” one would be very unskilled not to know: for ReI] bu often occurs in the Holy Bible for PPrI hi, as Gen. 3. v. 12; Exod. 3. v. 8. He adds that “IPSA” was read by Claudius Marius Victor, Alitus Avitus, St. John Chrysostom hom. 17 on Genesis, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, Eucherius, Rupert, Bede, Rabanus, Strabo, Lyra, Bernard; therefore it is a lie, what Chemnitz says, that all the ancients read “ipsum.” Finally, although the verb “conteret” in Hebrew is of the masculine gender and is referred to “seed,” which likewise in Hebrew is of the masculine gender, not to “woman,” which word in Hebrew, as in Latin, is of the feminine gender, he nevertheless denies that this stands in the way of “IPSA” being read: because it is not new in Scripture that with feminine nouns there are joined pronouns or verbs of the masculine gender, as in Ruth 1. v. 8 it is said that Naomi to her daughters-in-law τUί NOOTεDOγIH Tλωγοη Coyrised caascher hassithem him hammethim, that is, “Jehovah will show kindness toward you” (in Hebrew there is a masculine pronoun) “as you have shown” (here in Hebrew there is a masculine verb) “toward those dead men.” And Esth. 1. v. 20 it is said of women, DyArI ATP hannaschim jittenu, that is, “the females shall give,” in a verb of the masculine gender; and Eccles.

Second, as to what Bellarmine says, that he found in one codex NeTT hi, that is, “IPSA,” we reply, that from a particular blemish good men are not wont to conclude against an accepted good reading. Then about that one codex among so many uncorrupted, we ask which, of what sort, of what reliability, where is it? In which codex did he find that? In the royal Spanish work, the interlinear Bible of the first edition, in which the genuine reading NIPH hi is perverted into TPTT hith, he imposed the Masoretic circle, as if there were antistoichia of vav for yod, and that it should be read NesI. hi, that is, “IPSA.” Those who presided over the second edition of the same work detested this profane audacity, and restored the true reading of the Holy Spirit to its pristine integrity. Third, as to that which he says, that with the points removed NIrI hu can be taken as “IPSA,” we reply, that this cannot, nor ought it, to be done: indeed he is very unskilled and daring against the divine truth and against the Hebrew tongue who dares to change anything, the purity of the writing and the adjuncts protesting. And by what authority would you remove the points? A human testament, if authentic, no honest man corrupts by adding something or taking away or by changing in any other way: much less, therefore, is the Testament of God to be corrupted. The examples Gen. 3. v. 12 and Exod. 3. v. 8 which Bellarmine adduces are dissimilar to this place which we are handling: for in those both the feminine point is under the pronoun NPTThi, and the words agreeing with it are feminine; therefore the case is altogether different. Fourth, to the allegation of those Fathers who read “ipsa,” we reply that there is no need to care that many Fathers, although otherwise men… Most holy men, having followed the error of the Vulgate version, read ITA, in that very great ignorance of the Hebrew language which existed in their time, as Bellarmine himself confesses in book two On the Word of God, chapter ten, section ten; that in the general councils of the Church there were found very few, or sometimes none at all, skilled in the Hebrew language. But now, in so great a light of the Hebrew tongue, to be willing to grope in blindness is by no means to be endured or approved. Next, even if all the Fathers had read “IPSA,” nevertheless it ought by no means to have been admitted and approved, since the Hebrew text is contrary, likewise the Greek version, which has: “and he will watch thy head, and thou wilt watch his heel” (αὐτὸς σοῦ τηρήσει κεφαλήν, καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν), as even James Pamelius the Papist admits in the Paris edition of Cyprian in the annotations on the second book of the Testimonia against the Jews, number fifty-one; likewise the Chaldean Paraphrase of Onkelos, which likewise has the masculine “he” (‫)הוּא‬, and openly interprets “seed” as “the son of the woman.” The Jerusalem Targum renders in the plural number: “And it will be when the sons of the woman give their attention to the Law and do the precepts, then they will strive to crush thy head, and they will kill thee”; but it refers this principally to Christ: for it says that the serpent’s head is to be trampled “in the days of the King Messiah” (‫)ביומי מלכא משיחא‬, that is, in the days of King Messiah. Nay even certain Latin Bibles and

more correct ones, as the Louvain theologians acknowledge in the notes of Franciscus Lucas, and in the book of Various Readings of the Sacred Apparatus on the Royal Bible, vol. 3; Ribera on Habakkuk, chap. 1, § 3. As to Chrysostom, he does not read “IPSA”: but that is to be attributed to a prior translator; and that the Greek context of Chrysostom reads otherwise, and especially in his commentaries, where the masculine “that one” (ἐκεῖνος) is found, Philip Montanus the Papist has admonished, as James Pamelius the Papist noted in the Paris edition of Cyprian on the second book of the Testimonia against the Jews, number fifty-one. But it seemed worth the effort to bring in the Greek context from the Greek Homilies. John Chrysostom, in the Greek Homilies on Genesis, manuscripts on parchment of venerable antiquity which exist in the Library of the Academy of Basel (from which also I have faithfully transcribed the following), in homily seventeen twice cites these words thus, so that in both places he uses the masculine gender: “and he will watch thy head, and thou wilt watch his heel” (καὶ αὐτὸς σοὶ τηρήσει κεφαλήν, καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν), that is, “and HE will watch thy head, and thou wilt watch his heel” (even the relative in the Greek text of Chrysostom is set in the masculine gender). And after a few words interjected he repeats the same words, adding an exposition: “But I will also appoint as an implacable enemy to thee the woman; and not her alone, but also her seed. For thy seed I will set a continual war. He will watch thy head, and thou wilt watch his heel. For, says he, to that man I will indeed supply strength, so that he may continually press upon thy head; but thee I will make to be subject to him beneath his feet.” (ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔχθραν ἄσπονδον σοι καταστήσω πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα· οὐκ αὐτὴν µόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ σπέρµα αὐτῆς. τῷ σπέρµατί σου πόλεµον διηνεκῆ τάξοµαι. αὐτὸς σοι τηρήσει κεφαλήν, καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν. καὶ γὰρ φησίν, τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐκείνῳ µὲν παρέξω τὴν ἰσχύν, ὡς διηνεκῶς ἐπικεῖσθαι τῇ σῇ κεφαλῇ: σὲ δὲ ἐκεῖνον ποσὶν ὑποκεῖσθαι.) Augustine followed a faulty version; and because he was ignorant of the Hebrew language, he is less to be blamed than the Papists of today, to whom Hebrew cannot be unknown. Besides, the Papists disagree with the most celebrated Fathers. For Irenaeus the martyr clearly interprets it concerning Christ, the offspring of Mary, in book three against the heresies, chapter thirty-eight, in which he says: “Wherefore he set enmity between the serpent and the woman, and their seed keeping watch against one another - on the one hand, he whose sole is bitten, and who has power to tread down the head of the enemy; on the other, the one biting and killing and blocking up the accesses of man - until the predestined seed came to tread down his head, which was the birth of Mary.” The same Irenaeus in book four against the heresies, chapter seventy-eight, says: “Wherefore also God separated from his fellowship the one who of himself secretly sowed tares, that is, the transgression which he himself introduced. But he pitied the man who, carelessly indeed but wrongly, admitted disobedience, and he turned back upon the very author of enmities the enmity by which he wished to make man an enemy to God, referring indeed his own enmity, which was against man, and turning that one back and sending it against the serpent. Just as also

Scripture says that the Lord said to the serpent: And I will set enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and the seed of the woman; HE will trample thy head, and thou wilt keep watch on his heel. And the Lord recapitulated this enmity in himself, having been made man from a woman and treading down his head, as we have shown in the book which is before this one.” Cyprian the martyr, in the second book of the Testimonia against the Jews to Quirinus, section nine, as the Gulartian edition has it: “Here God had foretold that the seed would proceed from a woman, which would tread down the Devil’s head, in Genesis: Then God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this, accursed art thou from every kind of the beasts of the earth. Upon thy breast and thy belly shalt thou creep, and earth shall be food for thee all the days of thy life. And I will set enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: HE will watch thy head, and thou wilt watch his heel.” Jerome, Questions on the Hebrews in Genesis, states that the seventy interpreters read in the masculine gender αὐτός and αὐτοῦ, and he teaches that thus it is to be read; and he declares that similarly it is had in the Hebrew, and he interprets it of Christ. Nay, St. Leo, the Roman Pope, whose authority the Papists ought to prefer to that of all other bishops, interprets this place concerning Christ, the seed of the woman, in Sermon 2 On the Nativity of the Lord. Isidore of Pelusium, epistle 426: “That seed of the woman which God bids to be an enemy and hostile to the serpent is our Lord Jesus.” Likewise Serapion, cited by St. Augustine Steuchus the Cosmopolitan on Genesis 3, chap. …; Moses …, part 1; Rupert on Genesis 3, chap. 11; which I oppose to Bellarmine: those Papists who have acknowledged the manifest fault of the Vulgate in this place, as Canus, On Theological Places, book 2, chap. 15; Andradius the Jesuit, book 4 of the Defense of the Tridentine Faith; Cardinal Cajetan on Genesis 3 writes plainly that this is said not of the woman but of the woman’s seed. Isidore Clarius in his Bible restored IPSUM. John Benedictus in his Scholia on this place says that we should not read IPSA, but ipsum, so that it may be understood of the seed. Francis George, a Minorite, in his Problems, vol. 1, problem 55: “From the false translation,” he says, “in which it is read IPSA shall crush thy head, the Latins commonly ascribe this victory to the Queen of heaven. Which, although more sublime than can be expressed, nevertheless we will grant the triumph to the victor to whom, by the truth of the letter, it is owed, as it is read: ipsum shall crush thy head - namely, the SEED; none other than Christ was this.” To these are added Pererius, Commentary on the Paralipomena, book 10; the Parisian theologians in the marginal notes of the Ordinary Gloss on this place; Lippomanus, Felius … precept 1, chap. 49; St. Augustine Steuchus the Cosmopolitan on Genesis, book 3; Ribera On the Temple, book 2, chap. 2; finally, the interpretation of each in the Royal Work [the Polyglot]. Therefore both the most ancient Fathers did not read in the feminine gender, and they interpreted it of Christ; whom those who came after, imitating them, rightly followed. But as to what Chemnitz says, that not all the ancients read ipsum and take it of the seed: he understands that antiquity is intended, not novelty, and that “all the ancients” is to be taken not universally but commonly, not absolutely but restrictively, just as a universal particle must be restricted to a certain universality, namely of the truly ancient Fathers.

Fifth, as to what Bellarmine says, that it is not new in Scripture for pronouns or verbs of the masculine gender to be joined with feminine nouns, and he brings examples of this observation: we reply that examples are adduced that are dissimilar to that about which the controversy now is. For in Ruth 1:8 the expression is figurative: because by enallage Naomi uses the masculine gender for the feminine, when, addressing her daughters-in-law, she speaks of them with a masculine ending, saying of them with a masculine termination: “QQu immachem & CPNyνῇ assithem.” But she ascribes masculine things to females for their praise, to commend their manly spirit and manly deed though women. By contrast, in Ezekiel 33:27 a feminine verb, ‫תעשינה‬, is used of men for reproach. In Esther 1:20 and Ecclesiastes 12:6 an enallage of gender is employed for the sake of avoiding indistinction: for the second and third persons plural in the feminine of the future are the same; but so that ambiguity from homonymy may be avoided, and the third person be distinguished from the second, in place of the feminine verb the masculine of the same person is used; moreover, the antecedents and consequents plainly show of whom the discourse is had. Then Bellarmine misapplies his rule: for although sometimes a masculine pronoun or verb is joined with a feminine noun, yet that is not done in this place, in which not one word only is masculine, but all are masculine. Nay, Bellarmine himself, from a single Hebrew word of the masculine gender, concludes that the place Exodus 4:26, “And he let him go,” cannot agree to a woman, in On the Sacrament of Baptism, chapter seven. Lyranus explains that Zipporah let Moses go and withdrew from him, indignant on account of the circumcision of her son; but Bellarmine says that Lyranus is mistaken, because the verb “let go” ought not to be referred to Zipporah, but to the Angel (or rather to Jehovah) who let Moses go, that is, ceased from vexing Moses: and Bellarmine proves this because the Hebrew verb ‫ וירף‬is of the masculine gender. Finally, what he says in book one On Christ, chapter five, section eight: “If it is permitted to invent changes of persons without cause, nothing certain will ever be able to be gathered from the divine writings”: this holds good also in these changes which without cause Bellarmine invents in the place Gen. 3:15. I therefore conclude that in the Latin Vulgate this place Gen. 3:15 has been depraved for the purpose of exalting idolatrous praises of the blessed Virgin Mary and of asserting her patronage, whereas it ought to be understood of Christ, that blessed seed, as is evident from the Hebrew text, from the Greek version of the seventy-two interpreters, from the two Chaldean paraphrases, from the most ancient orthodox Fathers, and finally from the very testimonies and confession of the Papists themselves. So much for the first passage. The SECOND PASSAGE is Genesis 6:5, which in the Vulgate version is read thus, depravedly, for the diminishing of original sin: “Every thought of the heart is intent upon evil.” But according to the Hebrew truth it should have been translated: “Every figment of the thoughts of his heart is only evil at all times.” Bellarmine replies that the sense is the same, because the “figment of the heart” is the same as the “thought of the heart,” because it is fashioned and formed by the heart; and because it is the same to say that “every thought of the heart is intent upon evil,” and that “the figment of the heart is nothing but evil.” Then Bellarmine denies that it is rightly inferred from this statement that all

men’s works are evil; because that is a hyperbole of Scripture, which it often uses to set forth some matter; just as in the same chapter it is said: “All flesh had corrupted its way,” although there it is also said: “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations.” To that reply we thus rejoin. First, granted it were true that the words of the Vulgate edition have the same sense as the Hebrew words: still it would not have just weight for a defense, unless the Holy Spirit himself elsewhere, say in the New Testament, had in this way expressed that sense of the words: for the Holy Spirit is the best interpreter of himself…86 interpreter. But as to any other ecclesiastical interpreter of Scripture, not only must he take care not to corrupt the sense: rather, so far as ever it can be done, he must depart as little as possible from the words of the Holy Spirit. The reason is that in the words of the Holy Spirit many things lie hidden, which by their own emphasis supply noteworthy doctrines, admonitions, and observations - things which are by no means noticed if we only express the sense. Second, the words of the Vulgate version in this place do not have the same sense as the Hebrew words. For according to the Hebrew truth it must be translated thus: Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil at all times. Now it is one thing to say, every thought of the heart; another, every imagination of the thoughts of the heart. For by the former words it is hinted as if the Holy Spirit were blaming only the thoughts themselves; but by the latter words he condemns both the thoughts and the source and principle of all the thoughts. Again, it is one thing to be intent on evil, by which there is indicated an act and an affection toward an evil end, even if some good might be present; another thing to be evil and only evil, by which there is indicated the habit and condition of the human heart in itself. This, however, is far more emphatic than that. And who is ignorant that habit and act differ? Moreover, there is nothing in the Hebrew text that would signify “intent on.” Further, the exclusive particle “only” has been omitted, which has the greatest force in the sentence: as from it in this place it follows that all the works of the unregenerate, both internal and external, are evil. Third, as to Bellarmine’s denying that it follows from this that all the works of men are evil, we freely grant it: nor do we draw that conclusion from it; but only this, that all the works of unregenerate men are evil. For there are distinct questions, Whether all the works of men, whoever they be, are evil; and Whether all the works of unregenerate men are evil. As to the former question, no one would affirm it: for we know that in the sacred books the works of men are everywhere praised and celebrated by the Spirit of God, as those of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, David, and other godly men, whose catalogue is in Heb. 11. Yet they would by no means be commended if in themselves and per se they were evil. But the latter question we affirm, since an evil tree cannot bear good fruits. Fourth, in the place Gen. 6:5 there is by no means a hyperbole: for that it is a hyperbole cannot be proved; and the negative with the exclusive is of itself and properly universal. Then the example adduced is dissimilar; for in verse 5 the universal term properly and absolutely indicates the whole in quantity, so that no imagination of the thoughts of the heart is excepted. But when it is said in

verse 12, “All flesh had corrupted its way,” it is certain that “all flesh” is said synecdochically, because Noah is excepted. For Moses expressly sets an antithesis between Noah and “all flesh”; but an antithesis necessarily exempts one opposite from the other: therefore Noah is not included under the appellation “all flesh” in that place. In this place, however, Gen. 6:5, there is plainly no antithesis or ensuing exception. Moreover, even if in verse 12 there were no antithesis, nevertheless the term “all” would have to be restricted to those things of which the discourse properly is, THE THIRD PASSAGE is Gen. 9:6, where we read in the Latin Vulgate edition: Whoever shall have shed human blood, his blood shall be shed. This passage is mutilated by the omission of the words “by man”: whereas from the Hebrew it sounds, Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed. Bellarmine answers that that omission does not render the sense false nor imperfect; therefore it is not of great moment: for the sense is the same both in the Hebrew and in the Latin, Whoever shall have killed a man, he also shall be killed. To that reply we thus rejoin. First, indeed the sense rendered is not false, but it is imperfect. For the words “by man” are emphatic, as Cajetan in his commentaries and others teach, and they are variously expounded by many: all which expositions are removed if those words are taken out of the text. And who does not see that they are emphatic? for by them the authority of magistrates and judges is established; and it is indicated that the murderer is not to be left to divine vengeance only, but is to be sought out for punishment by those to whom the sword has been handed by God. Second, that omission is of great moment, because it omits words of great moment, namely, words spoken by God: for whatever has been spoken by God is of great moment. “There is nothing,” says St. Basil to Amphilochius, “which is not of great moment in the Holy Scriptures, however small or nothing it may seem to us.” It is the duty of an interpreter to set forth each and everything that is in the fountainhead, and to omit nothing. The case of someone praising a passage or citing it is another matter: for he is freer. Third, the sense is not the same in the Hebrew and the Latin: for the Latin text could be understood as though the murderer were to be killed by God without human ministry, and therefore to be left to the judgment of God; but the Hebrew text openly indicates that the murderer is to be punished and delivered to death by a man who has by divine grant the power to kill. THE FOURTH PASSAGE is that which is read in Gen. 14:18, where we read in the Vulgate edition: But Melchizedek king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was priest of the most high God. This passage is corrupted, so that from it the fictitious sacrifice of the Mass might be proved. For the Papists commonly allege it as if it were, “Offering bread and wine”; and to that end, in the place of the copulative conjunction “and,” the causal conjunction “for” is inserted. Bellarmine answers, First, that in the Vulgate edition the word “offering” is not had, but “bringing forth.” Then, that the conjunction is causal in the Hebrew text: for here in the Hebrew is vav (‫)ו‬, not ki (‫)כי‬: and yet that vav is very often taken in place of ki, as in Isa. 64, “You were angry and we sinned,” that is, because we sinned. Likewise Gen. 20:3 and chap. 36:27. Third, that Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine in order that he might offer it to God as a sacrifice,

because he was priest of the most high God, and that by that deed he bore the figure of the sacrifice of the Mass, as all the ancients, both Greek and Latin, affirm. Finally, that it is said in Psalm 109, or as the Hebrews reckon 110, “You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek”: and that Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek because this one offered bread and wine, and that one offered himself in the species of bread and wine - We reply to the first: although many copies have the word “bringing forth,” yet there were copies in which the word “offering” was read, as Andradius does not deny in the Fourth Defense, and as is evident from Question 109 in the book of Questions out of both Testaments, which is commonly ascribed to Augustine; and this passage is commonly cited by the Papists with the word “offering,” which was done by Eck at the Baden Colloquy in Helvetia when disputing with Johannes Oecolampadius. Nay more, by Bellarmine himself in this very reply at the end it is said that Melchizedek “offered bread and wine.” To the second: That the conjunction is causal in the Hebrew text is denied. For although the conjunction vav is very often taken figuratively for ki, that is, for the causal particle “because” - which we readily grant, so that there was no need to heap up so many examples to confirm a conceded point - yet in this place it is not causal, but only copulative; for its proper signification must be retained here, since there is no reason why it should be taken figuratively. It must therefore be translated: And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth (for in the Hebrew text is ‫הוציא‬, hotzi, which is a verb of the past tense, not Benoni, that is, the present participle) bread and wine; and he himself was priest of God, the strong, the most high; and he blessed him, etc. Jerome approves our interpretation and has it in the Questions on Genesis. And in the epistle on Melchizedek to Evagrius, in the third volume, page forty, he rendered thus: “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: but he was priest of God Most High: and he blessed him,” etc. From this it appears that the Vulgate translation is not Jerome’s. The Greek version has: “He brought out bread and wine; and he was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram.” The Chaldean Paraphrast: “He produced bread and wine. And he was minister before God.” Arias Montanus in the interlinear version renders: “And he himself [was] priest.” Cardinal Cajetan in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis says: “But what in the Vulgate edition is subjoined as the cause of the offering, ‘For he was priest,’ etc., is not in the Hebrew as a cause, but as a separate clause.” Moreover, granted, though not conceded, that the vav here be made causal: nevertheless the reason of the preceding words is not rendered by these words, “For he was priest of God Most High,” but of the whole statement, namely by the indicative verb “he blessed” which follows. The logic of the narrative requires this, since the preceding member, namely, “Melchizedek bringing forth bread and wine,” is not a complete sentence, but in the translation hangs on the following indicative verb. To the third: Melchizedek did not bring forth bread and wine in order to offer it to God as a sacrifice. For the verb ‫הוציא‬, hotzi, that is, “to bring forth, produce,” nowhere in Scripture signifies “to offer as a sacrifice,” or “to bring forth in order to offer as a sacrifice.” Then the ancient Fathers expressly say that Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine so that he might offer it to Abraham and to his army, for the sake of refreshing him. Tertullian, in the book Against the Jews, chapter

three, says: “Melchizedek, uncircumcised, offered bread and wine to Abraham returning from battle.” St. John Chrysostom, on Genesis, Homily Thirty-Five: “He brought out to him (Abraham) bread and wine.” And on Psalm 109, that he too brought forth bread and wine to Abraham. St. Ambrose, in the fourth volume, book four On the Sacraments, chapter three: “Then the victor came; Melchizedek the priest met him and offered to him bread and wine.” And in the Commentaries on chapter seven of the Epistle to the Hebrews: “Nor is it new if Melchizedek went to meet the victorious Abraham, and for the refreshment both of himself and of his fighters brought forth bread and wine.” St. Epiphanius, in Heresy Fifty-Five against the Melchisedekians, has in three distinct places: “He carried in; he brought out to him and to those with him,” that is, he brought forth to him and to those who were with him. Cardinal Cajetan, in chapter 14 of Genesis, says: “Nothing is written here of sacrifice or oblation, but of bringing forth or drawing out, which Josephus says was done to refresh the victors.” Then, if there is any figure here, it is not a figure of the sacrifice of the Mass, but, in the judgment of the Fathers, a figure of the Eucharist. THE FIFTH PASSAGE is Gen. 21:9, where the Vulgate version has that the son of Agar the Egyptian “played” with Isaac. But from the Hebrew it must be translated that the son of Hagar mocked Isaac, whom indeed he was persecuting and treating badly. For it is evident from the Apostle, Gal. 4:29, that Ishmael was a persecutor of Isaac from a lusting after the inheritance and at the instigation of his mother Hagar. But that persecution and harassment was joined with bitter derision. Therefore ‫מצחק‬, metzacheq, which is in the Hebrew, does not signify “playing with Isaac,” but “pursuing with bitter mockery.” If Ishmael had done nothing other than play with Isaac, neither would Sarah have taken it so ill, nor would the Apostle under this name have accused Ishmael of so great a crime. THE SIXTH PASSAGE stands in Num. 36:3, where the Latin Vulgate version has: “All the men shall take wives from their tribe and kindred; and all the women shall receive husbands from the same tribe: so that the inheritance may remain in the families.” But from the Hebrew text it must be translated otherwise, namely: “Whatever daughter out of the tribes of the sons of Israel is an heiress of a possession, let her marry someone from the family of her own paternal tribe, so that the sons of Israel may by hereditary right each one possess his own paternal possession.” Therefore in the Vulgate version the limitation “who is an heiress of a possession” is omitted, and all the rest is rendered otherwise than the law has it in the Hebrew text, which does not speak of every daughter universally, but only of her who is the heiress of her father’s goods, whose father had died, no male offspring being left: just as Tzelophehad not having any son, he had left five daughters as heiresses of the paternal possession. The seventh place is Deuteronomy 33:10, where the Vulgate version has: “Thy judgments, O Jacob, and thy law, O Israel.” The verb “they teach” is omitted which in the Hebrew is yoru (‫)יורו‬, a word that contains the chief office of the Levites. The eighth place is Job 5:1, where the Latin Vulgate has: “Call therefore; if there is one who may answer thee, and turn to one of the saints.” From this the Romanists prove the invocation of dead saints. Yet it ought to have been translated: “Call, I pray now, call now; is there one who will answer (or bear witness) to thee? and to which of the saints will you look?” that is to say, to none. The Vulgate version has a simple assertion, that is, set forth

without an interrogation, whereas the text is a sentence employing an interrogation used, by the rhetorical figure of “communication” (κοινωνίαν), for a vehement negation. The Vulgate version has an exhortation; but the Hebrew text in the first part of the verse has an ironic concession, in the second part a negation shaped by a question. For the sense is: “Come now, pray, call, or bid someone come forward into the midst who by his consent will approve your opinion; test whether you will find anyone who thinks the same with you, who does not acknowledge that great calamities are sent by God on account of great sins; to which of the holy men, who either ever lived on these earths or still live, will you turn, by whose testimony you may be helped in these your complaints against God?” This is Eliphaz’s genuine judgment. And yet Bellarmine, drunk with the wine of the whoredom of that great harlot who sits upon many waters, of whom Revelation 17:1 - 2 speaks, denies that this place is corrupted, and affirms that it is most express for establishing the invocation of saints. The ninth place is Psalm 2:12, where the Latin Vulgate has amiss, “Lay hold of discipline.” Indeed the Latin interpreter, perhaps in ignorance of the Hebrew language, following the Greek version which has “draxasthe paideias” (δράξασθε παιδείας, “seize discipline”), rendered it amiss; but as to the Romanists of today, it quite appears that they defend the error of the old version not so much from ignorance as from malice. For Bellarmine, in book 1 on the word of God, chapter 13, tries in this way against John Calvin, whom he accuses of slander for his defense. He answers (says he) that word for word in the Hebrew it is, “Kiss” or “adore the Son”; yet the sense of that place is most correctly translated by “Lay hold of discipline.” For thus the Chaldee translates, thus the Greek, thus all the ancient Greeks and Latins have hitherto read. Therefore it is to be observed, when it is said “Kiss the Son,” that the sense is “acknowledge that the Son of God is your true King and Messiah, by kissing his hand as a mark of honor,” as also blessed Jerome explains in book 1 against Rufinus; and further that it can also be turned, “Adore the Son.” Moreover, we cannot acknowledge the Son to be King and Messiah otherwise than by receiving his faith and doctrine. And what else is “Lay hold of discipline” than “receive the instruction and doctrine of the Son of God”? So far Bellarmine’s defense - to which we reply thus. First, in that Bellarmine admits it to be so in the Hebrew as Calvin teaches, by that very fact he frees Calvin from the charge of slander. Second, as to his saying that the sense of that passage is most correctly translated by “Lay hold of discipline,” this is denied. For that version is as straight as is, as the saying goes, the goose’s track along the path. Is then this the “most correct and best” method of interpreting, if one should explain what is clear by obscure clouds, what is straight by meandering discourses (meandros logous), and what is determinate by unbounded and indeterminate consequences? If one should declare the species or even the individual, as here, by the highest and most general genus? For thus is this interpretation. Third, human authority is impiously set against divine truth. The Chaldee, ignorant of Christ, lent aid to the error of the Jews who blaspheme the most holy Trinity, and accordingly deny the eternal Son of God; and a Christian man dares to appeal to a corruption wrought by malice, from party-spirit, or rather from hatred of the truth. The common Greek indeed has “draxasthe paideias” (δράξασθε παιδείας), yet Aquila and Symmachus have translated a little better. Aquila: “katafilēsate eklektōs” (καταφιλήσατε ἐκλεκτῶς, “kiss chosenly”). Symmachus: “proskynēsate hosion” (προσκυνήσατε ὅσιον, “adore the holy [one]”); although they did somewhat

amiss in rendering bar (‫)בַר‬, seeing it is a noun signifying “son,” and indeed “a chosen son” or one “beloved above others”: for it is from barar (‫)ברר‬, which is “to choose.” To the Greek mistranslation I oppose the Hebrew rightly expounded, namely Rabbi Abraham, who in this place of the Psalm expounds “son,” and for that cites Proverbs 31:2. Fourth, as to his saying that all the ancients, Greeks and Latins, read “Lay hold of discipline,” I answer that a multitude of those in error does not produce a patronage for error. Since Bellarmine himself admits that that word in the Hebrew is “kiss the Son,” or “adore the Son,” why does he prefer a human error to the divine truth? Why does he not remember what the Canon Law, Distinction 8, prescribes - that truth must be preferred even to a very long custom - and what Distinction 9 prescribes - that the writings of the Fathers must be set after the canonical Scripture? Let all the Fathers have read it so, as he wishes, yet not so the Scripture itself, to which every pious and faithful understanding ought to be servant. But it is also false that all read “Lay hold of discipline”: only those read so who followed the Greek version; for Jerome does not so, either in his version from the Hebrew or in his Commentary. In the former he has, “Adore purely”; in the latter he says, “Whereas in the Greek it is said ‘draxasthe paideias’ (δράξασθε παιδείας), in the Hebrew it is read ‘nashqu bar’ (‫)נשקו־בר‬, which can be interpreted, ‘adore the Son’.” Therefore the prophecy concerning Christ is most plain and the order of the precept is: “Adore the Son, lest perhaps the Lord be angry,” that is, the Father; “and you perish from the just way.” Against the Jews who would not adore the Son, the Lord grew angry, and they perished from the straight path. Similarly Sanctes Pagninus and Benito Arias Montanus translate: “Kiss the Son.” Nay, Bellarmine himself immediately refutes his universal statement when he adduces Jerome expounding this place of the Psalm, in book 1 against Rufinus, about kissing the Son’s hand as a mark of honor. Fifth, “to lay hold of discipline” is other than “to kiss the Son.” For Bellarmine himself, in this very second book on the word of God, chapter 2, section 9, says, “From the Latin and the Greek version nothing can be openly deduced against the Jews; but in the Hebrew it is ‘nashqu bar’ (‫)נשקו בר‬, ‘Kiss the Son, lest he be angry,’ that is, ‘show reverence to the Son of God, lest he himself be angry,’ etc., which place is most invincible against the Jews.” If from the Latin version nothing can be openly deduced against the Jews, but in the Hebrew text there is a most invincible testimony concerning the Son of God against the Jews, then the Latin version and the Hebrew text do not have the same sense. Besides, what sort of piety is this, to champion that version by which the most invincible testimony about Christ, against the blaspheming Jews, is taken away from Christians, though it stands in the Hebrew text? Hence it is clear that Calvin did not use slander, when he said this place of the second Psalm is corrupted. The tenth place is Psalm 4:3, where the Latin Vulgate has, “How long, heavy of heart?” There is nothing like this in the Hebrew, and it departs from the sense of the Hebrew words; whence one may gather how faulty the Vulgate version is. Yet Bellarmine dares to defend it. He says it is very likely that the Hebrew text has been corrupted by the fault of copyists: for if the Kaph be changed into Heth and the points be altered, it will be “heavy of heart” (so that, namely, it be ‫ ;)כבדי לב למה‬and without doubt thus the Seventy read, whose version all the Greek and Latin Fathers followed, except Jerome, who, because he read otherwise, translated “my illustrious ones”: the sense however is always the same, which suffices for the truth of the interpretation. For in that place God complains

of men because, neglecting eternal things, they love temporal things; and indeed, according to the Greek and Latin version, he calls them “heavy of heart,” because such they are by their own fault; according to the Hebrew text, as now it stands, he calls them “my glory,” or “my illustrious ones,” because such they are by divine favor, if we consider in them the heavenly image, not their own vice. Moreover that “kevodi” (‫ )כבודי‬can be either the passive participle of the verb kabad (‫)כבד‬, or a verbal noun. So far Bellarmine’s words, who, in order to patronize a most corrupt version, did not blush to accuse the Hebrew text as if corrupted by the fault of copyists; did not blush to change the Hebrew text - that is, the very word of God itself - and in it to transform letters and points at his pleasure, and to substitute a word of his own contrivance for the word of God; did not blush to put forth his inventions as established truth; did not blush to corrupt the passage by a false interpretation; did not blush to fabricate new words. First, he says it is very likely that the Hebrew text has been corrupted by the fault of copyists. But by whose? Of all, or of some? I do not think he will say “of all”; but if of some, could not the fault be corrected from the books of others? Next, by the fault of whose copyists is the Hebrew text corrupted? Of Christians or of Jews? If he dares assert the former, he is injurious to Christians, and gives the Jews a reason for not embracing the religion of the Christians, who, as he would have it, have corrupted the word of God. If he affirms the latter, I say he does distinguished injury to the Jews: for the Jews have always expended great zeal and labor to preserve the sacred books entire from all error and corruption, and so they have even counted up the verses, words, letters, and strokes, and noted in what place each is used: which their great Masorah abundantly attests. Second, he says, if the Kaph be changed into Heth and the points be altered, it will be “heavy of heart,” so that, namely, it be ‫כבדי לב למה‬. But if it be permitted in this fashion to change the word of God, to substitute letters for letters, vowels for vowels, to divide words and to make two out of one, the whole Scripture will be perverted, and nothing certain can ever be gathered from the divine letters. Third, he says, without doubt thus the LXX read, whose version all the Fathers, Greeks and Latins, followed. But the Chaldaic Paraphrase, agreeing with the Hebrew text, so translated: that is, “my glory into reproach.” When he admits that Jerome read and expounded otherwise than the Vulgate version has, by that he shows that the Vulgate version is falsely ascribed to Jerome. Fourth, he assigns a false sense to David’s words: he says that in that place God complains of men because, neglecting eternal things, they love temporal things. But David the Prophet rebukes his enemies because they resist his kingdom; as the antithesis of the following verse shows, wherein they are recalled to the acknowledgment of God’s counsel and election. Accordingly, the sequel also in Bellarmine is mere babble. Finally, employing wretched grammar, he wrongly expounds kevēdê lēv (‫ )כבדי לב‬as a vocative case, and in place of an oblique case he raves with a fancied paronomasia and a construction of a verbal noun; whereas the context, the accentual prosody, and the scope of the place do not permit it. I do not add more examples, which in our collation of the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible with the sources are set forth in order: even these show evidently that that version is very faulty. Such then was the fourth argument why the Latin Vulgate version is not authentic: the remaining ones follow. The fifth therefore is: because Jerome, presbyter of the Roman Church - whose judgment Pope Damasus approved - and Augustine magnified it, as others also did, yet did not judge it to be authentic, but

found many things to blame in it, as his writings everywhere show; and Bellarmine admits this in book 2 on the word of God, chapter 9, section 23 and the following. The sixth: because the Latin Church did not hold it as authentic, nor receive it before the Council of Trent. For neither did the ancient Fathers follow it, namely Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Lactantius, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome himself, Leo - Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Roman Pontiffs; nor those Papists who lived before the Council of Trent - Nicholas of Lyra, Paul of Bruges, Armacanus, Lorenzo Valla, Eugubinus, Isidore, Clarius, Johannes Isaacus, Cardinal Cajetan, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Jacques Lefèvre, Ludovicus Vives, Lucas of Bruges, and many others also approved by the rest of the Papists - The seventh, because if the Latin Vulgate version is the authentic Scripture, then the Hebrew and Greek sources will no longer be authentic. But this is not only absurd, but also impious and pernicious to the Christian religion: therefore so is that [assertion]. The ground of the consequence is, because it is necessary that the authentic edition of Holy Scripture be only one, as was explained above. Thus the first question, on the authority of the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible, has been dispatched. Quaestio II. Whether the Latin Vulgate translation is most entire and most full no less than the Hebrew edition I answer: It is denied; because the affirmation of that question is, first, impious and blasphemous: for it equates a human work with a divine work. The Latin version is a human work; but the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New is a divine work. Now a human work cannot at all answer to the divine Canon with divine perfection. Second, it is false: for the integrity and fullness of a human work can by no means be equal to the integrity and fullness of a divine work. But Bellarmine, in book two On the Word of God, chapter nine, section fourteen, concerning the ancient Latin edition, affirms that it is most entire and most full, no less than the Hebrew; which assertion is unworthy of a pious man, since it is beyond controversy that the Hebrew edition has divine integrity and fullness, but not the translation at all. So much on the translation of Holy Scripture into the vernacular languages: what follows concerns the reading of the same.

There is a question between us and the Papists about the reading of Holy Scripture. Whether Holy Scripture ought to be read and known by anyone whatsoever, even by laymen, that is, by the people; or whether, on the contrary, its reading ought to be forbidden to the people by the bishops.

The Papists determine that Holy Scripture ought not to be read and known by the people, that is, by laymen, without the license of the bishop or inquisitor, given singly and specifically in writing; although very many omit this matter of a granted license. To confirm this statute they use the following arguments, to which we will answer distinctly. First, Bellarmine has it in book two On the Word of God, chapter fifteen, section twenty-nine and the following. From whatever the people would receive harm, that ought not to be read and known by them. From Holy Scripture the people would receive harm: Therefore it ought not to be read and known by them. He proves the assumption in this way: From that whence the people would most easily receive occasion of erring, both in the doctrine of faith and in the precepts of life and morals, from that certainly they would receive harm: From Holy Scripture the people would most easily receive occasion of erring, both in the doctrine of faith and in the precepts of life and morals: Therefore from it they would receive harm. He tries to establish the antecedent by the following reasoning: From that whence all heresies are born, from that the people would most easily receive occasion of erring both in the doctrine of faith and in the precepts of life and morals. All heresies are born from Holy Scripture: as Hilary testifies, that all heresies have arisen from Scripture not understood. Which Luther also acknowledged, who called Scripture the book of heretics. And the same is confirmed by experiences: For Cassian reports, Conferences 10, chs. 2, 3, 4, and 5, that the most absurd errors of the Anthropomorphites were born from sheer ignorance; and Aeneas Sylvius, in the book On the Origin of the Bohemians, reports the most gross errors of the Taborites, the Orebites and others, who were reading the Scriptures in the mother tongue and were not understanding them. The same thing happened to David George, the most pestilent of all heretics, who knew no language except his own mother tongue, that is, that of the Dutch, and yet from the Scriptures had gathered that he was the Son of God and the Messiah, as is evident from the book or letter which the men of Basel published about his errors. Therefore from Holy Scripture the people would most easily receive occasion of erring, etc. I answer: First, the major, both of the principal argumentation and of the proofs, must be distinguished. Things harmful to the people, namely such as are so in themselves and always, ought not to be read and known by them. From that which, considered in itself, the people would most easily seize the occasion of erring, from that they would receive harm. From that whence all heresies are born in themselves, by their own fault, and always; from that the people would most easily seize the occasion of erring. Then the assumption, both of the principal argumentation and of the proofs, is false, if it be taken without distinction. For from Holy Scripture considered in itself the people neither receive harm, nor do they receive occasion of erring, nor are heresies born from the same. But if that

happen per accidens, it is not the fault of Scripture but the vice and rashness of certain men, who snatch only a part of Scripture: are the people to be forbidden from its reading or hearing because of the vice and rashness of one and another? This prohibition is most harsh and most unjust. For it is unjust that the innocent should pay for the fault of others. But if the Papists’ argumentation were to prevail, the ten commandments of God would be to be known by no one: since the Apostle Paul also does not hesitate to say of himself, Romans 7, verse 7 and the following, I would not have known coveting, unless the Law had said, You shall not covet. But sin, having taken occasion through that commandment, produced in me every coveting, etc. Yet just as the Apostle Paul teaches in the same place, that the Law itself is holy, and that commandment is holy and just and good; but the whole blame of sins is in us: and therefore he does not cease to inculcate the law of God upon the people, as in Romans 13, verse 8 and the following, Galatians 5, verse 13 and the following, 1 Timothy 1, verse 5, as also James ch. 2, verse 8, and that by the example of Christ in Matthew 5 and 22 and elsewhere: so also it is certain that the prophetic and apostolic Scripture is holy, just, and good, brings harm to no one in itself, leads no one into errors, is the cause of no heresy. For heresies by no means arise from Scripture, but from ignorance of Scripture, as Christ answers the Sadducees: You err, not knowing the Scriptures and the power of God. Moreover, not only do they ignore Scripture who neither read nor hear it: But also those who, though it has been read or heard, understand it amiss, just as Theodoret most truly says: The word of God, foolishly understood, is not the word of God. Whence Hilary says at the end of the book On the Synods: All heresies have been born from Scripture not understood. He does not say simply from Scripture, but from Scripture not understood: therefore from ignorance of Scripture. The testimony therefore of Hilary does not prove the assumption. Where Luther called Scripture the book of heretics, Bellarmine ought to have noted; for that Luther taught it to be profitable for convicting and refuting heretics, and to be among the holy books, is known. The heresy of the Anthropomorphites did not arise from a layman, but from the monk Audaeus. The doctrine of the Taborites and Orebites concerning the Supper of the Lord being administered integrally is not a heresy; but on the contrary, the doctrine by which the Roman Church and the Council of Constance takes away from the people the cup of the Lord is a heresy arising not from laymen, but from bishops. David George did not gather from Scripture that he was the Son of God and the Messiah, but he abused Scripture not understood, and tried to turn Christians away from the reading of Holy Scripture, and in place of it wanted to have his own book thrust upon them, to which he gave the title Wonderboeck, written in the Belgian (Dutch) language: and in this he was a faithful ally of the Jesuits, who also strive to draw the people away from the reading of Scripture. Besides, If Scripture is for that reason dangerous, because, if it were read by laymen, they would draw heresies from it: then by much less ought it to be read by bishops and presbyters: because, as Bellarmine himself writes, book one On the Roman Pontiff, chapter eight, section eleven; heresies are stirred up by the great rather than by common men: Certainly almost all heresiarchs were either bishops or presbyters. Therefore heresies are, as it were, certain factions of the great. But upon whom does the assiduous reading of Holy Scripture more lie as a duty than upon bishops and

presbyters? And would that they had labored in reading and rightly understanding it, they would not have brought so many and so impious heresies into the Church of God! Would that even now they would expend diligent and religious effort in reading and understanding it, they would not defend the heresies brought into the Church. Instance I, by which the adversaries further try to prove the assumption of the principal argument. That which begets contempt among the common sort, from that the people take harm. The reading and knowledge of Holy Scripture begets contempt among the common sort: Therefore, etc. Proof of the assumption: For if the people were to read or to hear the Song of Songs, David’s adultery, Tamar’s incest, the history of Leah and Rachel, the lies of Judith; they would despise the holy patriarchs, nay God himself delivering such things in Scripture. I answer. The consequence of the proof is denied. For nothing less than contempt of holy men or of God himself arises from the reading of those histories. For the Song of Songs contains an allegorical description of Christ the bridegroom and of the Church his bride, and their mutual colloquy. Then, as in those histories the sins of the saints are recounted, so in the same are written down the repentance and the punishment or chastisement divinely inflicted. But it is useful for the Church and for all the godly to know these things. For first from this we learn that no one will sin with impunity, but that each one, if he sins, will undergo the punishment of sin, and that either of chastisement, such as David underwent, or of vengeance, such as Saul, Ahithophel, and other reprobates. Then that no one of the faithful ought to despair, if he should have sinned: but although he may have fallen into a most grievous sin, yet he should hope that God will be propitious in Christ, if the one who has offended should from the heart repent of his sins. Lastly, that those holy and extraordinary men and matrons were saved not by their own virtues, but by the merits of Christ, and thus that they are not to be thought of more narrowly than is fitting: for there is less danger that we attribute too much to them than too little. Wherefore the Holy Spirit was unwilling to be silent about these - not slight offenses of theirs, but very great sins. Instance II, that is, another proof of the principal assumption: That which furnishes an occasion for sinning, from that the people take harm: Sacred Scripture furnishes an occasion for sinning: Therefore, etc. Proof of the assumption. For when the people read or hear of the sins of the saints, they infer that the same things are permitted to them. Response. This is the sophism of accident. What furnishes an occasion for sinning, namely in itself (per se), and not by accident (per accidens), is dangerous. But from Sacred Scripture a license for sinning by no means arises in itself, nor indeed can it truly and justly arise: as the end of Scripture indicates, for which it was given by divine appointment. For it is wholly profitable, as for teaching and refutation, so also for correction of morals and training in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished for every good work. 2 Tim. 3:16. It profits for cleansing life, as David says in Psalm 119:9: How shall a young man purify his way? by keeping it according to your word. He does not say, by fleeing and by being ignorant of Scripture. And in Psalm 19:12 he says, Then you remind your servant by these things, that in observing them there is

great profit. Therefore Scripture in itself does not furnish an occasion for sinning. But the Romanists fear, lest just as the Apostle in 1 Cor. 15:33 warned that good morals are corrupted by evil conversations (ὁµιλίαις κακαῖς), so men by reading the Scriptures might become worse and more licentious. But if perchance someone has snatched from Scripture an occasion for sinning, it would have been done by accident. For just as sin, having taken occasion through the commandment, produces every concupiscence in a man, and yet the law itself is holy, and that commandment is holy and just and good, as Paul teaches in Rom. 7:13: so also from the sacred histories concerning the sins of the saints, by accident they indeed may take an occasion for sinning, by no fault of those histories, but by the fault of human nature. But if even on account of that accident the reading of Holy Scripture is dangerous for laymen, why do the Romanists permit youths to read Propertius, Martial, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, and not forbid the most obscene comedies and the foulest spectacles? - that Scripture alone, as pestilential to godly morals, should be removed from the eyes of men; what more impious or Antichristian could have been devised? Instance III That which renders the history concerning the saints suspected of falsehood, from that the people could take harm: Sacred Scripture renders the history concerning the saints suspected of falsehood. Therefore, etc. Proof of the assumption: For the people, who magnify the saints, could easily believe that the things which are related about the sins of the saints are false, and think that there are lies in Scripture. Response. First, the assumption is false. Then in its proof the point at issue is begged: fear is where there is no cause of fearing (δεος ἐστιν ἀδεις). The Jesuits, forsooth, are more prudent than God. Instance IV. That which causes it to be thought that God is the author of sin, from that the people would take harm: Sacred Scripture causes it to be thought that God is the author of sin: Therefore, etc. Proof of the assumption: for when the people read or hear in the vernacular: Lead us not into temptation, they can easily think that God is the author of sin. Response. The minor is denied. For that opinion about the cause of sin does not arise from Scripture, but from ignorance of Scripture. Instance V. That which brings danger to faith, from that the people would take harm: Scripture brings danger to faith: Therefore, etc. The minor is proved, because when the people should see that there are so many apparent contradictions in Scripture, and could not resolve them, there would be danger lest at length they believe nothing.

Response. First: the minor is false. Then its proof is wrongly begged from a particular and an accident. But let the people be taught faithfully and diligently, and let those things which seem to clash in appearance be rightly reconciled: and no such danger will have to be feared. Then experience testifies that countless men, by the reading or hearing of Holy Scripture, have been rightly informed in the true faith and even now are rightly being informed. Instance VI That which causes blasphemy, from that the people would take harm: Sacred Scripture causes blasphemy: Therefore, etc. Proof of the assumption: for Bellarmine says that he heard from a certain trustworthy man, that when in England chapter 25 of Ecclesiasticus was being read, which has many things about the wickedness of women, a certain woman rose up in anger and cried out: Is this the word of God? nay, it is the word of the Devil. Response. First: the assumption is false; then the proof of the assumption begs the point. For the story about that woman, I know not which, is doubtful and uncertain; therefore rather a fable: let Bellarmine see to it. For who is that trustworthy man from whom he heard it, whose name he did not think worthy of mention? How many stories of that sort could be produced about the trifles of the Roman party? But let these κρονοχυτρολήραιον men tell such things, and amuse themselves with them. Third, even granting but not conceding that something of the sort happened in England, what, I ask, would follow from the particular example of one little woman? Then it is lawful to set over against this concocted example the examples of innumerable souls who by the reading or hearing of Holy Scripture have been stirred up to praise and celebrate God. Nor is it fitting that on account of those who misuse it, Scripture should be shut off or snatched away from those who are going to use it well, as John teaches most wisely in the last chapter of the Apocalypse. If Bellarmine’s argumentation held good, neither Bishops nor Presbyters ought to read the Scriptures, since many of them have abused the Scriptures for establishing blasphemous heresies, as Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and other heresiarchs, whom almost all Bellarmine himself admits to have been Bishops or Presbyters. And it is truly told about Thomas Linacre, an Englishman, a learned man and even commended among the Papists, that when he had heard read in the fifth chapter of Matthew, Love your enemies, etc., he burst out into these words: O my friends, either these things are not true, or we are not Christians. Fourth, even if we altogether conceded that the story about that little English woman is true, nevertheless it would not harm our cause, because at that time she did not hear the word of God, but the word of men: since the book of Ecclesiasticus is not truly and by divine authority canonical, but apocryphal. Such was Bellarmine’s first argument, together with the instances both of himself and of other Romanists: there follows the second: Two most weighty Fathers, Basil the Great and Jerome, did not judge it expedient that all men without selection should handle the Scriptures, even if that could not at that time easily be hindered, since the Greek and Latin tongue were still vernacular among certain peoples. Theodoret relates, Ecclesiastical History, book 4, chapter 17, that when the prefect of the emperor’s kitchen had brought forth I know not what from the Scriptures, he heard himself rebuked by the great BASIL: Your business is to think about broths, not to stew divine dogmas. What, I ask, would Basil say now, if he should see druggists, cobblers, and the rest of the artisans, even from the pulpits, handle the sacred oracles among the Lutherans, the Calvinists, and

the Anabaptists? Jerome, in the epistle to Paulinus on the study of the Scriptures: What belongs to physicians, says he, physicians promise; smiths handle the things of the forge; the art of the Scriptures alone is that which all everywhere claim for themselves. We write poems everywhere, both unlearned and learned. This the garrulous old woman, this the doting old man, this the wordy sophist, this thing all presume upon, mangle, teach, before they learn. Which complaint of Jerome now has the greatest place throughout all Germany and Gaul. For all artisans, not only men but also women, have the Scriptures in their hands, and from their reading they add to their lack of skill both intractability and arrogance. For because they can recite the words of the Apostle and cite books and chapters, they think that they know everything, nor do they suffer themselves in any way to be taught. Response. The antecedent is denied. For Basil the Great and Jerome did not judge that which Bellarmine ascribes to them. For the testimonies of those men are twisted by him into an alien sense. For Basil did not rebuke the prefect of the emperor’s kitchen, by name Demosthenes, on account of the reading of Sacred Scripture, nor on account of a discourse about religion; for religion belongs to all the faithful, therefore it is lawful for all the faithful who can to speak about it: but on account of a rash judgment about an ecclesiastical controversy, which the unskilled man did not understand, and he was speaking against the truth badly, ignorantly, and impudently, and very insolently was drowning out the pious bishop; and though he was a dolt, yet he wished to teach the teacher of the whole world (διδάσκαλον τῆς οἰκουµένης), as Theodoret says. We lay down the same, that no one, whether he be a layman or even a Bishop, ought to babble rashly and impudently about the divine dogmas, and to pass judgment on controversies not rightly known - to dogmatize about the divine (ωρι τον δειον δογµατειν). Similarly Jerome did not rebuke those common folk of whom he speaks on account of the reading of Scripture, but on account of arrogance, insolence, immodesty, because when they had once tasted something of the Scriptures, they already thought that they possessed everything and presumed to teach others what they themselves did not understand. This is Jerome’s mind, which is evident both from the words adduced by Bellarmine, and because in the epistle to Laeta on the education of her daughter, likewise in the Commentaries on chapter three of the prophet Nahum at the end, and on chapter three of the epistle of Paul to the Colossians at verse sixteen, he commends the reading of Scripture to laymen. And in the epistle to Marcella he even highly praises the peasants cultivating the fields at Bethlehem with the singing of Psalms; and about various peoples there he says: a voice indeed diverse, but one religion: almost as many choirs of psalm-singers as there are diversities of peoples. Thus far the opinion of the Romanists has been refuted. But the judgment of the Reformed churches is this: that the reading of Holy Scripture by the laity, as they call them, is not to be forbidden by the Bishops: the reasons of which judgment are most strong. 1. Whatever has been commanded by God to laymen, that cannot and ought not to be forbidden to them by Bishops. For it is of the utmost impiety and rebellion against God to forbid that which He Himself commands. To dispute against what God has commanded, even with the covered authority of the Church, is the insanity of the most insolent arrogance.

The reading of Holy Scripture has been commanded by God to the laity: Therefore it can neither be forbidden to the laity nor ought it to be forbidden by the Bishops. The assumption is most certain. For thus God commands to the king of His people, Deut. 17:18 - 20: And it shall be, when he sits upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this Law in a book, from that which is before the Levitical priests: And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear Jehovah his God, to keep all the words of this law, and these statutes by doing them: Lest his heart be lifted up above his brothers, and lest he turn aside from this commandment to the right hand or to the left; that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his sons, in the midst of Israel. The same command He gave to the leader of the Israelites, Joshua, a military man, Josh. 1:7 - 8. Only be strong and very courageous, that with observance you may do entirely according to that Law which Moses my servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, or… to the left; that you may prosper wherever you go. Let not this book of the Law depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it by day and by night, that with observance you may do entirely according to what is written in it; for then you shall prosper in your ways, and then you shall be made to prosper. The same command he inculcated to the whole people indiscriminately, Deut. 5. vv. 6, 7, 8, 9, and Deut. 11. vv. 18, 19, 20: You shall lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul; and you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. Moreover you shall teach them to your sons, speaking of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up: also write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates. In like manner Christ said to the Jews in common, John 5:39: Search the Scriptures. What Paul says in Col. 3:16 pertains likewise in common to all Christians: Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom. Now the word of Christ is contained in Holy Scripture. II. What the Holy Spirit praises in the laity, it is unlawful for bishops to forbid them: But the Holy Spirit praises the reading of Holy Scripture in the laity. Therefore to forbid the laity the reading of Holy Scripture by the bishops is unlawful. The truth of the minor is shown by these passages of Scripture. In Acts 8:28 there is commemorated with praise that Ethiopian eunuch, an officer of Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasures and had come to Jerusalem to worship, that as he was returning he sat in his chariot and read the prophet Isaiah. This deed was so approved by the Spirit of God that he commanded Philip to approach and join himself close to the chariot. Running up, therefore, Philip heard him reading the prophet Isaiah; and he by no means forbade him that reading; he did not say to him, You ought not to read Scripture, because you are a layman; but he asked whether he understood, Do you understand what you are reading? Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was from Isaiah, chap. 53: As a sheep he was led to the slaughter, etc. And when the eunuch confessed that he did not understand, Philip explained the passage to him and led him to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. If it had been a sin that the eunuch read Scripture, Philip would by no means have kept silence about it; the eunuch would by no means have been visited by so great a

good from God. In Acts 17:11 the Bereans are praised that they were more noble than those in Thessalonica, as those who had received the word with all readiness, daily searching the Scriptures whether these things were so. III. Whatever the apostles themselves granted to the laity, indeed commended, and wished to be done by them, ought not to be forbidden to them by bishops. But the apostles themselves granted to the laity the reading of Holy Scripture, indeed commended it, and wished it to be done by them: Therefore, etc. The minor is evident from these places. In 2 Cor. 1:13 Paul writes to all the saints who were at Corinth and in all Achaia: We write no other things to you than what you read or also acknowledge. Likewise in Eph. 3:4 he says: God by revelation made known to me that mystery (as I have written before in few words), from the reading of which you can understand what is my understanding. But if the reading of Paul’s epistles is granted to the laity - in which nevertheless there are some things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and unstable twist, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction, as Peter testifies, 2 Ep. 3:16 - then the reading of the other books is granted to the same laity. To this pertains what Peter says, 2 Ep. 1:19: We have the more sure prophetic word, to which you do well to take heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place; and 2 Pet. 3:1 - 2: These now second letters I write to you, beloved, by which I stir up your sincere mind by way of admonition: that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, etc. The apostles wished by their epistles to stir up the minds of the laity; therefore they wished them to be read by the laity. IV. Whatever brings everlasting beatitude, and is an ornament to all beloved of God, and teaches them true wisdom and prudence, ought by no means to be forbidden to the laity by bishops: But the reading of Holy Scripture affords all these things. For thus writes John, Rev. 1:3: Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep the things which are written therein; for the time is near. What is said of the reading of the book of the Apocalypse is equally true of the reading of the whole Scripture, as is clear from Psalm 1 and Psalm 119 and from 1 Pet. 1:23. Psalm 149:9, is said of Holy Scripture, It is an ornament to all those whom Jehovah graciously receives. And Deut. 4:6: This is your wisdom and your prudence in the sight of the peoples, who, hearing all these statutes, shall say, Surely this great nation is a wise and prudent people. Psalm 19:8, 9, 10, 11. V. Whatever is also written for the laity, from the reading of it the bishops ought by no means to shut them out. For how absurd it would be that something be written to the laity and yet not be to be read by them: But Holy Scripture also is written for the laity: Therefore from the reading of Holy Scripture the bishops by no means ought to shut the laity out.

The minor is certain: for the epistles of Paul and of the other apostles - are they not written to the laity? - as the epistle to the Romans, both to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, the Philippians, to the Colossians, and Thessalonians, likewise the Catholic epistles of James, Peter, John, Jude. VI. Whatever Scripture points out the way of eternal life and bears witness concerning Christ, from the reading of it the laity are by no means to be barred. For the care of eternal life and the knowledge of Christ pertain to them no less than to the ecclesiastics. What touches all ought to be known by all. But Holy Scripture points out the way of eternal life and bears witness concerning Christ. John 5:39: Search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and they are they that testify concerning me. VII. Whatever Scripture most rightly expounds the duties of all the laity - such as of magistrates and subjects, of husbands and wives, of parents and children, of masters and servants, and indeed of all ranks - its reading ought not to be forbidden to the laity by bishops. But Holy Scripture most rightly expounds the duties of all the laity - such as of magistrates and subjects, of husbands and wives, of parents and children, etc. - throughout. Prov. 1:1 and the following, and everywhere throughout the whole Scripture. Therefore, etc. VIII. That whose ignorance is the cause of errors and heresies, from its reading the laity are not to be barred: But ignorance of Holy Scripture is the cause of errors and heresies. Mark 12:24. IX. The reading of the testament of God, which is to be known by all his sons and heirs, is not to be forbidden to the laity. For when the father’s testament is set before the eyes of all the coheirs, it is not so easy to be deceived and to deceive. But Holy Scripture is the testament of God, which is to be known by all his sons and heirs. X. Whatever has been translated into various languages with this end, that it might become known to whomsoever, the reading of it certainly cannot and ought not to be interdicted to the laity. But Holy Scripture has been translated into various languages with this end, that it might become known to all: as Augustine testifies, Tom. 3, Book 2 On Christian Doctrine, chap. 5: From which it has come to pass that even the divine Scripture, by which the great diseases of human wills are succored, having set out from one language, which could opportunely be disseminated through the whole world, being diffused far and wide through the various tongues of interpreters, should become known to the nations unto salvation. Theodoret likewise testifies, On the Cure of the Greek Diseases, Sermon 5, p. 81 of the Commelin edition: But we have manifestly shown you the inexhaustible strength of apostolic and prophetic doctrine. For the whole face of the earth, as great as is subjected to the sun, is now full of such words. The Hebrew books, moreover, have not only been translated into the Greek idiom, but also into the Roman tongue, the Egyptian, the Persian, the Indian, the Armenian and the Scythian, and indeed the Sauromatic; and, to say it once for all, into all the languages which the nations use to this day.

XI. Whatever the orthodox Fathers commanded the laity to read, from the reading of it they are by no means to be barred by bishops. The orthodox Fathers commanded the laity to read Holy Scripture; for example, Cyprian, in the second epistle to Donatus, who had lately embraced Christianity, thus writes: Only do you, whom the heavenly soldiery has now marked in spiritual camps, hold the discipline uncorrupted, hold it sober with religious virtues: let either prayer or reading be continual for you: now speak with God, now let God be with you: let him instruct you by his precepts, let him dispose; whom he shall have made rich, no one shall make poor. There can now be no lack, when once the breast shall have been filled with the heavenly fatness. Likewise Augustine, in the exposition of Psalm thirty-three, thus exhorts his hearers, who assuredly for the most part were laymen: Read the Scriptures: God therefore willed that they should be written, that we might be consoled. In the second tome, the first epistle, which is to Volusianus, an illustrious man, a statesman and a layman, he thus writes: I exhort, as I can, that you not be loath to spend effort on the study of letters that are truly and certainly holy. And presently: I exhort you especially to read the tongues of the apostles; for from these you will be stirred up to know the prophets, whose testimonies the apostles use. St. John Chrysostom, on the Epistle to the Colossians, homily nine: Hear, I beseech, all you secular people. Buy for yourselves Bibles, the medicines of the soul; if you desire nothing else, at least buy for yourselves the New Testament. XII. Because those who forbid Scripture to be read by the people thereby take away peace, and the converse of God with the people and of the people in turn with God; and, in a word, they sever the commerce and fellowship of God with men; for it is God who speaks to us in Scripture, and he who reads Scripture hears God speaking: they withdraw from the family and household of God the food of eternal life; and, the armory being shut, they thrust the faithful naked and unarmed into battle with Satan, whose sword and shield, and indeed whose whole panoply, is the word of God, as the example of Christ contending with Satan and the precept of Paul exhorting to procure these arms teach: furthermore, by snatching away the defense of Holy Scripture they despoil Christians not only of doctrine, but also of consolation, patience, and hope, since whatsoever things were written before were written for our instruction, that through patience and the comfort of the Scriptures we might have hope, Rom. 15:4. Finally, they strive to keep the faithful in gross and deadly ignorance and so lead them to destruction, since ignorance of Scripture is the mother of errors and heresies, and since Scripture makes a man wise unto salvation. XIII. Because even most approved laymen after the times of the apostles read Holy Scripture, such as Constantine the Great; Theodosius the Great; Theodosius the Younger wrote out with his own hand the New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ. But chiefly Holy Scripture is the book of kings and princes, and thus of all magistrates, which they ought to read continually, as the following arguments, in addition to those adduced above, show.

II. Holy Scripture opens up and shows the springs of all laws by which a commonwealth is rightly and happily administered. For there are no just laws either in the civil imperial law or in the statutes or constitutions of kingdoms, principalities, and finally of all commonwealths, which are not contained at least in general in the divine Law. This makes the conscience of kings and princes and of those who govern in commonwealths assured, that they act justly and pronounce just sentences, since they know that they do not depart from the rule of righteousness which God himself has prescribed. II. Holy Scripture shows the origin of the power which they hold, namely that it is from God and is approved by him: whence they are certain that they discharge the magistracy with a good conscience. III. It supplies most trustworthy counsels to kings, princes, and other magistrates in very grave matters. For if historians set forth the profane in place of the best and most trustworthy counsels of kings and princes - are deservedly held so: much more are the Prophets and Apostles such and ought to be so held, who by immediate divine revelation give counsel as to what is to be done and what is to be avoided, setting forth both divine warnings useful and salutary concerning the office and actions of kings and princes and of other magistrates, and also true and illustrious examples of kings and princes who in the administration of the commonwealth conducted themselves either rightly or otherwise, and for their deeds received either rewards or punishments, having become a theater either of divine grace or of divine wrath, so that they might be monitors to all kings and princes and other magistrates who would come after them. This is what the great king David says, Psalm 119:24: Your testimonies are my delights, my counselors. But these and other uses of Holy Scripture pertaining to kings and princes the Most Serene King of Great Britain, JAMES I, in his Royal Gift (Δώρῳ βασιλικῷ, Basilikon Doron), dedicated to his firstborn son, the Most Illustrious Prince of Wales, HENRY FREDERICK, has so excellently set forth that I plainly understand I have nothing further to add about them.

Concerning the perspicuity of Holy Scripture there is no slight controversy between us and the Romanists; but the Romanists commit a calumny in the statement of the controversy. Bellarmine, Book 3 on the Word of God, chapter 1, section 1, proposes the state of the disputed question in this way, Whether Holy Scripture is of itself very easy and most open, or rather needs interpretation; and he lays it down that Scripture is not so open of itself that, without explication, it suffices for bringing controversies of faith to a close. But if the state of the controversy be put thus, he fights after the manner of the Andabatae and strikes the air to no purpose, since he has no adversaries in this matter - neither Luther, nor Brenz, nor other orthodox men. The opinion of Luther, alleged by

Bellarmine, clears itself of calumny. For thus Luther, in the preface to the assertion of the articles condemned by Pope Leo, says: Scripture must be judge to render this sentence: which cannot be done unless we give to Scripture the chief place among all things attributed to the Fathers, that is, that it be itself most certain, most easy, most open, its own interpreter, altogether testing, judging, and enlightening all. So far the words of Luther as produced by Bellarmine; whence we gather as follows: If Luther asserts that Scripture is of itself most certain, most easy, most open, and its own interpreter, then surely he does not hold that it suffices without interpretation for settling controversies of faith; but he teaches only who is the best interpreter of Holy Scripture. And what in the same place Luther contends, that Scripture is clearer than all the commentaries of the Fathers, this likewise does not contradict the thesis proposed by Bellarmine: since Luther does not reject the Fathers’ commentaries by which they interpret Scripture, but only compares them with Scripture in clarity, and teaches that Scripture is clearer; and he teaches this rightly, since the Fathers borrow from Holy Scripture the light for the things which they themselves say, mindful of that which is said in Psalm 119:105: Your word is a lamp to my foot and a light to my path. Nay rather, the following statements, by which Luther restricts his opinion, clear him of Bellarmine’s calumny. For he admits that two things are said by Luther: one, that although Scripture is somewhere obscure, nevertheless it sets forth the same thing elsewhere clearly; the other, that Scripture, although most clear of itself, is nevertheless obscure to the proud and unbelievers on account of their blindness and perverse disposition. And these are not Luther’s subterfuges, as Bellarmine cavils, but true doctrines. Neither does Brentius think otherwise, nor do we. Other Romanists feign that we hold that all things in Holy Scripture are of themselves most easy and in need of no interpretation, so that laymen can by themselves understand all things, whence also we grant to laymen the reading of Scripture: and thus what we say with a certain limitation, they, without limitation, assert. But we, dismissing the Romanists’ calumnies, embrace our opinion in this thesis: Holy Scripture is in no part of itself and in itself obscure; but it sets forth openly, clearly, and perspicuously all things which pertain to faith and good works, such that all endowed with the Spirit of God, even common folk, who read it attentively and constantly, and grasp the words and phrases by reason of age and of knowledge of the language in which they read Scripture, and wish to investigate the truth and to do the will of God, can understand it rightly and obtain the greatest profit therefrom. This thesis is first to be explained, then to be confirmed, and defended against the objections of the Romanists. It is not our opinion that all things in Scripture are easy, perspicuous, and clear to any and every person reading or hearing it, with nothing obscure to anyone, nothing difficult to understand: for we admit that certain passages of Scripture are difficult to understand and obscure for the reprobate and the questioners, and sometimes even for the elect for a time. But, first, that Scripture is in itself and by its own nature perspicuous, and that it sets forth perspicuously the whole doctrine of faith and of good works, that it teaches clearly the foundation of Christian doctrine necessary to be known by all the faithful - not indeed in every single passage of Scripture, but

assuredly in every single head of Christian doctrine necessary for faith and the worship of God: or, to use the words of St. Augustine, which are extant in Book 2 On Christian Doctrine, chapter 9: In those things which are set forth openly in Scripture are found all those things which contain faith and the morals of living. Then, we do not say that Holy Scripture is clear and perspicuous to just anyone whatsoever, but to those who are endowed with the Spirit of God by whom it was written, and to whom there is no impediment either from age or from ignorance of the language in which they read Scripture: these alone understand it as it ought to be understood, even if they were common folk. Just as man consists of body and soul, so that the body is the soul’s dwelling; so Holy Scripture consists of letter and spirit, so that the letter is, as it were, a certain dwelling of the spirit. And just as beasts can see the body of a man and hear his voice, but cannot perceive his mind or discourse, since they are not endowed with the same soul, with the eyes of which to discern in such a way; so the ungodly can see the letter of Holy Scripture and hear the words, but only those understand what the spirit of the letter is and to what the divine intention looks who are endowed with that very Spirit by whom Scripture was inspired to the Prophets and Apostles. Indeed, the ungodly no more see him than beasts do the speech of men, of which they only catch a few sounds, and those they hardly understand - exclamations, reproofs, exhortations, threats. Thus the ungodly see in the sacred writings what is narrated, what is commanded or forbidden; but they do not have the spirit and, as it were, the marrow of the letter. For as the matters of a man the spirit of the man alone knows, so the matters of God no one knows except the Spirit of God, and the one whom that Spirit has taught. 1 Cor. 2:9 and the following. Third, we distinguish the divine matters which Scripture delivers from the discourse by which it teaches them. The things themselves are most high and most deep and removed from the natural human intellect; yet they themselves are explained in clear discourse through Scripture inspired by divine revelation. Thus our thesis having been explained, now it is to be confirmed. It is confirmed FIRST by testimonies of Scripture. The first is Deut. 30:11 and the following. This commandment which I command thee today is not hidden from thee, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall ascend for us into heaven and take it for us and declare it to us, that we may do it? but the word is very near to thee in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. Whence we gather in this manner: What is not hidden nor far off, but is near to the faithful, that assuredly sets forth openly and perspicuously the doctrine of faith and morals. But Holy Scripture, and most especially the doctrine of the Gospel, is not hidden nor far off, but near to the faithful: Therefore it sets forth openly and perspicuously the doctrine of faith and morals. Bellarmine answers by denying the minor, and says that it cannot be proved from the passage adduced, because many of the ancients expound it not of the ease of understanding the Scriptures, but of the ease of fulfilling the commandments of the Decalogue when the aid of grace is present - which is against all the Lutherans, who say that God’s commandments are impossible. And he says that Tertullian interprets it thus in Book 4 against Marcion; likewise that Origen, Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, and others expound so on Romans 10; and Augustine in the book On the Perfection of Righteousness, the second-to-last reply. Yet he grants that others, among whom is

Abulensis, expound this passage of the ease of knowledge, not indeed of the sacred Scriptures, which perhaps at that time did not yet exist, but only of the precepts of the Decalogue, which, since they are natural, are most easily understood; and those Jews especially could easily know them who had heard Moses explaining, and had confessed that they had understood all things, and had promised that they would observe them. Therefore it is subjoined: The word is near, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that is, in thy heart because thou hast now understood what is to be done; and in thy mouth because thou hast now confessed that thou hast understood. So far Bellarmine’s exception. To this our REPLY is as follows. First, the minor premise of our argument cannot be denied, which truly rests upon the passage of Moses and is taken from it. Then the passage of Moses is by no means to be understood of the ease of fulfilling the commandments of the Decalogue: because the precept of which Moses speaks in the cited place is not of the Law, but of the Gospel - of conversion to God and faith in Christ - as interpreted by Paul in Rom. 10:6 and following. The authority of Paul alone ought to have sufficed for Bellarmine that this passage is by no means to be expounded of the fulfilling of the commandments of the Decalogue. Moreover, that Paul’s interpretation is true ought to be beyond controversy among all the godly. For also all the antecedents in Deuteronomy chapter 30 pertain to the doctrine of the Gospel: because they treat of conversion to God, that is, repentance; but to invite to repentance and to offer grace to those repenting and believing the promise of grace is the Gospel, whose truth Moses affirms to be performed by God and to be easily perceived by us. Next, Paul would argue ineptly from Moses’ passage, unless it were to be understood of the doctrine of the Gospel. For Paul opposes to the righteousness which is of the law, consisting in the performance of the commandments of the Law, the righteousness which is of faith: and to the righteousness which is of the law he accommodates Leviticus 18:5, He who shall have performed these things shall live by them; but to the righteousness which is of faith he accommodates this passage of Moses from Deuteronomy, and to those words, The word is near thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, he expressly adds an explanation: This is the word of faith which we preach. Therefore this passage of Moses is not to be taken of the ease of fulfilling the commandments of the Decalogue, nor does it make against us. Third, the witnesses commended by Bellarmine depose nothing of the sort that Bellarmine fastens upon them - neither Tertullian, nor Origen, nor Ambrose, nor St. John Chrysostom, nor Augustine - but they refer this passage cited by Paul out of Moses to the doctrine of the Gospel and to the apprehension of it by faith. Thus Bellarmine indeed lists the names of the Fathers as though for the sake of intimidation, but the matter at issue he seems nowhere to have. Fourth, as to what Bellarmine says, that perhaps there were no Scriptures when Moses uttered that passage: it is strange that this could have come into his mind to come, since he could have thought that this very passage was written by Moses after the preceding books and the greater part of Deuteronomy. Therefore Bellarmine says something false, even by the testimony of Moses himself. Indeed Moses testifies in that same chapter 30 of Deuteronomy, verse 10, in these words, that the first four books of Moses and a great part of Deuteronomy had already been fully written and were in the possession of the Israelite Church: If

you will listen to the voice of the LORD your God, by keeping his commandments and his statutes, whatever is written in this book of the Law, if you will turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. And ch. 31 v. 9: And when Moses had written this law, he gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel, etc. Fifth, as to the fact that Bellarmine again interprets this passage of Moses about the ease of understanding the commandments of the Decalogue, he is convicted of falsehood by the same arguments which we have just adduced. Thus far the first confirmation of our position. SECOND. Our thesis is further confirmed by those testimonies from the Psalms and Proverbs, in which it is said of Scripture that it is clear, a light, a lamp; as in Psalm 18, or, according to the Hebrew reckoning, 19, v. 6: The commandment of the LORD is clear, enlightening the eyes; and Psalm 118, or according to the Hebrew reckoning 119, v. 105: Your word is a lamp to my foot and a light to my path; and v. 130: the entrance of your words gives light, it gives understanding to the simple. Prov. 6 v. 23: The commandment is a lamp and the law a light, and the way of life, reproofs of instruction. Whence we argue thus: Whatever is in a divine manner clear, indeed a divine lamp and light, enlightening the eyes of our mind: that certainly is not dark in itself and of itself, but is clear and perspicuous to the faithful, the sons of light, enlightened by the inward light of the Holy Spirit: But Holy Scripture is in a divine manner clear, indeed a divine lamp and light, enlightening the eyes of our mind: Therefore Holy Scripture is not dark in itself and of itself, but is clear and perspicuous to the faithful, etc. Bellarmine retorts thus, that he first denies the minor, which treats of the whole of the divine Scriptures, to be rightly proved from the testimonies adduced, which do not treat of the whole of the Scriptures, but only of the Lord’s commandments, which are called clear, a lamp and a light, not because they are easily understood - although this too is true - but because, once understood and known, they direct a man in acting. Then, sensing the weakness of this reply of his and, convicted of the truth in his conscience, he replies by a fiduciary reprobation: for he grants that all the Scriptures are indeed in view, but that they are called clear, a light and a lamp, not because they are easily understood, but because, when they have been understood, they enlighten the mind. For, says Bellarmine, the Prophet in Psalm 18, or rather 19, spoke of the knowledge of the philosophers, which they had attained from the creatures, when he says: The heavens declare the glory of God, etc. Afterwards, so as to show that they did not come to that light to which the faithful come, he subjoins: The law of the Lord is immaculate, etc. Likewise he says that Psalm 118 (or rather Ps. 119) wished to demonstrate that the knowledge which is had from the revealed word of God is greater than that from the creatures, and therefore compared the word of God to a lamp, which, for dispelling the darkness of night, is much more useful to us than the light of all the stars.

Our REPLY. First, the restriction of Bellarmine is denied, because the testimonies adduced treat not only of the Lord’s commandments, but of the whole of the divine Scriptures, as the antecedents and consequents of each show. Thus St. Augustine, in the eighth tome, in the exposition of Psalm 118, sermon twenty-three, says: Therefore what he says here, Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths, is the word which is contained in all the holy Scriptures. The same is the opinion of St. Jerome, Nicholas of Lyra, and others. Surely Augustine calls the sentences of Scripture which contain the doctrine of faith a light, likewise a lamp. In the seventh tome, book one On the merits and remission of sins against the Pelagians, ch. seven, he says: Attend to the light of the Apostolic sentence. But if Christ (he says) is in us, the body indeed is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. And a little after: Why is the smoke of contention still cast upon so great a light? Second, the response by a fiduciary reprobation assigns a false cause why the Scriptures are called clear, a lamp and a light, namely because, when understood, they enlighten the mind, as though the understanding of them preceded the illumination of the mind. But indeed for this reason they are so called, because they themselves enlighten the mind to understand the mighty works of God which are set forth in them: so that the illumination of the mind through Scripture precedes understanding, it does not follow. Thus David interprets himself, when he says in Psalm 119 v. 98: You make me wiser than my enemies (to wit, Your law) by your precepts. But by the name law David understands not only those ten commandments, but all the divine Scriptures: in which signification the Lord too uses it in the Gospel, when he says, that what is written in their Law might be fulfilled, They hated me without a cause, John 15, as Bellarmine himself admits in book three On the Word of God, ch. two, section three; and v. 104: By your commandments I am prudent; and v. 130: The entrance of your words gives light, it instructs the simple with prudence. Third, the explanation set last by Bellarmine confirms our argument all the more: for if greater light, greater knowledge is had from the revealed word of God than from the creatures: then it follows that the written word of God is truly, like a certain spiritual sun, bright, truly shining, truly enlightening our intellect, our darkness being scattered; and consequently that it is clear and perspicuous and is easily perceived by the faithful who are enlightened by the inward light of the Holy Spirit. The fifth testimony of Scripture is Matt. 5 v. 14: You are the light of the world. From this we argue. If the Apostles are the light of the world, then surely their Scriptures, by which they enlightened the world and still enlighten it, hand down the doctrine of faith and of good works clearly. The antecedent is true. Therefore the consequent is too. Bellarmine ANSWERS by restricting the assumption and the saying of Christ to the light of examples, uprightness, and morals: because the Lord willed the Apostles to be certain examples of holiness set forth to all for imitation; wherefore he subjoined immediately: so let your light shine before men that they may see your good works. He adds: if the Lord were speaking of the light of doctrine, the sense would not be that the Scripture of the Apostles is very easy to understand, but that, once it is understood, it enlightens the mind, etc., instructs about the loftiest matters, and

puts to flight the darkness of all errors: nor, however, does he more enlighten who speaks or writes clearly than he who, whether he speak or write clearly or obscurely, kindles the light of truth in the mind and drives away the darkness of errors. Our REPLY. First, the restriction is denied; for Christ speaks of the light both of doctrine and of life: just as the Apostles enlightened the world both by their doctrine and by their life. Christ himself interprets of the light of doctrine in a similar passage, which is found in Acts 26 v. 16, 17, 18, where he addresses the Apostle Paul thus: For this purpose I appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and witness both of the things which you have seen and of those in which I will appear to you; delivering you from this people and from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified through faith which is in me. With which also agrees the other passage Acts 13 v. 46, 47: It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you; but since you thrust it away and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, I have set you to be a light of the Gentiles, that you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth. But the Gentiles, hearing this, rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord, and believed, as many as were ordained to eternal life. To this also pertain those places 2 Tim. 1 v. 9, 10: Who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which indeed was given to us in Christ Jesus before times eternal; but now has been manifested through the illustrious appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who also abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel. Nay more, the very context of Matt. 5 already sufficiently shows that the Apostles are called the light in the world both as to doctrine and as to life: because Christ established both right teaching and right living; and surely pure and uncorrupted preaching is the chief good work which the Apostles performed. Just so, there too they are called the salt of the earth, with reference to pure doctrine and life: therefore v. 19 is subjoined: Whoever shall break one of these least commandments, and so shall teach men, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Tertullian agrees with us, who in the book On prescriptions against heretics, ch. twenty-six, says: The Lord himself taught that a lamp is not to be put under a bushel, but to be set on a candlestick, that it may shine for all who are in the house. The Apostles either neglected these things or did not at all understand them, if they did not fulfill them, hiding something of the light, that is, of the Word of God and of the Sacrament of Christ. Secondly, Bellarmine vitiates the state of the controversy. For neither do we assert simply that Scripture is most easy to understand, as though it could be understood indiscriminately by anyone whatever: but that it hands down the whole doctrine of faith and of good works openly and perspicuously, so that the truly faithful, by reading assiduously and attentively, can understand it. Thirdly, the reason does not clash, that the Apostles are on that account called the light of the world, both because the Apostolic Scripture is open and clear in such wise that it can be understood perspicuously by the faithful, and because, when understood, it enlightens the mind, instructs

about the loftiest matters, and drives away the darkness of all errors. For both reasons together are true. Unfairly therefore does Bellarmine set them in opposition and disjoin them, when they agree and are conjoined. Fourthly, he speaks just as if the sun had no light in itself unless the blind see it. But just as the sun is both bright in itself and with that light which it has in itself enlightens all, except those who either are blind or shut their eyes, so Holy Scripture both is in itself full of divine light and with that same light enlightens our minds. The sixth testimony is 2 Pet. 1:19: And we have the more sure prophetic word: to which you do well to attend as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day-star arise in your hearts. From this we argue thus: If Holy Scripture is as a lamp shining in a dark place, then surely in no part of itself is it dark in itself and of itself, but it hands down openly and clearly all the things which contain faith and the manners of living, etc. The antecedent is true, as Peter attests: Therefore so is the consequent. Bellarmine ANSWERS, that the utterances of the prophets are called a lamp, not because they are easily understood, but because, once understood, they enlighten and show the road to Christ, who is the true Sun of righteousness. Our REPLY. First, Bellarmine sins by an ignorance of the refutation: for neither do we simply affirm that Holy Scripture is a lamp because it can be easily understood by anyone whatsoever: for that word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, 1 Cor. 1:18; and the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; for they are folly to him, nor can he know them, 1 Cor. 2 v.

Third, Bellarmine differs in the interpretation of this passage from other Papists. For Cardinal Hosius, book three On the Authority of the Church, says that the prophetic word is called a lamp because many things are clear, and because the things which once were shadows and enigmas are now declared in the Gospel. This very thing we defend: that many things in the Scriptures are clear to us, whence other things which seem more obscure can be made clear. The seventh testimony is 2 Cor. 4:2 - 4. But we have renounced the shameful hidden things, not walking in craftiness, nor falsifying the word of God, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. But if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing; in whom the god of this age has blinded the minds, namely of unbelievers, so that the illumination of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine upon them. Bellarmine answers that the Apostle is not speaking of the understanding of the Scriptures, but of the knowledge and faith in Christ which the Apostles preached. Our reply. First, the distinction and disjunction of relative things, existing together by nature, is denied: for knowledge and faith in Christ cannot stand without an understanding of the Scriptures. External Scripture is the external instrument and cause of the internal knowledge and faith in Christ. Second, Bellarmine speaks ambiguously: for by the name of knowledge and faith in Christ either the doctrine preached outwardly concerning knowledge and faith in Christ can be understood, or the inward habit of mind of knowledge and faith. But Paul without ambiguity shows that he is speaking of the Gospel, which is veiled to those who are perishing. But what Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing? Is it not that which is contained in Scripture? Or do the Papists have another Gospel outside of Scripture? Or did the Apostles preach another Gospel than what they delivered in writings? We oppose to Bellarmine Irenaeus speaking thus in book three Against Heresies, chapter one: We have not known the disposition of our salvation through others than through those by whom the Gospel has come to us, which indeed they then proclaimed, but afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. Surely the Fathers are of one mind with us: St. John Chrysostom, in the eighth homily on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, upon these words says: that the Apostles not only in life, but not even in doctrine and preaching, in the preaching itself (en autō tō kērugmati, ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ κηρύγµατι), had anything shadowy (syniskiasmon, συνισκιασµόν). St. Ambrose also understands these words of the whole Gospel delivered by the Apostles. Thus far the first confirmation of the thesis concerning the perspicuity of Holy Scripture, from testimonies of Scripture. Then it is confirmed by reasons, the first of which is: The sum of the whole Scripture, which consists in the Apostles’ Creed, in the precepts of the Decalogue, in the Lord’s Prayer, and in the institution of the Sacraments, has open testimonies in Scripture. Hence we do not infer, as

Bellarmine feigns, that the whole Scripture is most open; but this, that Holy Scripture openly teaches all those things which pertain to faith, the worship of God, morals of life, and the Sacraments. Bellarmine answers by denying the consequence and the antecedent: the consequence indeed, because although all things can in some way be reduced to those summary heads which are recounted in the antecedent, nevertheless they themselves are in themselves most obscure, as is evident concerning the prophecies of the Prophets, the Song of Songs, the Epistle to the Romans, the Apocalypse; the antecedent also, because if such clear testimonies stood forth concerning all the articles of the Creed and all the Sacraments, all controversies would be ended; whereas, however, concerning the individual articles of the Creed and the individual Sacraments there are most grave controversies, and not only do Catholics disagree with heretics about these matters, but even heretics among themselves. Our reply. Neither is rightly denied: for both the consequence is good and the antecedent true. But that the firmness of the consequence may be more manifest, come, we will fill out the enthymeme and make a syllogism, with the terms contracted into fewer words: Whatever has open testimonies concerning all the heads of Christian catechesis, that sets forth clearly the whole doctrine of faith and good works. Holy Scripture has open testimonies concerning all the heads of Christian catechesis: therefore Holy Scripture clearly sets forth the whole doctrine of faith and good works. The syllogism is in the first figure, in the mood Darii; and there is no ambiguity in the terms, so that it does not have more than three; therefore its consequence is good. Yet Bellarmine denies it, with no suitable cause of denial alleged. For the one which he alleges is foreign: for our argument deals with the perspicuity of the words and of the discourse and sense of Scripture in handing down the whole doctrine of faith and good works; but Bellarmine’s reason is partly about things which are more obscure to our natural intellect on account of their amplitude and our weakness, partly about certain prophecies and books of Scripture, which he says are in themselves most obscure. But first the obscurity of the discourse and its sense must be distinguished from the obscurity of the things which are treated by the discourse. Heavenly things indeed are in themselves lofty and difficult, and by human reason incomprehensible and by human speech ineffable; yet the divine discourse, by which they are expounded in Scripture, consists in most places of the highest simplicity and is accommodated to our capacity. For what hinders God from setting forth in clear speech things surpassing human reason? For who of men could do so, if God has not done it in the Scriptures? What thing could be more abstruse or be more obscure to the human intellect than the Godhead, that is, the unity of the divine essence and of the persons in it in the Trinity, and likewise the personal union of the two natures in Christ? And yet God in Holy Scripture has taught both the Godhead and that union so clearly that no creature could teach more clearly. Then the prophecies of the prophets and other divine oracles in the Song of Songs, the Epistle to the Romans, the Apocalypse, and the other divine books, although they are in part obscure to us on account of the loftiness of things by nature unknown to our reason, and our native

inability to understand divine things, nevertheless are a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, Ps. 119:105; they enlighten the eyes of the mind, Ps. 19:8 - 9; they make known the mystery of Christ, Eph. 3:4; and most of all the Epistle of Paul to the ancient Romans accomplishes all these things, which most clearly shows that the Romans of today sit in the grossest darkness of errors, so that, against today’s Romans, whose errors the Holy Spirit foreknew from eternity, it seems to have been written by the singular counsel of divine providence. But the detestable ingratitude of Bellarmine and the other Papists against the Prophets and Apostles is to be noted: for whereas the mystery which was kept silent from eternal times has now been made manifest and through the prophetic Scriptures, by command of the eternal God, to the obedience of faith, has been made known to all the Gentiles, as Paul expressly writes, Rom. 16:26; and whereas the Gospel is like a most limpid mirror which by its rays so illumines the gaze of those looking upon it that it transforms them, so that they also may be sharers of its glory’s splendor for the enlightening of others, as the same teaches, 2 Cor. 3:18; this ought to have been acknowledged with grateful minds; they not only do not acknowledge it, but also accuse the prophetic and apostolic Scripture as if in itself most obscure. Bellarmine supports the denial of the antecedent, or assumption, by this reasoning: If such clear testimonies concerning faith and the Sacraments stood forth in Scripture, then all controversies would be ended; but this is not so; therefore neither is that. But this is a fallacy from a non-cause, as they say: for that there are dissensions and controversies does not happen from the obscurity of Scripture, but from the darkness and malice of the human mind. Thus far the first reason. The second: From that by which the orthodox Fathers illustrated and proved the doctrine of faith and of good works which they were proposing; that certainly sets it forth clearly. From Scripture the orthodox Fathers illustrated and proved the doctrine of faith and of good works which they were proposing: therefore Scripture sets forth that doctrine clearly. The major proposition is certain: because what is more known cannot and ought not to be proved from what is less known, but the less known from the more known is to be proved. The minor needs no proof. Bellarmine answers to the proof of the major proposition by a distinction, he says that this rule, The less known is to be proved from the more known, is not to be understood of the knowledge of words, which consists in the perspicuity of the sentence, just as we say that the proper sentence is more known, that is, easier and clearer, than the figurative; but of the knowledge of the truth of things, which lies in this, that one understand that what is said is true: thus the Fathers confirm their sentences by testimonies of Scripture, because it is more known that what is contained in the Scriptures is true than what is contained in the Fathers; and yet the same Fathers, by their commentaries, illustrate the Scriptures, because the words of Scripture are more obscure than the words of the Fathers.

Our reply. The restriction is denied: for this rule, The less known is to be proved from the more known, because the major proposition, being proved, is true, whether you take it of either kind of knowledge or of both; and accordingly the argument itself. For that which has in itself a divine and perfect clarity of words or sentences and of things, is of itself clearer and better known than the human and imperfect, as a pure fountain is clearer than the streams drawn from it. Holy Scripture has in itself a divine and perfect clarity of words or sentences and of things: therefore it is of itself clearer and better known than all human and imperfect writings. But, someone will say to us, it is not equally clear and known. Certainly: for man, since by nature he is animal, is not capable of the things of the Spirit of God; and since by nature he is blind in divine matters, he does not see the light of the Holy Spirit shining in them, just as to one blind from birth the light of the sun is not clear and known; but is the light of the sun therefore obscure? But to the regenerate man, who has obtained enlightened eyes of the mind through the Holy Spirit, divine Scripture is clear and known. And since regeneration is imperfect in this life and has its successive increases, therefore it is not a wonder if man does not immediately grasp that which is perfect in a divine manner, and indeed with a perfection above the nature and faculties of the natural man, such as the mystery of salvation revealed in Scripture; and what he does grasp of it, he neither grasps perfectly in itself nor in a perfect manner, but, according to his measure, by means imperfect and proportioned to himself (as they say). But such means are human, when God has enlightened and ordered them; and in this number are the commentaries of holy men and of the orthodox Fathers. The things which follow in Bellarmine are nothing to the purpose. The third reason: Scripture formerly was read without the commentaries of the Fathers and was understood by the faithful; therefore it clearly delivers the doctrine of faith and of good works. The antecedent is confirmed by the example of the Bereans, whom Luke in Acts 17:11 testifies to have searched and understood the Scriptures, with no mention made of commentaries. Bellarmine, in replying to this our argument to be reported, fastens upon us a consequence different from this controversy, namely, that there is no need of the Fathers’ commentaries; and he takes simply what was said by Luther in a qualified way about commentaries, a matter about which there will be occasion to speak in the following chapter. Fourth: If Scripture does not deliver openly, clearly, and perspicuously all the things that comprise faith and the morals of life, then the Holy Spirit either could not write more openly, or He would not. No one will say He could not: to say He would not clashes with the end of writing, because whatever things were written were written for our instruction, as Paul testifies in Rom. 15:4. Therefore Scripture delivers perspicuously all things necessary to salvation. Fifth: We are commanded to read Scripture, that from it we may know the saving truth. John 5: “Search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.” Therefore, etc. Sixth: Scripture is the rule of faith and of good works; but a rule is clearer and better known than the thing ruled. Therefore, etc.

Seventh: An understanding of Scripture is promised by God to the faithful, and is given, Jeremiah 31:34: “And they shall not teach any more every man his friend and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for as many as shall be shall know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, says Jehovah; for I will pardon their iniquity, and I will not remember their sin any more.” Luke 8:10: “To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God; but to the rest I speak in parables, that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.” 1 Cor. 2: last verse: “For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.” 2 Cor. 4:6: “Because God, who said that light should shine out of darkness, is the one who has shone in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Therefore, etc. Eighth: Scripture is understood even by common folk, as the example of the Bereans (Acts 17:11) teaches; likewise the examples of so many churches to which the epistles were penned by the Apostles. For that the Apostles sent letters which those to whom they were written and sent would not understand is most absurd. Therefore, etc. Ninth: Scripture is able to make a man wise unto salvation, etc. (2 Tim. 3:15 - 17). Therefore it delivers perspicuously the doctrine necessary for us to know unto salvation. Tenth: If Holy Scripture does not deliver perspicuously all the things which are necessary for us to know for salvation, but is ambiguous, obscure, and murky, then many absurdities follow from this, whether you consider the author of Holy Scripture, or Scripture itself, or the sacred writers, or the Church. For those who ascribe obscurity to Scripture, being men of darkness, malignly accuse God, as though He had given us an obscure Testament, as if He had wished to sow lawsuits among the heirs; they accuse that true Light, Light from Light, as if He had wished to pour darkness upon human minds whom He had come to enlighten; they turn the Holy Spirit, the inspirer of Scripture, into a kind of Apollonian “oracle” (logion, λόγιον), and, by ambiguities and obscurities, into one who mocks men; they turn the oracles of Scripture into treacherous and ambiguous oracular riddles (amphizola chrēsmōdēmata), the amanuenses of the Holy Spirit into crafty and juggling oracle-mongers (chrēsmologoi); they transform the Church of God, in which Holy Scripture is read and held in honor, into a certain heathen oracle (chrēstērion), or into a certain dark and dreadful grove, devoid of light - not without horrid blasphemy. Let it therefore be fixed and firm, that Holy Scripture, like a certain spiritual sun, is always in itself clear and perspicuous, and openly delivers the whole doctrine necessary for us to know unto salvation; and that the same is also clear and perspicuous to those whose eyes of the mind are enlightened by the inward light of the Holy Spirit. The same point is confirmed by testimonies of the orthodox Fathers, which may be seen in our Catholic Symphonia, chapter 1, Thesis 4; to which let these also be added. AUGUSTINE, in the seventh volume, in the book On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins against the Pelagians, chapter 4, citing a certain statement of Paul from Romans 8, says: “I think that so clear and open a sentence has need not of an expositor, but only of a reader.”

And in the ninth volume, Tractate 50 on the Gospel of John: “Certain things in the Scriptures are so manifest that they desire rather a hearer than an expositor.” THEODORET, in the Argument of the Prophet Ezekiel: “Where darkness (namely, upon the mind of man) has been poured, it suffers the same thing as the eyes of the body, and looks at one thing instead of another, or, overcome when disturbance prevails, sees absolutely nothing at all. Fallen into a disease of this sort, some have set about accusing Scripture, and especially the oracles of the Prophets, as though covered with obscurity; against whom blessed Paul would rightly have said, ‘If our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled in those who perish’; for we speak wisdom among the perfect. And with these also agree the things that were spoken by our Lord and Savior to the holy Apostles: ‘To you,’ he says, ‘it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom; but to them it is not given,’ and immediately, teaching the cause, he subjoins, ‘that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand’; for they, he says, draw to themselves the darknesses of ignorance of their own will. For if they shall have been converted to the Lord, as the holy Apostle is witness, the veil will be taken away. Not to all, therefore, are divine things obscure, but to those laboring under voluntary blindness. And a little after: Let no one therefore, especially of those who are pupils of piety, having boldly inveighed against the divine Spirit, condemn his discourses as obscure.” GREGORY THE GREAT, Roman Pontiff, first volume, Homily 17 on Ezekiel: “Many things in it (namely, Holy Scripture) are so open that they feed little ones; but certain things, by more obscure sentences, exercise the strong.” AUGUSTINE, third volume, book 2 On Christian Doctrine, chapter 6: “In a magnificent and health-giving way the Holy Spirit has so shaped the Scriptures, that in the more open places he might meet our hunger, but in the more obscure he might cleanse away fastidiousness; for hardly anything is drawn from those obscurities which may not be found set forth most plainly elsewhere.” To this testimony of Augustine Bellarmine subjoins in this fashion: “I answer, not in vain did blessed Augustine add that ‘Hardly’; for some things are found most obscure, which are never explained in the whole of Scripture, as a great part of the Apocalypse, the beginning and the end of Ezekiel, etc. Then this very thing is very difficult, namely to find that which is said most obscurely in one place where indeed it is said openly elsewhere; otherwise how would the same Augustine say in Epistle 119, chapter 21, that he knows more things not than he knows in the sacred letters? What then? Those places also which seem to us most open, perhaps will seem obscure to some other. Therefore Scripture alone does not suffice to settle controversies. Certainly those words Matt. 26, ‘This is my body,’ seem to us so clear that the Evangelist could not have spoken more clearly; but to the Zwinglians they seem obscure and figurative. And those words in the same place, ‘Drink ye all of this,’ seem most clear both to us and to the Lutherans; and yet they are explained in very diverse

ways. For when we read Mark 14, ‘And they all drank of it,’ which is understood of the twelve disciples, interpreting Scripture by Scripture, we say that the Lord said to the twelve disciples, ‘Drink ye all of this.’ But BRENTIUS, in those his Prolegomena, says most clearly that here it is commanded not only to the Apostles but also to all others to drink from the cup of the Lord. And when we ask whether even Turks and Jews and infants ought to drink, then indeed they add the gloss, ‘All, that is, all faithful adults.’” So far Bellarmine. Our REPLY. First, Bellarmine’s restriction is false; for Augustine in the place alleged is dealing with Christian dogmas, not with prophetic visions. Moreover, he explains himself sufficiently in chapter 9 of the same book, when he says: “In those things which are plainly set in Scripture are found ALL those things which contain faith and the morals of life.” Therefore, when he uses the particle “hardly” in chapter 6, he only shows this: although certain things for us in this life are obscure - and we admit that some things are of that sort, which are not necessary to know for eternal salvation - yet ALL things which are necessary unto salvation are found openly in the Scriptures. Second, it is denied to be difficult to find, what is said obscurely in one place, openly explained in another, provided that those who read will not be negligent and will compare places of Scripture among themselves. Third, when Augustine says that he knows more things not than things he knows in the sacred letters, he is speaking of heavenly matters plainly delivered in Scripture and of the weakness of the human genius’s eyesight to see through to them; which of the faithful would dare deny this of himself? Yet Scripture is not for that reason obscure. Fourth, as to what Bellarmine argues, that because places which are most open to us may perhaps seem obscure to some other, therefore Scripture alone does not suffice to end controversies: in this he tries to deceive from an accident and from a particular. For it is by a man’s fault if most open places are obscure to someone, and this is only a particular, not a universal. Fifth, one thing is obscure, another figurative; indeed rhetorical figures are lights of discourse. The orthodox say that the words of the Lord’s Supper, “This is my body,” are figurative, not obscure. Sixth, that this command of Christ, “Drink ye all of this,” pertains also to Christian laymen, baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and examining themselves, we infer from the interpretation of the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 11. Seventh, he himself confirms our orthodox opinion which Bellarmine attacks, when he says: “Certainly those words, Matt. 26, ‘This is my body,’ seem to us so clear that the Evangelist could not have spoken more clearly. And those words in the same place, ‘Drink ye all of this,’ seem most clear both to us and to the Lutherans.” And everywhere the testimonies of Scripture which he alleges for himself, he says, are most clear. THOMAS AQUINAS in the Summa, Part 1, q. 1, art. 10: “Nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which Scripture does not somewhere hand down manifestly through the literal sense.” PETER OF AILLY, Cardinal, on the Sentences, Book 2, fol. 12, speaking of the New Testament and of its doctrine, says that it is “shining like a lamp, which, through the night-silences of this world, offers light to wayfarers, lest the exile and pilgrim man strike his foot against the stone of error.”

Thus our Thesis has been confirmed; now, against the objections of the Papists, it must be defended. Objection one. Scripture itself bears witness about its difficulty and obscurity, Psalm 118: “Give me understanding, and I shall search thy law.” In the same place: “Open my eyes, and I shall behold wondrous things out of thy law.” In the same place: “Make thy face to shine upon thy servant, and teach me thy righteousnesses.” And surely David knew the whole Scripture which then existed, and knew the phrases of the Hebrew tongue, nor was he proud or unbelieving. Wherefore rightly St. Jerome, in the epistle to Paulinus on the institution of a Monk, handling these words, thus says: “If so great a prophet confesses the darkness of ignorance, how do you think that we little ones, and almost babes at the breast, are surrounded by the night of ignorance?” Our ANSWER. Bellarmine’s enthymeme is this: Scripture itself testifies about difficulty and obscurity; therefore it is not perspicuous. The antecedent is denied, and the testimonies adduced from the Psalms by no means prove it. For David is not speaking about the obscurity of Scripture; rather, recognizing the darknesses of his mind - both natural, and the adventitious and circumambient ones from the prince of darkness - he desired that heavenly light of the divine Spirit to be poured into his mind and that his darknesses be dispelled; which light of the divine Spirit is necessary in order to understand the Scriptures unto salvation. Likewise Jerome does not say that David confesses the darkness of Scripture, but of his ignorance sticking in his own mind. Objection two. Luke 24:27, 45. Scripture was expounded by the Lord to the disciples, who surely knew the Hebrew phrases, since they were Hebrews, and were not proud or unbelieving; therefore it is not perspicuous. RESP. The consequence is denied, because something else is concluded than what the antecedent bears; for this ought to have been concluded, that Sacred Scripture was not yet understood by Christ’s disciples until it was expounded to them. But as yet Christ’s disciples did not understand Scripture, both because they too were still laboring under natural weakness, which cannot attain to the secrets of God, and because in their minds there still stuck the opinion of an earthly kingdom of the Messiah. Third objection. Acts 8:30 - 31. The eunuch of the queen of the Ethiopians was occupied in the Scriptures, and read them diligently, and was holy, pious, and humble; and yet when asked by Philip whether he understood what he was reading, he replied: And how can I, unless someone shows me? Therefore Sacred Scripture is not perspicuous. RESP. It does not follow from a particular: some oracle was obscure to the eunuch; therefore Sacred Scripture generally, or in its entirety, is obscure. Next, the weakness of the human mind - which does not comprehend the light of Sacred Scripture, but takes it in little by little, according to its own measure - is not to be imputed to the divine Scripture. Fourth objection, 2 Pet. 3:15 - 16. St. Peter asserts that in Paul’s epistles there are certain things difficult to understand. It is said: difficult not for the unlearned and unstable, but absolutely. For St. Augustine, who certainly was not unlearned or unstable, in the book On Faith and Works, 15

and 16, confesses that the place 1 Cor. 3:12, If anyone builds upon the foundation, etc., is most difficult for him to understand, and says that this is one of those places which St. Peter warned are difficult to understand. Therefore Sacred Scripture is not perspicuous, but obscure. RESP. First, the omitted major premise is denied: In whatever there are certain things difficult to understand, that is not perspicuous in itself. Something can be clear in itself, the sense of which is difficult to understand for some. Thus Bellarmine says that the words of Christ, This is my body, are so clear that the Evangelist could not have spoken more clearly; and yet their sense by many is understood with difficulty, by some never. Next, the assumption - that in Sacred Scripture there are certain things difficult to understand - is granted by us, rightly taken, namely if it be taken of the things which Sacred Scripture treats; in which sense St. Peter speaks about certain matters in Paul’s epistles. For Peter does not say ἐν αἷς (“in which” [en hais]), that is, in which epistles; but ἐν οἷς (“in which” [en hois]), that is, that in the things (πράγµασι, pragmasin) there are certain things difficult to understand. For ἐν οἷς does not refer to the more remote noun ἐπιστολαῖς, which is feminine, but to the immediately preceding pronoun τοῖς, namely of “things” (πραγµάτων). For Peter’s very words are: ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς λαλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς· ἐν οἷς ἐστὶ δυσνόητά τινα (“as also in all his epistles, speaking in them; in which there are certain things hard to be understood” [dysnoēta]). Therefore Peter’s meaning is: in the things about which in his epistles Paul speaks, there are certain things difficult to understand; among which things are also the last day of the world, and the glorious advent of Christ, and what will come to pass in that day; for about these Peter is treating in this place. But that among the things which Scripture treats there are certain δυσνόητα, things difficult to understand, we by no means dissemble, but freely profess, being taught both by the admonition of the Apostle Peter and by the sense of experience. Moreover, it is worthwhile to consider the causes, both efficient and final, why some things are difficult to understand among those which Sacred Scripture delivers. The efficient causes are two: the first is from the things about which the discourse is, which by their nature are difficult to understand, either because of their obscurity, as future things, or because of their majesty and excellence, as the mystery of the most holy Triad, the mystery of the personal union of two natures in Christ. What is clearer than the sun? Yet what is more difficult to gaze upon? For the keenness of our eyes is dulled by the brightness of its rays. Of the doctrines which are handed down in Sacred Scripture, some have difficulty of believing, others do not. They have difficulty of believing which are more remote from the light of nature, from reason, and from sense: as that God is three in persons in the unity of essence; that the Son of God was incarnate; that Christ is true God and true man in one person and in two distinct natures; that a Virgin gave birth; that Christ rose again from the dead on the third day; that Christ ascended into heaven; that many are called, few chosen; that sinners are justified before God by faith, not by works; that all the dead shall rise again from the dust of the earth, etc. They do not have difficulty of believing which lie open to the light of nature or to sense: as that God exists, that he is one, that he is omnipotent, wise, best, the cause of good, just; that Christ suffered, died, was buried, etc. The other efficient cause is from the perceiving humans: for the old or natural man cannot receive the things that are of the Spirit of God; the new

man receives only so far as he is renewed, that is, in a beginning and in part. The final causes why God should deliver some things difficult to understand were most weighty: namely, that he might commend the greatness and dignity of his secrets; might show forth our native ignorance; might shake off from our souls the lethargy in the knowledge of divine things; might arouse in us a religious zeal for knowing those things which cannot be ignored without fault, and can be investigated without danger, by piously keeping within the bounds of the truth laid open; might wipe away the distaste for reading or hearing Scripture; might take away the presumption of an attained perfect knowledge, that indeed God may always teach, and man may always learn the things that are from God; might recall us from trifles to these serious matters; might stir up in our souls an admiration of the Scriptures, lest they become cheap to us, which would happen if all things were easily understood by us; and especially that he might stir and sharpen our ardor in praying, our diligence in reading, our humility in meditating. Thus far, therefore, we know and freely confess that among the things which Holy Scripture delivers there are some difficult to understand. But if it be determined from the difficulty of Scripture that it is such in itself, we deny it: for Holy Scripture is clear and enlightens the eyes of the mind, nor has it any obscurity from itself and in itself; although to us some things are obscure on account of the loftiness of the things and our weakness. Third, although St. Augustine says that the place 1 Cor. 3:12 is difficult, nevertheless he does not say that it is among those which Peter hints at. But Bellarmine argues badly, in whatever way he argues from this passage. For if he draws the conclusion thus: The place is difficult for Augustine, therefore absolutely difficult; he draws a false conclusion, because he proceeds from something said in a certain respect to something said simply: or in this way: The place is difficult, therefore Sacred Scripture is difficult - an argument does not hold from an integral part, and that least principal, to the whole. For not whatever is said of an integral part can also be said of an integral whole. Fifth objection. The common sense of the ancient Fathers shows that Scripture is obscure and difficult to understand. Therefore it is not perspicuous. RESP. Impertinent testimonies prove nothing. But the testimonies of the Fathers which Bellarmine and other Papists adduce are impertinent. For the Papists simply affirm that Sacred Scripture is most obscure; but when the Fathers say that Scripture is in many places difficult and obscure, they mean σχεδόν (“as it were, almost”): namely, that it is obscure to us on account of the excellence of divine things and our weakness, and difficult to understand, not by its own obscurity, but in respect of the things of which it treats, which by their own nature are neither known to us nor traceable out by us. Sixth objection. If in the Scriptures two things can be considered, the THING which is said, and the MODE in which it is said, and by reason of each they are obscure, then they are most obscure. Whatever precedes is true; therefore so is what follows. The assumption is proved by Bellarmine in this way: If the things be considered, one must necessarily confess that the Scriptures are most obscure. For they hand down the highest mysteries, concerning the divine Trinity, the incarnation of the Word, the heavenly sacraments, the nature of angels, the working of God in human minds, eternal predestination and reprobation, and other secret and supernatural things, which are not

investigated without great zeal and labor, nor without the danger of most grievous error. Surely, if the knowledge of the Metaphysicians is more difficult and more obscure than all other natural disciplines because it treats of the highest causes, how will Sacred Scripture not be most obscure, which treats of things far higher? Because a great part of Scripture contains prophecies about future things, and prophecies written in verse; than which certainly nothing is more difficult, nothing more obscure. But if we consider the mode of speaking, we shall find numberless reasons of difficulty. FIRST, there are in the Scriptures very many things which at first sight seem contrary, as that Exod. 20: I the jealous God visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation; and that Ezek. 18: The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, but the soul that sins, it shall die. SECOND, there are ambiguous words and sentences, as John 8:25, when the Jews were pressing: Who are you? Christ replied, The beginning, who also speak to you. Here all the interpreters twist themselves wonderfully, nor is it yet said what that means, The beginning, who; and in the Greek the matter is still more obscure, where “The beginning” is the accusative τὴν ἀρχήν (tēn archēn). THIRD, there are imperfect sentences, as Rom. 5:12: As by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all sinned, and what follows; where in the whole period there is no principal verb. FOURTH, there are inverted (preposterous) sentences, as Gen. 10: These are the sons of Shem according to their kindreds and tongues and regions in their nations; for straightway there follows at the beginning of chapter 11: And the whole earth was of one lip and of the same words. FIFTH, there are phrases proper to the Hebrews, as Ps. 89: His throne as the days of heaven; likewise 119: My soul is always in my hands; and very many others. SIXTH, there are very many figurative sentences, tropes, metaphors, allegories, hyperbata, ironies, and other things of that sort, without number. RESP. 1. In the distribution of the things which are considered in the Scriptures, Bellarmine leaves out a third, namely, the natural insufficiency and weakness of the men reading or hearing the Scriptures for understanding and believing heavenly things. 2. By reason of the very lofty things and those removed from natural knowledge, Scripture is difficult and obscure to us. But it does not follow: It is difficult and obscure to us; therefore in itself and per se it is such. 3. The difficulty by reason of the mode of speaking in which divine things are set forth is accidental to Scripture, not essential to it. It is sophistical from what is per accidens to gather something which is understood per se. 4. The reasons of difficulty from the mode of speaking which Scripture uses are partly ambiguous, partly unfit to prove. For the things which at first sight in the Scriptures seem contrary, seem so to us, they are not so in reality; therefore, with respect to us, they have difficulty, though in themselves they are clear and easy. Then, words and sentences occur in Scripture that are ambiguous, not with respect to God who dictated them, nor with respect to Scripture, which is the voice of God, but with respect to men who do not grasp or do not investigate the sense of God speaking in Scripture: so that that ambiguity is not in Scripture, but in the mind of man. As to the place John 8:25, it is ambiguous from the Latin version; in the Greek text there is no ambiguity, which the Syntax removes: τὴν ἀρχὴν, ὅ τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑµῖν (tēn archēn, ho ti kai lalō hymin). For, first, there is an ellipsis of the substantive verb εἰµί, “I am,” which from the preceding question is necessarily understood; then the accusative τὴν ἀρχήν, by the custom of the Greeks, is put by

enallage in place of an adverb which suits the verb λαλῶ; ὅ τι is not a conjunction but a pronoun, and that not masculine but neuter; and, according to Syntax, the words ought to be arranged thus: I am that which from the beginning I speak to you. The sense, however, is: I am that Christ and Savior of the world, which also from the beginning I have told you, which also long since, so often and in so many ways, I press upon you by my sermons and works. Moreover, “imperfect sentences” are not outside the usage of speech in Scripture; and Rom. 5:12 is not an imperfect sentence, but hyperbatical, as a grammarian ought to have seen. And not all inverted sentences - that is, those in which the order of nature or of time is not observed - are faulty: for it is not preposterous if, after the fact, its cause is narrated, as it is in Gen. 10 and 11, and everywhere. Furthermore, phrases proper to the Hebrews are not so difficult that they cannot be understood by an attentive reader or hearer. Nor are figurative sentences employed in Scripture to obscure it, nor do they pour darkness upon the truth; rather, they are lights of discourse, the Holy Spirit employing them. Thus too for effectively moving the minds of men, which St. Augustine explains excellently in the second volume, the one-hundred-nineteenth letter which is written to Januarius, chapter eleven: these things (he says) are insinuated to us figuratively. For they move more and kindle love more than if they were set forth naked and without any sacramental likenesses. The cause of this is hard to state. Yet the case stands thus, that something intimated by allegorical signification moves more, delights more, is more honored, than if it were stated most openly in proper words. I think that the movement of the mind itself, so long as it is still entangled in earthly things, is kindled more sluggishly: but if it is borne to bodily likenesses, and from there is borne to spiritual things, which are figured by those likenesses, it is, as it were, quickened by the very transition, and like a torch, when the fire is shaken, it is kindled, etc. And in the third volume, book two On Christian Doctrine, chapter six: Does a man learn anything else than if he were to hear that in the plainest words, without the aid of such a similitude? And yet, somehow I look on more pleasantly, when I see them (to wit, holy men) as if the teeth of the Church, cutting men away from errors, and transferring them into her body, their hardness having been softened, as if bitten and chewed. And a little after: Why I should look on more pleasantly than if no such similitude were brought forth from the divine books, whereas the matter is the same and the condition the same, is hard to say, and is another question. Yet now no one doubts both that things are more willingly known by means of similitudes, and that things sought out with some difficulty are found with much greater relish. Therefore figurative words and discourses do not render Scripture obscure in itself, but for us make it more efficacious and more agreeable for recognizing it. Seventh objection. The adversaries themselves, whether they will or not, are compelled to bear witness to the truth, both by deeds and by words. By deeds indeed, because they publish so many commentaries on Scripture, so many versions of it; they explain Scripture in such varied ways: but by words, because they expressly confess that they do not understand all things in the Scriptures; that it is the rashness of the most shameless audacity for anyone to dare to profess that one book of Scripture has been understood by him in all its parts; that they are forced, with great

toil, to seek the true and genuine sense; that the gift of interpretation exists in the Church; that the Fathers have usefully illustrated many passages of Scripture by their commentaries. Hence it follows, that they themselves testify that Scripture is obscure. Answer. I deny that this follows. For things said with a different respect and in a different mode are not at odds, as, for example, these two: that Holy Scripture is clear, namely through itself and in itself, so that in many places it needs not an expositor but only a reader; and that the same is not clear to just anyone, is not understood by just anyone in all languages and in all places; and therefore that, by those who understand, it should be transferred in versions into the vernacular tongues for the benefit of others, and explained in useful commentaries by those who have received the gift of interpretation from the Holy Spirit. So much on the perspicuity of Holy Scripture: what follows concerns its interpretation.

By the interpretation of Holy Scripture (to advise on the meaning of the word at the beginning) is understood in this chapter not a version or translation from one language into another, but the showing of the true sense and use of Scripture. Concerning it several questions are moved: I. Whether the interpretation of Holy Scripture is necessary? II. What the interpretation of Holy Scripture is, and how many are its parts? III. How manifold is that interpretation? IV. In whose power or right and authority is it to interpret Scripture and to pass judgment on the interpretation of Scripture and on controversies of religion? V. What is the norm of interpretation, and likewise the norm of judging whether an interpretation of Holy Scripture is true or false? VI. What are the means for us to find the true sense and use of Scripture? VII. From where is the interpretation of Scripture to be sought? VIII. What is the authority of the interpretations of the Scriptures? Reply to the first question: The interpretation of Holy Scripture is necessary in the Church of God: which is confirmed by the following arguments. I. Because it is commanded by Christ, when He says in John 5:39, Search the scriptures; 1 Cor. 14:1, Desire spiritual gifts, but rather that you may prophesy, that is, that you may declare the genuine sense and use of Scripture. In the same chapter, v. 39, Desire the gift of prophesying. II. Because it is commended to the faithful by the Holy Spirit, 1 Thess. 5:19, 20, Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophecies. III. Because it contributes especially to the edification of the Church. For it works toward this, that we may be able to attain a more accurate understanding and use of the mysteries which are exhibited to us in Scripture. 1 Cor. 14:3, He who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.

IV. Because it is more excellent and useful than the gift of tongues, which itself however is also necessary in the Church: but it is more excellent and useful for this reason, because it profits more people. 1 Cor. 14:4, 5, He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself: but he who prophesies edifies the Church. Now I wish that you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for greater is he who prophesies than he who speaks with tongues, unless he interprets, that the Church may receive edification. And in verse 19: In the Church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may also instruct others with my voice, than ten thousand words in a tongue. V. Because in Scripture there are many things obscure and difficult for us to understand, which cannot be understood by just anyone without interpretation. I say they are obscure and difficult for us to understand: for in itself Scripture is clear and perspicuous, as was explained in the preceding chapter. Indeed, even if Scripture is understood by us somewhere as to its sense, nevertheless it cannot immediately be accommodated to use by just anyone. But interpretation shows both the sense and the use. VI. Because it was employed by Christ the Lord and the Apostles in teaching the faithful, Luke 4:16 and following, and chapter 24:27, And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. The Evangelists and Apostles interpret very many passages of the Old Testament. They also interpret themselves, as in Rom. 18 [sic], Paul expounds himself: and what one of the Evangelists seems to say more obscurely, another expounds more clearly. Their example was imitated by the ecclesiastical Doctors whom we commonly call the Fathers, who published very many commentaries on the Scriptures. The Papists also use this argument, that Scripture is ambiguous in itself, so that it can admit various senses seemingly repugnant to each other, and therefore is adduced by heretics for the confirmation of their errors. But that argument is denied: for Scripture is not ambiguous in itself: neither in respect to God dictating it, nor in respect to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote it. But the unlearned and unstable feign new senses of Scripture, and twist it by their own judgment, 2 Pet. 3:16. Nor is it a wonder if heretics abuse the Scriptures, since Satan himself opposed Christ with them. On the contrary, those who deny that the interpretation of Holy Scripture is necessary in the Church of God use trivial arguments, which can easily be refuted: I. Scripture was read and understood by the faithful in the primitive Church without commentaries: Therefore its interpretation is not necessary. Answer. The consequence is denied. For although Scripture was initially read without written commentaries, yet not without interpretation, which Christ and afterwards the Apostles delivered by living voice: for they expounded the Scriptures, and showed their meaning and use. II. Scripture is not necessary for the Church. Therefore neither is the interpretation of Scripture. They attempt to prove the antecedent by several arguments which were recited above in the chapter on the necessity of Holy Scripture. Answer. The antecedent is denied: and as to the arguments by which it is proved, they have been refuted above.

So much for the first question. Reply to the second question: The INTERPRETATION of Holy Scripture is the explication of its true sense and use, instituted in perspicuous words, to the glory of God and the edification of the Church, Neh. 8:9 [sic, 8:8], For they read in that book, in the law of God distinctly: and by expounding the sense, they gave understanding through the Scripture itself. Luke 4:17 and following, Then the book of the Prophet Isaiah was handed to Him: and when He had unrolled the book, He found the place where it was written: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me, etc. And chapter 24:27, And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. John 7:18, He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory: but he who seeks the glory of Him who sent him, this one is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. 1 Cor. 14:3, 4, 5, But he who prophesies speaks edification, and exhortation, and comfort to men. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself: but he who prophesies edifies the Church. Now I wish that you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied: for greater is he who prophesies than he who speaks with tongues, unless he interprets, that the Church may receive edification. And v. 26, 31, How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation: let all things be done for edification. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may receive comfort. In perspicuous words, I say, the interpretation ought to be made, even if not always in proper words, but sometimes in tropical or figurative ones. For God Himself, the Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles in the interpretation of Scripture did not always use proper speech, but sometimes figurative: as in Ezekiel 37, God, interpreting to Ezekiel the type of the dry bones shown to him in the valley, says in verse 11, These bones are the whole house of Israel. For those bones were not properly and naturally the house of Israel, but they signified the house of Israel miserably afflicted in the Babylonian captivity and similar to dry bones. Daniel 2:38, the Prophet interpreting the dream of Nebuchadnezzar says: You are that head of gold: which interpretation is truly figurative: but in proper speech it is expressed thus: You, King Nebuchadnezzar, with your son and grandson, are figured by the head of gold of the statue seen by you in the dream. So in chapter 4, verse 20 [sic, 4:22], interpreting another dream of Nebuchadnezzar he says: That tree which you saw, it is you, O king: who would not recognize a trope here? Likewise c. 7, v. 17, These great beasts, which are four, are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. And v. 23, The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth. And c. 8, v. 20, 21, The ram which you saw having two horns, are the kings of Media and Persia. And the hairy male goat is the king of Greece: and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king. So the Patriarch Joseph in the interpretation of dreams uses tropes, Gen. 40:12, he says, the three branches are three days: and v. 18, those three baskets are three days, that is, they signify. Gen. 41:26, 27, The seven cows of good appearance are seven years: and the seven ears of grain of good appearance are seven years: the dream is one. But those seven cows, depleted and of bad appearance, coming up after them, shall be seven years; and the seven depleted ears of grain, scorched by the east wind, these shall be seven years of famine. Matt. 13:38, The field is the world: but the good seed are the sons of the kingdom: but the

tares are the sons of the wicked one: and in verse thirty-nine, the harvest is the end of the age: and the reapers are the Angels. 1 Cor. 10:4, Paul interpreting the type of the Rock in the desert says: The Rock was Christ. Rev. 1:20, Those seven stars are the Angels of the seven Churches: and those seven lampstands which you saw are the seven Churches. And chapter 17, verse 9, The seven heads are seven mountains, accommodated to effectively move the minds of men, which St. Augustine excellently explains in the second tome, epistle one hundred and nineteen which was written to Januarius, chapter eleven, which (he says) are insinuated to us figuratively. For they move and kindle love more than if they were set forth bare and without any similitudes of the sacraments. The cause of this thing is difficult to say. But nevertheless it is so, that something intimated through an allegorical signification moves more, delights more, is honored more, than if it were said most openly in proper words. I believe that the motion of the mind itself, as long as it is still entangled in earthly things, is more sluggishly inflamed: but if it is carried to corporeal similitudes, and from there is carried to spiritual things, which are figured by those similitudes, it is invigorated by the very transition as it were, and is kindled like a torch shaken in the fire, etc. And in the third tome, the second book On Christian Doctrine, chapter six: Whether al… upon which the woman sits. And verse 15: The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. And v. 18: The woman whom you saw is that great city which has a kingdom over the kings of the earth. And chapter 19, v. 8: It was granted to her to be clothed with fine linen, clean and bright: for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. The parts of the interpretation of Scripture are two: the exposition of the true sense of Scripture, and the accommodation to use. Daniel observed both in chapter 2. For he expounded the sense of the dream to Nebuchadnezzar and directed it to this use, that Nebuchadnezzar might acknowledge the God of Israel, that he might understand that he had his kingdom from Him, and that he might exercise kindness and clemency toward the Church. Christ also employed both in the interpretation of His parable concerning the door of the sheepfold and the doorkeeper, and Himself as the Shepherd of the sheep, John 10, verse 6 and following. Paul also employed both in Hebrews 3 and 4, in the interpretation of verse 7 and following from the ninety-fifth Psalm; and in chapter 6, v. 13 and following, interpreting the words of Genesis 12:2 and 17:4: Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you. And in chapter 7, interpreting the fourth verse of Psalm 110: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. Thus also in the interpretation of other passages of Scripture he shows the genuine sense and use. The exposition of the true sense of Scripture is the first part of interpretation, when the proposition or scope of the Scripture to be explained is indicated, together with the theme which is treated and the arguments by which it is either declared or confirmed: as Paul in Galatians 3, v. 16, expounding the words of God saying that He would be the God of Abraham and of his seed, and likewise, In your seed shall all nations be blessed, says: Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He does not say, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to your seed, who is Christ. Here Paul indicates the proposition of the words of God, when he says they are promises: but he explains the theme, when he says that by the seed Christ ought to be understood.

In the exposition of the true sense it must be considered whether there is one or more, and how it is to be expounded. As to the first, whether there are various senses of Sacred Scripture, to this our answer is as follows. There are those who establish that there is a fourfold sense of every passage of Sacred Scripture: literal, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical. They call the literal sense that which the words immediately present. They name the allegorical sense when the words of Scripture, besides the literal sense, signify something in the New Testament which pertains to Christ or the Church, especially in the mystery of salvation and eternal life; just as Abraham, who in truth according to the letter had two wives, one free, the other a bondwoman, and two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, signified God as the author of two testaments, or the father of two peoples, as the Apostle explains in Galatians 4. They call the tropological sense when words or acts are referred to signify something that pertains to morals. Just as You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain, Deut. 25, which is understood according to the letter concerning real oxen, signifies spiritually that those teaching in the Church ought not to be prohibited from receiving their livelihood from the people, as the Apostle explains in 1 Corinthians 9. They call the anagogical sense when words or deeds are referred to signify eternal life. Just as that in Psalm 95: To whom I swore in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest; which according to the letter is understood of the land of promise, but spiritually is also referred to eternal life, as the Apostle explains in Hebrews 4. This distinction of spiritual senses is not always observed by the ancients. For although they acknowledge all these senses as far as the matter is concerned, yet sometimes they call them all allegories, as St. Basil at the beginning of Homily 9 on the Hexaemeron, and St. Augustine in the book On the Usefulness of Believing, chapter 3. Furthermore, St. Jerome in his epistle to Hedibia, question 12, under the name of the tropological also comprehends the allegorical: and conversely in chapter 4 of Amos, under the name of the allegorical he comprehends the tropological. Bellarmine himself notes these very things in the third book On the Word of God, chapter 3, sections 5 and 6. In truth, however, the true and genuine sense of every single passage of Sacred Scripture is only one, and that is the literal (also called the Grammatical, likewise the Historical sense), that is, which is gathered from the words of the letter or text which is explained, used in their customary signification, according to the mind of the Holy Spirit. The reasons are: I. Because there cannot be more than one truth: for the true and the one are convertible. The sentence of truth in one place is single in itself and constant; although it may be enunciated by one interpreter in these words, and by another in other words, provided they agree in the matter. II. Because from the literal sense alone are sought firm, valid, and efficacious arguments for confirming anything: as Bellarmine confesses, book 3 On the Word of God, chapter 3, section 8. But symbolic theology is not argumentative, as the Scholastics say. St. Jerome also in his

Commentary on chapter 13 of Matthew teaches that the dogmas of faith cannot be efficaciously confirmed from mystical senses. And this is certain, unless they are evidently proper and destined types and allegories, of which there exists a certain interpretation under the preceding guidance of the Holy Spirit, whether from the authority of another passage, or by necessary analogy: as in Galatians 4, verse 24 and following. III. Because that sense which is gathered from the words according to the mind of the Holy Spirit, is certainly the sense of the Holy Spirit and intended by the Holy Spirit. IV. Because the literal sense alone is found in every sentence, as well of the Old as of the New Testament, as Bellarmine teaches in the same book 3 On the Word of God, chapter 3, section 7. V. Because Sacred Scripture in and of itself is not ambiguous, but any word and phrase in one and the same sentence and construction, in one and the same place, has only a single signification, and a single sense, not multiple: so that one and the same word or phrase in the same place cannot have two things signified at the same time. For an enunciation is only true when one thing is said: but one thing is not said when a double signification is attached to the same word or phrase in the same place: just as the Papists feign that the word do, in the words of the Supper, Do this in remembrance of me, signifies first to sacrifice properly or to offer the body of Christ to God in a propitiatory sacrifice; and secondly to receive and eat the bread and the body of Christ, and likewise to receive and drink the wine and the blood of Christ: when only the latter sense squares with the words of Christ. But in two enunciations or sentences, although placed continuously in one and the same verse or context of Sacred Scripture, one repeated word can have diverse significations: as in Gen. 1, v. 5: And God called the light day, but the darkness He called night, so there was evening and there was morning of the first day. In this verse the noun day is placed twice in diverse enunciations: in the former, when it is said, God called the light day, the natural day in which the Sun is turned above the horizon is signified and understood: but in the latter, when it is said, So there was evening, and there was morning of the first day, the civil day which consists of twenty-four hours is signified and understood, and it embraces the natural day and night as parts, whence the Greeks call it νυχθήµερον (nychthemeron). Although Johannes de Sacrobosco and those who follow him interchange the names, and what we call the natural, they call the civil; and what we call the civil, they call the natural day: we follow the truth. Thus in John 1, v. 10 it is read: The world was made through Him: but the world did not know Him. Here there is not one simple enunciation, but two. In the former, world signifies this whole universe created by the Son of God from the beginning: in the latter, world signifies unbelieving and reprobate men who are only a part of the world. Therefore, although in diverse enunciations one repeated word can signify multiple things: nevertheless in one and the same simple enunciation, in one and the same sentence and speech, in one and the same place it cannot have multiple significations. I say expressly, in one and the same place. For even in one and the same simple enunciation, one word placed twice in diverse places has or can have diverse significations: As when it is said in 1 Sam. 1, v. 24 concerning Samuel brought first by his mother Hannah to the Priest Eli; the boy was a boy (puer erat puer): For although the same word is repeated, yet it signifies one thing in the subject, another in the predicate: for in the subject it signifies the substance or the human being: but in the

predicate it signifies quantity, that is, tender age, so that the sentence is, The youth Samuel was still of tender age. Thus Rom. 9:6: Not all who are of Israel are Israel. In this enunciation Israel in the first place is taken for the Patriarch Jacob; in the second for the Israelites. Therefore it is certain that Sacred Scripture in and of itself is nowhere ambiguous: but it would be ambiguous if one and the same enunciation or sentence had multiple literal senses: but now it has only a single one. That single literal sense is either simple or composite. The simple literal sense is that which consists in bare oracles and in no type or figure. And it is either proper or figurative: because the words of every single letter or text are taken either properly or figuratively or tropically. Thus Bellarmine also distinguishes the literal sense, book 3 On the Word of God, chapter 3. Therefore they err who contend that only the proper sense is literal, but deny that the figurative is literal. The proper literal sense is that which arises from words understood properly, when namely in the letter or text of Scripture which is to be explained, there is no trope: as when both the subject and the predicate, and the copula and indeed all the words of the enunciation are expressed by their proper word, and the predicate is said properly of the subject: and then the ῥητὸν (rheton, the literal text) is retained, as they commonly say. For example, when in 2 Chron. 12:6 the princes of Israel and the king say: Jehovah is righteous, the literal sense is proper, because no trope is present, but all the words are taken in their proper signification, and the predicate is said properly of the subject. The proper literal sense is always to be retained in the explanation of Scripture, unless it is false: As the proper literal sense of the words of Christ concerning the bread of the Eucharist: This is my body: is this: The substance of this bread is the substance of my body: But this sense is false. The figurative literal sense is that which arises from words used figuratively or by some trope, when namely in the letter or text of Scripture which is to be explained, some trope or figure occurs: as when there is a trope either in the subject or the predicate or the copula of the enunciation, or the predicate is said figuratively or by a trope of the subject: and then a fitting and harmonious διάνοια (dianoia, meaning) is said to be sought. For example: when God says to Abraham in Gen. 17, v. 10 concerning circumcision: This is my covenant between me and you, He uses figurative speech; for there is a Synecdoche in the pronoun This, which in this speech is to be restricted to circumcision: and the predicate is said of the subject metonymically. But the true sense is that the external circumcision of the foreskin is a sacrament or symbol of the covenant between God and the faithful of the Old Testament. And this is the literal sense, which the Holy Spirit intended in the letter or text. It is a common opinion that the ῥητὸν (rheton) and the διάνοια ῥητοῦ (dianoia rhetou), that is, the writing and the meaning of the writing, or the letter and the interpretation of the letter, are disparate things. And although every ῥητὸν has its literal meaning, yet this is not, nor is it usually

called, the διάνοια, but the letter. By Synecdoche only the proper literal sense is named the ῥητὸν and the letter: but the figurative literal sense is named the διάνοια and the interpretation of the letter; The composite sense is that whose part is in the type, and part in the truth of the type: such as it is in all those places of Scripture in which something is described under some type. But the Tropological, Allegorical, and Anagogical senses, as they call them, are not properly various senses of Scripture, both because they are not found in every sentence of Scripture, neither in the Old Testament nor in the New, as in the precept: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God; and in similar precepts there is only one sense, and that literal; and because from them the dogmas of faith cannot be efficaciously confirmed, as Bellarmine himself teaches in the third book On the Word of God, chapter three, section eight: but Tropology, Allegory, and Anagoge are only various accommodations of certain places of Scripture for use. Now follows the method of expounding the sense of Scripture. The true sense of Scripture is to be expounded in such a way that the meaning of the saying to be explained is set forth and shown in other words, but clearer ones, or at least accommodated to the capacity and understanding of those who are to be taught, and sought either from other places of Scripture (which method of interpreting is the best and safest of all) or from the vernacular and familiar speech of the hearers, but congruent with the dignity and gravity of Scripture: for one must abstain from formulas of speaking and proverbs that smack of profanity. For the interpretation of any place must be made with other words and phrases, either existing in other places of Scripture, or received in common use, which indeed are different in words from the place to be interpreted, but agree in reality. For the same thing cannot be expounded by the same thing. For if the same thing were declared by the same thing, this is no longer to teach, but ἀδολεσχεῖν (to babble), that is, to trifle: as if someone were to say, the just lives by his faith, that is, the just will live by his faith. Therefore it is enough that the same thing be taught, although not by the same thing. Why do I say enough? Nay, rather it is convenient, useful, and necessary, both for the sake of those who are taught, that they may perceive the things that are delivered; and especially for the sake of those who are refuted, that they may be convicted of the truth of that very thing which they do not want to be taught, by the lights of words, phrases, and sentences. Moles, bats, and owls flee these lights, but not the children of light, who are φιλομαθεῖς (lovers of learning) according to God. However, the same words and the same phrases which the Holy Spirit dictated in the Holy Scriptures ought to be preserved in interpreting, as far as it can be done; unless the capacity of the hearers, whether teachable, or unteachable and contradicting, requires the matter to be expounded in other words received in public use and commonly understood. Therefore, for the teachable, food as if pre-chewed ought to be put into their mouths and milk provided in a popular manner: for the unteachable, medicine must be administered efficaciously: solid food for the rest. Furthermore, we must speak of the method of expounding the true sense according to its parts.

Having indicated the proposition or scope of the place to be interpreted, next the theme and the argument employed to treat the theme is expounded, both by the declaration of words, and by the exposition of things. The declaration of words is necessary when they are obscure or ambiguous to us or to others who are taught: for in itself the Word of God is not obscure, but a light illuminating our souls, as demonstrated above. Also, no word, and therefore no enunciation uttered by God, is ambiguous from Him, or as far as it pertains to Him. For God does not speak ambiguously, as if willingly intending to render men uncertain and doubtful, or as if willing the sense of His word to be doubtful and uncertain. The Holy Spirit never once falls into the vice of ambiguity. He who gave a mouth and intellect to man, neither wills nor is able to fall into that. But to us men, on account of our imperfect knowledge, many things which are enunciated in Scripture are ambiguous: whose sense intended by God we do not always attend to and attain. Examples: John 2, verses 19, 20. Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? And chapter 4, verses 10, 11, 12. Jesus answered and said to her: If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink: thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith to him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? And chapter 11, verse

IV. Whether a word is used properly or tropically ought to be known from that very place which is being dealt with, for instance from the consideration of the antecedents and consequents, or from the circumstances of that place. Therefore the subjects and predicates must be accurately weighed, and compared among themselves. For the subjects are such as they are permitted to be by the predicates: and the predicates ought to be taken according to the reason of the subjects, or, the determination of the predicate is to be sought from the nature of the subject. V. Whether the predicate is said of the subject properly or figuratively or tropically, it is said truly. For the true is not opposed to the figurative or tropical: but to the false. Therefore it is true and is said truly, even what is said figuratively or by a trope, whether in the speech which is to be interpreted, or in the interpretation itself. For example: Bread is the body of Christ: the enunciation is true, even if the predicate is said figuratively of the subject: whence true bread is the true body of Christ, and truly is, and is called the body of Christ, and not falsely; although it is not properly and naturally and substantially the body of Christ. Similarly in the interpretation of a true enunciation it is necessary that a true subject and a true predicate be understood and retained: As in the interpretation of the same enunciation, bread is the body of Christ, it is necessary that true bread be understood and retained: because Christ did not take some vague individual but true bread in his hands, and when he had blessed it, he broke true bread, gave true bread, commanded them to take and eat true bread, and of that true bread he said, Matt. 26, verse 26, This is my body: Similarly in the predicate or the other part of the enunciation it is necessary that the true body of Christ be understood, not a phantom or some imaginary body, not a figurative and tropical body, not made from the substance of bread, because the bread in the Lord’s Supper is the natural body of Christ and that very body which was delivered unto death for us and crucified; not an invisible body, but a visible body, because not some invisible, but the visible body of Christ was delivered unto death for us and crucified. VI. In the same place things obscure or ambiguous to us are often so explained in Scripture, that sometimes a figurative speech follows a proper and simple one, sometimes it precedes it; and therefore the exposition of the more obscure or ambiguous things sometimes follows, sometimes precedes: as in John 3, verse 5, Jesus says; Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Here Christ adds the Spirit to the water, for the sake of explanation, just as if he had said, Unless one is born of water, which is the Holy Spirit, or of water, that is, of the Holy Spirit: so that the word AND in this place is a particle of clarification (σαφηνίσεως), put for that is. But elsewhere a figurative or tropical speech follows the proper one, by which it is explained, as in Matthew 3, verse 11: He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire: For by the name of fire in this place nothing else is understood than the Holy Spirit, who is called fire by a metaphor, because he purges the filth of our souls, just as fire purges gold from dross. And in chapter 7, verses 7 and 8: Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and ye shall find: knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth: and he that seeketh findeth: and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Here the proper speech precedes, the figurative follows. Similarly

in the Old Testament, as Jerem. 31, verse 30. Everyone shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge: Here the proper speech precedes, the figurative follows. Now both explanations, namely of words and of things, are instituted sometimes briefly, sometimes in more words: Briefly indeed, either by the signification of a more obscure word declared by a more known word, as Matt. 1, v. 23. Behold, that virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel, which is, if you interpret it, God with us. John 1:38. Rabbi, which is to say, if you interpret it, Master, and v. 41. We have found that Messias, which is, if you interpret it, that Christ. Mark 7, verse 2. With common hands, that is, unwashed. Thus Daniel 5, verses 25, 26, 27, 28. And this is the writing that was written: Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin, that is, he hath numbered, he hath numbered, he hath weighed, and he divideth. This is the interpretation of the words: NUMBERED, God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. WEIGHED, thou art weighed in the balances, and art found of lesser weight. DIVIDED, thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. Or by a word or phrase, which according to the diversity of places has many significations or senses, declared by a distinction of significations or senses, as John 2, verse 19, Christ says, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. This the Jews understood of the temple of Jerusalem made with human hands: but John says in v. 21, He spoke of the temple of his body. And c. 11, v. 11, Christ said: Lazarus our friend sleepeth. How this is to be understood, John interprets in v. 13. Jesus had spoken this of his death: but they thought that he spoke of the resting of sleep. Exod. 32:30, when Moses says, perhaps I shall make an atonement for your sin, the particle perhaps is not of one doubting, but of one sharpening solicitude, showing the gravity of the sin, and yet raising them up with some expectation of the grace of God. Jeremiah 31, verse 30, when it is said, Every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge: the sense is, that everyone shall die for his own iniquity, as is premised in the same place: so that to eat the sour grape in this place of the Prophet is the same as to sin: and for someone’s teeth to be set on edge, is the same as for someone to die on account of sin. Or by an expressed sentence only with one and another clearer word: Thus the phrase in Psalm 110:1, to sit at the right hand of the Father, Paul declares with the single word to reign, 1 Cor. 15:25. Thus what Christ had said in John 11, verse 11, Lazarus our friend sleepeth: is soon openly interpreted in v. 14, Lazarus is dead. Prov. 25:17. Make thy foot precious your foot from your neighbor’s house, that is, visit your neighbor more rarely, who is otherwise occupied with many affairs. Thus to be gathered to his people, Gen. 49, verse 29, is to be joined to others who have died before. Exod. 20:7, not to hold as innocent, is to punish. The true sense is explicated in more words either by a more prolix declaration of ambiguous or obscure words to us, or by an exposition of things through circumstances.

Ambiguous words, or those having multiple significations, are declared more prolixly by a distinction of significations through an enumeration of the things which are signified by the ambiguous word. An illustrious example is in St. John Chrysostom’s homily on Psalm 95: The Church, which everywhere carries Christ within herself, and has sacrificed countless martyrs on account of the charity she bears toward her husband, is prohibited by no place, but in every place there are altars, in every place doctrine. God foretold these things through the Prophet, for both expressing the sincerity of the Church, and exposing the ingratitude of the other people, He speaks to them: I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Almighty, nor will I accept sacrifices from your hands: because from the rising of the sun even to its setting, my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place a sacrifice is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice. See how clearly, and how lucidly he has interpreted the mystical table, which is the unbloody sacrifice. But he calls the pure incense the sacred prayers, which are offered after the sacrifice: for this incense refreshes God, not that which is taken from earthly roots, but that which is exhaled from a pure heart. Let my prayer therefore be directed as incense in your sight. You see how everywhere it is granted that this angelic sacrifice should shine forth, you see it circumscribed by no boundaries, neither altar, nor song. In every place incense is offered to my name. Therefore the pure sacrifice is, first indeed the mystical table, the heavenly and supremely venerable sacrifice. But there is also in us a varied difference of sacrifices. For after the law in the Old Testament had many sacrifices, one for sins, another which was called a holocaust, another called of praise, another of salvation, another for cleansing lepers, in short others and many and varied for those who were reckoned by countless expiations, altogether great was, and lacking measure, the number of sacrifices in the law: all of which the new grace supervening embraces in one sacrifice, establishing one and true sacrifice. But we also have in ourselves various immolations, not those which proceed according to the law, but which teach the Evangelical grace. Do you wish to know these victims, which the Church has, when without blood, without smoke, without altar, and the rest of the ceremonies, the Evangelical gift ascends upward to God, and which is a clean and immaculate sacrifice? Hear the holy Scripture openly expounding to you this difference and variety. Therefore the first sacrifice is, what I said before, that spiritual and mystical gift, of which Paul says, Be imitators of God as beloved children, and walk in love, just as Christ also loved us: and handed himself over for us to God as a sacrifice and oblation for a sweet-smelling savor. The second sacrifice is of the martyrs: and what Scripture testifies to this? Hear Paul: I beseech you brothers, that you present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God. You have the first sacrifice which is called of salvation, you have the second of the martyrs, the third of prayer: Let my deprecation be directed as incense in your sight, the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice. The fourth is that which is offered by praise, that is, through hymns, Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise. The fifth is through justice: Then you will accept the sacrifice of justice. The sixth is offered through almsgiving: A clean and immaculate sacrifice, he says, is to visit the poor and orphans in their affliction. The seventh is in jubilation. But jubilation is the victorious applause in war. For one thing is ololygmos, that is a cry: another is alalagmos, that is,

jubilation. When after victory in war the soldiers shout, that is jubilation, the sign of victory, and therefore the Prophet calls blessed those who were to behold the victory of Christ, shouting a hymn against the enemies, saying; Blessed is the people that knows jubilation. Jubilation therefore is the victorious applause in war. Therefore after the Savior won the victory, all enemies having been conquered, saying: Take heart, I have conquered the world: offering this hymn to the victor, we perform the jubilation, which the Prophet calls blessed, saying: I have gone around and sacrificed in his tabernacle a sacrifice of praise and jubilation. There is also a certain eighth sacrifice to God, a contrite spirit: A contrite and humbled heart, God will not despise. You see what sort of sacrifices are handled by us. There is also another ninth sacrifice, which is performed through the preaching of the Gospel: this is the word of doctrine, of which Paul the Apostle says: Administering the Gospel of God, so that the oblation of the Gentiles may become acceptable, and sanctified in the Holy Spirit. Do you see how he declared that even the preaching of the Gospel is offered to God? You have therefore the first sacrifice, that saving gift, the second of the martyrs, the third of deprecation, the fourth of jubilation, the fifth of justice, the 6th of almsgiving, the 7th of praise, the 8th of compunction, the 9th of humility, the 10th of preaching: although I have omitted something, when I enumerated nine in my mind, I thought I had delivered ten. What kind of sacrifice therefore was omitted? There is a tenth sacrifice, of fruitfulness, of which Paul speaks: I have received the things which were sent by you through Epaphroditus, an acceptable sacrifice for a sweet-smelling savor. You see that beneficence toward the saints is called a sacrifice by Paul. You have therefore various forms of sacrifices. But a more obscure speech is expounded with more words but clearer ones when the speech contains a type or a parable: as in Ezek. 37, God Himself interprets the type of the dry bones in v. 11 and following. Thus in Matt. 13, He expounds the parable of the tares in v. 37 and following. But if you consider the exposition of things, it is done with more words either by a premised or subjoined illustration from whatever argument or topic of Logical invention: as by the indication of causes, effects, subjects, adjuncts, etc. Thus the explication of the sense is illustrated by the indication of the efficient cause, by whom the words to be expounded were spoken: whether they are the words of God, of Christ, of a King, of a Prophet, of an Apostle, etc., with the added commendation of the authority of him whose words they are. Or to whom they were spoken, as in Rom. 3, verse 10 and following, Paul recounts certain passages of the Old Testament, and afterward indicates to whom they were spoken and to what end. Or by the indication of the means by which something is done: as in Jer. 23:24, Do I not fill heaven and earth, says Jehovah? Since God is not a corporeal thing, it is asked in what sense He is said to fill the heavens and the earth? God, as the universal principle of all things, acts in the individual parts of the universe: for He fills the heavens and the earth by His infinite essence, presence, power, and operation.

Or by the rendering of the reasons or causes on account of which something is said, or moved by which the author says something, as in Matt. 13, Christ premises to the exposition of the parable of the sower the cause why He speaks in parables to the Jews and why He expounds the same to His disciples, in v. 11 and following up to v. 24. Thus what Christ had said in Matt. 15:11, Not that which enters into the mouth defiles the man: He expounds etiologically (giving the cause) in v. 17, 18, 19, 20. Do you not yet consider, that whatever enters into the mouth goes into the belly, and is cast out into the latrine? But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart itself, and those defile the man. For out of the heart proceed wicked thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, curses. These are the things which defile the man: but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man. And Psalm 119, v. 29. Remove from me the way of falsehood. Because David knew how prone the minds of men are to vanity and lying, he demands that his mind be purged, lest, entangled by the impostures of Satan, it should fall into error. Thus in the same Psalm, v. 119, the wicked are compared to dross, both because their imaginary glory and felicity vanish into smoke: and because while they are mixed with the faithful, like dregs, they infect and contaminate their purity; but when they are rejected like scum, the cleanness of the pious shines better. Or by a disquisition concerning whom the words to be expounded were spoken and are to be understood: as in Acts 2, v. 25 and following, Peter the Apostle, alleging the prophecy from the sixteenth Psalm, teaches and expounds that it is to be understood not of David, but of Christ. Paul does the same in Acts 13, v. 35, 36, 37. You will not allow your Holy One to see corruption. For David indeed, after he had served the counsel of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was gathered to his fathers, and saw corruption: But He whom God raised up did not see corruption. Similarly, that promise made to David through Nathan in 2 Samuel 7, v. 12, 13, has this difficulty, concerning whom it is to be understood. The Jews contend that it is to be understood of Solomon only: but we Christians affirm that it is indeed to be understood of Solomon, as of a type of Christ, but also and principally indeed of Christ, in whom and through whom the truth of that type was fulfilled, and is even now being fulfilled. For the kingdom of Christ is stable: Christ builds a spiritual house for the name of Jehovah, that is, the Catholic Church. Christ is truly and properly the Son of God, etc. Or by a disquisition whether the words to be expounded are spoken of someone according to the whole or according to a part or one nature: as when the words of Gen. 1 and 2 concerning man created in the image of God are to be declared, it must be shown according to which part man was created in the image of God, whether according to the soul or according to the body, or indeed according to both of his parts: thus in the explication of the words of Phil. 2, v. 7, He emptied himself, it must be shown according to which nature Christ emptied Himself. But the sense is; The flesh did not empty itself, because it did not exist before the assumption from the Virgin Mary and the conception by the Holy Spirit, nor was it in the form of God or equal to God: but the Word (Verbum or Sermo). Not the flesh in the Word, but the Word in the assumption of the flesh emptied Himself. Therefore St. Augustine in the seventh tome, the first book on the predestination of the saints, chapter fifteen, says: For us divinity itself had no lower degree to which it might

abase itself, than that it assumed the nature of man with the infirmity of the flesh even to the death of the cross. St. Ambrose on the second chapter of Luke says: But why should I not receive with religious ears the Son obedient to the Father in the assumption of a body. Or by a disquisition insofar as or with respect to what state and time the words to be expounded were spoken and are understood of someone: as one interpreting the passage of Phil. 2, v. 6, 7, will say, insofar as it is to be understood of Christ, whether of Him already manifested in the flesh, or indeed of Him not yet made man and then manifested in the flesh. But so that the true meaning of this passage may be established, it must be determined that Paul thereby embraced whatever could be said of Christ before the assumed flesh: whence almost all heresies, which were against the Son of God, insofar as He is God, are refuted. See the first book on the incarnation of the Son of God, chapter one, of Girolamo Zanchi the elder, the Evangelical Theologian (so that we may distinguish him from a certain more recent Girolamo Zanchi, who published some writings for Papism). Thus it must often be shown whether something is to be understood of man whole or corrupt: converted to God or not yet converted; regenerated or not regenerated: living here, or in heaven, etc.: As when the seventh chapter to the Romans is expounded, it must be shown whether Paul speaks in it of himself regenerated, or not: and that he speaks of himself indeed regenerated can be shown by many arguments sought from the context: against the Pelagians, Anabaptists, and Papists. And in v. 18, when Paul had said: I know that good does not dwell in me, he subjoins the exposition that he understands this of his flesh. Thus in Acts 10, Luke speaks of Cornelius the Centurion already regenerated, even if in particular he did not yet know who that Christ was, even if he had not yet heard Peter the Apostle: Therefore from his example it cannot be inferred that the unregenerate can convert themselves to God by their own powers or preparatory works. Or by the removal of the disagreeing: as in Psalm 119, v. 68. You are good and beneficent, teach me your statutes. David beseeches God by His goodness and beneficence, not that he might increase in riches and honors, not that he might abound in delights, but that he might profit in the understanding and obedience of the Law. Or by the removal of a false interpretation, by which the text is either corrupted by some or could be corrupted: as in Matt. 16:5, Jesus said to his disciples, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. And when the disciples had not rightly understood this admonition concerning bread for food, Christ removes the false opinion in v. 8, 9, 10, 11, whence the true one is subjoined in v. 12: Then they understood that he did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the leaven of the doctrine of the Pharisees. Psalm 119, v. 94: I am yours, save me: for I have sought your statutes. First, from this he takes the confidence of praying, that he is in the special possession of God. Then from the effect he proves that he belongs to God, because he keeps His commandments. Now follows the amplification by anticipation and the removal of a false interpretation. But it is not fitting to take this in such a way, as if he were boasting of having merited anything, just as among men this reason is accustomed to be brought forward to obtain what we ask: ‘I have always honored you, I have studied to consult your honor and advantages, my services have been ready for you: it is fair therefore, that I should obtain what I ask from you.’

Or by the comparison of similar or dissimilar places, concerning which inquire in the first part of the Sylloge Thesium on the interpretation of Scripture. Or by the comparison of similar or dissimilar persons and things. See a notable example in Bernard’s treatise On the Degrees of Humility, page 1110 of the Basel Edition of the year 1566, in the explanation of the words of David, Every man is a liar: in which he compares to David the far dissimilar Pharisee of Luke 18. Thus similar or dissimilar deeds are compared. Or by several of the already enumerated modes joined together: as Psalm 119:46: I will speak of your testimonies before Kings and I will not be ashamed. After he said, Do not take the word out of my mouth: now he rises up as if having obtained his vow, and denies that he will be speechless, even if he must speak before Kings. For there is no doubt that he says, even if the whole world stands against him, he will have a present mind, so that he might freely assert the glory of God: but he chooses Kings, who before others are formidable, and by their pride close the mouths of God’s witnesses. Indeed it often happens, that we yield even to the lowest men: for as soon as anyone opposes the Word of God, we timidly gather ourselves, and that liberty which we had professed at the beginning vanishes. But especially when it comes to the tribunals of Kings, our timidity betrays itself. This is the reason why David says, not only that he will stand bravely against ignoble adversaries, but that he will be constant and intrepid before Kings themselves. It follows concerning its accommodation to use. The use or proximate end to which Sacred Scripture ought to be accommodated is fivefold: διδασκαλία, ἔλεγχος, ἐπανόρθωσις, παιδεία, & παράκλησις; Doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction, and consolation, 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. All Scripture is divinely inspired and useful for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, perfectly instructed for every good work. 1 Cor. 10, v. 11: but they were written for our admonition. Rom. 15:4: For whatever things were written before, were written for our doctrine: that through patience and the consolation of the Scriptures, we might have hope. Therefore Sacred Scripture is accommodated to διδασκαλίαν or doctrine, when from the words which are explained, orthodox doctrines are confirmed, inasmuch as they necessarily follow from them and thus are contained in them. By what method this is done, must be shown. From any sentence of Sacred Scripture an affirmative thesis is to be gathered, which contains a doctrine either concerning faith or concerning good works, which doctrine we defend as true and firm. Let that thesis be especially such as we assert against blasphemous Jews, against pagans, or Papists, or Samosatenes, or Arians, or Anabaptists, or Pelagians, or finally other heretics. But it seemed good to show how doctrines (didascaliae) are to be built out of certain and special propositions. Doctrines from prayers to God can be taken in a threefold way, either from the consideration of the thing which is asked from God, or from the consideration of the person supplicating: From the consideration of God to whom supplication is made, doctrines of this kind are deduced:

I. That God by His essence is wise, good, merciful, beneficent, and in sum in Himself, nay rather He Himself is essentially that good which is asked of Him, that every good is in His possession, that He Himself is the fountain of all goods, that He Himself has all goods in His power. For what someone does not have, he cannot give to others, nor can he communicate it to others. Therefore from the fact that David prays in Psalm 119: Give me understanding, it follows that God is understanding and thus understanding itself. From the fact that Solomon prays: Give me wisdom, we gather that God is wise, nay rather wisdom itself. From the fact that David prays, Have mercy on me, O God, this doctrine follows, that God is merciful: II. That God alone is the giver of that good which is asked, and thus of all goods: because from Him alone the saints have always asked for them; as David prays in Psalm 51, v. 12: Create in me a clean heart, O God. Hence the doctrine: Cleanness of heart, nay rather every true virtue, is a gift created in us by God. III. Whatever of good is in any creature, that is from God as the bestower of every good. Therefore the sciences, arts, and other good things, which existed even among the Gentiles, were from God. From the consideration of the thing which is asked from God, doctrines are to be deduced in two ways, either insofar as that thing is either the bestowal of some good or the deliverance from some evil: or insofar as some cause of it, or effect, or some other argument is indicated. Insofar as the thing asked is the bestowal of some good, these doctrines can be gathered: I. That what the saints ask from God is good and is deservedly numbered among the goods to be sought. II. That there is in us a natural defect of that good, and on the contrary the opposite evil is present: as when David asks that his mind be illuminated, it is gathered from this, that our mind is by nature corrupted and blinded. When David asks that his heart be formed to the obedience of the Law, from this it is gathered: That our heart is by nature perverse and alienated from the obedience owed to God. III. That that good is supremely necessary for us: that we greatly need that good. IV. That that good is by no means in our free will or power. But insofar as the thing which is asked is deliverance from some evil, doctrines of this kind are to be deduced from this: I. That the pious are also subject to that evil: as David prays in Psalm 119, v. 134: Redeem me from the oppression of men: thus the prophet demonstrates by his own example, that all the pious are exposed to oppressions, and live as if sheep in the jaws of wolves. When David prays that his sins be forgiven him, from this we gather, that all the saints, as long as they live here, are sinners. II. That we are delivered from that evil by God.

But insofar as some cause or effect or some other argument of the thing which is asked is indicated, to that extent also doctrines can be deduced from its consideration: as David prays in Psalm 119, v. 133: Direct my steps by your word. Hence the doctrine to be taken: The norm of living rightly is the Word of God. Or; The rule of a right life is the Word of God. Or, They institute their life rightly, who compose themselves entirely to the obedience of the Word of God. From the fact that David prays in the same place; Let no iniquity have dominion over me, a doctrine can be gathered by the opposition of the contrary good to the evil which David deprecates, namely, That this is the unique liberty of the pious, being governed by the Spirit of God, lest they succumb to the sins with which they must wrestle in this life. Thus David prays in Psalm 119, v. 117: Uphold me and I shall be safe. Hence we gather, as soon as God withdraws His grace, it is all over with our salvation. Moreover, any thing which is asked from God is either considered alone by itself, or compared with others, whether they are asked for immediately at the same time, or not. If several things are asked from God at the same time, in what order and why they are asked in that order, likewise which thing ought to be preferred among them, is to be considered: As David prays thus in Psalm 119, v. 135: Make your face to shine upon your servant and teach me your statutes. If you look at the order of the things asked, first he seeks the paternal favor of God, because nothing is to be hoped for except from Him being propitious: then finally he asks to be taught. Heavenly doctrine is deservedly preferred to all earthly goods. From the consideration of the person supplicating, doctrines can be taken either simply by transferring the hypothesis to the thesis: as from the fact that David prays in Psalm 3: Arise, O Jehovah, deliver my soul: This thesis is to be gathered, The faithful, when placed in afflicted circumstances, flee to Jehovah. Or by the comparison of persons: as from the fact that David prays, Have mercy on me, O God, this doctrine is to be gathered: If David, so holy a Prophet, had need of the mercy of God, much more do we, who are as far away as possible from the piety of David, need the mercy of God. From the fact that David asks to be taught by God, a doctrine of this kind is to be deduced: If David, so wise a Prophet, asked to be taught by God, much more do we need to be taught by Jehovah; much more do we act rightly, who ask to be taught by God. From the arguments of a prayer a doctrine (διδασκαλία) is thus deduced, when it is shown to whom God bestows the goods asked for, or who can be certain of the hearing of their prayers and the obtaining of the goods demanded. As Psalm 16:1: Preserve me, O strong God: for I take refuge in you. From the argument of the prayer this doctrine is made: Those who take refuge in the strong God, He preserves. Likewise, Those who take refuge in the strong God, can be certain that they will be preserved by Him. Or: Those who take refuge in the strong God, can be certainly persuaded that their prayers are heard, and that they will obtain what they demand out of faith. Doctrines can be deduced from any proposition, when the opposite consequences of opposites are gathered: as it is said in Psalm 119:155: Salvation is far from the wicked: Whence by the force of the parity of contraries this doctrine flows: That the salvation of the pious is near, although while

they walk sincerely in the fear of God, they are as sheep destined for slaughter. Thus from the fact that it is said in John 17; This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent, this doctrine is gathered; To be ignorant of God and Christ, is eternal death. From history, that is, the narration of things done in the world, a manifold doctrine (διδασκαλία) is sought, especially if the members and arguments of the narration are distinctly considered, namely the agent or patient, whether a person or something else sustaining the place of a person: the efficient cause on account of which something was done or suffered: the mode or form: the end on account of which: the deed itself or the suffering: the effect and event of the thing done: the place where or in which the thing is said to be done: the disagreeing things which occur: the comparison of the things done among themselves whether similar or dissimilar, etc. Therefore history, especially sacred history, is the principal- the theater of the innumerable and admirable works of God, which He Himself has done from the beginning in the world and especially in His Church, in which works shine forth the glory, wisdom, will, goodness, mercy, justice, power, and providence of God, and His care not only common for the whole world, but also special for the Church of God and individual believers. Whence sacred history teaches the origins of all things and especially of the Church, and its divine government, its various states, its progress or continuation, its changes and the causes of its changes; whether you consider doctrine or discipline: and accordingly it enumerates the Doctors of the Church, the struggles, persecutions or afflictions which it sustained from internal and external enemies, from heretics and schismatics, false prophets and seducers, and from tyrants: it sets before the eyes the divine deliverances from persecutors and enemies and other dangers, the judgments which God exercised in this world, and the signs of the times, among which are the signs foretelling the end of the world and the coming of Christ to the universal judgment of the living and the dead. And this is the principal end of sacred history, which it becomes us to consider before all things, since we were created and placed in the world by God for this purpose. Next, sacred history teaches what the state of human affairs has been, how many and what forms of Republics there have been, what the causes of their happiness or unhappiness were: what the duties of governors are, what of subjects, and indeed of individual estates: what things preserve or destroy not only individual men, whether Kings, Princes, and those constituted in Magistracy, or private persons: But also Republics, kingdoms, Principalities, cities, and generally the world. The same sacred history is a mirror of virtues and sins or vices: As also of the rewards with which virtues, and of the punishments with which sins or vices are visited by God, whether mediately or immediately. On the use of Sacred Scripture for refutation. From any saying of Scripture a negative thesis can be gathered, so that the error of either Jews, or Gentiles, or Papists, or other heretics may be refuted: As in Psalm 51:12 it is said, Create in me a clean heart, O God. Hence the refutation (ἔλεγχος) or refutatory thesis (θέσις ἐλεγκτικὴ): Cleanness of heart, and in sum moral virtue, is not acquired by our actions, so that the Gentile Philosophers gravely err, who teach that

virtue is acquired by our actions. For what the saints ask to be created in them by God, they certainly cannot acquire by their own actions: But the saints ask that cleanness of heart, and accordingly moral virtue, be created in them by God. Therefore they cannot acquire it by their own actions. In Psalm 63:9 it is said, My soul clings to you. Hence the refutation (ἔλεγχος): No one born again by the Holy Spirit can ever entirely fall away from God. Therefore they err who contend that they can entirely lose faith and fall from the grace of God. Next, a refutation (ἔλεγχος) can also be gathered in this way, if from the universal doctrine (didascalia) which Scripture supplies, it is deduced either by conversion through contraposition, as, Whoever believes in Jesus Christ has eternal life. Therefore whoever does not have eternal life does not believe in Jesus Christ, nor has ever believed in Him: Or by the consequence of propositions without conversion, as, Whoever believes in Jesus Christ has eternal life; Therefore whoever does not believe in Jesus Christ does not have eternal life. It is not enough that Scripture be accommodated to the confirmation of true dogmas and the confutation of false ones; but it is necessary that it finally be applied to the correction of morals and instruction in righteousness. On the use of Scripture πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν or for the correction of morals. The correction of morals is the reprehension of the sins to which we are given over, so that they may be eradicated and driven out from our hearts, so that hatred and the zeal to avoid them may be planted and grow in us. The sermons of the Evangelicals differ very much from the sermons of the Papists. The Evangelicals do this, that they may plant the hatred of crimes in the minds of the hearers. But the Papists do this, that they may kindle a capital hatred of Christians, whom they themselves call heretics, in the hearts of their hearers, and incite them to cruelty and slaughter. France taught this in the previous century: The Reformed destroyed stone and wooden images, but the Papists destroyed the living images of God. Correction is therefore instituted when the sins which are committed by us, or the good things which are omitted by us contrary to duty, are commemorated. Whatever we read in Scripture, whatever we look upon, reproves our sins, especially the Law of God. When Scripture celebrates the justice, truth, holiness, and other virtues of God; it reprehends us, who, having been created in the image of God, have departed as far as possible from God. We are further from God than the summit of heaven is distant from the deepest center of the earth. Therefore when Scripture proclaims God as just, it condemns our injustice, and reproaches that not a drop of justice is found in us. When Scripture commemorates the pious, and proclaims their faith and good works, it reproves us. When the good things which are either in the saints, or are done by the saints, are commemorated: the evil things which are either in us or are done by us are reprehended. While the praises and beatitudes of others are proclaimed, our vices are reproached to us. When the saints are celebrated by the Spirit of God in the sacred letters, we are reprehended, who do not imitate them in faith and good works. The first Psalm reproaches us, that we walk in the counsel of the

wicked, that we stand in the way of sinners, that we sit in the seat of mockers, that we do not meditate on the Law of Jehovah day and night, etc. We do not offer with Abel a sacrifice acceptable to God, we do not call upon the name of Jehovah with Enosh: we do not walk unceasingly according to God with Enoch: we are not just before God with Noah: there is not in us the faith and obedience of Abraham, not the patience of Isaac, not the gentleness of Jacob, not the continence and placability of Joseph, not the modesty, meekness, and fidelity of Moses, not the zeal of Phinehas: there is not in us the humility and meekness of Christ, whom we ought most of all to imitate. When anyone is blamed in the sacred letters, when his sins are recited; we are reproved: we with Eve offer our ear to that ancient serpent, we comply with seducers: we with Adam yield to alien suggestions and not to the word of God. How many with Cain envy their brothers, hold them in hatred, and kill them out of hatred: with the Babylonians they build the Babylonian tower and affect the glory of a name: with the Israelites they tempt God in the desert: with Saul they persecute David: with David they commit adultery, with the same they commit murder: with Solomon they perpetrate idolatry: with Hezekiah they sin by elation of mind: with the Jews they ask that Barabbas be released and Christ be crucified: etc. When God complains about the Israelites, let us consider and be persuaded that He complains about us. When the commandments of God are explained, they are accommodated to the use of correction in this way, when we examine our life and what we commit or omit according to those commandments, which happens when, having considered those things which God commands and prohibits, we oppose to them those things which are thought, said, done, or omitted by us contrary to those commandments: From the prayers of the saints we gather various corrections: First, that we do not devote ourselves to prayers to God so diligently, as the saints did: that we do not flee to God in adverse circumstances by faith and prayers, as the saints did, etc. Secondly, that we make little of and neglect those good things which the saints preferred to all others, with the desire of which they burned most of all: as in Ps. 119:135 David prays: Teach me your statutes, and he repeats this prayer everywhere. Whence we gather that heavenly doctrine is preferred by him to all earthly goods. But what the Prophet so greatly desires, is neglected by almost everyone. But if any are pricked by this desire, we see them immediately relapse to the allurements of the world, so that very few, having set aside all other desires, seriously aspire with David to the doctrine of the Law. But how great is the madness of the world in contemning and rejecting heavenly doctrine! From the opposition of contraries a frequent correction is sought: as if we do rightly because we care for the health of the body: therefore they sin who neglect the health of the soul. If account is to be taken of the eyes of the body: then certainly they sin, who do not care that they may see with the eyes of the soul. We complain about the diseases of the body: but we are deservedly to be reprehended, because we do not rather complain about the diseases of the soul. Some complain about the blindness of the body: but they hold the blindness of the soul as a trivial thing. They

complain about the wounds and torments of the body; but they do not acknowledge the wounds and torments of conscience. They complain about external poverty, but they do not acknowledge internal poverty: they count the years and days of the diseases and calamities which they sustain; but they neglect to count the years in which it was granted to them to continually enjoy the benefits of God, and in which they provoked God to anger. Furthermore, since very many hearers, even those who embrace the true religion, are offended by nothing more than when their sins are freely reprehended in sermons or elsewhere: because they refer a general reprehension of vices to their own contumely, and because most people want to follow Christ in such a way that meanwhile their pleasures are not disturbed: therefore to mitigate the bitterness of reprehensions, use must be made either of a vow or prayer to God, in this or a similar manner; May God propitiously grant, that we may acknowledge that we gravely sin in this or that, etc. Or by prosopopoeia, by which either God Himself or a Prophet or some Apostle is introduced reprehending the rampant sins, whether this is done by passages of Scripture, of which kind many exist in both Testaments, or by words agreeing with Scripture. Thus everywhere the Prophets introduce God Himself reprehending the sins of all orders. Or by ἀνακοίνωσις, that is, communication, by which the hearers are asked, whether they themselves are not forced to confess that such or such sins are everywhere prevailing: whether they are not forced to confess that it is the duty of the ministers of the word of God to reprehend them publicly and privately. Or by πρόληψις or occupation, by which we either pave the way for the reprehension or mitigate it when made, showing that we accuse these or those sins not with the zeal of harassing anyone, but of correcting; by the hatred of no one but by the love of all and the zeal of snatching the sinning from the destruction to which they tend. A clear example is in the third homily of St. John Chrysostom on the Acts of the Apostles: Think what happened to Simon. For what does it matter if you do not give money, but in place of money you flatter, suborn, and machinate many things? Your money perish with you, was said to him; And to these it will be said: Your ambition perish with you, since you thought the gift of God could be acquired by human ambition. But perhaps no one is such. Would that there were not. For I desire that none of these things which I speak pertain to you. But meanwhile the very tenor of the discourse has led me into the mention of these things. For neither as often as we speak against avarice, do we speak against you, nay nor entirely against anyone. Would that it may happen that the remedies are prepared by us in vain. Such are the vows of physicians, demanding nothing else, except that after much labor has been expended the medicines may be entirely thrown away. We also opt for the same, that our words may be spoken entirely into the air, and be words only. Indeed I would promptly sustain all things, so that there might be no need to say these things. Because if you wish, we will be silent, only so that silence may lack danger. For neither do I think that anyone, although very thirsty for glory, unless necessity calls, wishes to be designated a Bishop at all. We will concede the doctrine

to you. For this is the greater doctrine, which teaches by deeds themselves. Since indeed those physicians are also the best, who although the disease of the sick brings them a reward, would nevertheless desire their friends to enjoy prosperous health. And we too desire that all should fare well. For we do not desire that we be approved, but that you be reprobate. I would wish, if it were possible, that I might be able to show my love toward you with my own eyes. If that could happen, no one would ever thereafter cast any blame on me, even if my speech has been exceedingly harsh. For what is said by a friend, even if it carries some reproach, is tolerable. For one should trust a friend’s wounds more than an enemy’s unsolicited kisses. There is nothing dearer to me than you - not even this light. Indeed, I would wish myself to be even a thousand times accursed, if I could thereby turn your souls to salvation. For your salvation is sweeter to me than light itself. For what good are the rays of the sun to me, if grief arising from your condition casts great darkness upon my eyes? Then light is good, when it brings forth joy, for to the grieving soul even what is bright seems gloomy. Yet I am not lying in what I say - may it never be that you should learn this by experience. But if at any time it should happen that any of you should sin, bring yourselves before my mind when I am sleeping. I die, unless I seem to be as one struck down with grief, unless I am, as it were, stunned; and, to use prophetic words, even the very light of my eyes is not with me. What hope have I in you, if you do not progress? Again, how great is my comfort if you are proven? I seem to leap for joy whenever I hear any good of you. Fulfill my joy. I bring only this as a wish, because I desire your growth. For this I strive against all adversaries: that I love you, that I am knit to you, that you are all things to me - father, mother, brothers, and children. Therefore, do not suppose that anything I say comes from hatred of you, but know that it is spoken with this intent, that you might be corrected. For, as it is said, a brother helped by a brother is like a fortified city. Therefore, do not spurn correction. Nor do I disdain anything you might wish to say, but I wish also to be corrected by you, to learn from you. For we are all brothers, but only one is our Master. Yet it is indeed fitting among brothers that one should prescribe and others obey. Therefore, do not reject reproof, but let us do all things to the glory of God, for to Him be glory forever and ever. Amen. Concerning the use of Sacred Scripture, as instruction (παιδεία), this admonition is given: that the impiety of others ought not make us worse, so that we are drawn by evil examples to similar impiety, but rather it ought to incite us to the love of God’s law. As for this… From the recollection and complaint concerning the sins of others, David demonstrates how to draw from another’s wickedness, Psalm 119, verses 126 - 128: “It is time for the LORD to act; they have broken your law. Therefore I love your statutes above gold, yes above fine gold. Therefore I consider all your precepts to be right; I hate every false way.” Instruction, or exhortation, or admonition is most suitably presented in the form of a wish or prayer to God, especially at the end of a sermon: that is, when this prayer is explained to God from Psalm 119, “Teach me, O LORD, your statutes;” after ἐπανόρθωσις (correction), let there be a wish in the place of exhortation: “Merciful God, so that we may understand that the knowledge of God

and the mysteries of salvation are supremely necessary for us and must be counted among the greatest goods: May the merciful God grant that we earnestly seek it, diligently strive for it, and make progress in it,” and so on. Concerning the use of Sacred Scripture, as consolation (παράκλησις), for comfort. Scripture is most conveniently applied to comfort by means of a syllogism. For consolation is a kind of reasoning, in which we set some good against some evil, so that by considering that good we may mitigate or remove the pain arising from the evil that presses us. Therefore, when the evil is graver, so much greater and more certain a good must be set against it, as a powerful remedy for sorrow. A most beautiful example is found in Isaiah 41, verse 26 and following: “Lift up your eyes on high and see who has created these things, who brings out their host by number; who calls them all by name by the greatness of His might, and because He is strong in power, not one is missing. Why do you say, O Jacob, and speak, O Israel: ‘My way is hidden from the LORD, and my cause is passed over by my God?’ Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; there is no searching of His understanding. He gives power to the faint, and to him who has no might He increases strength. Even youths shall faint and be weary, and young men shall fall exhausted; but they who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint.” Thus far on the second question. The third question is: Of how many kinds is the interpretation of Sacred Scripture? Answer: Every just interpretation of Sacred Scripture is twofold, analytic and synthetic. Analytic interpretation is that which proceeds from the end to the principles; that is, when, after the author’s intention and purpose - to which all he writes are referred - have been first shown, the whole book, or Psalm, or Epistle is resolved into its parts, and the entire sum of doctrine into definite propositions or theses, and the confirmations of the propositions or theses, as into its own members. And this is twofold: general and particular. General is that by which the aim, sum, and parts of the writing are explained generally. Particular is that by which the parts and individual circumstances of the particular doctrines, or narratives, or other singular propositions are sought out. Analytic interpretation is chiefly employed in the Schools, and requires a concise speech without ornament or the arousing of emotions. Synthetic interpretation of Sacred Scripture is that which strives from principles to the end; that is, when, from the text we interpret, we distinctly and surely gather into one, and compose, in an order appropriate to the audience’s capacity, various propositions or theses concerning the same doctrine relevant for inculcating the use of Scripture, and their confirmations, together with further illustrations or proofs drawn, if necessary, from other places of Scripture.

This is suited to popular sermons and ecclesiastical homilies; and it requires copious speech, joined with suitable ornament, composed not only to teach, but also to delight and to move the minds of the hearers. The fourth question is concerning the power and right of interpreting Scripture and judging about interpretation and other controversies of religion. We will explain this question by certain theses. I. The power or authority and right of interpreting Scripture and judging about the interpretation of others, and so of all controversies of religion, is either public or private. II. Public power is either supreme or ministerial. III. The supreme power or authority of interpreting Scripture and judging concerning its interpretation and all controversies of religion resides with God, or Christ the Lord, or the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Scripture and in the Scripture; for He is the chief author of Sacred Scripture: and therefore God Himself, or Christ the Lord, or the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Scripture and in the Scripture, is the principal and supreme interpreter of Scripture, the principal and supreme judge of all interpretation and of all controversies of religion. Moreover, since sometimes we name God, and other times Christ as the supreme interpreter and judge of interpretation and all controversies, we in no way exclude the Holy Spirit: for the Father speaks and judges through Christ; and both of these through the Holy Spirit. There is therefore no conflict in saying that God is the supreme interpreter of Scripture and judge of controversies, and that Christ or also the Holy Spirit is the supreme interpreter and judge of Sacred Scripture controversies: for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God in essence. This thesis is most certain, as Paul confirms it, 1 Corinthians 2:12 and following, and as John writes, 1 John 2:27. It is also clear from this, that we must obtain the true interpretation of Scripture from God by prayer. Reason likewise requires this: for just as the prince in a republic is the supreme interpreter of the laws he has enacted - thus the Emperor Justinian says, in Novel Constitution CXLIII, “The interpretation of the law belongs only to the highest authority, as is not doubted, since he claims for himself the prestige of enacting the law as well” - so in the Church, he is the supreme interpreter of Sacred Scripture who promulgated it, namely, GOD. The orthodox Fathers acknowledge and attest the same, whose testimonies can be seen in our Catholic symphony, the first chapter, ninth thesis: to which add these words of Augustine, in volume 9, tractate 46 on the Gospel of John: “May the LORD deign to explain this question to us,” etc. And in tractate 30: “Let us hear the LORD and whatever He shall grant from His words, let us also speak.” And in volume 1, book 1 on the morals of the Catholic Church, chapter 29: “Hear Christ Himself: hear, I say, Christ, hear the Wisdom of God; In these two commandments, he says, the whole law hangs and the prophets.” IV. Ministerial power or public authority belongs both to Sacred Scripture and to the orthodox Church of God. V. For Sacred Scripture is the handmaid of the supreme Judge, because it is the voice of God, the testament of God, the letter of God through which He addresses us and sets forth His judgement to us. Sacred Scripture in its own way speaks and judges; thus it is rightly established as

interpreter and judge, but properly as ministerial: though by metonymy it is sometimes styled the supreme judge, as if one said that Christ, speaking in Scripture, is the supreme Judge. Thus Scripture interprets itself and judges every interpretation, as the voice of God. VI. The orthodox Church of God is likewise the ministerial interpreter of Sacred Scripture, as also the ministerial judge of the sense of Scripture and of ecclesiastical doctrines. Consequently, in the true and orthodox Church alone resides the gift of interpreting Scripture and deciding controversies of religion, John 14:16 - 17, “And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Advocate, to abide with you for ever: Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither knows him: but you know him, for he dwells with you, and shall be in you.” 1 Cor. 2:12 - 16: “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God; that we might know the things freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom but those taught by the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged by no man. For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.” Ephesians 4:11 - 14: “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a mature man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” VII. The Church does not have absolute power and authority in - The Church does not possess absolute power for interpreting Scripture and judging concerning its interpretation and controversies of religion, but holds such authority only as minister both of God and of Scripture. Just as distinct functions in the Church are entrusted by God to different persons, so also the power or authority of interpreting Scripture and judging any interpretation or controversy is distinct. For some in the Church are envoys of God, called immediately by God Himself and sent to the Church, namely the Prophets and Apostles, through whom the word of God, immediately inspired in them, was at first proclaimed and afterwards written down, whom assuredly no man can deny to belong to the Church. These interpret Holy Scripture, and judge concerning every interpretation and ecclesiastical doctrine, as men specially appointed by God for setting forth His doctrine. Thus Moses interprets himself, other Prophets interpret Moses and each other mutually, the Apostles interpret Moses and the Prophets and each other mutually. This is amply attested by inspection and comparison of the Prophetic and Apostolic books. This was acknowledged by the ancient Fathers, who, after the Apostles, shone as lights in the Church of God. Athanasius, on the Passion and Cross of the Lord, page 782 of the Commelin edition: “The word now recited is indeed the

Gospel, but nevertheless for evidencing and clarity it ought to be brought to the saints, and from them the understanding of this matter should be received. For it is more probable that they are more conscious and skilled in evangelical matters than we are. But lest, wandering about all, we delay our discourse, it will suffice for now that even a single apostolic master can fully instruct us in all matters. For blessed Paul the Hebrew writes, etc.” Thus Athanasius adduces the Apostle Paul as an interpreter. But the rest of the faithful in the Church, however many there are, besides the Prophets and Apostles (with whom we always include the Evangelists Mark and Luke), have the power and authority to interpret Holy Scripture and to judge concerning interpretations, but this authority is far inferior to that of the Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists Mark and Luke, and to that of Scripture itself, that is, to God speaking in Scripture. For bishops and pastors of churches, as many as there have been, are, and will be after Prophets and Apostles, whether individually or assembled in episcopal councils, do not perceive and grasp the true sense of Scripture by immediate revelation of the Holy Spirit apart from their own labor and industry (for this is the prerogative of Prophets and Apostles), but with the invocation of divine illumination, they seek and investigate it with religious and careful study in the very Scriptures themselves, and what they have found they propose, expound, commend to others: they do not bring light to Scripture, but only show it to others. Accordingly, the Church of God after the Prophets and Apostles interprets Holy Scripture from Scripture itself, and judges about interpretations and controversies of religion from Scripture and according to it, as the voice of the supreme judge, and not from opinions, dogmas, and judgments invented by her own ingenuity, exalting herself above the Scriptures, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 14:29: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.” Acts 17:11: “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all readiness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” 1 Corinthians 10:15: “I speak to sensible people, judge for yourselves what I say.” 1 Thessalonians 5:20 - 21: “Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good.” Even Bellarmine himself confesses in Book 3 on the Word of God, chapter 3, section 11: Scripture must be interpreted according to the dictate of the Holy Spirit: “From this we gather that it must be interpreted according to the Scriptures, not according to a private dictate of the Spirit apart from the Scriptures.” Aristotle in the third book of Politics says that judgment is a particular law, but the law is a universal judgment. Now, what law is in the secular state, that is, Holy Scripture in the Church. For the law in the civil republic directs the judgment of the forensic judge as a norm, which he ought to follow; likewise, Holy Scripture directs the judgment of the Church as a most certain and infallible rule that the Church ought to follow. In sum: the pure and orthodox Church of God terminates controversies of religion, with God as the only supreme judge, from Holy Scripture as from His law. For this reason, the Fathers and legitimate episcopal councils interpreted Holy Scripture from Scripture itself; and all ecclesiastical interpretations and controversies they judged and decided by the Scriptures, that is, from and according to them: as is shown by the notable testimonies of the

Fathers and Councils set forth in the first chapter of the Catholic Harmony, in the second, third, fourth, and fifth theses. And those interpretations, drawn from Scripture and indicated to the faithful by the Church in the earliest and most ancient general orthodox Councils, we rightly magnify and, by the example of Vincent of Lérins, judge worthy to be preferred before all interpretations of heretics. VIII. Therefore, by the name of the true Church, in which is the power and right of interpreting the Scriptures and judging concerning interpretation and controversies of religion, we do not mean the company of the wicked, nor ecclesiastical prelates having the Roman Pontiff as their head, much less the Pontiff himself, whether alone or with his council; but the company of the truly faithful, who acknowledge Christ alone as their head, and follow His voice alone uttered in divine Scripture. The example is in Joshua 22, where the assembly of Jehovah was gathered to judge concerning the altar which the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh had set up at the borders of Jordan. IX. Secular princes and magistrates also can judge concerning the true sense and use of Scripture, and concerning controversies of religion. First, Because even in the Old Testament, where by God’s command there was a certain high priest appointed, kings and secular princes judged in controversies of religion, that is, between the true and false religion, and for this reason they are praised by the Spirit of God, as in Joshua 24. Abijah king of Judah, 2 Chronicles 13:8 and following. Asa, in the same book, chapters 14 and 15. Jehoshaphat, chapters 17 and 19. Hezekiah, chapters 29 and 31. Josiah, chapters 34 and 35. Nehemiah, chapter 13 of the book of Nehemiah. The princes of Judah and the elders of the people at the time of king Jehoiakim judged the matter between the priests and pseudoprophets and Jeremiah the prophet, Jeremiah 26. Second. Because Christian emperors, pious and most praiseworthy after Christ manifested in the flesh, have taken recognition of controversies of religion and have pronounced upon them, as Constantine the Great, according to his letter cited by Theodoret in Ecclesiastical History, book 1, chapter 10, page 286 of the Greek Paris edition of Robertus Stephanus (1544), and also according to the synodal letter of Ariminum to Augustus Constantius in the first volume of the works of Athanasius, page 677, Commelin edition. Likewise Theodosius the Great, according to the testimony of Socrates in Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 10, page 245, Paris Greek edition of Robertus Stephanus. Likewise Emperor Marcian, as may be seen in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Third. Because emperors promulgated laws concerning religion and faith, as may be seen in the Codex of Civil Law. Fourth. Because the Papists themselves everywhere dispute cases of faith under the laws and sentences of emperors and kings. But what is the point of testimonies of emperors and kings in matters of faith, if judging of the faith is no business of theirs?

X. Private individuals also, especially the learned and pious, can and ought to understand Holy Scripture and to investigate and expound its sense, where necessity and Christian duty require, especially in the confession and account of faith to be rendered, and also in the private instruction of their households: and likewise, they can and ought to judge, concerning the sense of Scripture brought by others, indeed even about the interpretations of their own pastors, having examined them by the touchstone of Holy Scripture, and about controversies of religion.

because they judged that Baal, whom the king and queen, the four hundred and fifty prophets, the four hundred prophets of the groves eating at Jezebel’s table, and the rest of the Israelites worshiped, was not the true God, but only Jehovah. Acts 15:22, 23: “Then it seemed good to the Apostles and elders, with the whole church, to choose men of their number and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren…”

Barsabbas was named, and Silas, leading men among the brethren. To these, having sent them with written instructions: “The Apostles and elders and brothers, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings,” etc. Acts 17:11. The Bereans searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so - namely, what the Apostle Paul taught. In the Council of Carthage, over which Cyprian presided, it was agreed with the bishops, presbyters, and deacons, as well as by the greater part of the people, as the preface to that council testifies. At the celebrated Nicene Synod, which Constantine the Great convened, many also of the laity were present - learned and eloquent men, renowned for their skill in sacred letters, as Nicephorus testifies, book 8, chapter 14.

From these things said so far, it follows that interpretation of Scripture, in respect of its efficient causes, is twofold: divine and human. Divine interpretation is that which has God Himself as its author speaking in the very Scripture itself through the prophets and apostles and expounding it Himself. For who more correctly and certainly would know the mind of God and expound it to us than God Himself?

Human interpretation of Sacred Scripture is that which has men as its authors, either individuals such as Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, etc., or several together, as convened in councils and handing down the interpretation of Scripture in symbols or confessions of faith or other expositions. It is also called ecclesiastical interpretation or exposition, and to it belong both commentaries on sacred letters and all other books dealing with religion written after the prophets and apostles by anyone whatsoever. Human interpretation of Sacred Scripture is twofold: one public, one private. Public interpretation is that which is written by the public and common counsel, will, and name of the church. And it too is twofold: catholic or particular. The catholic or universal is that which, by the consensus, judgment, and name of the whole Christian and orthodox church spread throughout the world, is written, promulgated, received, and approved; such as, in the catholic symbols and confessions of faith delivered or approved by the ecumenical synods, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene, Athanasian, Ephesine, Chalcedonian, and so on. The particular is that which is published only by particular churches, whether one or more; such as in the Augsburg, Helvetic, Bohemian, French, English, and Basel confessions, in the articles of Schmalkald, in the catechisms of churches. Private interpretation of Sacred Scripture is that which is made or written by the private counsel, will, and name of one or more; such as that of Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, John Oecolampadius, John Calvin, Peter Martyr, Theodore Beza, etc. To this also belong private confessions of faith, such as those of Jerome and Lucian. To the fifth question: What is the norm for interpreting Scripture and judging whether an interpretation of Sacred Scripture is true or false? I answer: The norm for interpreting Scripture and judging whether an interpretation of Sacred Scripture is true or false is Sacred Scripture itself, which is the voice of God. For any interpretation which agrees with Scripture is true and is from God; whatever disagrees with it is false and is not from God. Thus Isaiah teaches clearly, chapter 8, verse 20: “To the law and to the testimony: if they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no dawn for them.” And Abraham in Luke 16:29: “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” 1 John 4:6: “We are from God; whoever knows God listens to us. Whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” The doctrine of the prophets and apostles is the sure word of God, which must with good confidence be set over against all the judgments of the whole world, and thus the truth must be distinguished from falsehood. But that word is, without any doubt, in Sacred Scripture. Therefore, any interpretation of any passage of Scripture which agrees with Sacred Scripture is true; that which disagrees with Sacred Scripture is false and to be rejected. Moreover, that interpretation agrees with Sacred Scripture which attributes all praise for our eternal salvation wholly to God and completely removes it from man; but that interpretation does not agree with Sacred Scripture, whatever ascribes even the least part of the glory of our

eternal salvation to man, as Christ teaches, John 7:18, “He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but he who seeks the glory of the one who sent him, he is true, and in him there is no unrighteousness.” Response to the sixth question: The means for finding the true sense and use of Sacred Scripture for us are threefold: some precede meditation upon Scripture, some are to be employed in meditation itself, some follow upon reading and meditation. The means preceding meditation upon Scripture are these: I. A firm persuasion that the true and genuine sense and use of Scripture can be found by no one’s own ingenuity, but is to be revealed by God, either by the Lord Christ or by the Holy Spirit, according to these testimonies: Proverbs 2:6, “The LORD gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding.” 2 Peter 1:20 - 21, “First of all, know this, that no prophecy of Scripture is of one’s own interpretation. For prophecy never came by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” By these words Peter teaches that interpretation of Scripture is not to be advanced from one’s own ingenuity, but by the prompting of the Holy Spirit: Scripture is to be understood by that Spirit by whom it was inspired, that its interpreter should be the same as its author. 1 Corinthians 12:3, “No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Corinthians 3:5, “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God.” James 1:17, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” 1 John 2:27, “The anointing you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything - and is true and is not a lie - just as it has taught you, abide in Him.” The example is in the apostles, whose minds the Lord opened, that they might understand the Scriptures, Luke 24:45. II. Prayers to God in true faith, from a pure and humble heart and good conscience, that He might deign to reveal to us the sense of His Scripture. This means is enjoined Matthew 7:7 - 8, “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.” Likewise, Luke 11:9 - 13, “And I say to you: Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Which father among you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?” James 1:5, “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him Let me consent, even if we do not yet understand everything. For by believing, the secrets of divine wisdom are apprehended, which, unless they are believed, are never understood. Augustine, in the second volume, letter nineteen written to Jerome: “To those books of Scripture alone which now are called canonical I have learned to pay such fear and honor, that I most firmly believe that none of their authors have erred in writing,” etc.

The means to be employed in the meditation of Scripture itself are these: I. Constant reading and examination of Scripture, and especially a skillful and diligent investigation and observation of those testimonies concerning the articles of faith and precepts of good works, which in Scripture possess an open and clear meaning. Concerning this means it is said 1 Timothy 4:13: “Give attention to reading, exhortation, doctrine. Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate on these things, be in them: so that your progress may be manifest to all.” Proverbs 2:4 - 5: “If you seek understanding as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures: Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.” John 5:39: “Search the Scriptures.” Augustine, in book two On Christian Doctrine, chapters seven and eight. II. Examination of the sources, that is, of the Hebrew text in the Old, and Greek in the New Testament, whenever any doubt arises in translation or in the meanings of words, phrases, and modes of speaking. This means is diligently recommended by the orthodox Fathers; Hilary on Psalm 118; Jerome in his letter to Sunium and on Zechariah, chapter eight. III. Persevering attention to the end and chief aim of all Holy Scripture, which end and aim is CHRIST THE LORD, whom whoever has rightly known, will not with difficulty discover the true sense and use of Scripture. John 3:34; Acts 3:18 and following, and chapter 7:2 and chapter 10:43. To him all the prophets give witness, etc. Romans 10:4: “Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one who believes.” 2 Corinthians 3:14: “A veil is placed upon the reading of the Old Testament, which in Christ is taken away as no longer useful.” And in verse 16: “But when anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” Also Galatians 3:24: “The law was our tutor unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” 1 Corinthians 2:2: “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Revelation 19:10: “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,” that is, all prophecies are borne toward Jesus as their most certain aim. IV. The observation of the distinction between Law and Gospel, lest what is proper to the Law is attributed to the Gospel or vice versa. Herein the Papists err, who, in expounding Scripture, confuse those things proper to the Law with the doctrine of the Gospel. V. Order and method in investigating the sense and use. The first consideration is that of the proposition, the second is of the subject under discussion, the third of the arguments by which the point is explained or confirmed, together with the circumstances: namely, persons, occasion, place, time, antecedents and consequents. In the argument itself, finally, one considers from which place of invention it is drawn and how it is disposed. When these things have been weighed, only then can one correctly judge concerning all things. Augustine, in the tenth volume, sermo 2, and sermo 49 On the Words of the Lord. Hilary in book four and nine On the Trinity. VI. Consideration whether words are to be taken properly or figuratively. This means is diligently treated by Augustine, book two On Christian Doctrine, chapter ten and following; and book three, chapters four, five, ten, and many following.

VII. The comparison of one passage with other parallel and similar ones, and of a more obscure passage with clear and open ones dealing with the same matter. Irenaeus book four, chapter 63; Origen on Matthew 13; Augustine, third volume, book three On Christian Doctrine, chapter 36; also, volume seven, book On the Unity of the Church, chapters five and sixteen; Basil the Great in the regul. Contract. question 267. Especially useful is the comparison of the Old and New Testament; for the New Testament lies hidden in the Old, and the Old is made manifest in the New. The New Testament is veiled in the Old, the Old is revealed in the New. This means is recommended in John 5:39: “Search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.” Acts 17:11: “Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, daily examining the Scriptures whether these things were so.” 2 Peter 1:17 - 20: “For he received from God the Father honor and glory, a voice being brought to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice we heard come from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mountain. And we have a more sure word of prophecy; to which you do well to take heed, as unto a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the morning star arises in your hearts. Know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation.” For example: Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing.” This will be rightly understood if it is considered with what he himself writes in the epistle to the Galatians 5:6: “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision.” For from this comparison it is gathered that, in 1 Corinthians 7:19, “nothing” is the same as “avails nothing.” VIII. The comparison of the passage to be explained with other unlike, even seemingly contradictory, passages, and their reconciliation. Augustine, volume ten, Sermon 2 On the Words of the Lord. IX. Reverence not only for the things themselves, but also for the words and phrases which Sacred Scripture uses. Deuteronomy 4:2: “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” 1 Timothy 4:6: “If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished up in the words of faith, and of the good doctrine which you have followed.” Unless, for the sake of confuting heretics, words have to be used which are apt and correspond to the things delivered in Scripture, such as the word οὐσία (essence), Trinity, etc. X. Examination of the interpretation as to whether it agrees with the analogy of faith and the truth of the primary dogmas, whose sum is comprehended in the Apostles’ Creed and the Decalogue. Romans 12:6: “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith.” Augustine, City of God, book fifteen, chapter seven. XI. Exercises contributing to the understanding of Scripture, such as the reading of sounder Councils and of commentaries delivered by other interpreters, all of which are allowed in so far as they agree with Sacred Scripture; the observation of the practice of the Church; conversation with others, especially those more skilled; frequent disputations; attentive hearing of sermons and theological lectures. 1 Corinthians 14:29 - 33: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others

judge. If anything be revealed to another that sits by, let the first hold his peace. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.” XII. The knowledge of the arts and disciplines, especially Grammar, Rhetoric, Dialectic, and also Physics. Augustine, volume three, book two On Christian Doctrine, chapters thirty and thirty- one. The means necessary after the meditation of Scripture are: I. Gratitude toward God, expressed both by thanksgiving to God for the revealed true sense and use of Scripture, and by prayer that God may impress the knowledge of the truth on our hearts, lest it ever fall away. 1 Thessalonians 5:17, 18: “Pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks.” II. Repetition and rumination of what has been read or heard from Scripture and its interpretation. Philippians 3:1: “To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.” Therefore, it is also ours to repeat and ruminate the same things again and again. III. Communication of the saving truth received from God in the meditation of Scripture with others who are either in need of its knowledge or of confirmation in it; for to the one who shares liberally with others, the talent of the knowledge of divine truth, the gift of that knowledge is increased: as Christ teaches in the parable of the talents, Matthew 25:15 and following; and the parable of the mina given by the Lord to the servants for trading, Luke 19:13 and following, in which the Lord expressly says, “To everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance.” Romans 14:1: “Accept the one who is weak in faith, but not to disputes about doubtful things.” 1 Corinthians 9:22 - 23: “To the weak I became as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker thereof with you.” IV. The application of Sacred Scripture, rightly understood, also to our own use, so that we may persevere constantly in the known truth, lay aside or shun errors, practice godliness, love Christ the Lord with all our heart, amend our morals and life and rightly order them, retain a good conscience, and be more and more transformed into the image of God; and that we may strengthen ourselves against sin, every affliction, and finally even death itself, by consolations drawn from Scripture. 1 Corinthians 9:27: “I keep under my body and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be cast away.” John 14:21: “He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.” The reward of godliness and charity toward Christ is progress in the knowledge of Christ and of Holy Scripture. 2 Corinthians 3:18: “But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.” 1 Timothy 4:7-8: “Exercise yourself toward godliness. For bodily exercise profits a little; but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.” Among other promises, is also the increase of saving knowledge revealed in the word of God.

Thus far have been enumerated the means for discovering the true sense and use of Holy Scripture: in order that we may use these fruitfully, all impediments opposed to them must be repelled and guarded against. Some of these are contrary to the means of the first order. I. The wisdom and prudence of the flesh, Matthew 11:25: “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to babes.” Romans… eighth, verse five, six, seven. For those who are according to the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For what the flesh minds is death; but what the Spirit minds is life and peace. Because what the flesh minds is enmity against God. It is not subject to the law of God; for neither indeed can it be. First Corinthians three, verse nineteen. The wisdom of this world is folly with God; for it is written: He catches the wise in their craftiness. II. Natural blindness, whereby by our very nature we are most unfit for understanding the word of God, First Corinthians two, verse fourteen. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; for they are folly to him, and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned. This is retained and increased by omitting prayers to God, or by praying not rightly, James one, verse five, six, and eight. But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask from God, who gives it to all generously and does not reproach; and it will be given I. Because not even she has been, nor will she ever be, in this life assembled at the same time in the same place. II. Because the voice of our heavenly Father is deservedly to be preferred to the voice of the Church. III. Because the Church herself is bound to hear and to follow the voice of the heavenly Father, the voice of her bridegroom Christ; otherwise she must necessarily err in the interpretation and judgment of Scripture. IV. Because it is absurd to seek the sense of divine Scripture - which was given by God as a law and rule for the Church to be governed - from the Church’s own arbitration rather than from the declaration of God himself speaking in Scripture. For this would be just as if in a commonwealth the sense of the laws enacted by the supreme prince were sought from the subjects rather than from the legislator and prince himself. V. Because mother Church can deviate from the way of truth, can err and fall most grievously; so that she ought to be rebuked by her children who truly love God the Father, and called back into the way of truth. Hosea 2:1 and the following: Say to your brothers, O people who have obtained mercy; and to your sisters, O she who has obtained mercy; Plead with your mother, plead that she is not my wife and I am not her husband: that she may remove her fornications from before her face, and her adulteries from between her breasts; lest I strip her utterly naked and set her as on the day when she was born, and dispose her as in the desert, and reduce her as in a parched land, and slay her with thirst. And I will not have mercy on her children, because they are children of whoredoms. For their mother has played the harlot, their mother has committed a shameful crime; for she says, I will follow after my lovers, those who give me my bread and my waters, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drinks, etc. VI. Because the mind of the Catholic Church concerning the sense of Scripture exists nowhere. If there existed some book in which the sense of Scripture were set forth according to the mind of the Catholic Church, the Romanists would be urging something certain,

and it would be possible. But none exists. Therefore they set forth an impossible thing. They except again: that by the Catholic Church they understand the Fathers, the Doctors of the Catholic Church, and that from them the interpretation of Scripture, and the judgment of interpretations and of the doctrines of religion, must be sought. Yet that the interpretation of Scripture and the judgment of interpretations and of the doctrines of religion are not to be sought from the Fathers and ecclesiastical Doctors, and therefore that the Fathers and ecclesiastical Doctors are not the norm and rule of the true interpretation and judgment of interpretations and doctrines, is plain from the following arguments: I. Because in expounding Scripture they labor under almost infinite variety; which the disputations of Bellarmine himself prove by countless examples, who for the most part to one and the same saying of Scripture adduces diverse expositions of the Fathers; as in book four On Christ, ch. 5, sect. 12. II. Because often they have strayed from the true sense of Scripture. Bellarmine himself teaches this in book three On the Word of God, chapter three, sections nine and ten, where he says that the Fathers sometimes fell in the interpretation of Scripture when they took figuratively what was to be taken properly, and conversely took properly what was to be taken figuratively; and he adduces examples from Origen, Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, etc. St. Jerome, in the second volume, writes an epistle to Theophilus: I know that the Apostles stand otherwise, and the remaining expositors otherwise. Those always speak truth; these in certain matters, as men, err. III. Because not rarely they are at odds with themselves; as is evident from the controversies of Bellarmine, who very frequently to one passage of Scripture brings forward the Fathers’ interpretations that clash and disagree. Thus in book two On Christ, chapter two, he says: We do not follow the Fathers when they defend their own and singular opinions contradicting others. Let blessed Cyprian be an example, whom we do not follow when he teaches that Baptism is null if it be given by a heretic. For we know that in this matter the other Doctors did not agree with Cyprian. The Romanists except, that they follow the interpretation and doctrine of the Fathers when all together with the highest consent teach something; because never would they all err at once, even if one of them sometimes errs, as Bellarmine says in book two On Christ, chapter two. Reply. First, it is denied that the Romanists only then follow the Fathers when all together with full consent teach something: since all the writings of the Romanists testify that sometimes they follow the opinion of no one, sometimes of just one and another, although other and better Fathers dissent from it; which we have abundantly demonstrated in all the chapters of our Catholic Harmony; and it would be easy to demonstrate by induction from not a few places of Holy Scripture, in the interpretation of which the Romanists by no means follow the consent of the Fathers. Now by way of example I will bring forward only certain places. In the institution of the Lord’s Supper they interpret Christ’s command, This do, of the sacrifice of the Mass; as if “do” in this place were the same as “sacrifice.” Did the ancient Fathers thus interpret? who? in what books? Let them produce so much as one of the old Fathers who thus interpreted, and they shall win the triumphal crown. The words of Christ, Drink ye all of it, they interpret of the priests alone. Whom do they have among the ancient orthodox Fathers as authors of that interpretation? Let them produce even one. Boniface VIII, from the words of

Christ’s disciples in Luke chapter twenty-two, verse thirty-eight, Behold, here are two swords, says that it is taught that both swords, the spiritual and the bodily, are in the power of the Roman Church. Which of the ancient Fathers thus interpreted? The place of the Song of Songs chapter two, verse two: As a lily among thorns, so my love among the daughters; every Christian acknowledges to have been said of the holy Church, says Augustine in On the Unity of the Church, chapter thirteen. But Bellarmine, in the Controversy On the Church Militant, book three, chapter seven, paying no heed to this consent of all Christians, interprets it otherwise. As for the passages of the Old Testament which the Romanists bring forward for the purgatory of souls, not one of the Fathers interprets them of that. The place John chapter ten, verse sixteen, about one Shepherd, Bellarmine interprets also of Peter and the Roman Pope; but none of the ancient Fathers has thus interpreted. The Canon Law has many such interpretations of Scripture, all of which the ancient Fathers are ignorant; to say nothing now of other writings of the Romanists, in which there are so many corruptions of Holy Scripture as you will find in no writings of the ancient Fathers who lived in the first centuries. Next, the Fathers never all err at once - namely, in the fundamental matters of the faith; but in other reasonings and determinations and in interpretations of Scripture all, as men, or at least most all, can err at once. For example, in expounding the place of Proverbs chapter eight, Κύριος ἔκτισέ µε (“The Lord created me” [Kyrios ektise me]), as it used to be cited by the Arians and was admitted by the Greek Fathers - were not Athanasius, Basil the Great, Hilary, Ambrose, and very many other Fathers in error, understanding it of the humanity of Christ, whereas in the Hebrew text and in the true version it ought to be understood of the eternal Deity of Christ? Third, it is impossible to have the consent of all the Fathers in the interpretation of each passage of Scripture: can any man read through absolutely all the Fathers? How then will the consent of all the Fathers be the norm and rule of the true interpretation of the Scriptures? IV. Because the Fathers are more obscure than Scripture, from which they borrow light for their writings as from the most brilliant Sun: as blessed Athanasius says in the first tome, On the Incarnation of the Word of God, page eighty-one of the Commelinian edition: If you unroll the sacred letters and rightly apply your mind to them, you will find everything exact, fuller and more clear than could be said by me; for they were uttered and written by God himself through men skilled in heavenly matters. Accordingly Holy Scripture is clearer than the commentaries of the Fathers. V. Because many of their writings are spurious, many corrupted by the Romanist Expurgators, many ill translated from the Greek. In the tenth homily of Chrysostom on the Second to Timothy the Latin version has: “How can we merit this grace?” In the Greek it is ἐπισπάσασθαι, which does not mean “to merit” but “to obtain.” VI. Because the Fathers themselves are to be judged from Holy Scripture. For not without cause has so salutary an ecclesiastical canon of vigilance been established, to which certain books of the Prophets and Apostles belong, which we altogether dare not judge, and according to which we freely judge of the rest, whether of the faithful or of unbelievers, as St. Augustine says in the seventh volume, book two Against Cresconius the Grammarian, chapter thirty-one. VII. Because the Fathers themselves admit that they do not

understand many things in Scripture; St. Augustine, on Psalm 9, says: “Anima mea in manibus meis - how this is to be understood I do not know.” Therefore from other codices he reads, “In manibus tuis,” and he says this is plain; in this he himself is plainly at fault and is to be corrected from the Hebrew. The same Augustine in the hundred and ninth letter says: “So far am I from that which you supposed - that nothing is hidden from me - that I have read nothing in your letter more saddening; for it is most plainly false; and I marvel that this is hidden from you, that not only in innumerable other matters are many things hidden from me, but even in the very Holy Scriptures I am far more unknowing of many things than I know.” And he confesses that he did not understand that Pauline place in 2 Thessalonians chapter two: “Only he who now restrains, let him restrain, until he be removed from the midst.” Pico of Mirandola says the same of Origen: “He did not ignore his own ignorance, and he plainly knew that he had not yet attained the truth of those questions before the sixtieth year of his life; he never wished what he preached publicly in the churches to be taken down by notaries.” These things he [Pico] relates in the Apology from the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, book six, chapters sixteen and seventeen. Indeed also Ignatius, in the epistle to the Trallians: “I am not,” he says, “altogether perfect or a disciple such as Peter or Paul; for many things are lacking to me.” Bellarmine, controversy one, book three, which is On the Interpretation of the Word of God, chapter one, section fourteen, on the words of Christ in John chapter eight, “Principium, quem et loquor vobis,” says: “Here all interpreters sorely rack themselves, nor is it yet known what that is.” VIII. Because the Fathers often did not treat the sacred letters very accurately. For often they spoke ἐριστικῶς (contentiously), where the heat of contention casts a cloud upon minds otherwise acute; often out of good will and love of their own they say certain things; often for fear of certain persons they keep back others; often they teach not so much theologically as popularly, rhetorically, oratorically, and declaim in panegyrics. Thus Augustine in the Enchiridion to Laurentius, on Purgatory and on prayer for the dead, confesses that in a certain manner both others and he himself have erred by an overabundance of love, when he thinks about friends and about his dearest mother Monica. Of fear he himself bears witness in the epistle to Januarius, which is the hundred and nineteenth in order, chapter nineteen: “Many things of this sort I do not dare to censure more freely, in order to avoid the scandals of certain persons, whether holy or turbulent.” Thus Jerome against Helvidius says: “I have been rhetorical, and in a declamatory manner I have played a little.” The same says that certain commentaries on the sacred books slipped from him, that he had poured them out rather than written them. And so not amiss it is said in Theodoret’s Eranistes, dialogue three: “Not I …” Nor do I learn the rule of dogmas and decrees from those things that are said in the churches panegyrically and declamatorily. Thus Augustine in the nineteenth Sermon employs a certain rhetorical prosopopoeia, and as it were a poetic congratulation to Mary. IX. Because not a few of the Fathers, unacquainted with the times and with excessive admiration and reverence for certain persons, were, without reflecting, carried into the quicksands of errors and absurd interpretations of Scripture, and were even driven to them by the tyranny of certain Popes or Emperors, as the history of the Council of Ariminum and of Berengar amply testifies.

X. Because the Fathers thought and wrote many things one way when young, another when old, as the books of Augustine’s Retractions testify. XI. Because they are to be read by us with judgment and selection, and are not to be approved everywhere, as canon law itself testifies, Distinction nine, cap. Noli meis, and several following. XII. Because our adversaries render the sound, not the sense, from the Fathers, and catch at the words but lose the meaning. They read prayers for the dead in Tertullian and Cyprian: hence they gathered the mass, purgatory, and prayers for the departed. XIII. Because the Fathers do not even satisfy the Papists themselves, as Bellarmine’s controversies show; for example, in book one De Verbo Dei, chapter three, section five and the following. And everywhere now of this, now of that Father he says, “He spoke less cautiously,” as in book two De Romano Pontifice, chapter ten and elsewhere. XIV. Because the interpretation of the Fathers is only human, not divine. XV. Of greater worth with us, and rightly so, is the authority of the one God as the Father of Fathers, and of CHRIST the supreme Teacher of the Church, and of the Holy Spirit interpreting himself in Scripture, than that of the Pope or of all the other Fathers and Doctors, or even of angels. For Christ, the eternal Son of God, himself, in the adjudication of ecclesiastical dogmas and therefore also of the interpretation of Scripture, refers us back to the Father of Fathers, when he says in John 7:16: “My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me.” He refers us back to himself when he says in Matthew 23:8: “One is your Teacher, namely CHRIST.” And of the Holy Spirit it is said in 1 John 2:27: “The anointing teaches you about all things.” It is therefore better to follow God, to follow Christ himself, to follow the Holy Spirit as the best interpreter of his own words, than to follow men. The Romanists take exception, that every difficulty about the Fathers is removed by councils, especially general ones. For although individual Fathers can think differently and disagree with others, and indeed can err, yet, when gathered in councils, they can easily agree and cannot err in expounding the Scriptures and deciding controversies. But neither is the true interpretation of Scripture to be sought from general councils: I. Because even universal councils have erred: as the Nicene, which condemned soldiers who, having once professed the Christian faith, afterwards returned to even a lawful soldiery; it made canons of penance, from which many superstitions crept into the Church and the merit of Christ was obscured; it wished to forbid marriage to sacred persons, unless Paphnutius had opposed it. II. Because even general councils clash with each other, expounding Scripture in diverse ways. III. Because there were no ecumenical councils after the Apostles until the first Council of Nicaea, while in the meantime the Church nevertheless had the true sense of Scripture, and that although there were then various heresies. IV. Because the general councils themselves expounded Scripture from Scripture, as Athanasius and Ambrose teach everywhere concerning the first Council of Nicaea.

V. Because general councils cannot be so easily convened for any and every doubtful sense of Scripture. The Romanists take exception, that a remedy for this matter can be supplied by the Roman Pontiffs, by whose confirmation the councils do not err; indeed, that satisfaction can be rendered to the Church of God by the Popes alone. But: That the true interpretation of Scripture is not to be sought from the Roman Pontiffs, the following arguments confirm: I. Because the Roman Pontiffs have frequently and grievously erred in interpreting Scripture. For example, this passage, “Be holy, for I am holy,” and that of Paul, Romans 8: “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God; but you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit,” Pope Siricius in his first epistle, which is to Himerius of Tarragona, chapter seven, and Innocent I in his third epistle, which is to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse, so interpret that they gather from it that priests ought not to use the company of wives. Likewise this: “All things are pure to the pure; but to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure,” they so interpret as to condemn marriage as if it were a defilement of the flesh and a state displeasing to God. Innocent, in the third epistle, thus expounds the place John 6: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” that he concludes from it that without the reception of the Eucharist there is no salvation, and that the Eucharist is to be given also to infants. Likewise Boniface VIII, On Majority and Obedience, cap. 1, thus interprets the words of the Apostles, Luke 22: “Behold, here are two swords,” that he infers from it that the Church has in its power two swords, namely the temporal and the spiritual. II. Because the Roman Pontiffs themselves disagree among themselves in interpreting Scripture: as is shown, for example, by the interpretation of Christ’s saying in Matthew 16: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” For some Roman Pontiffs rightly interpret the rock as Christ, or the confession of faith about Christ made by Peter; others as the person of the Apostle Peter; others as the Roman see or chair. III. Because many Roman Pontiffs have been heretics. IV. Because they are so given to the world that they understand sacred letters least of all, or strive to understand them. V. Because the Roman Pontiffs are heads of the Antichristian kingdom. Then too, that the Roman Pontiffs are not the lawful judges of the true interpretation and of the controversies of religion, the following arguments establish: I. Because when the case of the Roman Pontiff and of the Cardinals and the rest of the Roman prelates is at issue, no civil or natural reason allows a judge to sit in his own case. For he is accused by the greater part of Christendom of many most grievous crimes, namely impiety, tyranny in an occupied Church, a corrupted religion, sacrilege, treason against majesty, rebellion, perjury, and unspeakable filthinesses. Therefore, since he, together with his bishops, is the defendant, by what right can he be a judge? Nay, this very thing is handed down in the law of the Canons which they themselves use: “When the Pope is in a state which is a stumbling-block to many and scandalizes

the Church, and is not corrigible, then he cannot be a judge, because he seems to think ill concerning the faith”: according to the gloss on the canon Si Papa, Distinction forty, which all follow, as Panormitan testifies in cap. significasti, number four, and likewise Decius there at number nine De electione. Panormitan says, in the first disputation, in the second doubt at the end, that the whole world approves that. II. Because the Roman Pontiff together with his councils can not only err, but has also erred most perniciously, as we have shown elsewhere. III. Because the Lord our God alone is the supreme interpreter of Scripture and the judge of controversies of religion. But the Roman Pope is not our Lord God. V. Because the Roman Pontiff together with a council of his cardinals and bishops is not the Church of Christ. Therefore to submit to him as judge would be just as if the Pontiff of the Turks, whom they call Mefsei, were appointed judge about the truth of the Christian religion against Christians; or a harlot about chastity. Finally, neither from received custom and the current universal rite is the interpretation of Scripture and the adjudication of interpretations and dogmas to be sought. I. Because Scripture is not adapted by God to custom and the current universal rite; but on the contrary, custom and the current universal rite and the practice of the Church ought to be examined, directed, and corrected according to Scripture. II. Because custom and the current universal rite and the practice of the Church can be diametrically opposed to Holy Scripture: as is shown by the example of the Israelite Church before Samuel, and again after Jeroboam; and of the Jewish Church before the Babylonian captivity, and again in the time of Christ incarnate and of the apostolic preaching. The same is proved by the history of the Christian Church, into which superstitious men have introduced customs and rites beside and against Holy Scripture: as Augustine grievously laments in volume two, epistle one hundred and nineteenth written to Januarius, chapter nineteen: “But this I greatly grieve, that many things which are most healthful precepts in the divine books are less attended to; and all things are so filled with so many presumptions, that he is rebuked more severely who, during his octaves, has touched the ground with bare foot, than he who has buried his mind in drunkenness.” And a little after: “Yet they press religion itself - which the mercy of God willed to be free with very few and most manifest sacraments of celebrations - with servile burdens, so that the condition of the Jews is more tolerable, who, even if they did not recognize the time of liberty, are nevertheless subjected to legal burdens, not to human presumptions.” But the custom and rites and practice of the Roman Church now for many ages are plainly opposed to the word of Christ, as will be shown in its proper place. Thus the seventh question is dispatched. To the eighth question, What is the authority of the interpretation of the Scriptures: Answer. According to the diversity of the authors of interpretation, diverse is its authority.

The authority of the divine interpretation is altogether divine and canonical, like that of Holy Scripture itself, of which it is a part. Accordingly it is self-authenticating (autopistos, αὐτόπιστος), not needing the testimony of another, subject to the censure neither of angels nor of men; but simply to be accepted by all as first truth, without any exception and condition of agreement with another. But the authority of human or ecclesiastical interpretation is only ecclesiastical, not divine and canonical: because it is not dictated immediately by God himself, but delivered by the deliberation and counsel of men, of whom some have more, others less, light; some greater, others lesser, gifts of understanding and expounding divine things. Accordingly an ecclesiastical interpretation of Scripture - and thus any ecclesiastical confession or exposition of faith, likewise any catechism and whatever writing or treatise of godly men (for we are not now speaking of the impious and blasphemous writings of the enemies of the Church and of heretics) - is not simply to be approved, admitted, and accepted, but with this exception and condition, so far as it agrees with [It agrees] with Sacred Scripture, as with the sole fount of heavenly and saving truth, the unmoved foundation and the rule of faith and of good works that never deceives. For this is the first common and principal cause for assenting to human writings, namely, agreement with Sacred Scripture; and if they agree with Sacred Scripture, they assuredly contain and are the Word of God as regards the sense or doctrine, yet not as regards the words which are employed, in expressing the sense of Scripture, according to the deliberation and counsel of men. But Sacred Scripture is simply the Word of God, both as regards the things and as regards the words, without any exception. Therefore it is to be assented to by all, of necessity and simply; whereas ecclesiastical writings, which interpret the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture and expound the doctrine of the Church, are not to be assented to otherwise than as they agree with Sacred Scripture. Isaiah 8:20: “To the law and to the testimony,” etc. Acts 17:11: “The Beroeans examined the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so; therefore many of them believed.” St. John Chrysostom concurs, Homily 49 on Matthew, in the imperfect work: “Nor is it at all to be believed even the churches themselves, unless they say or do those things which agree with the Scriptures.” Besides this common and principal cause of assenting, ecclesiastical writings, according to the variety of the authors by whom they were published, also have particular grounds on account of which they obtain a certain authority in the Church, yet far inferior to the authority of Sacred Scripture. The Catholic symbols of the whole ancient orthodox Church are not to be called into doubt by anyone who is truly a Christian. The Apostles’ Creed surpasses the others in authority, because almost all of it consists of the words of Scripture, and it is older than the other symbols and the rule of them. The other symbols also, such as the Nicene, Athanasian, Constantinopolitan, Chalcedonian, etc., have so manifest an agreement with Sacred Scripture that no one can dissent from them without at the same time dissenting from Scripture. Therefore not even the universal Church has the power of changing the doctrine and opinion of those symbols, because this cannot

be changed without at the same time departing from the sense of Scripture. Wherefore the Catholic symbols bind all Christians to assent, even to the end of the world, both on account of their highest agreement with Scripture as to the matters, and on account of the necessary use in the Church of the words and phrases in which they were composed. Whence they are also a secondary rule, according to which every interpretation of Scripture and doctrine can and ought to be examined by the faithful, so that they may receive what agrees with it and reject what conflicts with it. Particular interpretations of Scripture, such as are in the confessions or public writings of particular churches, whether of one or of several, likewise in the decrees and canons of particular councils, and in public catechisms, do indeed have their own authority also, but far inferior to the authority of the Catholic symbols, and much more inferior to the authority of Scripture itself. For although no one who carries out the office of teaching in those churches can depart from what they teach from the Word of God without impiety, or at least without error; nor is it to be permitted that in those churches, to which those confessions and forms of interpreting the Scriptures belong, anyone should rashly, and with danger of scandal or disturbance of the churches, write or teach against them; nevertheless all other churches and all Christians cannot be bound to them, in such a way that, unless they subscribe to them and swear to them, they are not to be held as members of the Catholic Church of Christ. Therefore the confessions of particular churches and the decrees and canons of particular synods, and the catechisms of particular churches, and liturgies or ecclesiastical agendas, and the like forms, doctrines, or declarations of them, are not an immovable and universal norm of faith and truth, according to which it ought to be judged or pronounced what is to be believed and granted, what is to be rejected and condemned, what is true or false, orthodox or heretical. For it is not always necessary that what agrees with the confession of some particular church, with synodical decrees, with a catechism, with a liturgy or ecclesiastical agenda, with a form of doctrine or some other declaration, be true; nor is what differs from it always false. Therefore it ought not to be demanded that all churches subscribe to the declaration and form of one particular church; nay, those forms do not even bind one church or any private person to approve them and to confine himself within them, except with this condition: so far as they agree with divine Scripture and the universal symbols. And accordingly they are subject not only to the judgment and censure of other churches, but also of those very churches by which they were published, and of those who teach and live in them; and if any fault be discovered in them, it is to be heard, considered, and examined; and if it be judged worthy of emendation, by the common consent and authority of those churches of which it was the writing, it is to be corrected or declared. Excessive license in rejecting the public forms of particular churches is to be guarded against, namely, lest, if it be permitted for anyone to tear up at pleasure what has been received by public consent, and indeed with that very consent also concurring, there follow most grievous schisms and scandals of the churches; and, with new forms of speaking being introduced from time to time, erroneous opinions and new dogmas opposing Sacred Scripture at the same time creep in. Tyranny also and lordship over the faith and consciences of others is to be guarded against, namely, lest one or some should, by their own will,

prescribe and dictate to all other churches and to their pastors and doctors a form of confession or of doctrine, or of liturgy and ecclesiastical agenda or of catechism or of some other declaration, and dare to condemn all who do not swear to their words, and pronounce them alien to the Catholic Church. Private interpretations of Sacred Scripture, such as are contained in the private writings of individual doctors or of other godly persons, whether ancient or recent, are of much inferior authority than public interpretations. For with good reason public writings are preferred to private: since, being written, examined, and approved by the judgment of more persons, it is likely that they have less of error than those which have pleased one. Wherefore the private writings of anyone bind other believers all less to assent to them than public writings do; but they are subject to the examination of the Church and of individual godly persons, and are to be assented to so far as they agree with Sacred Scripture; but whatever in them shall be alien from this is to be rejected. Wisely and piously has St. Augustine written on this matter, in volume seven, book two On Baptism against the Donatists, chapters two and three: “Certainly you are accustomed to object to us the letters of Cyprian, the opinion of Cyprian, the council of Cyprian. Why do you assume the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example for the peace of the Church? But who does not know that Holy Scripture canonical, both of the Old and of the New Testament, is contained within its own fixed boundaries, and that it is so preferred to all later letters of bishops, that concerning it one cannot at all doubt whether whatsoever has been established to be written in it be true or be right? But the letters of bishops, which after the canon was confirmed either have been written or are being written, may be censured by the perhaps wiser speech of anyone more skilled in that matter, and by the graver authority of other bishops, and by the prudence of learned men, and by councils, if perchance anything in them has deviated from the truth; and the councils themselves which are held through single regions or provinces yield, without any evasions, to the authority of plenary councils which are held from the whole Christian world; and even the earlier plenary [councils] are often corrected by the later, with some experience, with Christian charity.” Moreover, there are various degrees of ecclesiastical writers and doctors. For one is older than another, and nearer to the happy age of the Apostles, more learned, and more sincere in doctrine, and having fewer corruptions which crept into the Church either in their times or in later ages, more self-consistent, and leaning more on Sacred Scripture than indulging his own thoughts or depending on human authority, and at length always approved by more and better [men], and agreeing with other orthodox writers and doctors. Accordingly, as one surpasses another by these and similar circumstances, so his testimony ought to have more weight and reverence among the godly and moderate: so that in these the first place is rightly held by the books which are wont to be called Apocrypha and are commonly appended in the Bible to the canonical [books]; next after these, the ancients; last, the more recent doctors.

However much anyone of the Fathers and ecclesiastical doctors may excel in names and many prerogatives, nevertheless none of them has the authority of a testimony that confirms the truth, except in so far as he says things agreeable to Sacred Scripture and to the universal symbols; which authority of his a true consent, together with the public testimonies of the churches and with the series of orthodox doctors from the Apostles onward, can not so much bestow as increase. Therefore this authority belongs to the Prophetic and Apostolic writings alone, namely, that one must simply and unhesitatingly assent to them; but to other writings whatsoever, public or private, one must assent conditionally and with mature judgment premised, if and so far as they agree with the writings of the Prophets and Apostles. If this agreement with true antiquity - that is, with prophetic and apostolic [antiquity] - is not found anywhere in confessions and especially particular writings, or in ancient or more recent doctors, it is not only lawful for all, but also necessary, to dissent from them and even to profess and teach something different, provided only that in thus departing from them nothing be taught against divine Scripture and the Catholic, that is, universal, symbols - namely, lest error be substituted for truth - and that Christian prudence and charity be applied, lest the churches be disturbed by a profession of the truth not undertaken in order or prudently, or not composed to Christian modesty and love. Thus the opinion of the orthodox Church on the interpretation of Sacred Scripture has been explained. The Papists on the contrary contend, first, that the interpretation of Scripture and the decision of controversies of religion are to be sought from some one supreme, visible and common judge existing on earth; second, that the Church, that is, the Roman Pontiff and his council, is the supreme judge of the true sense of Scripture and of all controversies of religion; and that the authority of this judge is so great that all ought simply to acquiesce in him. They try to prove the first in this way: The rule of a kingdom or of some civil commonwealth is also the rule of the Church. But in some kingdom or civil commonwealth the interpretation of laws and the final decision of forensic causes are to be sought from the supreme and indeed visible and common judge, namely from the prince existing on earth. Therefore also in the Church the interpretation of Scripture and the decision of ecclesiastical controversies are to be sought from some one supreme, visible and common judge existing on earth. I answer: The whole is granted if it be rightly understood, namely, if the propo- let the proposition be understood of the common ground that a kingdom or civil commonwealth and the Church share: for the earthly kingdom and the Church have their own peculiar and proper ground, in which no pure identity or likeness can be granted between the earthly kingdom and the Church. Next, let the assumption be understood of the prince interpreting laws or deciding cases either by live voice or by rescripts. Finally, let the conclusion be understood of Christ, the King and Prince of the Church.

For the interpretation of Scripture and the decision of ecclesiastical controversies must be sought from Christ, and he himself is the supreme interpreter of divine Scripture, the supreme judge of controversies: he is visible to the eyes of the soul, the eyes of faith, just as his voice is heard: he is the common judge whom none of the faithful refuses or ought to refuse: he exists on earth in his Church, according to his assertion that stands in Matt. 18.20: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them;” and according to his promise, Matt. 28.20: “Behold, I am with you all days, unto the consummation of the age.” And although he is not present in bodily presence, nevertheless he interprets Scripture and decides controversies of religion, by his rescripts which he sent to the Church through the Prophets and Apostles, by the testament which he left written to his sons. Objection. A judge ought to be seen and heard bodily by both parties in litigation: for such are those who contend, namely bodily men. Therefore, besides Christ, it is necessary that the Church have another visible supreme judge. Answer. The antecedent is not always true, not even in bodily controversies. For did not emperors and kings interpret by rescripts and through governors of provinces and others the laws which had been sent out, and decide cases, as the Civil or Caesarean law shows? do they not even now do the same? Indeed did not the Roman Pontiffs do the same, and interpret by their rescripts or letters decrees and canons, and determine cases, as Canon law attests? And shall we dare to take from God what we grant to man? The other claim, namely, that the Church, that is, the Roman Pontiff and his council, is the supreme and infallible interpreter of Scripture, and the supreme and irrefragable judge on earth of interpretations of Scripture and of controversies of religion, Bellarmine tries to prove by testimonies from the Old and New Testament; from the custom of the Church; by testimonies of pontiffs, emperors, fathers; and finally by reason. The testimonies from the Old and New Testament produced by Bellarmine are altogether impertinent and do not prove the opinion of the Papists, as we have copiously demonstrated in the second part of the Sylloge of Theological Theses, in the Theses on the judge of the true sense of Scripture and of controversies of religion. In this place we shall briefly consider the arguments constructed from there, omitting those things which are foreign to Bellarmine, stuffed in by sophistic “duplication” (δεπλώνησιν). From the Old Testament five are alleged. The first is from Exod. 18. v. 26. What Moses was in the Israelite Church, that the Roman Pope is in the Christian Church. But Moses was the supreme judge of ecclesiastical controversies in the Israelite Church. Therefore the Roman Pope also is the supreme judge of controversies in the Christian Church. Response. Both premises are denied. For the major proposition is false by the refutation of false pairs: for Moses and the Roman Pontiff are by no means equals. Moses had an extraordinary calling and function; they say the Pope has an ordinary one. Moses was instructed immediately and familiarly by God; not so the Pope. Moses’s authority, that all difficult cases should be referred to him, rested on the express mandate of God; the Pope has no

such mandate. Moses was a political prince, but not the high priest, who was Aaron; the Pope professes himself to be the spiritual high priest. Moses was unique, and had no successor in his extraordinary function; the Roman Popes up to now have been many. The minor proposition is likewise false: for Moses was not the supreme judge to whom all should simply acquiesce, but a go-between of the people to God and of God in turn to the people, Exod. 18. and chap. 19. - 8. Therefore the conclusion collapses. The second is from Deut. 17. v. 8 - 13. What the high priest was in the Israelite Church, that the Roman Pontiff is in the Christian Church. But the high priest in the Israelite Church was the supreme and infallible judge of all controversies of religion. Therefore the Roman Pontiff is the supreme and infallible judge of controversies of religion in the Christian Church. Answer. Both premises are denied: First, the major proposition, both because persons are set as equals who are very unequal - for the high priest in the Israelite Church was instituted by God, but the primacy of the Roman Pontiff takes its rise from Satan - and because it overturns the first argument, by which Moses and the Roman Pope are set as equals. And yet one and the same person cannot by his function be equal both to Moses and to Aaron: for Moses’s function was extraordinary, Aaron’s ordinary. Second, the assumption is also denied: because it conflicts with the passage alleged, which treats not only of the high priest but also of the other priests, indeed even of the political judge: then too, the supreme judgment is attributed not to the priest and his council, but to God himself, according to whose law the people ought to be taught: for Moses expressly says, “And thou shalt do whatsoever they who preside in the place which the Lord shall choose shall say, and shall teach thee ACCORDING TO HIS LAW.” Therefore the conclusion is void. The third is from Eccles. chap. 12.11: “The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails driven deep, which are given by the counsel of masters, by one shepherd. Besides these, my son, do not seek.” Hence they form an argument like the second, and it is answered in the same way to both premises. In particular, however, we here answer that the assumption is not proved from the testimony alleged, both because first it has been corrupted by a faulty translation - for these words, “which are given by the counsel of masters,” are nowhere in the Hebrew - and because by that one Shepherd is understood not the high priest of the Old Testament, but Christ, that true and only supreme Shepherd. The fourth is from Hag. 2.11: “Ask the priests the law.” Mal. 2.7: “The lips of the priest shall guard knowledge, and they shall seek the law from his mouth, because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts.” Answer. The place from Haggai is altogether impertinent: for the Prophet was ordered to ask the priests in common, not the high priest; nor as though he were ignorant what ought to be determined, so that he might be instructed by them, but so that from the priests’ own confession he might convict and refute their hypocrisy and superstition, and that of the people, in ceremonial matters: he was ordered to ask the priests so that they might answer, not with authentic power, but ministerially from the Law of God.

The place from Malachi is no less impertinent: in its first part there is a precept about the office of the priests, in the second there is a precept about the office of the faithful people, to seek the law from their mouth - but whose law? God’s. Therefore God is the supreme judge who judges with public and absolute authority: the Law is the voice of God which teaches us his will; the priest who is asked, by right, about the will of God, answers with public authority indeed, but limited, as the angel of the Lord of hosts, that is, as his messenger, as his herald, not from his own brain, but from the Law of God which is sought from his mouth. What is this to the Pope, who wants us to depend rather on his mouth than on the Law of God, than on the sacred pages? Chapter Si Papa; Distinct. 40. The fifth is from 2 Chron. 19.11: “And Amariah the priest and your high priest shall preside in the things that pertain to God.” Answer. From this it by no means follows that the chief priest in the Israelite Church was the supreme judge of the interpretation of Scripture and of controversies of religion: but only this, that there is need of some president in judging controversies - which no one denies. From the New Testament nine testimonies are alleged. The first is Matt. 16.19: “I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” etc. The argument would be of this sort: Whoever has had the keys of the kingdom of heaven given him by Christ is the supreme judge of interpretations of Scripture and of controversies of religion: the Roman Pope has had the keys of the kingdom of heaven given him by Christ: therefore, etc. I answer. First, the proposition is denied, because it overturns itself; for to whomever the keys of the kingdom of heaven have been given by Christ, to him there has only been committed the ministry of preaching the Gospel and carrying out ecclesiastical discipline: for the keys of the kingdom of heaven, given by Christ to the Apostles and their successors, are such a ministry and nothing else. The minor, concerning the Roman Pope as he has been for some ages and is today, is likewise denied; because he is not the successor of Peter. Papists object: Whoever has received from Christ the power of loosing all knots - of laws, by dispensing; of sins and punishments, by remitting; of dogmas and controversies, by explaining - is the supreme judge of controversies of religion: But Peter with his successors received such a power from Christ. Therefore Peter was, and every successor of his is, the supreme judge, etc. The assumption is proved by the fact that Christ did not say, “whomever sinner,” but “whatever thou shalt loose.” Answer. First, the major proposition is denied: because the power given by Christ is ministerial, not therefore a supreme authority of judging. Then, the assumption is distinguished in four ways: for first it is in part true, in part false. That Peter received from Christ the ministry of loosing sins and of explaining dogmas and controversies is granted: but that he received the power of dispensing with laws, and of remitting the punishments of sins which God inflicts, is denied: or let Bellarmine explain what he understands by “remission of punishments.”

The proof of the assumption thus understood without this distinction, drawn from the fact that Christ says “whatever thou shalt loose,” and not “whomever thou shalt loose,” is nothing: for it is plainly shown in Matt. 18. v. 18 and John 20. that this word “whatever” in this place of Matthew is said concerning sin. Second, again the assumption is distinguished: for it is taken either exclusively of Peter alone and the Roman bishops, or also of the other Apostles and their successors. If it is taken exclusively, it is denied: for that power of loosing, as also of binding, was common to all the Apostles and to those who succeed them. Third, there is a further distinction: for by the successors of Peter are understood either the Roman bishops alone, or also other bishops. If the Roman bishops alone are understood, it is denied: for the successor of Peter is whoever proclaims Peter’s doctrine and exercises his works, of whatever Church he may be bishop. Fourth, the Roman bishops themselves must also be distinguished: for by the successors of Peter are understood either all and each of the Roman bishops, or only those who proclaimed Peter’s doctrine and exercised Peter’s works. If all and each of the Roman bishops are understood, it is denied: for they do not have Peter’s inheritance who do not have Peter’s faith, which they tear apart by impious division, as Ambrose says in the first tome, book one On Repentance, chapter six. And as Jerome writes in his letter to Heliodorus: “They are not sons of the saints who hold the places of the saints, but those who do the works of them”: as is cited in Canon Law: chapter Non est facile, Distinct. quadragesimae. The second testimony is Matt. 18.17: “If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.” From this Bellarmine gathers that the last judgment belongs to pastors. Answer. The consequence is denied: for only this follows, that the despisers of the admonition and censure of the presidents of ecclesiastical discipline - who are not only pastors, but also other presbyters taken from the laity - that they are to be avoided and that no communion is to be had with them until they repent. What has this to do with the Roman Pontiff’s primacy and his supreme judgment in controversies of faith? The third is Matt. 23:2 - 3: “The scribes and the Pharisees have sat upon Moses’ seat; whatever they tell you, observe and do.” From this such an inference is to be made: Whoever is owed obedience in all things whatever he shall have said, he is the supreme interpreter of Scripture and the judge of controversies of religion. The Roman Pontiff is owed obedience in all things whatever he shall have said. Therefore, etc. Response. The major proposition must be restricted. Whoever is owed obedience, namely absolutely and without any exception, he is the supreme interpreter, etc. Then, as to the minor, that obedience is owed to the Roman Pontiff absolutely and without any exception, is denied. The passage Matt. 23:2 - 3 does not prove the minor; for that it is to be restricted is evident from Matt. 16:6, where Christ bids to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and from Acts 4:19 - 20 and 5:29, where the apostles refuse to obey the pontiffs and the high priests. Augustine also observed the

restriction; for in Tractate 46 on John, citing this passage, he expounds thus: By sitting upon Moses’ seat they teach the law of God; therefore through them God teaches. But if they should wish to teach their own things, do not hear, do not do. Indeed Christ himself restricts it, when he adds: do not do according to their works. For what are the works of priests, if not their doctrine and life? Thus “works” are taken in Matt. 5:16, and “workers” in Matt. 7:23, as Augustine acknowledged in the place just cited. The fourth is John 21:16: “Simon Peter, feed my sheep.” From this such an argument is to be constructed: He who is commanded by Christ to feed all Christians with doctrine is the supreme judge of the interpretation of the Scriptures and of controversies of religion. Peter, and his successor the Roman Pope, is commanded by Christ to feed all Christians with doctrine. Therefore, etc. Response. First, the major proposition is denied as false: for he who is commanded by Christ to feed all Christians with doctrine received a ministry only, not the supreme power of teaching, interpreting, judging. Second, the assumption is distinguished: of Peter it is true, whom Christ instructed by the mandate of feeding with doctrine whomsoever in whatever place, and restored to the apostolic function, from which by his denial of Christ he had fallen. Yet the power of teaching everywhere was common to Peter with the other apostles, as is to be seen in Matt. 28:19 and Mark 16:15. The same assumption, taken of the Roman Pope, is false: for after the apostles, no bishop, however well furnished with heavenly gifts, has the power to teach everywhere; much less the authority to establish and decree what must be believed by all. The fifth is Luke 22:32: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.” From this Bellarmine argues in this way: The Roman Pontiff cannot err when teaching from the chair; therefore he must be the supreme judge, whose judgment must be acquiesced in. Response. The antecedent is denied, and it is not proved from the passage of Luke, which, if you look to the hypothesis, must be taken not of the Roman Pope, especially as he is today, but of Peter, grievously to be tempted and about to fall; although as to general use it can be accommodated to all who are truly faithful, for all of whom Christ asked the Father that their faith might not fail in temptations. And it is to be understood not of immunity from every error of doctrine, but of the inexpugnable perpetuity of saving faith which is in the heart. For if it were to be understood of immunity from every error in doctrine, then Christ would not have obtained for Peter what he asked from the Father; for shortly after Peter supposed that Christ and his kingdom subsisted by the benefit of bodily arms, and, drawing the sword, struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear (Luke 22:29, 50; John 18:10). He did not immediately believe that Christ had risen from the dead (Mark 16:11, 13, 14; Luke 24:11; John 20:9). He supposed that Christ’s kingdom would be worldly (Acts 1:6). But since it is absurd that Christ’s prayers were ineffectual, it is necessary to understand the passage produced from Luke otherwise than of immunity from error of doctrine.

The sixth is Acts 15:7 and following, whence such an argument is to be set up: The apostle Peter was the supreme judge in the grave question concerning faith. The apostle Peter was the Roman Pontiff. Therefore the Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge, etc. Response. Each premise is denied; and first indeed the major proposition; because it is contradicted by v. 2, in which it is narrated that it was determined at Antioch that Paul and Barnabas and others with them should go up to Jerusalem to the APOSTLES AND PRESBYTERS; it is also contradicted by vv. 6 - 7, where it is reported that the apostles and presbyters were gathered that they might consider this matter, and that there was much disputation before Peter stated his opinion; it is likewise contradicted by v. 19 and the following, in which the sentence of James is recited, into which the whole council went. Second, the assumption also is denied: for Peter neither at the time when that council was being held, nor afterwards ever, was the Roman Pontiff. Bellarmine’s instance. But Peter was the president of that Jerusalem council and was the first of all to speak, and he first gave his sentence; James confirmed his sentence; the sentence of the council over which Peter presides is the sentence of the Holy Spirit; the decree of the council itself was commended everywhere to the faithful, that they should keep it, that is, that they should acquiesce and not wish themselves to judge contrary to the sentence of the council. Response. This is a fallacy arising from many interrogations, about which the same judgment is not to be made; therefore a distinction must be used. First, that Peter was president of that Jerusalem council is said nowhere, and it is more probable that James was the president, both because he gave his sentence last, which befits a wise president in well-constituted councils, and because he was bishop of Jerusalem, as the Papists maintain. Second, that Peter was the first of all to speak and to give sentence is denied by Luke when he says in v. 7: “When much disputation had arisen, Peter, rising up, said to them.” Nay, it follows from the adversaries’ opinion: if Peter gave his sentence first, he was not the president of the council, but only the chief in giving a sentence. Third, if James confirmed Peter’s sentence, then it follows that not Peter but James was the supreme judge of the controversy. For Bellarmine in the following section proves from this that Peter was the supreme judge, because he confirmed Paul’s Gospel; and in the same book three On the Word of God, chapter six, section seven, he proves from this that Damasus was the supreme judge of controversies of religion, because he confirmed the sentence of the Council of Constantinople, by which the heresy of Macedonius against the Holy Spirit was condemned. Which proof is null, unless this universal proposition be true: Whoever confirms another’s doctrine and sentence is the supreme judge. But if that universal proposition is true, and James confirms Peter’s sentence, as the same Bellarmine affirmed, then it necessarily follows that James was the supreme judge in that council. And this is also proved from the fact that James terminated the controversy: for he gave the sentence last, in which all the others acquiesced and upon which the decree was made. Fourth, that the sentence of the apostolic council is infallibly true is granted; but that the sentence of any episcopal council is true is denied, except insofar as it agrees with the divine Canon. Fifth, that the decree of the Jerusalem council was commended by Paul to the churches is conceded. But does it follow from this that Peter was the supreme judge? By no means, because he

was not even the president of that council; indeed, even if he had been president, he would not have been the supreme judge. For the president of a council, whether apostolic or episcopal, does not judge with supreme authority, but according to Holy Scripture, from which he declares the voice of the supreme judge, who is God. The seventh is Gal. 2:2: “I went up,” says Paul, “to Jerusalem with Barnabas and set before them the Gospel that I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who seemed to be something, lest perhaps I should be running, or had run, in vain.” From this such an argument must be formed: Peter was the supreme judge of the doctrine of faith. Peter was the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, etc. The major is proved thus: Peter confirmed Paul’s Gospel, as Paul himself (Gal. 2:2) and Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine affirm. Therefore Peter was the supreme judge of the doctrine of faith; and accordingly his successor now is the supreme judge. Response. First, the major proposition is denied, nor is it proved by the fact that Peter confirmed Paul’s Gospel. For others also confirm others’ doctrine, sentences, and judgments. or by singular consent as brothers, or by common suffrage as colleagues, or by highest authority, as Head and Prince. Whoever confirms another’s doctrine with highest authority as Head and Prince, he is the supreme judge. But that Peter the Apostle confirmed the Apostle Paul’s doctrine with highest authority is denied. Nor does Bellarmine’s opinion stand from Gal. 2:2, where nothing else is taught than that Paul set forth the Gospel preached by himself to those who were of repute, namely James, Cephas, and John, so that it might be clear that he did not disagree with the other apostles, that he taught no other Gospel than the rest of the apostles: nor do the Fathers cited by Bellarmine affirm anything about some prerogative of Peter in confirming Paul’s Gospel. Second, even if it were certain that Peter was the supreme judge, which we by no means grant, it would not nevertheless follow that the Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge, because Peter neither then, when he gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, nor ever afterward, was Roman Pontiff; and because the Roman Pontiff is not Peter’s successor, since he does not have Peter’s faith. The eighth is 1 Cor. 12:8 - 9: To one is given by the Spirit a word of wisdom, to another a word of knowledge, to another the interpretation of discourses, to another prophecy, etc. From this the argument is to be framed thus: If the spirit of interpreting the Scriptures is not given to all believers, nor is any private man the judge of the true sense of Scripture, then the Church alone is its judge. The antecedent is true; therefore also the consequent. Response. First, there is the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, because something other than what is in controversy is concluded. The question is about the Roman Pontiff and his Council, whether he is the supreme index of interpretation; not, whether the Church alone is the judge of the true sense of Scripture. But the Roman Pontiff with his Council is not the Church of God; nor is even the universal Church properly the index of the true sense of Scripture, but only an indicator and go-between, although it be a ministerial judge whether this or that interpretation of Scripture, set forth by this or that interpreter who is neither Prophet nor Apostle nor Evangelist, is true. Second, the connected consequence is denied; for from that antecedent there does not follow that consequent. Third, the parts of the assumption must be distinguished. The spirit of interpreting the Scriptures is not given

to all believers, namely for public authority in the Church, for the approval and judgment of doctrine; but it is given for judgment in one’s own conscience; for no one can say, Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit, as the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 12:3. And that no private man is the judge of the true sense of Scripture, we grant; for none of men, even of those who bear a public person, is its judge, but only an indicator. The ninth is 1 John 4:1: Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God. For many false prophets have gone out into the world. From which Bellarmine argues in a very intricate manner; yet his meaning comes to this: Whoever is exempt from the probation of others is the supreme judge of controversies of religion; but the Roman Pontiff with his Council is exempt from the probation of others. Therefore the Roman Pontiff with his Council is the supreme judge of controversies of religion. Response. The assumption is denied: for all who claim the office of teaching must be proved by their agreement and conformity with divine Scripture, whether they are of God. For that is what John warns in the testimony alleged. But the Roman Pontiff with his Council claims the office of teaching for himself: therefore he must be proved by his agreement and conformity with divine Scripture, whether he is of God. Bellarmine replies three things: first, he denies that the spirit of public men should be proved, and he restricts John’s testimony to the spirit of private men alone, whom he denies to be a judge. Then he denies that the spirit can be proved from Scripture, because we doubt the sentence of Scripture itself; and he lays down that it must be proved by conformity to the spirit of those whom it is known have the true spirit: such, however, are prelates lawfully assembled in Council: for we read in Acts 15:28 that the Council said, It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us. Third, he affirms that the Roman Pontiff has the true spirit, because the Pontiff, when teaching ex cathedra, is always directed by the Holy Spirit, so that he cannot err. Response. First, it is rashly denied that the spirit of public men should be proved; nor is John’s admonition to be restricted to the spirit of private men alone; indeed the Apostle’s admonition is not to be depraved, as Bellarmine does. For when the Apostle John warns that one must not believe every spirit, that is, him who arrogates to himself the office of teaching in the Church, and consequently that one must not believe every doctrine, but that the spirits must be proved, that is, that teachers and their doctrines must be examined whether they are of God: Bellarmine understands the name “spirit” of the Holy Spirit and makes a double spirit, one of private men, another of public. But John understands by the spirit, to whom he denies immediate credence and whom he wills to be proved, any teacher whatsoever, and consequently also his doctrine; for presently he speaks in the plural, test the spirits, whether they are of God (τὰ πνεύµατα, εἰ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν); and in the reason annexed (for many false prophets have come into the world) he puts false prophets in place of spirits; and in verses 2 and 3 he attributes to the spirit whom he wills to be proved the outward profession of doctrine. In the same sense Paul says in 1 Tim. 4:2 that some will be apostates and fall away from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits, that is, false teachers. The same Apostle John, so that nothing be lacking for understanding his admonition, thus distinguishes spirits in verse 6, that he says one is the spirit of truth, that is, a teacher of the true faith, another the spirit of error, that is, a teacher of a false and erroneous faith, a seducer, an impostor, 2 John v. 7. Then, as to what

Bellarmine infers, that the private spirit is not a judge, he tries to deceive by ignoratio elenchi: for the controversy now is not whether a private spirit is a judge, which none of the Evangelical Christians affirms, but whether the Roman Pontiff with his Council is the supreme judge of controversies of religion, which the Papists affirm, the Evangelical Christians deny. Second, as to what Bellarmine denies, that the spirit, for example, if someone expounds that saying, This is my body, as, This signifies my body, can be proved from Scripture; and he adds the reason, because in this place we doubt the sentence of Scripture itself: therein he truly betrays the spirit of Antichrist. For no one who has the Spirit of Christ either doubts, or ought to doubt, the sentence of Scripture in any place: for that is the sentence of the Holy Spirit, infallibly true. It is one thing to doubt and to inquire about a human interpretation of Scripture, whether it is true; it is another thing to doubt the sentence of Scripture itself. Therefore when there is dispute about the human interpretation of some passage, that passage in Scripture must be consulted, the purpose considered, whether the intention or scope of the author, as Cyril of Alexandria warns, book 10 on John, ch. 13; and Augustine, tome 1, book 12 of the Confessions, ch. 18, likewise tome 3, book 1 On Genesis to the Letter, ch. 1; and St. John Chrysostom, the thirteenth homily on Genesis; and Augustine, tome 10, sermon 49 On the Words of the Lord; a comparison must be instituted with other places of Scripture, as the Fathers everywhere teach and do; whom if Bellarmine would follow, he would determine that the proving of spirits must be done by the Lydian touchstone of Holy Scripture. And just as Antichrist leads the faithful away from Holy Scripture, so do the ministers of Antichrist, as here Bellarmine, who contends that spirits must be proved not from divine Scripture, but from conformity to the spirit of the prelates lawfully assembled in Council and of the Roman Pontiff, fabricating the touchstone by which the spirits are to be proved at the pleasure of Antichrist. Nor does what he alleges from Acts 15:28 help Bellarmine: both because from a particular he concludes a universal, against the rules of arguing well; and because the apostles themselves taught and refuted in the Council of Jerusalem; and because the Apostle John himself in verses 2, 3, and 6, and Paul in 1 Tim. 6:3, 4, 5 prescribe a certain and perpetual rule of discerning spirits, and thus will that the doctrine preached by himself and by the other apostles and delivered to the Churches in Scripture be the Lydian touchstone by which the spirits are to be proved whether they are of God. Third, we deny that the Roman Pontiff, such as the present one is, has the true spirit. But Bellarmine’s reason is ridiculous and false, namely, that the Pontiff, teaching ex cathedra, is always directed by the Holy Spirit so that he cannot err. For it is ridiculous, what he says, that the Pontiff teaches ex cathedra: Whose, I ask, and what sort of chair? and when, how does he speak? He will answer, that the Pontiff teaches from the chair of Peter. But to teach from the chair of Peter was for the ancient Fathers nothing else than to teach that doctrine which Peter taught; so indeed that St. Ambrose, book 1 On Repentance, ch. 6, says, “They do not have Peter’s inheritance who do not have Peter’s faith.”

with what impious division they tear it apart. But the Roman Pontiff does not have Peter’s faith, does not teach Peter’s doctrine: therefore he does not teach from Peter’s chair; rather, the chair of the Roman Pontiff is among those chairs which the Savior cast out of the temple - of those who would boast themselves of honor, seek primacies of dignities; of those who would use the priesthood or primacy of honor for gain - as Ambrose says in the exposition of the first Psalm. Bellarmine presses the point: The spirit of the first believers used to have recourse to Peter, to the Council, and acquiesced in their sentence, Acts 15. Therefore now too the faithful who have a good spirit have recourse to the Roman Pontiff and his council; but the one whose spirit sets itself up as judge is not good. I answer: First, we deny the antecedent insofar as it is understood of Peter as superior to the other apostles and monarch of the Church. For the first believers had recourse to the apostles in common as witnesses of the divine truth above all exception, on the basis of the evidences of the Holy Spirit and Holy Scripture, about to decide controversies of religion as lawful interpreters and go-betweens of the will of God, and instructed by the Spirit of truth above the grasp of other men, Acts 15:2. Second, there is great disparity between Peter and the Roman Pontiff, and between the Jerusalem Council and the Roman council. Peter and the Jerusalem council tested the spirits by the Scriptures of the Holy Spirit, Acts 15:15; by the Scriptures of the Holy Spirit he fully taught the doctrine of salvation, Acts 10:43. But the Roman Pontiff and the Roman council deny that by the Scriptures of the Holy Spirit the spirits can be proved whether they are of God; they deny that from the Scriptures of the Holy Spirit the doctrine of salvation can be fully drawn. Therefore the spirit of the Pontiff and of the Roman council is far other than that of Peter and of the Jerusalem council. Third, our spirit does not constitute itself judge: we do not call anyone back to our private spirit so that he should acquiesce in our interpretation and sentence, because the spirit has thus revealed it to us; in this way the Enthusiasts rave, and those who do not acquiesce in the divinely inspired Scriptures. We refer no one back to his own private spirit; rather, we acknowledge as judge the Holy Spirit speaking publicly in the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, and we subject ourselves to him; and we hear and receive the prophets and apostles bearing witness to Christ. In the judgment of the Holy Spirit and in the testimony of the prophets and apostles we acquiesce by God’s grace. They who are willing to stand by any other judgment than that of the Holy Spirit speaking publicly in divine Scripture do not have a good spirit. We weigh the testimonies which Bellarmine adduces out of the Old and New Testament in order to set up in vain the ruinous tribunal of the Roman Pontiff and his council. He attempts to establish the same from the custom and practice of the universal Church, in this way: By the judgment of the Roman Pontiff and of the bishops who at whatever time existed, all doubts arisen in the Church in all ages have been terminated; to say or to write that what the universal Church has always done and does is not done rightly is most insolent madness, as Augustine says in epistle 118. Therefore the Roman Pontiff with his council is the supreme judge of interpretations of Scripture and of controversies of religion.

I answer: We deny the antecedent: for many doubts have been explained and decided without any cognizance of the Roman bishop, as the history of Saturninus, Carpocrates, Basilides, Paul of Samosata, Pelagius, Arius, and other heretics bears witness - whose errors other godly men refuted, condemned, and regarded as heresies - either before they had become known to the Roman bishop, or before the Roman bishop had disclosed what he thought about them. Then too certain Roman bishops did not terminate doubts, but defended erroneous and heretical dogmas: Pope Victor urged the necessity of celebrating Easter on the Lord’s Day to such an extent that he even wished the Asiatic Churches dissenting from him to be excommunicated - a matter for which he was gravely rebuked by many orthodox bishops, as Eusebius is witness, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 24. Pope Honorius approved the Monothelite heresy, wherefore he was anathematized by the Sixth general Synod held at Constantinople. Concerning other Roman pontiffs who were heretics, more elsewhere. Bellarmine attempts to prove the antecedent by an induction of several Roman pontiffs who were presidents of councils and by their own judgment have terminated doubtful dogmas, have confirmed councils, have condemned errors, and have declared who are to be held as heretics: such as Peter, Victor, Cornelius, Sylvester, Damasus, Celestine, Leo, Innocent, Zosimus, Leo IX, Nicholas II, Innocent II, Eugene III, Innocent III, Gregory X, Clement V, Martin V, Eugene IV, Pius IV. Finally he adds two corollaries to his induction: one is, that no new error, truly held for an error in the Church, has nevertheless not been condemned by the Roman pontiff; the other, that no one has ever dared to judge against the sentence of councils approved by the Roman prelate, and not immediately been held a heretic by the Catholic Church. I answer: First, we deny the consequence, because from particulars a universal conclusion is drawn: for there are dissimilar examples already mentioned by which the induction is undermined. Then we deny most of the examples of the induction, which are either false or not proven. For Peter was neither Roman pontiff nor president of the Council described in Acts 15. The deed of Victor, excommunicating the Asiatic Churches, was illegitimate and truly schismatic, and was disapproved by the Church, as Eusebius attests. That Cornelius presided over the Roman council against the Novatians, Eusebius does not in fact say, nor does any reliable author. Sylvester did not preside over the Nicene Council through legates, nor did the Council ask confirmation from him: neither can be proved by any competent author. Damasus did not preside at the Council held at Constantinople against the Macedonians: he confirmed it, not as head and prince, but by consent and common suffrage as a brother and colleague. Cyril did not preside at the First Ephesian Council in the name of Celestine. Nor was Leo, through legates, president of the Council of Chalcedon. The dogmas of Pelagius were held for heretical before the judgment of Innocent and Zosimus. The Roman pontiff did not preside over the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Synods; and moreover the Seventh Synod, that is, the Second of Nicaea, was a pseudo-synod and illegitimate. Over the remaining synods popes both presided illegitimately, and in them they unjustly condemned those things which ought not to be condemned: therefore nothing is to be ascribed to them, as illegitimate. Against the first corollary I give these instances. The Roman pontiff does not condemn, but actually champions, most of the errors of Pelagius which were truly held by the

Catholic Church to be errors, as the star and ornament of the French nobility, Philip de Mornay, Lord of Plessis-Marly, President of the jurisdiction of Saumur in France, has shown in his work On the Holy Eucharist, printed at Hanau in the year of Christ 1605. The Roman pontiffs defend almost all the heresies formerly condemned by the orthodox Church, just as we demonstrate in the books On the Origin of Popish Errors. The Council of Constance and the Council of Basel truly held it for an error, that the Pope is above a council: has the Pope condemned this error? nay rather he vigorously champions it. Many dogmas were promulgated in the Council of Trent which the orthodox Church of old held to be errors, as has been demonstrated in the Examination of the Council of Trent by Martin Chemnitz, and by Innocent Gentillet in five French books whose title is Le Bureau du Concile de Trente. Yet the Pope did not condemn these, but confirmed them. Bellarmine asked for one example for an instance, and [I give] more than one. Against the other corollary I give these instances. The Council at Frankfurt on the Main, in the year of our Lord 794, convoked by Charlemagne, judged concerning the Second Nicene Synod, confirmed by Adrian the Roman Pope - indeed it condemned it. The same did Charlemagne and his son Louis the Pious. And were the Fathers of the Council of Frankfurt and these emperors held by the Church as heretics? Philip, king of France, and the Parisian Sorbonnists judged concerning the sentence of John XXII and of the Roman Curia - the sentence that souls will not see God until after the resurrection - as Gerson, Chancellor of the Parisian Academy, reports, Sermon on the Feast of Easter, tome 4. Were the king and the Sorbonnists therefore held as heretics by the Church? Several kings of France in succession - Henry II, Francis II, Charles IX, Henry III, Henry IV - judged concerning the sentence of the Council of Trent and with right and merit always refused the publication of that council in France: were they immediately held as heretics by the Catholic Church? Thus Bellarmine’s proof drawn from the custom or practice of the Church has been refuted. Next he attempts to prove his thesis by the testimonies of the Fathers. Of the Popes and the ancient Emperors, that is, of the authors of both laws, and of the Fathers. But the testimonies of the Popes are rightly rejected, both because in substance they are false - for they are contrary to the truth - and because in manner they are illegitimate; for they are of the Roman Popes in their own proper cause: yet no man is a competent witness for himself in his own cause. The testimonies of the Emperors are foreign to the Papal cause. Aurelian and Constantine the Great, Emperors - the one in the case of Paul of Samosata, the other in the case of the Donatists - delegated the Bishop of the Romans as judge, but not alone; rather with other bishops as well: nor with a supreme authority from which it would in no way be permitted to depart, but with limited power. Whence, when the Donatists appealed from the sentence of the Roman Bishop to the Emperor, he gave another judgment at Arles. If the Roman Bishop was a judge delegated by the Emperor, he therefore was not supreme: but this, not that other, was what Bellarmine had to prove. All the other Emperors determined nothing else than that the causes of faith and ecclesiastical matters pertain to the cognizance of the just ecclesiastical order: they did not acknowledge as supreme the tribunal of the Roman Pontiff, of whom they did not even make mention. The testimonies of the Fathers are either impertinent, because they do not acknowledge

the supreme judgment of the Roman Pontiff; or they come from those who lived when the ages were already most corrupt and imbibed the error of their own age, as is the testimony of Anselm and Bernard. Lastly, when Bellarmine is going to prove his opinion by reason, he first uses this premunition: God was not ignorant that many difficulties would arise in the Church concerning the faith; therefore he ought to have provided some judge for the Church. I answer: We shall not quarrel about words; yet Bellarmine would have spoken more rightly that God did not will to leave the Church without a judge. Then he subjoins a reason, which ought to be concluded by a syllogism of this sort. The supreme Judge of the interpretations of Scripture and of controversies of religion is either Holy Scripture, or a private revealing spirit, or a secular Prince, or finally an Ecclesiastical Prince, either alone or certainly with the counsel and consent of his fellow-bishops; nor can there be given another to whom this judgment should pertain. But Holy Scripture cannot be that supreme judge, nor a private revealing spirit, nor a secular Prince. Therefore an Ecclesiastical Prince, either alone or certainly with the counsel and consent of his fellow-bishops. I answer: The major is denied, because it is false on account of an insufficient enumeration, in which Bellarmine omits God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit speaking publicly through Holy Scripture, and interpreting his own words, and resolving controversies of religion - who determines controversies of religion by Scripture no less than a Prince, than an earthly King, determines the political suits of his subjects by rescripts. And that God is the supreme interpreter and judge of controversies of religion has been proved above; nor do the orthodox Fathers acknowledge another, as has been shown in the Catholick Symphony. But Bellarmine, as though he had made a sufficient enumeration in his major and so need not at all labor further on it, attempts to prove in order all the members of the assumption. First, that Scripture is not a judge, he tries to establish by the following arguments: I. Scripture takes on various senses, nor can it itself say which is true: Therefore it is not a judge. I answer: First, there is a sin of ignoratio elenchi: for what ought to have been proved is that Scripture is not the supreme judge, which we grant of our own accord; but Bellarmine simply proves that Scripture is not a judge, as if it were not even an instrumental or ministerial judge. Then both members of the antecedent are denied. For Scripture has only one sense in any place, and that literal, it receives only one, not various; although men either out of inexperience or malice attach to it various senses. Then Scripture can itself say which is the true sense: because it can make a man wise unto eternal salvation. I. In every well-constituted and ordered commonwealth, the law and the judge are distinct things. For the law teaches what is to be done, and the judge interprets the law, and according to it directs men. Therefore also in the Church Scripture and the judge are distinguished, so that Scripture is one thing, the judge another.

I answer: Bellarmine sins by the fallacy of false opposites. For law and judge on the one hand, and Scripture and judge on the other, are not opposed in the same way. For in one way the law is a judge, in another way the magistrate: the former indeed to the magistrate by showing the right of each cause; the latter to the litigant parties by declaring that right from the law. So in one way Scripture is judge, in another way the Church or Synod of Bishops: for Scripture is judge as the voice of God; the Church or Synod of Bishops is judge, herald, and minister of God and of Scripture. III. There is a question about the interpretation of Scripture: but it cannot interpret itself: Therefore it is not a judge. I answer: It is false that Scripture cannot interpret itself: for it interprets itself by itself, and by its interpreters. Why not? Do not the Apostles interpret the Prophets? Does not Paul interpret Matthew or the other Evangelists? And Peter Paul? For what is more frequent in the commentaries of Ambrose, Augustine, and the other Fathers than that one sacred author is interpreted by another, so that from the collation of various places they draw out the true sense? See the Catholick Symphony in the first chapter, thesis five. Bellarmine replies: If the true sense of Scripture could be drawn from the collation of places, especially by those skilled in languages, then interpreters would agree among themselves. But they do not agree: for example, the words of Christ, “This is my body,” are interpreted one way by the Lutherans, another way by the Zwinglians - both parties skilled in languages - and hitherto they have never been able to agree in the explanation. Therefore from the collation of places of Scripture the true sense cannot be drawn. I answer: The fallacy of accident is committed in the assumption: for that interpreters do not always, nor all, agree, is something incidental, from the fault of men without any fault of Holy Scripture: the impious mind hates understanding itself, and man, sometimes with a mind too perverse, fears to understand, lest he be forced to do what he has understood. Moreover, it is unjust, yea impious, on account of the fault of men to take away from divine Scripture the authority of interpreting itself: indeed to take away from God, who in his Scripture, in his Testament, sets forth his will, the authority of declaring himself. Bellarmine in truth judges just as if from a most accurately written and authentic testament, on account of the diverse interpretation of the litigating parties, the mind of the testator were not to be known. Augustine stops Bellarmine’s mouth, thus saying in volume 10, On the Words of the Lord, sermon 2: Let the Lord himself be present, who also was speaking in his servant and Apostle, and let him open to us his will, and grant the capacity of obeying. For the very words of the Gospel carry their own expositions with them, nor do they shut the mouths of the hungry, because they feed the hearts of those who knock. And in volume 7, in the book On the Unity of the Church, chapter 5: This also I preach and propose, that we choose whatever things are open and manifest: For if these were not found in the holy Scriptures, there would by no means be whence closed things should be opened and obscure things should be made bright. Likewise Optatus of Milevis, who says: He whose Testament it is is in heaven; therefore let his will be inquired, as in a testament, so in the Gospel. For the things present, which you now do, Christ had already beheld as future.

Instance: If some say and reject that the interpretations of others are false, as the Zwinglians those of the Lutherans, and in turn the Lutherans those of the Zwinglians, and yet all say that they follow Holy Scripture: who will be the judge? I answer: God himself speaking through the Scriptures and opening his will to us through the Prophets and the Apostles. For what is more frequent in Scripture than, “Thus says the Lord,” and “Jesus says”? Against insidious errors God willed to set a firmament in the Scriptures, against which no one dares to speak who in any way wishes to be seen as a Christian, says Augustine in volume nine, the second Tractate on the Epistle of John. Another instance: But what if they do not yet think the same? I answer: Let them bear with and tolerate one another, until God shall have revealed his truth to the erring party: nevertheless, in that to which they have attained, let them walk by the same rule and be of the same mind, Phil. 3:15 - 16. Secondly, that a private spirit is not a judge, Bellarmine endeavors to demonstrate by the following arguments: I. A judge ought to be seen and heard by each of the litigating parties; because such are those who contend, namely bodily men - for if we were spirits, perhaps the judgment of a spirit would suffice. But a private Spirit cannot be seen and heard by each of the litigating parties: Therefore a private spirit cannot be a judge: Answer. First, Bellarmine plays odiously upon the equivocation in the word “spirit.” For if he means a private revelation such as the Enthusiasts and Anabaptists boast of, and any who seek the decision of controversies outside the Scripture of the Holy Spirit, he has no opponents in us. But if he means the Holy Spirit who works all things, distributing to each as he wills, as is said in 1 Corinthians 12:11, and who teaches individual believers, even private persons, about all things, 1 John 2:27, then he is an adversary of the Holy Spirit. For one and the same Holy Spirit teaches both public and private persons, and to both he reveals his truth; and what he judges publicly in Holy Scripture, that same thing he confirms privately in the hearts of the faithful. Whoever denies this does not have the Spirit of Christ, but the spirit of this world. Second, the major premise is denied; for not even in bodily controversies is this always true, that the judge ought to be seen and heard by each of the litigating parties. For a judge, especially the supreme one - such as an emperor, king, or prince - is not always bodily present to the litigating parties, but can also answer by a short note, or by a rescript, or through some interpreter, as the practice of all empires, kingdoms, and principalities attests. Nay, the Roman Pontiff does the same, and by decretal letters or apostolic briefs (which are for the most part treacherous to churches and commonwealths, as shoals are to ships at sea) he sets forth his sentence and adjudges causes. Third, the proof of the major scarcely stands a hair’s breadth away from blasphemy. Bellarmine says: Such as contend are, namely, bodily men. For if we were spirits, perhaps the judgment of a spirit would suffice. What - would perhaps suffice? The judgment of that Spirit who created our spirits, does it not suffice for us, because we are composed of body and spirit? God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth, John 4:24. When the heart shall have

turned itself to the Lord, that veil will be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where that Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Lord the Spirit, 2 Corinthians 3:16 - 18. The things of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things which God has graciously given to us. Which also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom but taught by the Holy Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, 1 Corinthians 2:12 - 13. Whoever is not satisfied with the judgment of this Spirit is truly fleshly and plainly natural. But the natural man is not capable of the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged, 1 Corinthians 2:14; that is, with the Holy Spirit enlightening the mind and granting saving understanding, and furnishing the skill of judging. II. In the temporal commonwealth all men have the true natural light by which the law was framed, and which suffices for explaining it; and yet the interpretation of the law is never permitted to the private judgment of each and every person; and if it were permitted, the commonwealth could not long endure. How much less, then, is the interpretation of Scripture to be permitted to the judgment of each and every person, since not all have that true supernatural light by which Scripture was framed, and which is necessary for rightly understanding it? Answer. Bellarmine sins by the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi. For he ought to have proved that a private spirit, that is, a spirit revealing to each private person, cannot be the supreme judge (for now the question is about the supreme judge); but with this argument he concludes that the interpretation of Scripture is not to be permitted to each one’s judgment. A conclusion foreign to the present controversy, and one that enviously and treacherously confounds things that are distinct. Therefore let us repeat our opinion, distinctly set forth: God himself is the supreme Judge of controversies of religion, and the Lawgiver in the Church; the Scripture, which is the law given by God to the Church, is a ministerial judge as the voice of God; those who teach in the Church by public authority, namely endowed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit and publicly called, are not judges of the true sense of Scripture, but only reporters and interpreters; no greater honor can be given to them in the Church than that they be interpreters of the divine will; but of human interpretations and controversies they are judges, judging them out of Holy Scripture, as ministers of God and of divine Scripture, to render an account of their administration to Christ the supreme Shepherd. Private persons judge of human interpretations by the common judgment of the faithful, all as the sheep of Christ, discerning the saving pasture of Christ from hemlock, from the poison of Antichrist, obeying the apostolic precept, “I speak as to the intelligent; you judge what I say”; “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”; “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God.” III. A judge ought to have coercive authority, otherwise his judgment would be of no use; but a private man has no such authority; therefore a private man cannot be a judge.

Answer. Again Bellarmine sins by ignoratio elenchi. For the question now is not whether a private person can be a judge, but whether he can be the supreme judge. No private person, indeed no public person, nay not even the universal Church, can be the supreme judge of human interpretations of Scripture and of controversies of religion. Then we deny the major premise understood universally; understood particularly it is true: a judge, namely a public one, endowed with a public calling for inquiring into and adjudging controversies, ought to have coercive authority, but that authority limited and circumscribed according to the mode of his calling. So understood we grant the major; for we acknowledge in the Church the order of judgments and authority instituted by God himself. But that tyrannical or despotic authority which the Pope and the papist bishops aspire to and at this time exercise, since it is contrary to Holy Scripture, we rightly disapprove and reject. Third, we distinguish coercive authority into bodily and spiritual, external and internal. Bodily and external coercion belongs to the magistrate and the political judge; spiritual and internal to the Holy Spirit, who by his word and power so constrains the minds of those who contradict the truth that they assent to it; in which matter often even unlearned and simple men are the external ministers of the Holy Spirit. For in the primitive Christian Church the Holy Spirit led very many to the faith of the Gospel through the Apostles, who were unlearned men and laymen, as is said of them in Acts 4:13. What external coercive authority was there? The same is confirmed by the example of an unlearned, simple, and unskilled old man, who in the Council of Nicaea the first converted by a brief speech a certain notable philosopher, whom none of the most learned bishops could constrain, to the faith of Christ, as Eusebius reports in book ten of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter three. And what external coercive authority did Paphnutius have, when he was advising and persuading the whole Council that marriage was not to be forbidden to bishops and presbyters and deacons of the Church? Did he not by the authority of a single passage of Scripture constrain them? IV. Very many are so rude and unskilled that they themselves confess they are in no way able to judge of questions of faith, and yet even they can be saved; therefore it is not necessary that all should judge. Answer. Bellarmine delights in the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, because neither does this argument of his contain a just contradiction, but proves and concludes something other than what he now ought. He ought to have proved that a private spirit is not the supreme judge, in which matter he has no opponents in us. Why then, after the manner of the Andabatae, does he fight without an adversary and vainly beat the air? And who contends that to all should be granted public authority of judging of doctrines? V. If this revealing private spirit were the judge, the way to the conversion of heretics would be blocked, nor could any controversy ever be brought to an end. For there is no heretic who does not boast a spirit, and who does not set his own spirit before the spirits of others; and just as in 2 Chronicles 18, when the prophet of the Lord Micaiah said that he spoke in the name of the Lord, but that the false prophets were actuated by a spirit of falsehood, Zedekiah the false prophet

answered him: “And by what way did the Spirit of the Lord pass from me to speak to you?” so if a Catholic were to say, “The spirit thus reveals to me,” the heretic would answer, “And by what way,” etc. Answer. This argument does not pertain to us, but to the Enthusiasts, whose patronage we do not undertake. The third member of Bellarmine’s assumption is, that the secular prince is not a judge; and he strives to prove this by several arguments, but continually commits the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi. He ought to have proved that the secular prince is not the supreme judge of interpretations of Scripture and of controversies of religion; for the controversy now is about the supreme judge; but he always simply concludes that the secular prince is not a judge. Now we have already several times distinguished the order of judgments concerning religion, so that there is no need of repetition; but we conclude that neither by the testimonies of Holy Scripture, nor by the practice of the orthodox Church, nor by the testimonies of popes, emperors, and fathers, nor by reason can it be proved that the Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge of interpretations of Holy Scripture and of controversies of religion. Thus far concerning the interpretation of Holy Scripture; there remains the matter of its perfection.

When the perfection of Sacred Scripture is treated, three questions chiefly are agitated. I. Whether Sacred Scripture is perfect. II. Whether there are now any truly divine traditions not written. III. Whether those are now necessary besides Scripture. To the first question, which we shall treat in this chapter, this is the answer. We say that Sacred Scripture is perfect. But that our meaning may be rightly perceived, we do not mean this, that all the sermons of the Prophets, of Christ, and of the Apostles are recorded in just so many words as they were delivered, or that all the deeds of the Prophets, of Christ, and of the Apostles are written out; for the passages would be contradicted, John 20. v. 30, 31: “Now Jesus also did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, you may have life in his name.” And ch. 21. v. 25: “Now there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they were written one by one, not even the world itself, I suppose, would contain the books that would be written.” Nor do we mean this, that the whole doctrine of faith and morals is set forth expressly, that is, distinctly and in just so many words, in Scripture as it is expounded in the Symbols and Confessions of the Church; because many things are rightly believed and done which do not stand expressly and in just so many letters and words in Sacred Scripture, but which nevertheless are gathered and concluded from those things which are expressly contained by a necessary and good consequence: for example, that God is one in essence and three in persons; that the Son of God is consubstantial with the Father; that the holy Catholic Church is to be believed. For although these and the like are

not written out in Scripture of the Prophets and Apostles in just so many letters and syllables, yet as to the sense they are there, and they follow from those things which are expressly written by a good and necessary consequence. But this is our judgment: that Sacred Scripture is sufficient to make a man wise unto salvation, that it sufficiently contains and delivers all the doctrines which are necessary for us unto eternal salvation, both as to faith and Responsio. First, Bellarmine plays odiously upon the equivocation in the word “spirit.” For if he understands a private revelation such as the Enthusiasts and Anabaptists boast of, and whoever, outside Scripture, seek the decision of controversies by the Holy Spirit, he has not us as adversaries. But if he understands the Holy Spirit who works all things, dividing to each as he wills, as it is said 1 Corinthians 12. v. 11, and who teaches each of the faithful, even private persons, concerning all things, 1 John 2. v. 27, then the Holy Spirit is his adversary. For one and the same Holy Spirit teaches both public and private men, and reveals his truth to both; and what he judges publicly in Sacred Scripture, that very thing he confirms privately in the hearts of the faithful. Whoever denies this does not have the Spirit of Christ, but the spirit of this world. Secondly, the major proposition is denied: for not even in bodily controversies is this always true, that it ought with respect to good works; and indeed it contains and delivers very many things expressly and in so many words, but certain others by good and necessary consequence. And to express our judgment by the saying of AUGUSTINE which is found in book two On Christian Doctrine, chapter nine: In those things which are set forth plainly in Scripture are found ALL those things which contain faith and the manners of living. In which saying, “plainly” does not signify “expressly” or “in so many words,” but is equivalent to “perspicuously, clearly, manifestly, not obscurely.” The dogmas necessary for eternal salvation are those which God wills to be taught to all without exception, so that ignorance of them is damnable: of which sort are the principles of religion, likewise the articles of faith, the precepts of the Moral Law; by which it is prescribed what we must believe for salvation, and what we must do for worshiping God according to his will. That Holy Scripture is perfect, we establish by the following arguments: First: Because it was written by the public and faithful clerks of God and the Church - actuaries, notaries, and scriveners - who surely, according to their faith, by the Holy Spirit have set forth sufficiently, perfectly, and integrally the will of God toward us, and our duty toward God, and have handed it down, consigned to the monuments of letters, to the whole Church for all posterity. If they did not do so, where is the trust in them? If they did, what trust is there in those Christians who do not acquiesce in the Scripture of the notaries chosen and inspired by God himself? Second: Whatever can, in a divine manner and infallibly, as the first truth revealed by God, make a man wise unto salvation - that is perfect. But Holy Scripture can do that, 2 Tim. 3. v. 15. Therefore it is perfect.

Third: Whatever is divinely inspired and useful for doctrine, for refutation, for correction, for instruction, in order that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work - that certainly is perfect. For that which is not itself perfect can make no man perfect for refutation, for correction, and for instruction. But Holy Scripture is divinely inspired and useful for doctrine, etc., as the Apostle Paul testifies, 2 Tim. 3. v. 16, 17, “All Scripture,” etc. Therefore it too is perfect. The Romanists commonly raise an exception, that this passage of Paul has been corrupted by Beza’s bad translation: for in the Greek it is πᾶσα γραφή (“pasa graphe,” every/all Scripture): therefore it should be translated, “Every Scripture.” Then, that Paul is speaking in this place only of the Old Testament: therefore not of the whole Holy Scripture. Reply. First, this exception touches neither heaven nor earth: for it avails nothing either against the form or against the matter of the argument. For what does this exception either deny or distinguish - whether the consequence, or some of the premises? Neither, surely. It seems to answer to the proof of the assumption; but the assumption is that of the Apostle Paul, and among Christians needs no proof, but only an indication of the place where it stands. Next we deny that Paul’s passage has been corrupted by Beza’s translation. For the Greek word πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν (“pas, pasa, pan”) sometimes signifies universality, sometimes totality. When it signifies universality, it is rightly rendered in Latin “omnis, omne,” as what is read John 3. v. 15, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν µὴ ἀπόληται, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον, which is rightly rendered: “That every one who believes in him should not perish, but should have eternal life.” But when it denotes totality, it is rendered in Latin “totus, tota, totum”: just as in this proverb, ἥµισυ πλέον τοῦ παντός (“hēmisy pleon tou pantos”), for it is rendered in Latin, “The half is more than the whole,” that is, than the entire. So Ephes. 4. v. 6, πᾶν τὸ σῶµα, is rightly expounded “the whole body,” as the Latin Vulgate has it; and Matt. 8. v. 32, πᾶσα ἡ ἀγέλη, “the whole herd.” So also in this place, πᾶσα γραφή is the same as ὅλη γραφή (“holē graphē”): therefore it is rightly rendered “the whole Scripture”; because Paul does not mean “every,” that is, any sort of writing whatsoever, as there is that of Plato, Aristotle, etc., to be “God- breathed” (θεόπνευστος, theopneustos). But if it be rendered “every,” it must be restricted to the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture. Moreover, it is false that Paul speaks only of the Old Testament; rather he treats of the whole Scripture, and therefore understands the New Testament also, as is manifest both from the words in v. 15, “Through faith which is in Christ Jesus” - for the New Testament teaches that we should believe Jesus to be the Christ, of whom the Old Testament foretold - and because most books of the New Testament already existed; for Paul wrote this when the time of his departure was at hand, as is clear from the sixth verse of the following chapter; and because Paul by no means excluded his own epistles from the number of the Holy Scriptures. But granted (though not conceded) that Paul speaks only of the Old Testament, nevertheless our argument holds, indeed it comes out much stronger. For if the Old Testament can perfect the man of God, much more will the whole Scripture do that. Likewise, if Scripture can perfect the man of God, that is, the minister of the word of God, the Christian Doctor, then much more will it suffice for a layman, and will perfect him.

Bellarmine answers two things: first he grants that Scripture sufficiently instructs and perfects the man of God; but he grants it with a restriction, because it contains many things expressly; and what it does not contain, it shows whence they are to be sought. Then what he had granted with a restriction, he presently again denies and takes away the whole: “I say,” he says, “that Paul in that place does not attribute even this sufficiency to Scripture.” Our reply: First, we deny the restriction added to the concession, because the restriction is false: for Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation, some written expressly, others as things necessarily consequent upon those which are written expressly. But things necessarily inferred from Scripture are all one with those which are written expressly. Then the restriction obliquely nullifies and takes away the concession: for if Scripture contains only many things but not all things, then Scripture does not sufficiently instruct, nor perfect the man of God. But it does perfect; therefore it is perfect. Second, what Bellarmine obliquely takes away by the restriction, the same he soon directly does, and even the restricted sufficiency he removes from Scripture, contradicting the Apostle expressly teaching that Scripture is useful, “that the man of God may be perfect” (ἄρτιος, artios), “perfectly equipped for every good work” (ἐξηρτισµένος, exērtismenos). He doubles down, and the Sophist tries to strengthen his denial by the following sophisms, which are gathered from his confused and irrational (ἀλόγῳ, alogō) disputation.

Our triple response. We deny the assumed consequence, because the Sophist plays upon a homonymy. For sufficiency is twofold, either that of the whole, or that of a part. The whole Scripture is sufficient with an essential sufficiency diffused through the individual books; but the individual books are sufficient with the sufficiency of parts, to which they are ordered. Just as the whole man has his essential sufficiency pervading the single parts in a manner suitable to them, and likewise the single parts of man have their sufficiency in the whole, each exhibiting the perfect uses for which they are ordered. The individual books do not suffice, to be sure, with the essential sufficiency of the whole; yet the same do suffice with their particular sufficiency to which they have been ordered by God. But what does Logic teach - that from the fact that the sufficiency of the whole does not belong to the single parts, one should take away from the whole itself the sufficiency of the whole? If a skilled physician has prescribed to a sick man, as a sufficient remedy for due purgation, three ounces of some potion, if one drachm or one ounce does not suffice for completing the purgation, would you from that rightly conclude that not even the full three ounces would suffice?

etc., and hence for perfecting and completing a man, but yet that it profits and helps for all these things.

Our triple response. First, by the fallacy of division the Sophist tries to elude our argumentation, which will remain firm forever: for he snatches only the middle words of the Apostolic saying, and separates them from the preceding and following, whereas we argue from the whole sentence of the Apostle, not from only its middle part. The Apostle teaches that the end of divinely inspired Scripture is that it should perfect the man of God; but the means, as it were the offices, by which Scripture perfects the man of God, are set forth by the Apostle as four: doctrine, refutation, correction, and instruction, under which consolation also is comprehended, which elsewhere is expressly named. But who is so insane as to assert that divinely inspired Scripture neither perfectly performs its office nor attains its end? Second, he vainly denies the consequence of our argumentation by the instance or objection of an example taken from food: for the example is plainly dissimilar. For Holy Scripture is a perfect instrument and the only one appointed by divine ordination, that by it we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, that Son of God, and that, believing, we may have that perfect life in his name, John 20. v. 31. But food is an imperfect instrument and not the only one for nourishing our body unto this wretched and imperfect life. Bodily life is sustained both by things implanted in us and by external things: implanted, such as the soul, natural heat, radical moisture, the various organs of the body; external, such as food and drink, air, sleep, rest, and others. Spiritual life is sustained by other things given by grace, namely the Spirit of Christ, the gift of the Spirit similar to natural heat, saving faith as an internal instrument; but the other external instrument is the word of God, by which God begets faith in us, Rom. 10. v. 17, which, first preached, then written, has been handed down to the Church, that it might be the foundation of faith. Now this alone is the external instrument, from the hearing of which is faith; when we say “this alone,” we exclude all other things which might be contrived by man. Thomas Aquinas, in his explication of this place, refutes Bellarmine. He shows (namely, the Apostle does) that the sacred letters are the way to salvation, and he posits three things: for he commends the Scriptures by reason of their principle, by reason of their useful effect, and by reason of their ultimate fruit and progress. For if you consider their principle, they have a privilege above all others: because others are delivered by human reason; but Holy Scripture is divine and divinely inspired, 2 Pet. 1: “For prophecy was not at any time brought by the will of man; but holy men of God spoke, being inspired by the Holy Spirit.” Job 32: “The inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding.” But you will say, How is all Scripture divinely inspired, since according to Ambrose every truth, by whomsoever it is said, is from the Holy Spirit? It must be said that God works something in a twofold way, namely immediately, as his own proper work, like miracles; and something by means of inferior causes, as natural works. Job 10: “Thy hands, O Lord, have made me,” etc., which nevertheless are done by the operation of nature. And so in man he instructs the intellect, both immediately by the sacred letters, and mediately by other writings. The effect of this Scripture is twofold, namely, because it teaches to know the truth, and urges to work righteousness. John 14: “The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, will teach” - namely the things to be known; “he will suggest” the things to be done. And therefore it is useful for knowing the truth; and

it is useful for directing in action. For there is the speculative reason, and there is also the practical reason; and in each there are two necessities, namely, that it should know the truth and refute errors. For this is the work of the wise man, namely, not to lie and to refute the liar. As to the first he says, “It is useful for teaching,” namely the truth: Psalm: “Teach me goodness and discipline and knowledge,” etc. Likewise for “refuting,” as to the second, Tit. 1: “That he may be able to exhort in doctrine.” sound, and to refute those who contradict. Likewise, as regards the practical, there are two necessities, namely, that it should bring back from evil and lead to good: Psalm: “Turn away from evil and do good,” etc. As to the first he says: “For correction,” that is, to reprove from evil, Matthew 18: “If your brother shall have sinned against you, go and reprove him between you and him alone,” etc. Job 5: “Blessed is the man whom the Lord reproves.” As to the second he says: “For instruction in righteousness.” And Holy Scripture does all these things, Isaiah 8: “With a strong hand he instructed me,” etc. Thus there is a fourfold effect of Holy Scripture: namely, to teach truth and to refute falsehood with respect to the speculative; to reprove from evil and to lead to good with respect to the practical. Its last effect is that it should bring men to perfection. For it does not effect a good in any sort of way, but perfects: Hebrews 6: “Let us be borne on to perfection.” And he says, “that the man of God may be perfect,” because a man cannot be perfect unless he be a man of God. For that is perfect to which nothing is lacking. Then therefore a man is perfect when he is made ready for every good work. With this agrees St. Basil the Great, in the Questions explained in brief, question ninety-eight, when he says: With what mind and prudence ought a ruler to be endowed in those things which he prescribes or establishes? RESPONSE. Toward God indeed, as a minister of Christ and a steward of the mysteries of God, fearing lest he say or dispose anything beyond the will of God confessed in the Scriptures, and be found a false witness of GOD, or a sacrilegious person, in that he either introduces something foreign to the Lord’s doctrine, or leaves aside anything that is pleasing to God. Wherefore St. Gregory the Great, on Job, book eighteen, chapter fourteen, says: He who prepares himself for the words of true preaching must needs take the origins of causes from the Holy Scriptures, so that everything he says he may refer back to the foundation of divine authority, and on it may he establish the building of his discourse. Thus this is our third argument for the perfection of Holy Scripture. FOURTH: Whatever alone brings us to that sufficiency than which none can be better and more salutary for us, that assuredly is perfect. But what other sufficiency do we seek than that we may rightly know and possess God, and Jesus Christ whom he sent, who is self-sufficient, not to speak of being sufficient for all others, the one? But the divine Scripture alone brings us to this sufficiency; as it is said Isaiah 8: “To the law and to the testimony: if anyone does not speak according to this word, there shall be no morning light for him.” Luke 16:29: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.” And verse 31: “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise

from the dead,” as if he were saying: This alone is the external instrument by which they will be led to God and to eternal salvation. John 14:23, Jesus said: “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and we will make our dwelling with him.” Thus the external instrument by which we are brought to communion with God and with our Savior Jesus Christ is the word of Christ - surely no other than that which has been written down in Holy Scripture. FIFTH: That to which nothing is to be added by us - nay, not even by the very angels - assuredly is perfect. To Holy Scripture nothing is to be added by us, nay, not even by angels: therefore it is perfect. The assumption is proved from the following testimonies, by which God forbids us to add anything to his Scripture. Deuteronomy 4:2: “You shall not add to the word which I command you.” Proverbs 30:5 - 6: “Every word of God is refined; he is a shield to those who hope in him. Do not add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Galatians 1:8 - 9: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you besides what we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so now I say again: if anyone preaches a gospel to you besides what you received, let him be accursed.” Revelation 22:18: “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will lay upon him the plagues written in this book.” Bellarmine takes exception to most of the testimonies adduced: we shall see the exceptions and to each we shall reply. Against the first testimony he objects that it does not treat of the written word, but of what is handed down by living voice, because it does not say, “Do not add to the word which I wrote,” but “which I command.” Then that its sense is that the commands of God are to be kept entire, and in no way to be depraved by a false interpretation; otherwise the Prophets and Apostles would have sinned, who afterwards added so many things. OUR REPLY: First, the first testimony treats of the word of God considered as to its substance, which is always one and the same and remains so, whether spoken by living voice or written: for the one and the same word of God which at the beginning was delivered by living voice, was afterwards comprehended by Moses in writing. Hence the argument is inconsequent, when, one mode of the word of God being affirmed, the other - which follows upon the former - is denied; nor does the one take away the other, but they can be conjoined, and so they are only diverse, not however opposed. Now that the alleged testimony treats of the word of God as to its substance, both as written and as delivered by living voice, is manifest from this, that the very same Decalogue God himself wrote which previously he had promulgated by living voice; nor did Moses commend to the people any other word than that which he embraced in writing in the book of the Law delivered to the Levites, Deuteronomy 31:24 - 26. Truly ridiculous is Bellarmine’s reason, that Moses does not say, “to the word which I wrote,” but “which I command.” For are not the ten precepts which God wrote with his own finger the very word which he himself commanded? The same must be judged of the rest of the Law. Then the Sophist perverts the words of Moses by a

false interpretation: for this precept, “Do not add to the word,” he restricts to the entire keeping of God’s precepts and to avoiding the depraving of them by a false interpretation; whereas it is manifest that every human addition whatsoever is also forbidden. As regards the Prophets and Apostles, they added nothing to the word of God; but God himself, whose word they consigned to letters: if they had added anything of their own, then they would have sinned. But God gave a law to us, not to himself. Then God added nothing to the books of Moses as to the substance of doctrine, but only illustrated and declared the doctrine delivered in the books of Moses in other Prophetic and Apostolic books. Against the testimony of Paul, Galatians 1:8, Bellarmine takes two exceptions: first, that Paul is not speaking of the written word alone, but of every word whether written or handed down by living voice; second, that “besides” is to the Apostle the same as “against,” and therefore he does not forbid new dogmas, provided they are not contrary to what has already been delivered. OUR REPLY: First, even if Paul were speaking of every word, whether written or handed down by living voice, yet meanwhile it remains certain that that same word was written by the Apostle Paul and the other Apostles which they themselves preached by living voice. If they had preached one gospel and written another, then God (far be it) would have deceived, and his notaries would have deceived. Therefore no other dogmas of faith besides those which are contained in the Scriptures are to be taught. St. John Chrysostom, expressly expounding this place of Paul in his exposition of the epistle to the Galatians, shows that this is Paul’s meaning, when he says: (Now when I say Paul, I say Christ himself - for it was he who guided that man’s mind) that even to angels descending from heaven the Scriptures are to be preferred, and that very fittingly: since however great the angels may be, nevertheless they are servants and ministers; but all the Scriptures did not come to us from servants, but from the Lord God of all. Second, “besides” and “against” are not equivalent: for “besides” extends more widely than “against,” as is seen from these words of Bernard, which are extant in the second book of the Consideration to Eugene: “Against your own salvation think nothing. I have said less, ‘against’; I ought to have said ‘besides’.” Not even the Apostles themselves afterwards taught dogmas different as to substance from what at the beginning they were teaching and afterwards comprehended in writing; although the Holy Spirit through them afterwards added more epistles and more books to the former. The same gospel is in the later writings of the Apostles as in the earlier: besides that they neither announced nor wrote another. Vincent of Lérins explains this excellently in his little book against the profane novelties of heresies, chapter twelve: “When therefore certain men of such a sort, making the rounds of provinces and cities, and peddling their venal errors, had even come to the Galatians; and when, upon hearing them, the Galatians, affected with a kind of nausea for the truth, vomiting up the manna of Apostolic and Catholic doctrine, were taking delight in the filth of heretical novelty: thus did the authority of Apostolic power exercise itself, that with the highest severity it decreed: ‘But even if we,’ he says, ‘or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than what we preached to you, let him be accursed.’ What is this that he says, ‘But even if we’? Why not rather, ‘but even if I’? That is, even if Peter, even if Andrew, even if John, even if at last the whole chorus of the Apostles should preach a gospel to you other than what we

preached, let him be accursed. A tremendous discrimination, for the asserting of tenacity to the first faith, that he spared neither himself nor his fellow-apostles. It is not enough: ‘Even if an Angel,’ he says, ‘from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than what we preached: let him be accursed.’ It had not sufficed, for the guarding of the faith once delivered, to have mentioned the nature of human condition, unless he had also included the excellence of the angelic; ‘Even if we,’ he says, ‘or an Angel from heaven.’ Not that the holy and heavenly angels can now sin, but this is what he says: If even, he says, that should happen which cannot happen, whoever it be that attempts to change the faith once delivered: let him be accursed,” etc. Against the testimony of Revelation 22:18 Bellarmine objects that John there forbids the corruption of that book, not however that other books be written or other dogmas be delivered; otherwise he would have fought against himself, who wrote the Gospel after the Apocalypse. Our reply. First, the prohibition of corruption pertains commonly to all and each of the sacred books. Now what is common to all the books is thus affirmed of any one, that it is by no means denied of the others. Then the Apostle John, who outlived all the Apostles, with an apostolic and indeed divine closing sealed the Canon of Holy Scripture, and exterminated all other things, lest it should be permitted to any Council, or to the Church, or to an angel, or to the whole world, under a divine pretext to add anything to or take anything away from the word of God. Wherefore the divine Canon, last sealed by John, no man and no angel can augment, diminish, or change. This sacred denunciation, verses 18 and 19, is a common seal of all the books: whence the perfection and fullness of Scripture is gathered by Tertullian, in the book against Hermogenes, chapter 22: “I adore the fullness of Scripture.” And soon after: “But whether all things were made out of some underlying matter, I have nowhere yet read. Let the workshop of Hermogenes teach that it is written. If it is not written, let him fear that woe which is destined for those who add or take away.” John Duns Scotus, Prologue on the Sentences, question three, folio ten, column two, in the Venetian edition of the year 1506: Just as the theology of the blessed has a terminus, so too does ours, by the will of God revealing. But the terminus marked out by the divine will with respect to general revelation is that of the things which are in Holy Scripture; for thus it is held in the last chapter of the Apocalypse: Whoever shall add to these things, etc. Therefore our theology in fact is only about those things which are contained in Scripture, and about those things which can be drawn out from the same. Thus was the fifth argument for the perfection of Holy Scripture. Sixth: From Holy Scripture one can receive a complete and firm rule of truth, as is in Canon Law itself, Distinction 37, chapter Relatum. Seventh: Holy Scripture is the substance of the high priesthood: Distinction 32, chapter Omnes psallentes. Eighth: From Holy Scripture alone Christ, the Apostles, and the true Christians who followed them, in the instruction of the faithful, drew forth testimonies for confirming the dogmas of faith and the worship of God, Luke 24:27, 32, 44: And beginning from Moses and all the Prophets, he

interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things that had been written concerning himself. Then the one said to the other, Was not our heart burning within us, while he was speaking to us on the road and while he was opening to us the Scriptures? And he said to them, These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms concerning me. Acts 26:22: But, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day, testifying both to small and great, saying nothing outside of those things which the Prophets and Moses foretold would come to pass. The Apostle Peter and the other Apostles said nothing without Holy Scripture, as Clement of Alexandria reports in book six of the Stromata. St. Augustine, tome seven, in the book On the Unity of the Church, chapter three, says: Let those things be removed from our midst which we recite against one another, not from the divine canonical books, but from elsewhere. Ninth: To Holy Scripture alone the faithful required all doctrine about religion, Acts 15:15 - 16. Tenth: Holy Scripture is the instrument of the covenant initiated between God and men: it is the testament of God. Now if it is imperfect, either it is such from God, or from the Prophets and Apostles, his public notaries. Not from God: because it is by no means probable that God willed to hand down to us imperfect tablets of his covenant and testament. Not from the Prophets and Apostles, because they acted in good faith, and they concealed nothing of the things which God commanded and inspired in them. Eleventh: If the Catholic Creed itself, a brief and perfect confession which is marked by as many sentences as there are twelve Apostles, is so furnished with heavenly fortification that all the opinions of heretics can be hewn down by the sword of it, as Leo the Great writes in the letter to Pulcheria Augusta, which is number thirteen in the first tome of the Councils: much more can all the opinions of heretics be hewn down by the sword of Holy Scripture alone. If such is the fullness of the Apostles’ Creed as Leo the Great proclaims, how much more is that of Holy Scripture, from which the Apostles’ Creed has been drawn forth, as from a most well-stocked storehouse! To these arguments are added testimonies of the orthodox Fathers, which may be seen in tympho via nostra Catholica, chapter one, thesis two, three, and eight. Some of our arguments have been recited, by which we confirm the perfection and sufficiency of Holy Scripture. The Papists’ objections, by which they attack the perfection and sufficiency of Holy Scripture, must now be considered and refuted. First: Either the whole Canon of the Scriptures taken together is sufficient, or the individual books by themselves are sufficient. But the individual books are not sufficient, both because the individual ones do not contain all things; for John wrote nothing about the Annunciation, Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany of the Lord, and many other things; the same can be said of the others: since if one book contained all things sufficiently, what

need was there of so many books? Nor is the whole Canon taken together sufficient, because many books truly sacred and canonical have perished. Therefore Holy Scripture is not perfect and sufficient. Answer: That dilemma is vicious. First, it labors under the fallacy of homonymy in the disjunction: for there is a sufficiency of its own belonging to the whole Canon, and a sufficiency of its own belonging to the individual books in the Canon; just as in any thing composed of many parts there is a sufficiency of its own in the whole, and a sufficiency of its own in the parts within the whole. Therefore we distinguish: The individual books are not sufficient, namely with the sufficiency of the whole Canon, but they nevertheless have their own sufficiency within the whole Canon. They are sufficient by their essential perfection, although, insofar as they are integral parts of the Canon, they do not have the sufficiency of the whole Canon, but their own. The individual books do not contain all those things in their entirety, in quantity, which the whole Canon taken together contains: this we freely grant. Second, it is false that the whole Canon taken together is not sufficient. Third, it is denied that many books truly Sacred and Canonical, that is, which were given by God for the authority of religion, have perished. Bellarmin replies and wants to prove that many books have perished from the Old Testament by the testimony of St. John Chrysostom, and by the enumeration of certain books which exist in 1 Chronicles (Paralipomenon) last chapter, verse 29 (20?), where mention is made of the book of the Prophet Nathan and of Gad the seer. And in 2 Chronicles 9:29 there is mention of the books of Ahijah the Shilonite and the visions of Addo. And in 3 Kings (1 Kings) 4:32 it is said that Solomon spoke three thousand parables and that his songs were five thousand. From the New Testament he says it is certain that the letter of Paul to the Laodiceans has perished, which the Apostle himself mentions in Colossians 4:16, and perhaps another to the Corinthians, of which mention seems to be made in 1 Corinthians 5:9 in those words, I wrote to you in the letter; and that it could easily have happened that some others too have perished. Answer: First, the testimony of Chrysostom is not suitable in this cause, because that which he affirms, namely, that many prophetic books were lost, burned, cut to pieces by the Jews, no ancient author before him affirmed who could truly have known it; nor indeed can the statement of Chrysostom be proved from other, more ancient writers. But who could testify more truly and more certainly about things done before the age of Chrysostom than those who lived before that age? Next, as regards the books of which mention is made in 1 Chronicles 29:29 and 2 Chronicles 9:29, they by no means have perished, but by the books of Nathan and Gad is understood the sacred history of the first and second book of Samuel, which was compiled partly by Samuel, partly by Nathan, partly by Gad. For it is certain that both books of Samuel, or 1 and 2 Kings as they are named in the Vulgate Version, were not written by Samuel alone, because Samuel died before the end of the first book. But by the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite and the vision of Addo is signified the history which is contained in the first book of Kings; or the third book according to the Vulgate edition. As regards Solomon’s parables and songs mentioned in 1 Kings 4:32 (or, according to the

Vulgate, 3 Kings 4:32), those writings were not canonical for faith and religion, but memoranda (hypomnemata) of civil, physical, and medical matters: but now the question is about books pertaining to the Canon of faith and the worship of God. And just as not all the things which some notary writes are authentic, but those which he writes as a notary by office: so too not all the things which Solomon wrote are canonical for faith and good works, but only those which, as a notary with the Holy Spirit dictating, he wrote for the certainty of religion. For there is a perpetual distinction between writings that are God-breathed (theopneusta) and purely human: otherwise even David’s letter to Joab about exposing Uriah to the sword of the enemies would be God- breathed (theopneustos), which no pious man would say. In Colossians 4:16 there is no mention at all of any epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans. For the Apostle speaks of a letter written not to the Laodiceans (pros Laodikeis), but from Laodicea (ek Laodikeias), that is, written from Laodicea to Paul. And thus indeed Oecumenius openly writes in his Commentaries on this place: “He did not say ‘the one to the Laodiceans’ (ten pros Laodikeis), but ‘the one written from Laodicea’ (ten ek Laodikeias grapheisan), and not as [an epistle] of Paul to the Laodiceans, but of the Laodiceans to Paul; for all the profit in it is for the Colossians.” He took these things from Chrysostom. The Papist Catharinus feels the same way in his Commentaries on this place. In 1 Corinthians 5:9 Paul does not mean some other letter which has perished, but this very first letter to the Corinthians. For he says in the Greek text, “I wrote to you in the letter” (egrapsa hymin en te epistole), that is, I wrote in this letter, namely in this very chapter five, verse two. Nor have Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Photius, and other Fathers interpreted it otherwise. Bellarmin adds that it could easily have happened, and bids the heretics see whence they may patch so notable a defect. But we deny that it could easily have happened; we deny that it happened. For Bellarmine’s statement is insulting to God, to those holy men, and to the whole ancient Church: and in what manner, pray, would it have been done, [given] that the Churches throughout the whole world, even those scattered in the furthest reaches of the Roman empire, [were involved]? Let Bellarmine see whence he may patch the defect of his judgment: for as to the books that are truly canonical, there is no defect at all. Others add that in Numbers 21:14 mention is made of the book of the wars of the Lord; in Joshua 10:13 of the book of the just, as also in 2 Samuel 1:18. They say these books have perished and conclude that the Canon is not entire. Answer: By the book of the wars of the Lord is understood either a book written not by divine inspiration for the authority of religion, but by human diligence for the abundance of the knowledge of civil and military matters, so that we may follow the distinction of St. Augustine, City of God 18.38;103 or, if someone should stubbornly contend that it was a book written for the authority of religion, the review of the wars of Jehovah existing in these very books of Moses is understood: for Sepher, that is, “book,” in the Hebraism does not always signify a fixed volume, but often also a review, a narration, a commemoration, even if brief, as in Genesis 5:1; Matthew 1:1; Nehemiah 7:7.

The book of the just, or as others translate, the book of the upright, was a volume of forensic annals or public acts, not written for the authority of religion, but for the abundance of the knowledge of civil matters: which even if it has perished, as many other forensic [records] have, of which Scripture makes mention, as in the book of Ezra and of Esther, nevertheless no book pertaining to the Canon of faith and good works has perished. Besides, in Joshua no other history is alleged to be in the book of the just than that which is recorded in this very tenth chapter of Joshua. Thus was the first objection of the Papists against the perfection and sufficiency of Holy Scripture. The second is drawn from the distinction which there is between preaching and The Scripture of the Apostles. For if it had been Christ’s and the Apostles’ purpose to confine and restrict the word of God to Scripture, in a matter of such weight, Christ would have openly commanded it, and the Apostles would somewhere bear witness that they were writing at the Lord’s command, just as at the Lord’s command they taught throughout the whole world. But we read that nowhere. Next, for preaching by the living voice the Apostles did not wait for an offered opportunity or necessity, but of their own accord and by their own plan they went forth; but to writing they applied their mind only when constrained by a certain necessity. I answer: Irenaeus the Martyr pronounces far more rightly, book three Against Heresies, chapter one. For we have not come to know the dispensation of our salvation through others than through those by whom the Gospel came to us, which indeed they then proclaimed, but afterward by God’s will they handed down to us in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. And St. Augustine, On the Harmony of the Evangelists, book two, last chapter: When the Evangelists and Apostles wrote what God showed and said, it must by no means be said that he himself did not write. For whatever he willed us to read of his deeds and sayings, this he commanded them to write, as though by his own hands. And Gregory the Great, Moral Exposition on Job, book twenty-two, chapter thirteen, says that the Redeemer wrote the New Testament through the Apostles. Now that the Apostles wrote by God’s command is plain from 2 Tim. 3:16, where the whole Scripture is said to be θεόπνευστος, divinely inspired; and to John in the book of the Apocalypse there is given twelve times the command to write. And when Christ commanded that the Gospel be preached, he also commanded that it be written: for preaching is not only by speech, but also by writing. Thus LEO THE GREAT, in that most celebrated letter to Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople: Let him also hear the blessed Apostle Peter, preaching that sanctification is by the Spirit; by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ it is brought about. But this does not stand only in some word preached by a living voice and not written, but in the written word of God, namely in the First Epistle of Peter, chapter one. Therefore Bellarmine falsely restricts preaching to the living voice alone. St. John Chrysostom, on Matthew, chapter twenty- three, homily seventy-five, says of the Apostles: For they have not died, but live and preach. Therefore the Apostles still preach through the Scriptures. Furthermore, the Apostles, to whom the highest rule was always the glory of God and the people’s salvation, were drawn to writing both by the necessity laid upon them by God and by their own will and by another’s occasion at the same

time. The necessity of communicating the Gospel to others, conjoined with will, was always laid upon them, 1 Cor. 9:16; and with Christian prudence they seized the occasions offered to them, that by all means they might procure the glory of God and the salvation of men. He truly removes the thing who so unskilfully separates matters that are joined together. Bellarmine presses the point: If the Apostles had wished expressly to consign their doctrine to writing, surely they would have made a Catechism or a similar book. But this was not done; therefore neither that. I answer: First, the consequence drawn from the assumption is not necessary. Next, some of Paul’s epistles, especially to the Romans, the Ephesians, the Thessalonians, are proper catecheses; which today’s Romanists would prefer not to exist - what then will you do with Bellarmine’s cavils? He presses further: If the Apostles had wished to write the doctrine of the Gospel, either each would have published it, since each had the care of some province, or surely all together, assembled before they departed into their provinces, would have published some common book. But this they did not; therefore neither that. I answer: First, we deny the consequence of the connection. Next, we deny that individuals had the care of some province; for by Christ’s command they were not bound to any one province, but all and each alike were commanded to preach the Gospel in the whole world. Third, before their dispersion they ought not, when assembled, to have written some common book, both lest they should seem to foist upon the world certain fables by prearrangement, and that the divinity of the Gospel concerning Jesus Christ might become more known to all also from this, that all the Apostles preached the same things, although most widely separated in place and with no book precomposed beforehand, and also because there was no need to fear that the Apostles would disagree in doctrine, since to them all the same Spirit of Christ was inspiring the same Gospel. Fourth, the Apostles were universal doctors of the world, not provincial ones, as the Jesuits are, who have need of some common book of the Rules of the Society of Jesus, by which they teach that, by whatever means, by open force or secret fraud, it is permitted to remove from the midst kings and princes who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their head. The third objection of Bellarmine: If many things are not contained in Holy Scripture which cannot be unknown, then it is not perfect and sufficient. The antecedent stands; therefore also the consequent. He proves the assumption by an induction of dogmas which are not contained in Scripture, of which he enumerates twelve, so that there are twelve prosyllogisms of the assumption: Prosyllogism I. If nowhere in Scripture does it stand by what remedy women have been purged from original sin, then Scripture does not contain all things. But the former is so; therefore also the latter. I answer: The assumption is denied; because Scripture teaches that the blood of Jesus Christ purges all believers from all sin: therefore also the women of the Old Testament from original sin; as it is said, 1 John 2:2: And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. And Isa. 53:5 and following: He is afflicted for our defections, he is

crushed for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace is laid upon him, and by his stripe there is healing for us, etc. Eph. 2:16: And that he might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross. Rom. 5:19: As by the disobedience of one man many were constituted sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be constituted righteous. Heb. 9:26: Christ now once in the consummation of the ages, to abolish sin by the sacrifice of his own self, has been manifested; and 10:14: By one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. Heb. 13:8: Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today and forever. Rev. 13:8: The Lamb has been slain from the laying of the world’s foundations. From these it is plain that all believers, both in the Old and in the New Testament, have been cleansed from sins by the blood of Christ: therefore also believing women, of whom the texts alleged are to be understood no less than of men. Bellarmine presses the point: But for males circumcision was instituted, by which, as by a remedy, they were purged from original sin; but what there was for females, Scripture has nowhere. I answer: The first member of the instance is ambiguous, but the latter false. The first is ambiguous in a twofold way: for first it can be taken either exclusively or inclusively. If it be understood exclusively, namely that circumcision was instituted for males only, it is denied. For although the outward sign was in males alone, yet it availed for both, if you regard the end and use, and the truth or thing signified of circumcision pertained to females as well as to males. Next, circumcision was not properly a remedy by which men were purged from original sin; for they are properly purged by the blood and Spirit of Christ from all sin, and therefore also from original sin; but circumcision was the sacrament of that remedy, by which it was signified and sealed to believers that just as truly their hearts were circumcised and sins taken away from them, as truly the foreskin’s little skin was taken away from the body. But if Bellarmine so thinks of circumcision, as though it were properly, and indeed ex opere operato, a remedy against original sin, he errs. The latter member is false, namely that nowhere in Scripture is there what sacrament was instituted for females. For, first, they themselves also were baptized in the cloud and in the sea; they themselves also ate manna; they themselves also drank water flowing from the rock. The force of circumcision pertained to them also, by the power of the covenant entered with their fathers, so that not only the circumcised males themselves, but also their seed, might pertain to the covenant of grace, according to the form of the covenant: I will be thy God and the God of thy seed; therefore also of the females. Hence not only Israelite men, but also women, are opposed to the uncircumcised; as Gen. 34:14: We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man who has a foreskin. Hence too they are called daughters of Abraham, Luke 13:16: But this daughter of Abraham, whom Satan bound, behold, eighteen years, ought she not to be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day? Moreover, the sacraments belonged to them, the sacrifices and oblations, by which they were led to Christ; and finally the Paschal Lamb - Prosyllogism II. If nowhere in Scripture does it stand what remedy there was for males dying before the eighth day, on which alone they could be circumcised, then it does not contain all things. But the former is so; therefore also the latter.

I answer: First we deny the assumption. For as adults and the circumcised, so also infants elected to eternal life, dying before the eighth day, by the blood and the Spirit of Christ to be exhibited, were cleansed from sins; as it is said, Isa. 53:5: By his stripe there is healing for us; and v. 10: He exposed himself a sacrifice for guilt. Which statements are to be taken not only of the healing of adults but also of infants. Next, it is ambiguous; for by remedy can be understood either the merit of Christ or a sacrament; but the Jesuit rather understands a sacrament, as can be gathered from those words, on which alone they could be circumcised. If you understand it of the merit of Christ to be exhibited, it is false; but if of the sacraments, the assumption will indeed be true, namely that no sacrament is mentioned which infants before the eighth day used; but it is foolish, by the mere naked instrument, to deny a thing which can be effected without the instrument and is in fact effected by God in men elected to eternal life. For what kind of reasoning is this: They lacked the sacrament; therefore they lacked the remedy by which they would be cleansed from sins? For salvation does not hang on the sacraments, but on Christ alone, who by his blood and Spirit purges us from all sin. The case is the same for infants dying before the eighth day after circumcision was instituted, and for those who had died earlier, before circumcision had been instituted. For grace, without the sign of grace, was equally efficacious in both; for these did not make void God’s covenant. Prosyllogism III. If in the Old Testament nothing is had in Scripture about the justification of Gentiles from sins, then it does not contain all things. But that is so; therefore also this. I answer: The assumption is denied. For Scripture teaches that both proselytes and Jews were justified by faith in the Messiah to come. Thus of Rahab it is said, Heb. 11:31: By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who had not obeyed, when she had received the spies with peace. But in general of all it is said, Heb. 11:6: It cannot be that without faith anyone should please him. Hence it is easy to gather that proselytes also, whoever were acceptable to God, pleased by faith. Next, with respect to external means, that is, the Passover, sacrifices and oblations, the same law was for Jews and proselytes, Num. 9:14; and 15:15, 29, 30; and 35:15. Whence it follows that with respect to those things also which were signified by the sacrifices the same law was for both. Prosyllogism IV. If from Scripture in no way can it be had that there exist some truly divine books, then it does not contain all things. But the former is so; therefore also the latter. I answer: The assumption is denied. For it is expressly said, 2 Tim. 3:16: All Scripture is divinely inspired. And 2 Pet. 1:21: For prophecy was never brought by human leave, but holy men of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, spoke. Prophecy was never brought by the will of man, but holy men of God, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke. Thus the Apostles bear witness that the Prophetic books are truly divine. And concerning the Epistles of Paul Peter bears witness, 2 Pet. 3:15: Count the longsuffering of our Lord salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you.

Objection I. Even if Scripture says that the books of the Prophets and Apostles are divine, nevertheless I will not surely believe it unless first I have believed that the Scripture which says this is divine. For even in the Koran of Mohammed we read everywhere that the Koran itself was sent from heaven by God, and yet we do not believe it. Answer. This objection is impious in a twofold way. First, because, when the Apostles bear witness that the Prophetic and Apostolic books are divine, it wickedly detracts from faith. And indeed it is a wonder that a Jesuit, who has undertaken to defend the authority of the Apostolic See, should enervate the authority of the Apostle Peter, on which they boast that the authority of the remaining Roman pontiffs depends. And what wickedness is this - to believe with certainty the Roman pope who today puts something forward as divine, but not to believe with certainty the Apostle Peter? Then it is impious to compare the assertion of Scripture, and namely of the Apostles Peter and Paul, with the assertion of the Koran, and to make both equal, and not to believe Peter and Paul any more than the Koran. What can you do with men who argue against first principles? Holy Scripture, the oracle set forth by God through the Apostles, is a principle; whoever demands a principle fights against the principle (archen machetai, ἀρχὴν µάχεται). The example of the Koran put forward as an instance is most dissimilar. Our business is with Christians, not with Mohammedans: a Christian sees with other eyes and in other light than a Mohammedan. Why do you play the Mohammedan to me, so as to undermine, not in a Christian way, the principle of the Christian religion? Away with impiety. Objection II. Why should faith rest upon the word of God? Unless we have the word of God not written, there will be no faith for us. Answer. The connection is denied, because it contradicts Scripture, which asserts that faith is drawn from Scripture. Acts 17:11 - 12: The Bereans received the word with all eagerness, daily examining the Scriptures whether these things were so; therefore many of them believed. Hence Christ commands that the Scriptures be searched, from which we learn what is to be believed, John 5:39: Search the Scriptures, because you suppose that you have eternal life in them; and these are they which bear witness about me. Nay, those who do not believe Scripture have no faith; as Christ says, John 5:46 - 47: If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? And Abraham, Luke 16:31: If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead. The Fathers subscribe to this. For St. Augustine, book nineteen of the City of God, chapter eighteen, says: The City of God believes the Holy Scriptures, which we call canonical, whence the faith itself is conceived, by which the just shall live. And book one On Christian Doctrine, chapter thirty-seven: Faith will totter, if the authority of the divine Scriptures wavers. And Tractate Two on the Epistle of John: Against insidious errors God willed to set a foundation in the Scriptures, against which no one dares to speak who in any way wishes to appear a Christian. From these it can be clear whether the Jesuits have any faith, whether they are Christians, who do

not believe a thing affirmed by Scripture. For the words of Bellarmine above alleged must be noted: EVEN IF SCRIPTURE SAYS that the books of the Prophets and Apostles are divine, NEVERTHELESS I WILL NOT SURELY BELIEVE IT unless first I have believed that the Scripture which says this is divine. Do Paul and Peter deserve so little credit with the Jesuits, when they assert that the Prophetic and Apostolic writings are divine, unless those good Catholics, forsooth, are persuaded by unwritten traditions that the Scripture of Paul and Peter is divine? Who does not see that the Jesuits attribute more authority to unwritten traditions than to the writings of the Apostles Paul and Peter, so that they cannot believe the Apostles unless they have a word not written, by which they may be persuaded to believe the Apostles? O exceedingly faithful Catholics. Prosyllogism V. If in no way it can be had from Scripture what that divine Scripture is, then it does not contain all things. But the former is so. Therefore also the latter. Answer. The assumption is denied. For the Prophetic Scripture, from which testimonies are cited everywhere in the New Testament, Paul says is divinely inspired. But that is the Scripture of the Old Testament. And that the Scripture of the New Testament is divine is evident from this, that it is equally the foundation of the Church as the Prophetic Scripture, Eph. 2:20: Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. But it is necessary that the Church be built only upon a divine foundation. A twofold proof of the assumption. First, For how shall we gather from Scripture that the Gospels of Mark and Luke are true, that the Gospels of Thomas and Bartholomew are false, since reason rather dictates that more credence is to be given to a book bearing the title of an Apostle than of a non-Apostle? I answer. It is false that it cannot be gathered from Scripture that the Gospels of Mark and Luke are true. For the Gospels of Mark and Luke themselves by their own testimony commend themselves: all things in them breathe a heavenly doctrine; in them the dispensation of divine wisdom clearly shines forth; they carry one away into admiration, by the dignity of the matters rather than the allurements of words; they vividly affect the minds of readers; by a wonderful harmony they agree with the books of the other Evangelists and with other Prophetic and Apostolic writings; and, to omit other things, they show truly and perfectly the way to obtain eternal salvation, and they have always been received by the Church. But the Gospels which are falsely circulated under the names of Bartholomew and Thomas are not true, because in them there are many things which the Apostolic rule of faith and sound doctrine condemns, as St. Augustine speaks of these, book one On the Harmony of the Evangelists, chapter one. But Bellarmine has borrowed this argument from Eck, who nevertheless writes inconsistently: for he says that Mark and Luke never saw Christ, and yet he affirms that they were of the number of the seventy disciples whom Christ sent hither and thither to preach in the towns of Judaea.

Second proof And whence shall I gather that the Epistle to the Romans is truly Paul’s, that the Epistle to the Laodiceans, which is now circulated, is not Paul’s, since both bear the title of Paul; and since Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians, the last chapter, says that he wrote to the Laodiceans, but nowhere says that he wrote to the Romans? Answer. That the Epistle to the Romans is truly Paul’s is gathered from the Epistle to the Romans itself, in which the first part of it, namely the Exordium, plainly shows the author of the epistle: Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle, set apart to preach the Gospel of God, etc. But when the Jesuit asserts that the Apostle nowhere says that he wrote to the Romans, therein he reveals both his impudence and his supine negligence. For does not he say that he wrote an epistle who, by his own superscription (epigraphe, ἐπιγραφῇ), professes himself its author, as Paul does straightway at the beginning of the Epistle to the Romans? Does he not say, Rom. 15:15, I have written to you more boldly, brothers, in part, etc.? Next, as for an Epistle to the Laodiceans that is truly Paul’s, none exists. For that which is now circulated is plainly unworthy of the Apostolic name; as St. Jerome says in his Catalogue under Paul: Some read an Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by all. And the Fathers of the Second Nicene Synod, Act 5: Among the epistles (they say) of the Apostle there is carried about a certain one to the Laodiceans, which our Fathers rejected as alien. But what the Jesuit says, that Paul says in the Epistle to the Colossians, last chapter, verse 16, that he wrote to the Laodiceans, is false. For he does not there say that he wrote to the Laodiceans, but only bids the Colossians to read the epistle written from Laodicea. Therefore that epistle is not written to the Laodiceans, because it is written from Laodicea (ex Laodikeias, Λαοδικείας). Nor is that epistle from Laodicea Paul’s, but the Laodiceans’ to Paul, as St. John Chrysostom and Oecumenius plainly write. Prosyllogism VI. If from Scripture it cannot be had in particular that the canonical books which are in our hands are truly those which were written by the Prophets and Apostles; for example, that the Gospel of Mark which we now read is that true and uncorrupted one which Mark wrote; then Scripture does not contain all things. But the first; therefore also the last. I answer. The assumption is denied. For from Scripture it is had in particular that those books which are now in our hands are truly those of those to whom they are ascribed: as the Gospel of Mark which we now read is truly Mark’s; because the title of the book, written by divine inspiration no less than the book itself, attests this. But if this does not satisfy anyone, by equal reason let him call into doubt all the books of all the ancients, ecclesiastical writers, philosophers, and historians, whether they are truly those of those to whom they are ascribed; and thus let him introduce a Pyrrhonian doubt about all things. But what perversity is this - to believe that the books ascribed to Plato are truly those which Plato wrote, because they bear Plato’s name, but not to believe that the Gospel of Mark is that true Gospel of Mark, although the name of Mark for so many ages now

rolling along has stood prefixed to it from the time of the Apostles, with no truly faithful men disputing against it, except these wicked Jesuits together with the unclean Manichees, Cerdonians, Marcionites, and Ebionites: Prosyllogism VII. If the understanding of Scripture cannot be had from Scripture, then it does not contain all things. But the first. Therefore also the last. I answer. The assumption is denied. For as each man is the best interpreter of his own words, so also the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. Hence the Bereans, not outside Scripture but in Scripture, searched out the sense of the Scriptures brought by Paul, Acts 17:11, who said nothing beyond those things which the Prophets and Moses predicted would come to pass, Acts 26:22. Hence Paul says, 2 Tim. 3:15, that the Holy Letters are able to make a man wise unto salvation; therefore they also supply the sense of Scripture, without which that wisdom unto salvation cannot stand. But the Jesuit proves the assumption in this way: Very often Scripture is ambiguous and perplexed, so that unless it be explained by someone who cannot err, it cannot be understood. The syllogism is such: From ambiguous and perplexed Scripture the understanding of the same cannot be had; But Holy Scripture is ambiguous and perplexed; Therefore from it the understanding of the same cannot be had. I answer. First, the proposition is not universally true. For it is true only of that Scripture which in itself and from its author and wholly and entirely is ambiguous and perplexed, so that there is nothing certain and perspicuous in it. But Holy Scripture neither in itself nor from its author the Holy Spirit is ambiguous and perplexed, but only to men who do not grasp, or even do not search out, the sense of the Holy Spirit. Second, the assumption labors under the refutation called “taking what is not the whole as the whole” (para to me holon hos holon, παρα τὸ µὴ ὅλον ὡς ὅλον), which refutation the Jesuit himself betrays when he confesses that very often Scripture is ambiguous and perplexed; therefore it is not wholly ambiguous and perplexed. And this confession is sufficient to refute him: for hence it is gathered that the places ambiguous and perplexed for us are clarified from those which are not ambiguous and perplexed. He presses: Unless Holy Scripture be explained by someone who cannot err, it cannot be understood; therefore by itself it does not suffice. The examples are very many; for the equality of the divine persons, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one principle, original sin, the descent of Christ to hell, fierce men, and many similar things are indeed derived from the holy writings, but not so easily, that, if one must fight with Scripture testimonies alone, quarrels could ever be finished with the insolent.

Answer. The antecedent, which is ambiguous, we distinguish. The interpreter of Holy Scripture who cannot err is both the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, and the Prophets and Apostles themselves speaking by the Holy Spirit. But all other ecclesiastical interpreters, with no one excepted, can err, and do err whenever in their interpretations they depart from the analogy of faith. Therefore it is false that Scripture alone does not suffice; or at least it is ambiguous. For Scripture alone does not suffice without the Spirit of God; yet it does suffice without human interpretations. But the examples which Bellarmine adduces - namely, concerning the equality of the divine persons, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, etc. - are entirely indeterminate (aprosdiorista). For they do not prove that Scripture is ambiguous and perplexed, but that not everything which we believe exists in Scripture in just so many letters and syllables, since many things are deduced from it only by good consequence. Finally, what he infers - If one must fight with Scripture testimonies alone, quarrels could never be ended with the insolent - is not a necessary consequence. For with the insolent, the quarrelsome (philoneikoi), and the contentious, quarrels can never be ended: since even after the apostolic council of which Acts 15 speaks, the controversy continued among the faithful about the necessity of observing the Mosaic ceremonies. If the business is with the insolent and contentious, the end is our silence, 1 Corinthians 11:16: But if anyone seems to be contentious, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God. To those obstinately contentious, finally one must oppose this, that the churches of God are estranged from contentions; and one must use silence, after the example of Jeremiah, to whom Hananiah contradicted insolently, Jeremiah 28. Prosyllogism VIII. If there is in Scripture no testimony that the Blessed Mary was always a virgin, then it does not contain all things. But that is so; therefore so is this. Answer. The assumption is denied, whether you look to the time before the birth or after the birth. That Mary before the birth was always a virgin Scripture expressly delivers: Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” Luke 1:34: “Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, since I have not known a man?” Matt. 1:18: “When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit,” and v. 25: “But he did not know her until she had borne her firstborn son.” That Mary remained a virgin after the birth is gathered by good consequence from Scripture. For, first, Scripture nowhere affirms that she was known by Joseph, or that she bore other children. Then the Lord, as he hung on the cross, commended his mother to John, and John received her into his home, John 19:27. Therefore Mary did not then have a husband and children. Third, Basil in the sermon on the Nativity of the Lord gathers the same thing from Matt. 1:25: Lest the ears of those who love Christ should receive that the God-bearer at some time ceased to be a virgin, we think those testimonies sufficient, for this at least: “He did not know her until she had borne her son.” For the particle “until” (donec), in many places indeed seems to signify a certain determination of time; yet in reality it indicates the indefinite. Such is this: “Behold, I am with you unto the consummation of the age.” Fourth, Jerome teaches the same in many Scriptures against Helvidius. Therefore in Scripture the ever-virginity (aeiparthenia) of Mary is delivered.

Prosyllogism IX. If it is not found in Scripture that in the New Testament Easter is to be celebrated on the Lord’s Day, then it does not contain all things. But the former is so; therefore the latter also. Answer. The connected proposition is denied. For even if it were not found in Scripture that in the New Testament Easter is to be celebrated on the Lord’s Day, nevertheless Scripture would contain all doctrines necessary to salvation. For the distinction of days is not necessary to salvation, according to the following sayings, Rom. 14:5 - 6: “One indeed esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully assured in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.” Gal. 4:9 - 11: “But now, having known God, or rather being known by God, how do you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which, having gone back, you desire to be enslaved? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, lest perhaps I have labored among you in vain.” Col. 2:16: “Let no one therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths.” Moreover, the Passover was a type and a ceremony: therefore its rigid observance ceased when Christ was exhibited, Col. 2:16 - 17; Heb. 10. Instance. In the ancient church the Quartodecimans were held to be heretics, that is, those who, after the example of the Jews, were accustomed to celebrate the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month. Therefore the celebration of Easter on the Lord’s Day is necessary to salvation. Answer. The connected proposition, which was sophistically suppressed, is denied. The reason for the denial is, first, because the Quartodecimans were held to be heretics not by the whole church, but only by the Roman and those adhering to it; then, because they were illegitimately held as heretics: as will be clear from the following historical narration. The ancients did not celebrate Easter on the same day; and the Eastern churches indeed on the fourteenth day of the first month; but the Western on the Lord’s Day next following the fourteenth day, Eusebius, book 5, chapter 23, verse 24; Socrates, book 5, chapter 22. And at that time it was free that Easter be held on different days. For Polycarp observed the custom which John had handed down, and Anicetus observed the rite which he had received from his predecessors. Meanwhile they nevertheless kept concord among themselves, Eusebius, book 5, chapter 24. But VICTOR, the Roman bishop - when scarcely had the storm of persecutions been calmed a little - was the first who, with Satan instigating, disturbed the peace of the church. For, that he might display a papal spirit, he made a decree, that for the remembrance of the resurrection of the Lord, Easter be celebrated on Sunday from the fourteenth day of the month of March unto the twenty-first of the same month. He had also written to Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus, who presided among the Asiatic bishops, and by his authority had commanded that the Asiatic bishops follow the custom of the Roman church in celebrating Easter. By this arrogance of Victor all the Asiatic bishops were vehemently offended and contradicted his decree. Hence, Eusebius relates, six provincial councils were held because of the day of Easter, book 5, chapters 23 and 24. Many prelates of the East and of Egypt gave assent to Victor’s decree. About this they contended for a long time. Victor resolved to exclude the Asiatic bishops from the communion of the church, as guilty of heresy, because they

were unwilling to agree with the Roman church about Easter: for which he was severely reproved even by the bishops of his own party, and by name by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who by letters admonished him to do rather those things which belong to peace; saying that it is unworthy to break the concord of the church because of the dissonance of rites and ceremonies; using also this argument, that the diversity of fasts had never dissolved the union of the churches. Eusebius, book 5, chapter 24. In this way the matter was composed: each party retained its own custom which it had received: until in the Council of Nicaea a constitution was made that Easter be celebrated on the Lord’s Day: which the church observes even unto this day. By this schism which the Roman bishop stirred up, the tranquility of the churches was disturbed, and the doctrine of Christian liberty in indifferent ceremonies was obscured; and the Asiatics who celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth of the moon were called Quartodeciman heretics condemned, as Nicephorus reports, book 4, chapter 39. But the crime of heresy was imputed to them unjustly: since they are not heretics who differ from others in the observance of some ceremony, but those who, obstinately, with no account taken of admonitions made, tear and divide the church by disseminating and defending such an error as either openly fights with the foundation of holy doctrine, or from which there follows the overthrow of some part of the foundation. Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 3:13. Secondly, the assumption is not simply true. For although in express words it is not found in Scripture that Easter is to be celebrated on the Lord’s Day, nevertheless it can be gathered from those places in which it is said that the Apostles assembled on the first day of the week, John 20:1, 26; and likewise other believers, 1 Cor. 16:2. Prosyllogism X. If paedobaptism cannot be proved from Scripture, then it does not contain all things. The antecedent is true. Therefore so is the consequent. Answer. The assumption is denied. For that the infants of Christians are to be baptized can be proved from Scripture. For it testifies that the infants of the faithful are inserted into the covenant of grace, Gen. 17:7: “I will be your God and the God of your seed after you.” It testifies that of such is the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 19:14. It testifies that the promise pertains to them, Acts 2:39: “For the promise is made to you and to your children.” It testifies that they are holy, 1 Cor. 7:14: “Your children are holy.” Hence by good consequence we gather that the infants of the faithful are to be baptized. Antiquity likewise judged that paedobaptism is a written dogma (engraphon): as Cyprian, book 3, epistle 8; Augustine, Against the Donatists, book 4, chapters 23 and 24. Prosyllogism XI. If there is a purgatory and yet it cannot be proved from Scripture, then it does not contain all things. But the former is so: for Luther in the Assertions, article 37, says, “Yet I both believe that purgatory exists, and I advise and urge that it be believed”; and there he also asserts that purgatory cannot be proved from the holy writings. Therefore the latter will also be so. Answer. First, the proposition is denied. For what if a fictitious purgatory is not delivered in Scripture - does it therefore not contain all doctrines necessary to salvation? A similar thing is this: If that donation was made by Constantine the Great to the Roman pope, and yet cannot be proved from Scripture, then it does not contain all things. Secondly, also the first part of the assumption, in which it is asserted that purgatory exists, is false; because it diametrically opposes Scripture.

Third, the other part of the assumption, in which it is said that purgatory cannot be proved from the holy writings, is contrary to the Jesuits themselves. For if purgatory cannot be proved from the holy writings, why then do the Jesuits adduce testimonies from the holy writings for the defense of purgatory? Reply. But Bellarmine speaks only from Luther’s sense, not from his own. Answer. Since he adduces Luther’s testimony, either he agrees with him or he does not agree. If he agrees, then he concedes that purgatory cannot be proved from the holy writings, and thus he charges himself and the other Jesuits with lying, who elsewhere try to defend purgatory from the holy writings. If he does not agree, why then did he not indicate, with not even a single little word, that Luther’s opinion seemed false to him? And if he does not agree with him who denies purgatory support from Scripture, neither are we bound to agree with him who recommends purgatory. For by the authority by which he himself is unwilling to be bound, it is not fair that we be bound: since the principles of disputing ought to be common to both parties and approved by both, or at least approved and received by that party against which one disputes. But we do not acknowledge nor hold Luther’s opinions as a principle of faith and of divine worship: therefore they are brought forward against us in vain. Nay, Luther later did not believe in purgatory, when he had learned better from the Scriptures. Prosyllogism XII. If it is found nowhere in Scripture, that there is no Word of God unless writ - written, then it does not contain all things. The antecedent is true; therefore also the consequent. Answer. First, the connection of the proposition is not necessary. It would, however, be necessary, if besides the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture there existed in this time some Word of God not written. But who is so presumptuous as to affirm, without any divine testimony, that this or that which is not contained in the Divine Scriptures is certainly the Word of God? Or if he dares to affirm it, whence will he prove this? To those who do not bring forward Scripture, is it permitted to assert that the things which they propose are said by God, except to Prophets and Apostles? Then the assumption is ambiguous. For that there is no word of God except the written, if it be taken simply, is false: because besides the written word of God there is that eternal Word of God the Father, namely the Son of God: John 1:1 and following. There is also the word of the divine power, of which it is said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God,” Deut. 8:4; Matt. 4:4; Heb. 1:3. There is also the uttered word of God (prophorikon, προφορικὸν), by which he addresses his creatures; and there is also the word of God implanted in us (emphyton, ἔµφυτον), engrafted by the Holy Spirit, James 1:25, which in reality is the same as the written word, only differing from it in the mode of communication. But if, however, it be understood in a certain respect (kata ti, κατὰ τι), in this way - “that there is no word of God except the written,” namely the word from which now the doctrine of faith and the worship of God are to be drawn for us and confirmed - this is truly said. For if, besides Scripture, there is now another Word of God not written, from which the truth of religion ought to be sought, why then

does the Apostle not send the faithful equally to the unwritten word as to the Scriptures? why does he say that the sacred letters are able to make a man wise unto salvation, 2 Tim. 3:15? Why does he say that Scripture is useful for making the man of God perfect, perfectly furnished for every good work? Why does he attribute these things to Scripture alone - utterly forgetful of the unwritten word? Therefore we conclude that by these prosyllogisms it has not been proved that Holy Scripture does not contain all doctrines necessary for salvation, and consequently it has also not been proved that Holy Scripture is not perfect and sufficient.

Concerning unwritten Traditions there are two principal questions: First, whether there now are any traditions about faith and good works that are truly divine and Apostolic and not written. Second, whether there now are any that are necessary besides Holy Scripture. In order that these matters may be handled rightly, we must proceed from genus to species. The word Tradition, in ecclesiastical speech, is ambiguous: for sometimes it is taken for the thing handed down, that is, for a doctrine, or history, or testimony, or ceremony; sometimes for the act of handing down, as when it signifies the deed of the Church by the hand of one handing down Scripture to posterity. When it is taken for the thing handed down, then sometimes it signifies in general a doctrine, history, or ceremony, whether handed down by bare speech and by the living voice, or by writing; sometimes in particular it signifies something handed down in writing, as when St. Jerome says that there is one Lent according to tradition, that is, the evangelical history written by the Apostles; or it signifies something handed down by the living voice alone. Tradition, when it is taken for the thing handed down, is, according to the efficient causes, either divine or human. Divine tradition is that which has been commended by God to the Church through the Prophets, Christ manifested in the flesh, and the Apostles. And this is, from the subjects, either dogmatic, or historical, or ritual. Dogmatic tradition is a dogma or doctrine about faith or about good works. In this sense the name of tradition is used in 2 Thess. 2. 15: “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold the traditions (tas paradoseis), which you were taught, whether by our word or by our epistle.” And ch. 3. 6: “We charge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” Historical tradition is the history and narration of particular sayings or deeds or events of Christ or of the Apostles or others, such as is the tradition about the sharing of goods in the primitive Church, Acts 2. 44. Ritual tradition is a rite or ceremony. And ritual tradition is, from the subjects, either universal or particular. Universal is that which is to be observed in all the Churches; particular is that which obtains in one or more particular Churches: such as was the observance of the Love-Feasts, of

which in the epistle of Jude, v. 12: “These are blemishes in your love-feasts, while they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear, clouds without water, carried about by winds, trees withered, unfruitful, twice dead.” And 1 Cor. 11. 21. Acts 2. 46. From the adjuncts ritual tradition is either perpetual or temporary. Perpetual is that which, being immutable, is always to be observed, until the end of the world: as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Temporary is that which can be changed according to the variety of circumstances, as of times, places, and persons, and on that account the observing of it is free and by no means perpetually necessary, even if for a time it has been or is necessary; such was the Apostolic tradition about abstaining from blood and things strangled, Acts 15. 28, 29 and ch. 16. 4. Human tradition is that which, devised by the bare will of men, has been introduced into the Church: such as were the many traditions of the Pharisees and Elders among the Jewish people, and such as likewise very many have been introduced into the Christian Churches. These partitions of traditions are true and legitimate. But the Papists by the name of traditions understand doctrines which are found written nowhere in the Old and New Testament. And they say that these are threefold: divine, Apostolic, and Ecclesiastical. Divine traditions are so called (says Bellarmine) which were received from Christ himself teaching the Apostles, and are found nowhere in the divine letters: such are those things which pertain to the matter and form of the Sacraments; for we have few things about these in the divine letters, and yet it is certain that the essence of the Sacraments could not have been instituted except by Christ: for this reason the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11, speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, said: “For I received from the Lord what also I delivered to you.” Apostolic traditions are properly called those which were instituted by the Apostles, yet not without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and nevertheless are not found written in their epistles: such as the fast of Lent and of the Ember days, and many other things, of which later. Yet sometimes even divine traditions are called Apostolic, and Apostolic are called divine: divine traditions are called Apostolic, not because they were instituted by them, but because they were first handed down by them to the Church when they had received them separately from Christ; and Apostolic are called divine, not because God immediately instituted them, but because the Apostles did not institute them without the Spirit of God. Just as all the epistles of the Apostles are called divine and Apostolic writings, even if some in them are divine precepts and some properly Apostolic, as is evident from that in the former to the Corinthians, ch. 7: “I command, not I, but the Lord”; and afterwards: “I say, I, not the Lord.” Ecclesiastical traditions are properly called certain ancient customs either begun by prelates or by the peoples, which little by little have tacitly obtained the force of law by the consent of the peoples. But Bellarmine in the first place faultily distributes traditions into divine, Apostolic, and Ecclesiastical: for truly Apostolic are divine; and Ecclesiastical are said equivocally (amphignomos), either those which are given by God to the Church and are observed in it and by it; or those which are introduced by the Church itself. Apostolic tradition is called such by

Athanasius, which nevertheless is written in the sacred letters; in the Epistle to Adelphius against the Arians, in the first volume, page three hundred and thirty-three, he says: “And Apostolic tradition shows this, with Peter reporting, that Christ suffered in the flesh; with Paul likewise speaking, ‘Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of the great God’.” Thus Cyprian, in epistle sixty-three, section two, according to the edition of Pamelius, or in book two, epistle three according to the edition of Erasmus, says that it is the Lord’s tradition that the cup which is offered in commemoration of Christ be offered mixed with wine. This tradition also is written; for the Lord in the institution of the Lord’s Supper took the cup mixed with wine, that is, into which wine had been poured. Cyprian spoke in the Latin manner, in which a cup or drinking vessel is said to be mixed with some drink, when that drink is poured into the cup or vessel. Therefore Cyprian does not say that the cup is to be offered mixed with water, but mixed with wine: and he says this against the Aquarians, who offered water to the people instead of wine, against the Lord’s tradition. But that water is to be mixed with wine is a human tradition, about which Cyprian treats in its place later in the same epistle. Bellarmine wants to prove his distinction on the ground that in the Apostolic writings some precepts are divine and some properly Apostolic, as is evident from 1 Cor. 7. 10: “I command, not I, but the Lord”; and afterwards v. 12: “I say, I, not the Lord.” Answer. This distinction is false: for all Apostolic precepts consigned in their epistles are truly also divine. But the passage from 1 Cor. 7 does not serve to prove Bellarmine’s thesis, because the interpretation given by Bellarmine does not agree with the mind of Paul. For Paul does not oppose his precepts to the divine with respect to the authors or efficient causes simply, but in a qualified sense, namely as regards the modes by which those precepts were handed down to the Apostle by the Lord: for he makes a distinction between those which the Lord Jesus himself, dwelling on earth with his disciples and teaching, immediately and by himself commanded, such as is the precept given to those joined in matrimony, Matt. 19. 6: “What God has joined together, let not man separate”; which the Apostle repeats in these words, “Let not the wife separate herself from her husband”; and between those which the Apostle himself, inspired by the Spirit of Christ, prescribed in answer to questions proposed by the Corinthians by letter, but did not establish from himself or by his own judgment, as he openly indicates in the conclusion of the chapter, when he says: “according to my judgment; yet I think that I also have the Spirit of God,” so that the Corinthians might understand that he did not so think of his own authority as he wrote, but by the afflatus of the Spirit of God. He indicates this very thing also in v. 25, in which Paul says: “Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give judgment, as one who has obtained mercy from the Lord to be faithful”; that is, I do not have a command which the Lord himself immediately gave while teaching on earth, such as that in v. 10, “Let not the wife separate herself from her husband”; but I set forth my judgment, not devised by private authority, but imparted to me by the Lord through the Holy Spirit: for the whole Scripture is divinely inspired (theopneustos); therefore these Apostolic precepts also are divinely inspired (theopneusta): and about these and similar precepts the same Apostle says, 1 Cor. 14. 37: “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you are the Lord’s commandments.” Therefore the

commandments which the Apostle wrote were all of one and the same author, namely of the Lord; but some were immediate, others mediate: the former the Lord himself, dwelling bodily on earth in his own person, uttered with his own mouth; the latter the Apostle, in whom the same Lord was speaking, 2 Cor. 13. 3, and through the Holy Spirit was revealing, 1 Cor. 7. 40. Second, the whole essence of the Sacraments, and consequently their matter and form, is of written tradition, not unwritten (agraphos). The fast of Lent and the fasts of the Ember seasons and many similar things are not Apostolic traditions: indeed even if they were, nevertheless all dogmas necessary to us for salvation would be contained in Holy Scripture. For fasts are not dogmas necessary for salvation. Here therefore a most serious controversy arises: whether there now are any traditions about faith and good works that are truly divine and Apostolic and not written in the divine canonical books. I explain the question first. It is not asked whether formerly there was any unwritten tradition: for in the beginning, to the Church being born, the word of God without writing was handed down; but afterwards, as time went on, the same - the word was contained in writings and deposited with the Church as a heavenly treasury. Therefore before Moses there were divine traditions not written; and the Evangelical traditions at the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel were not written: but just as in the Old Testament the whole prophetic doctrine, so also in the New Testament the whole apostolic doctrine was contained in certain and numerically finite books. The question therefore is not what once was; but whether at this time there ARE any divine and Apostolic traditions about faith and good works that are not written, outside the prophetic and apostolic books. The Papists maintain that there are, and strive to prove it by the following arguments, which Bellarmine recites: First. If Scripture does not contain all things, and if the handed-down word (namely, not written) is necessary, it follows that there is some handed-down word; otherwise God would not have provided well for the Church. I answer. First: Each member of the antecedent is false, and so is the consequent. Second, the proof of the consequent is inconsequent: for Scripture contains all dogmas necessary for salvation, and some unwritten word is not necessary: therefore God has provided excellently for the Church. Second. The point is established by several testimonies of Scripture, which we shall consider in order. First testimony. John 16:12: “I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now.” Those things which the Lord promised that he would say, John 16, he said, without doubt, after his resurrection. The syllogism will be as follows: If there were many things to be said by Christ to the Apostles, which at that time they could not bear, it follows that there are traditions; but that antecedent is true. Therefore so is the consequent.

I answer. First, with the words of St. Augustine, Tractate 97 on John: “All the most foolish heretics, who want to be called Christians, try to color the audacity of their inventions on the occasion of this sentence of the Gospel, where the Lord says: I still have many things, etc.” Let the Papists know that this was said to themselves, and that they are equally most foolish heretics, even if they want to be called Christians and Catholics. Then we reply distinctly to everything in this way. First, Bellarmine sets up the fallacy from what is said in a certain respect to what is said simply. For he simply understands that those many things which Christ still had to say to the Apostles were entirely other things than those which he had already taught them, and which afterwards, being recalled to their mind by the Holy Spirit, they themselves wrote down; whereas the Lord means the same things, only to be explained to them more clearly, because at that time they were not able to bear them. But who does not understand that much is still to be said to him who has not yet grasped what has often been said and often heard, has not yet understood? Then Christ said those many things to the Apostles after the resurrection, both by appearing to them himself and speaking about the kingdom of God for forty days, and by the Holy Spirit poured out from heaven on the day of Pentecost, and thereafter. Third, as to his saying that the Apostles wrote very few things about the deeds and the words of the Lord after the resurrection, and therefore handed many things down to the Churches “unwritten” (ἀγράφως, agraphos), since they were neither envious nor forgetful, so that they did not want to, or could not, say them: in this he tries to deceive by the fallacy of the consequent. They did indeed write very few things, if you look at the words; but they wrote very many things, if you look at the matters, indicated in a few words, in Matt. 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20 and 21; Acts 1 - and afterwards more fully explained in the whole evangelical history and in the epistles. For he delivered to them nothing other concerning the kingdom of God than what they afterwards preached and wrote. But all things necessary have been written: because those things were selected to be written which seemed sufficient for the salvation of believers, as Augustine says in Tractate 49 on John. Therefore let it stand firm and ratified that those many things which the Lord had to say to the Apostles were not other than the things which he had taught before, but only were to be said in another way. Which Thomas Aquinas himself teaches on John 16, Lecture 3, in these words: “It is not to be understood that some secrets of doctrine are to be kept silent from the faithful little ones, to be said separately to the greater, etc.; but what pertains to faith is proposed to all the faithful. Matt. 10: What you have heard in the ear, etc. But they are to be proposed in one way to the unskilled, in another to the skilled, as in the mystery of the incarnation, etc.; because when they did not understand, they would be scandalized. Therefore the Lord proposed to them all things that pertained to faith, but not in the way in which he later revealed them, etc. Not higher things indeed, but in a higher way, namely after the resurrection, etc.” But if someone in particular should ask about certain things which the Apostles before Christ’s passion and resurrection were not able to bear, I answer with Origen against Celsus, Book 2: “Here we ask what those many things are which Jesus had to say to the disciples, etc.” I should say that he had these to be said: what the true Law is; of what heavenly realities the Jewish worship consists in shadows; and which things they, reared in the letter of the Law, were not yet able to bear, etc.;

which therefore he deferred to a more opportune time, after the passion and resurrection, etc. I answer with Cardinal Cajetan, who thus comments on John, chapter 16: “But there are many things which remained to be said: that he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, that he was conceived and born of a virgin, that he was about to descend to the lower regions, that he was about to ascend into the heavens, and those things which the Apostles learned after the resurrection.” In the book of Responses to Certain Christian Questions to the Orthodox, which is appended to Justin Martyr, it is taught in the response to Question 112 that one of those things which could not be known by the Apostles before the coming of the Holy Spirit - according as it is said, “I have many things to say to you,” etc. - is also this: that the kingdom of Israel is not earthly glory and delights. But if someone is not satisfied with these things, but rather imagines that there were other things which at that time the Lord did not wish to say, I answer him with the words of Augustine from Tractate 96 on John: “Since the Lord himself kept silence, which of us shall say, these things or those are they? Who is so vain and rash as, without any divine testimony, to affirm that they are the things which then the Lord did not wish to say?” Moreover, Bellarmine disagrees with the other Papists. For the Ordinary Gloss, interlinear, says that those many things which Christ then kept back, no one has it to determine. Nay rather, Nicholas of Lyra, otherwise than Bellarmine interprets this passage, explains it thus: “Here,” he says, “Christ shows the efficacy of the Holy Spirit with respect to the Apostles, which consists in enlightening them about the deepest and loftiest secrets of the faith.” And a little after: “He will teach you all truth, namely what is necessary for salvation, not only for your own persons, but also for the government of the Church and the instruction of the faithful.” What has this interpretation to do with unwritten traditions? Second testimony. John 21:25 says: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if each one were to be written, I do not think even the world itself could contain the books that would be written.” The syllogism will be as follows: If the Lord said and did many things which are not written, then there are some unwritten traditions. The antecedent is true. Therefore so is the consequent. I answer. The connection is not necessary, nor simply true. It would, however, be necessary and simply true, if those things which are not written the Apostles had handed down to their hearers by living voice in such a way that, having been propagated to posterity, they were beyond all controversy acknowledged to have been truly said and done by the Lord. But as it is, no such things can be produced which even probably might be judged to have been certainly said or done by the Lord. Instance. Nevertheless, it is established that the Lord did many things or said many things which are not written. For the books which exist a single hand can hold; but John says that the whole world could not contain the books that would have to be written. I answer. First, we grant that the Lord did and said many things which are not written; but which of us shall say, “this thing or that is one of them”? Or, if he should dare to say so, whence does he prove it?

Second, it is childish folly to catch at ambiguities. Did John think that books could not be contained by the world as a place is contained by a place? By no means: but the sense is this - that there would not exist in the world anyone who could in mind take in and with understanding embrace all those things, given the variety of the deeds done and their multitude and excellence. A Jesuit could have learned this from the Ordinary Gloss, which thus explains these words: “He does not say that they could not be contained in space, but by the capacity of readers.” And from Nicholas of Lyra, who thus expounds this passage: “’I do not think the world itself’ - that is, the men of this world - ‘could contain the books that would be written.’” For the deeds and words of Christ are not of a man only, but of God; since that humanity was the instrument of the divinity; and therefore they cannot be fully explained by men or even comprehended. And presently: “They are the deeds and words of God, which are incomprehensible to us on account of their excellence in relation to our understanding.” Third testimony. Luke attests in Acts 1:3 that Christ after the resurrection for forty days appeared to the disciples and spoke about the kingdom of God. But the Evangelists wrote very few things about the deeds and words of the Lord after the resurrection. Nor is it in any way credible that the Apostles, who had seen and heard those things, did not hand them down to the Churches; for they were neither envious nor forgetful, so as not to want to, or not to be able to, say them. The syllogism is as follows: If Christ after the resurrection for forty days spoke to the disciples about the kingdom of God, and the things which he then spoke are not all written, nevertheless they were handed down by the Apostles to the Churches, then there are unwritten traditions. All the antecedents are true; therefore so is the consequent. I answer. First, there is in the proposition a fallacy of the consequent. Even if the whole antecedent were conceded, yet it would by no means follow from it that at this time in fact there exist any apostolic traditions. For who is so vain, so rash, who, when he has said - even truly - whatever he wishes and what he wishes, without any divine testimony, will affirm that they are the things which the Lord spoke for forty days after the resurrection? Which of us will do this and not incur the greatest blame of rashness, in a matter wherein neither prophetic nor apostolic authority excels? Heretics are wont to use this argument, and to say that their filthinesses are those things which Christ after the resurrection spoke to the disciples. Second, the assumption has three members. The first and the third member are true; the middle, namely that the things which Christ spoke are not all written, is ambiguous. For if you understand that not all the very words which were employed by the Lord are written down, it is true; but if you understand that not even the sum of those things necessary for salvation is written, it is false. For it is written, although summarily yet expressly and by name, what Christ spoke and what he did: namely, he spoke the things which pertain to the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3); he showed himself truly to have risen from the dead, and ordered that his resurrection be announced to the brethren, and that they go into Galilee, and he promised that he would manifest himself there (Matt. 28:9 - 10); he taught that it was necessary for him to suffer and so to enter into his glory; and beginning from Moses and all the Prophets he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things that were written concerning himself (Luke 24:26 - 27); he recalled to their mind the

things which he had taught before his passion, adding an explanation of the Scriptures (Luke 24:44 - 46); he instituted the ministry (Matt. 28:19); he promised the Holy Spirit; and he spoke other things and did many things, the sum of which has been written down by the Evangelists. Third, the reason why fewer sayings and deeds of Christ after the resurrection are recorded is that, as the Ordinary Gloss and Nicholas of Lyra rightly note, he did not continuously during those forty days appear, but only at certain times, to the disciples. Reply to the first part of the answer. Concerning the institution of the sacraments the Lord without doubt delivered things in those forty days which have not been written. It is answered: First, If you understand this of Baptism, that delivery is written, Matthew 28:19: “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Likewise Mark 16:16. The delivery of the Lord’s Supper also is written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul. The deliveries of the other sacraments are not written, because without all doubt the Lord delivered nothing about other sacraments. Second, the Jesuit is bolder than the Ordinary Gloss and Nicholas of Lyra, who, content with Luke’s narration, say that Christ spoke about the Gospel, the Church, the kingdom, and heavenly beatitude; but they do not mention new sacraments. Fourth testimony. 1 Corinthians 11:2, Paul says: “Now I praise you, brothers, that in all things you remember me, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you.” Therefore there are unwritten traditions. It is answered: More is concluded than the antecedent permits. For from this there follows only that the Apostle delivered to the Corinthians particular laws about decorum and honesty, pertaining to ecclesiastical polity; but from this it does not follow that those traditions now exist. Much less does it follow from this that those traditions which Paul delivered to the Corinthians are Popish traditions, since very many of the Apostles’ doctrines are most of all opposed to them. Next, Bellarmine sins by “ignorance of the elenchus”: for we are now disputing about doctrine necessary for salvation; but Bellarmine objects a passage about external rites or ceremonies, namely about the manner of praying and the manner of receiving the Eucharist. He insists: Those precepts about the manner of praying and of receiving the Eucharist are found written nowhere. It is answered: That is false: for Bellarmine himself testifies that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 treats two questions, one about the manner of praying in the Church, the other about the manner of receiving the Eucharist. Fifth testimony. 1 Corinthians 11:23, Paul says: “For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered to you.” Therefore there are unwritten traditions. It is answered: First, the fallacy of an impertinent testimony is committed. For Paul’s statement speaks of a written tradition, namely the institution of the holy Supper, which he immediately subjoins in the same place; but the thesis to be proved speaks of unwritten traditions. Second,

something entirely other is gathered than the antecedent admits. For it does not follow from the Apostle’s words that there are unwritten traditions, but that the holy Supper was not devised by the Apostle, but instituted by the Lord himself. Sixth testimony. 1 Corinthians 11:34, Paul says: “The rest I will set in order when I come”: but what he set in order is found written nowhere. The syllogism will be as follows. If Paul ordered certain things among the Corinthians which are found written nowhere, then there are unwritten traditions. The antecedent is true; therefore the consequent likewise. It is answered: First, there is the sophism “para to epomenon” (παρὰ τὸ ἑπόµενον) in the conditional proposition: because even if, at the time when Paul was ordering those things among the Corinthians which he had promised, those were unwritten traditions, nevertheless it does not follow that now also those exist. Second, the fallacy of an impertinent testimony is committed. For Paul’s testimony does not say that in our age there will be unwritten traditions, but only promises the arrangement of those things which pertained to maintaining good order in the Corinthian church. Third, the adversaries conclude more than the premises allow: for even if it were conceded (which, however, is not conceded) that there exist unwritten traditions about certain ceremonies instituted by the Apostle looking to the maintaining of good order, nevertheless it would not follow from this that there now also exist unwritten traditions of doctrines more necessary for salvation - this is what the Papists want. Instance. The Catholics rightly judge that the Apostle not only arranged those things which pertained to rites and ceremonies, but also delivered other weightier matters, such as about the ordination of ministers, about the sacrifice of the altar, about the form and matter of the other sacraments; nor can the heretics in any way show the contrary. It is answered: First, the Jesuit is rightly judged to be begging the question, who merely asserts and proves nothing. From where, indeed, will he prove that the Apostle willed to arrange these things which he lists? Second, while the Jesuit fights for unwritten traditions, he writes at random. For a little before he had confessed that what the Apostle arranged is found written nowhere; but here he recounts what that was, as if it were certainly known. Third, he begs the question when he asserts that the Apostle not only arranged those things which pertained to rites and ceremonies, but also other weightier matters. For the word “I will arrange” (διατάξοµαι), which the Apostle uses, indicates that those things, whatever they were, pertained to ecclesiastical order, not to doctrines. For this is the proper force of this word; which is clear from a similar passage, 1 Corinthians 16:1: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I arranged (διέταξα) for the churches of Galatia, so also do you.” And that he did not also promise that he would arrange other weightier matters, the Jesuit could have learned from St. Thomas Aquinas, who explains this passage of the Apostle thus: “The rest, namely those things which are not of such great danger, when I come I will arrange in person, namely how you ought to preserve them.” Fourth, there is an evident contradiction when he says that the Apostle not only arranged those things which pertained to rites and ceremonies, but also other weightier matters; and yet those weightier

matters which he enumerates are rites and ceremonies. Fifth, he contradicts Scripture: for since it does not acknowledge, properly speaking, a sacrifice of the altar in the Lord’s Supper, nor did the Lord institute that sacred banquet upon an altar but upon a table, the Jesuit, on the contrary, fabricates I know not what sacrifice of the altar. Sixth, it is false that other sacraments were delivered by Paul to the Corinthians than those which the LORD instituted. In divine matters it is wicked to trifle with human opinions, which the Jesuits do. Seventh, he sophistically shifts the person in disputing. For since he cannot prove that the traditions which he alleges were commended by the Apostle to the Corinthians, contrary to the laws of disputation he preposterously and unfairly bids us show the contrary; whereas it would be more equitable for him to prove by suitable arguments what he has proposed. For the burden of proof lies on the objector, not on the respondent. Seventh testimony. 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by our word or by our letter.” The syllogism is: If the traditions are to be held which were received either by word or by our letter, then, besides Scripture, there are unwritten traditions. But the former is so; therefore the latter also. It is answered: First, there is a homonymy in the name “tradition.” For by the name of traditions here the Apostle understands doctrines necessary for salvation, in which all must persevere and which all who expect salvation from the Lord ought with all strength to hold fast; but the Jesuits understand the most foul superstitions which they foist upon unlearned men. Second, the consequence of the conditional proposition is not necessary. It would, however, be necessary if the Jesuits were able to prove two things: first, that those traditions proposed by Paul by speech were other and altogether different from those which are contained in the epistles; second, that they are those which the Papists vend. But from where will they prove either? Third, more is concluded than ought: for from this only there follows either that when the Apostle wrote that epistle, then not yet were all doctrines written, and therefore there were traditions, but it does not follow that there are traditions now; or that the same doctrine was delivered by the Apostle both by word of mouth and by letter. Instance I. The disjunctive particle “sive” openly indicates that the things which he had delivered and which he had written are different. The syllogism will be thus. Whenever a sentence consists of the disjunctive particle “sive,” then different things are indicated. But this Pauline sentence consists of the disjunctive particle “sive”: therefore different things are indicated by it. It is answered: First, the major is amphibolous. For if by “different things” there are understood different modes of proposing some matter, it is true; but if there are understood matters altogether disparate, it is false. And how very frequent this is, that one and the same thing is effected by different modes, as when it is said that the same blessing of justification and regeneration is signified to believers, either by circumcision or by baptism; that the same communion of Christ is offered to believers, either by the Gospel or by the sacraments. For different modes of giving or

receiving some thing do not make the thing itself different: as faith is the same, whether that which was of old confirmed to the fathers by circumcision and the Passover, or that which now is confirmed to the faithful by Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Christ is the same, whether of old signified to the fathers by sacrifices and various figures, or today clearly shown to us in the Gospel. Second, I grant indeed that Paul’s distribution consists of the disjunctive particle “sive”: but there are not thereby indicated in reality diverse traditions, but only diverse modes of receiving the same traditions. For the Apostle does not say that he entrusted to the Thessalonians some traditions by speech and others by letter; but he merely shows two distinct modes by which the Thessalonians had received the same traditions; and those modes were the living voice and the letter. Nor does the diversity of modes and instruments make the matter diverse: as who would endure one arguing thus: “Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s” (Rom. 14:8). Therefore we belong to one master if we live, to another if we die? And 1 Corinthians 15:11: “Whether then I or they, so we preach”: therefore Paul preached one Gospel, the other Apostles another? Instance II. If the Thessalonians had received the same traditions both by word of mouth and by letter, one epistle to the Thessalonians ought to contain the whole doctrine of the Gospel. But the latter is not so; therefore neither the former. Proof of the connection: Because without doubt he had fully preached the whole Gospel to them, as is gathered also from chapters 1 and 2 of the first epistle. It is answered: I deny the consequence of the conditional proposition; and as to its proof I say that the testimonies cited avail nothing: for neither in the first nor in the second chapter is that said which the Jesuit pretends. Next, Paul indeed delivered the whole doctrine of the Gospel to individual churches; but it was not necessary to write out all doctrines to individual ones. For the churches communicated the apostolic epistles among themselves: therefore what was not in one, they learned from another epistle. Instance III. The Apostle says in this very chapter that he preached to them about the Antichrist, and besides other things taught when he would come. “And now,” he says, “you know what restrains.” And, “Now you hold fast, because when I was with you, I told you these things.” But this is written nowhere, namely when the Antichrist is to come. It is answered: First, it is denied that the Apostle taught the Thessalonians when the Antichrist would come. Next, the fallacy is committed of alleging impertinent testimonies. For in the testimonies cited it is not said that the Thessalonians knew when the Antichrist would come, but what restrained, that is, what was the cause of his delay, as the Ordinary Gloss and Lyra declare. But what restrained was that at that time the powers of the Roman empire were still intact and not divided.

and that Rome was still under the full power of the Roman Emperor. But by those words, “Do you not remember that, when I was still with you, I told you this?” the time of the Antichrist’s coming is far less signified; rather Paul calls back to the Thessalonians’ memory what he had told them: namely, that the Antichrist would come, what sort he would be, and what he would do. Eighth Testimony. 1 Tim. 6:20 says, “O Timothy, guard the deposit.” The syllogism will be as follows: If Timothy ought to guard the deposit, then there already exist unwritten traditions. The antecedent stands; therefore so does the consequent. Answer: First, there is no consequence in the proposition, since things are being connected of which the one does not follow from the condition of the other. Second, by “deposit” are not understood unwritten traditions, but the sound doctrine of the Gospel, and whatever gifts God entrusted to Timothy, as a deposit, for the edification of the Church. So too Thomas Aquinas, in the exposition of this passage, says: A man’s deposit is every good thing that anyone has, which has been entrusted to him by God, that he may preserve and increase it. 1 Cor. 15: “And his grace in me was not in vain.” And thus he bids him to guard the deposit, that is, to preserve himself in the grace of God and to increase it. And in particular prelates have a deposit, namely the care of their neighbors and of the faithful. John, last chapter: “Feed my sheep.” Hebrews, last chapter: “They keep watch as those who will have to render an account for your souls.” Likewise Nicholas of Lyra understands by “deposit” the flock entrusted to Timothy’s fidelity. Therefore the Jesuit, in understanding by “deposit” unwritten traditions, dissents both from the Apostle’s meaning and from the interpretation of other Catholics. Third, the Jesuit commits a slander when he fastens upon us, as though we interpreted “deposit” of written books or of parchments or papers in which the Word of God is inscribed: for we understand by “deposit” something other than parchments or papers. And therefore there is also empty and childish sport when he subjoins: If he were speaking of written words, he would not so anxiously commend the deposit; for Scriptures are easily kept in cases and by copyists. As though indeed we thought that the Apostle was concerned lest Timothy, by some carelessness, lose his parchments or book, as negligent schoolmen are wont to do. O subtle conjectures of the Jesuit! Ninth testimony. 2 Tim. 1:13 - 14: “Have the pattern of sound words which you heard from me. Guard the good deposit through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.” The syllogism will be as follows: If a minister of the Church ought to have the pattern of sound words heard from the Apostle, and to guard these as a good deposit through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, then there are unwritten traditions. All the antecedents are true. Therefore so too is the consequent. Answer: First, the connection is vitiated by the sophism “besides the consequent” (para to epomenon, παρὰ τὸ ἐπόµενον). For the Apostle’s statement is not speaking of unwritten traditions but of the pattern of sound words and of a noble deposit, that is, of the sincere doctrine of the Gospel which Timothy had heard from Paul, and of those illustrious gifts which God had entrusted to Timothy as a talent to be conferred to the Church’s use. Second, the Jesuit commits a slander when he truncates the Apostle’s testimony, suppressing those things which by no means ought to

have been concealed. For he omitted these words, “in faith and charity which is in Christ Jesus.” But why did he omit them? Because it overturned his view. For when the Apostle sets the two heads of sound doctrine, faith and charity which is in Christ Jesus, each is delivered perfectly in Scripture, so that there is no need to add anything from traditions. For if you regard faith, those things are written by which, believing, we may have eternal life through the name of Christ. John 20:31: “But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, you may have life through his name.” Therefore no unwritten tradition concerning faith is now necessary for salvation. But if you consider the doctrine of charity, that too is delivered perfectly in Scripture: for the whole sum of charity is comprehended in those two commandments: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments the whole Law and the Prophets depend.” Matt. 22:37 - 40. Tenth testimony. 2 Tim. 2:1 - 2: “You therefore, my son, be strengthened in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and what you have heard from me through many witnesses, these commit to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also.” He is not speaking of written words; otherwise he would not have added, “These commit to faithful men who shall be able to teach others,” but he would have said, “Commit them to copyists, that they may transcribe many exemplars.” Nor would he have said, “What you have heard from me through many witnesses,” but, “What I have written to you.” Therefore the Apostle commends to Timothy not words only but also the sense, and far more this than those, and he commands him to hand it down by hand to his successors. The syllogism is as follows: If the things heard from the Apostle were to be committed to faithful men who would be able to teach others also, then certainly there are unwritten traditions. But the former is so. Therefore the latter also. Answer: First, there is the fallacy of the consequent in the proposition: because things heard can be written. There is clear testimony of this in Acts 17:11. For the very things which the Beroeans had heard from Paul, they found in the Scriptures. What sort of consequence therefore is this: They were heard; therefore they were not written? Second, the Jesuit dissents from Thomas Aquinas, his master, who from this place of Paul gathered no unwritten traditions, but so explained it that it is clear enough he understood those things heard about the doctrine of the Gospel confirmed by the prophetic writings. For thus Aquinas says: He warns him that, if he should come to martyrdom, he should dispense the doctrine of faith. A little after: “What you have heard from me, and I from Christ; and I say from me not singly, but confirmed through many witnesses,” that is, through the Law and the Prophets, Rom. 3: “Being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets”; or through the Apostles, 1 Cor. 15: “Whether I or they, so we preach and so you believed.”

Instance I. If the Apostle were hinting at the doctrine of faith which is contained in his writings, then he would not have said, “Commit to faithful men,” but, “Commit to copyists, that they may transcribe many exemplars.” But he said, “Commit to faithful men,” and not, “Commit to copyists, that they may transcribe many exemplars.” Therefore the Apostle is not hinting at the doctrine of faith which is contained in his writings. Answer: First, the proposition is denied. For what sane person will be persuaded that the things which are to be committed to faithful men for teaching are not written? The Old and the New Testament are to be diligently committed to faithful men who are apt to teach others: is the Old and New Testament therefore not written? Second, the state of the question is altered by Bellarmine’s usual sophistry: for we do not say that it was the Apostle’s concern that many copies of Scripture should be had, as the Jesuit falsely intimates; but that that doctrine to be committed to faithful men was none other than what is contained in the Scriptures. Instance II. If the Apostle understood written doctrine, he would not have said, “What you have heard,” but, “What I have written to you.” But he said, “What you have heard,” and not, “What I have written to you.” Therefore the Apostle does not understand written doctrine. Answer: The connection is not of necessary truth: because things heard can be written. We hear in the churches the doctrine of the Gospel: is it therefore not written? Nay rather, we hear it recited from Scripture. For to be heard and to be written are not opposites, since they can be together. Last testimony. In the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John he says: “Though I have many things to write to you, I would not by paper and ink,” etc. From these we understand that many things were said by the Apostle John to the disciples, and through the disciples to the universal Church, which nevertheless are not written. The syllogism would be of this sort: If John and the other disciples said many things which nevertheless are not written, then there are unwritten traditions. The antecedent is true, as is clear from the alleged testimonies. Therefore the consequent also is true. Answer: First, the assumption is ambiguous. For if those things are understood which are not written, namely in just so many express words as they were proposed by the Apostles, it is true; nor do we assert that absolutely all the words uttered by the Apostles have been committed to writing; but we say that all dogmas necessary to salvation are comprehended in Holy Scripture. But if the assumption is also understood of the dogmas themselves, namely that all those likewise are not extant in writing, it is false. For all dogmas necessary to salvation are contained in the sacred letters, because the sacred letters can make a man wise unto salvation, as Paul testifies in 2 Tim. 3:15. Second, testimonies that are impertinent are alleged to prove the assumption. For those testimonies in 2 and 3 John speak only of those brief epistles of John; but the assumption also concerns the writings of the other Apostles. See therefore what sort of argumentation this is: In two epistles of John not all things are written; therefore in Holy Scripture not all things are written. But it is sophistical to deny the whole when one member is denied. And it is just as if someone were to argue thus: This man does not have a finger. Therefore he does not have a body. Or: The two ears of a man do not move. Therefore the body does not move. Third, more is concluded than can be

legitimately concluded. For it does not follow that, if John did not wish to write many things in those two epistles, there now exist unwritten traditions; but only this follows, that the Apostle deferred many things to his coming, which he would set forth face to face. But those many things were necessary dogmas about Christ the author of salvation, whose Gospel brings solid joy to hearers; for the context indicates that such were the things which John wished to explain face to face. They were not traditions about empty matters and ridiculous ceremonies: for from these our joy would not be made complete. Finally, something entirely different is inferred, and the principle is plainly begged, when it is shamelessly asserted that Papist traditions are those things which John did not write in those two brief epistles. These are all the testimonies of Scripture cited by Bellarmine, which The third argument Bellarmine draws from the testimonies of the Popes, the Councils, and the Fathers. He adduces statements from the epistles of Fabian, Innocent, and Leo the First; he says the First Council of Nicaea condemned the heresy of Arius from unwritten doctrine; he says the Second Council of Nicaea and the Eighth General Council embraced unwritten traditions. Afterward he lists many testimonies of the Fathers. Answer: First, in this whole kind of proof the principle is begged: for we acknowledge the sole principle for proving the dogmas of religion, namely the Word of God which GOD delivered to his Church through the Prophets and Apostles, now comprehended in Holy Scripture. Second, the testimonies of the Roman Pontiffs are not fit: 1) because they are in the Pontiffs’ own cause; 2) because they are spurious and falsely ascribed to Fabian and Innocent; 3) because they do not bear witness to traditions of faith and good works, but only to certain rites: but our controversy is now about those, not about these. The First Council of Nicaea condemned the heresy of Arius from Holy Scriptures, as the acts of the Council testify; likewise Athanasius and Ambrose. Theodoret likewise says that Arius was refuted from Scripture. And although it denies that the word “homoousion” (ὁµοούσιον) is in Scripture, yet the reality signified by this word is taught in Scripture - It is denied. The testimony of the Second Council of Nicaea is by no means suitable, because the Council was idolatrous. The testimony of the Eighth general Council is of no greater weight, especially because it equates the Canons of the Councils and the sayings of any theologian, father and teacher - by which it understands bishops and ecclesiastical doctors after the Apostles - with Holy Scriptures. The testimonies of the Fathers alleged by Bellarmine in this case either speak of traditions written in the Prophetic and Apostolic books, as that of Ignatius in Eusebius, History, book 3, chapter 36; Justin, Second Apology; Irenaeus and others; but it is ignorance or a deceit unworthy of a Christian, wherever the word “tradition” occurs in the Fathers, straightway to interpret it of unwritten tradition, when it ought to be understood of written tradition; or they are corrupted by foreign additions, as [the epistles] of Ignatius; or are plainly spurious, as those of

Dionysius the Areopagite; or they treat of traditions of rites and ceremonies, about which at present there is no question, as is the case with very many others; or they are not of good credit, as those Fathers who lived in times already very corrupt, among whom is the Damascene. A fourth argument other Papists, besides Bellarmine, furnish: They obtrude here and there certain sayings or deeds of Christ and of the Apostles which are nowhere extant in the Gospel history or in the other books of the New Testament: as the Apostle Paul, Acts 20:35, says that the Lord Jesus said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive,” yet this is not found in the Gospel history. Clement of Alexandria recites certain things from the preaching of Peter, Stromata, book six, page 269 and the following; and on page 288, where among other things he recites these words of Peter: οὐδὲν ἄνευ γραφῆς λέγοµεν, “WE SAY NOTHING WITHOUT SCRIPTURE.” In the Eclogae or Collections from the Prophets, page 350, he also cites certain things from Peter’s Apocalypse in the same Eclogae. And in Stromata, book 7, page 112, he reports with what words Peter exhorted his wife as she was going to the suffering of martyrdom. Irenaeus the Martyr, book 3 Against Heresies, chapter 3, recites a certain saying of John the Evangelist as he was going out of the bath in which Cerinthus was. And yet these are found nowhere in the books of the New Testament. Answer. We grant that certain particular sayings or deeds of Christ or of the Apostles are reported by the Fathers, but which nevertheless, according to their general ground, are encompassed in Holy Scripture; and such are those just mentioned from Clement and Irenaeus. For Peter teaches in the places alleged nothing other than what Scripture teaches. But now the question is about dogmas of faith and of divine worship which are nowhere found in Holy Scripture. Since knowledge of all singular things cannot inhere in any man, but [only] knowledge of universals from singulars, it is very well that not all the singular sayings and deeds have been recorded in the sacred books, but only certain ones, so that the faith of the godly may be called back to believing those things which are of common reason from some singulars. As to the saying of Christ cited by Paul, although it does not appear in the history of the four Gospels, nevertheless it is no longer an unwritten (ἄγραφος) tradition, since it has been recorded by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. Thus the Papists’ arguments for unwritten traditions have been refuted. The orthodox opinion about unwritten traditions, whether there are now any, is this: Unwritten traditions concerning faith and the worship of God, necessary to eternal salvation, which it is certain are truly divine and Apostolic, there are now none. We prove this opinion by the following arguments:

Thus the first question about traditions has been dispatched. The second is, Whether unwritten traditions are now, besides Scripture, necessary, and have equal force and authority with Holy Scripture. The Fathers of the Council of Trent affirm this in Session Four in the decree on the Canonical Scriptures: “The Tridentine Synod” (they say) “receives and venerates, with equal pious affection and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament, since the one God is the author of both; and also the traditions themselves, pertaining both to faith and to morals, as either delivered by word of mouth by Christ, or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by continual succession.” What impiety is this, to equal to the certain Word of God, which is contained in Holy Scripture, traditions that are forged, uncertain, doubtful? Bellarmine increases the heap of impiety; for he dares to assert that the Scriptures without traditions were neither simply necessary nor sufficient; but that unwritten traditions are necessary;

that tradition alone suffices, but the Scriptures do not suffice. Thus he prefers unwritten traditions to Scripture which is certainly inspired by God. The arguments by which he tries to prove the necessity of unwritten traditions are these:

Answer. We deny the antecedent: for the religion of the Pharisees especially rested upon unwritten traditions, as the New Testament everywhere testifies. Thus Irenaeus the Martyr, book 3 Against Heresies, chapters 1 and 2, writes about the Valentinians, Marcionites, Cerinthians, Basilidians and other heretics: “If anyone does not assent to these (namely, to the Holy Scriptures), he indeed spurns the participant of the Lord; moreover he spurns even Christ the Lord, indeed he spurns the Father, and is self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation: which all heretics do. For when they are refuted from the Scriptures, they turn to accusing the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not sound, nor of authority, and because they are spoken variously, and because the truth cannot be found from these by those who do not know the tradition. For they say that that [tradition] was not delivered by letters, but by a living voice; for which cause also Paul said, ‘But we speak wisdom among the perfect: but a wisdom not of this world.’” The same, book 1, chapter 1, page 24, says of the same heretics that such is the principle of their doctrine, which neither the Prophets preached, nor the Lord taught, nor the Apostles delivered; of which they boast that they have known more than others concerning all things, since they pronounce from the unwritten (ἐξ ἀγράφων), that is, from those things which are not written, and strive (as the proverb goes) to twist ropes out of sand. Therefore the heretics, by the witness of Irenaeus, charge Holy Scripture with imperfection and urge unwritten traditions. So too Tertullian says of the heretics in the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh, chapter 3: “Take away from the heretics the things which they savor with the heathen, that they may rest their questions on the Scriptures ALONE, and they will not be able to stand.” And in chapter 47 the heretics are called skulkers from the Scriptures. The Arians rejected and attacked the doctrine delivered in Holy Scripture concerning consubstantiality, while they repudiated the term “homoousion” (ὁµοούσιον), because it did not stand in Scripture with the same letters and syllables. Other heretics did not reject all traditions, but attacked these and those of the orthodox, in order to defend their own.

Answer. First, it is a begging of the question: for the custom of the Jews and of the Gentiles is not a principle which Christians ought to follow in religion: for that custom was blind in the matter of religion. Therefore the Jews are reproved for their traditions, Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:3. And should the deadly and ruinous custom of the Gentiles be brought forward for Christians? Nor is the example of profane commonwealths, of philosophers, of political customs, a principle of Christian religion. Then there is a great disparity between human and divine things. For in human matters man fails and supplies, and never makes laws without defect and imperfection; but in divine matters God never fails. But if He were said to fail in any matter (which be far from us), what man would supply? Third, Christ and the Apostles did not command us in religion to imitate the philosophers, but to search the sacred letters and attend to them that we may know the truth. Fourth, nature does not cry out that unwritten traditions are necessary in the Christian Church: for how should nature judge things that are above itself?

Answer. First, we deny the consequence assumed: For even if there were no unwritten traditions, yet the privileges of the Church would be great, the dignity great. For what? is it not a signal privilege of the Church that the oracles of God are entrusted to it; that the true understanding of the divine oracles is with it alone; whereby it indicates, announces, and explains the true and genuine sense of divine Scripture to other men? Secondly, we deny the proof, because even if heretics, pagans, and Jews have Holy Scripture and read them; nevertheless they do not understand anything unto salvation, if indeed they understand anything at all. Third, in the place alleged, Irenaeus speaks of the treasury of Holy Scripture, not of unwritten traditions (agraphōis). IV. If there were no unwritten traditions, then the dignity of many mysteries which require silence would perish. But it would be absurd that this should perish. Therefore it is necessary that there be unwritten traditions. The assumed consequence is proved: For if it is not permitted to admit any unbaptized to view the dreadful mysteries of the Mass, how will it be permitted to deliver the same things to them in writing? Hence the Lord was interpreting privately to the disciples the parables which he had spoken to the people, Luke 8. And the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 2: We speak wisdom among the perfect. And everywhere the ancients, when they speak of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, are wont to say: The faithful know, the initiated know. Dionysius touches this reasoning, Eccles. hierarch. cap. 1; Origen, hom. 5 on Numbers; Basil, cap. 27 of the book On the Holy Spirit; and Innocent I, in an epistle.

Answer. First, it is false that many mysteries, revealed by God for our salvation, require silence. The things which God has not revealed cannot even be investigated by any man, much less published; but the things which God has disclosed, he wills to become known to all his sons, and not to be covered with silence before them; as in Matt. 10:26 - 27 Christ says: Nothing is covered that will not be revealed, and nothing hidden that will not be known. What I say to you in the dark, say in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach upon the housetops. Second, we deny the assumed consequence; nor do the things which Bellarmine brings forward contribute anything to proving it. For the mysteries of the Mass are none at all: for the Mass is a sheer fabrication of men fastened to carnal things; it is very far removed from the Lord’s Supper. He rightly calls them the “dreadful mysteries of the Mass”: for that horrible profanation, indeed abolition, of the Lord’s Supper, and that denial of the propitiatory sacrifice once accomplished by Christ, which is in the Mass, ought deservedly to strike all the godly with terror and trembling. Luke 8:10: the Lord was interpreting privately the parables which he had spoken to the people, not because he feared that dignity would perish for those parables if they were explained openly to the people, but for the reason which is expressly set forth by the Lord himself, saying, To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God; but to the rest I speak by parables, that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand. This reason is explained at more length in Matt. 13:10 and the following. When in 1 Cor. 2:6 Paul says, We speak wisdom among the perfect, by no means does he mean that there are certain unwritten traditions which the Apostles delivered separately not to all the faithful but only to the more perfect, and therefore did not refer into Holy Scripture; as Bellarmine hints in this place and urges at greater length in the same book four On the Word of God, chapter eleven, section four and six. For the heretics interpret this passage of Paul just as Bellarmine does, as Irenaeus the martyr writes concerning the Valentinians, Marcionites, Cerinthians, Basilidians, book three Against Heresies, chapter two: “When they are refuted from the Scriptures, they turn to accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not correct, nor were of authority, and because they are variously spoken, and because the truth cannot be found from them by those who do not know the tradition. For that tradition, they say, was not delivered through letters, but by a living voice; for which reason also Paul said, But we speak wisdom among the perfect, not the wisdom of this world.” Thus the doctrine of the Papists of today is the doctrine of the Valentinians, Marcionites, and other heretics condemned by the ancient orthodox Church. What the faithful and the initiated know about the Sacraments, they know from Holy Scripture, not from unwritten traditions (agraphōis): for the orthodox Fathers taught catechumens and the other faithful from Holy Scripture the things that must be known about religion and the Sacraments. Finally, when Dionysius, Origen, Basil, and the other orthodox Fathers speak about certain traditions, they do not mean dogmas necessary for eternal salvation; for they constantly teach that all those are to be taken from the divine writings, as was shown in the Catholic Harmony, chapter one, thesis two; but they mean ritual matters pertaining to the external mode and order, or what

they commonly call the Ecclesiastical Agenda, accommodated to the convenience of each church and entrusted to the judgment of godly pastors, with this condition, that they prudently observe that old maxim, “neither all things, nor to all, nor always” (oute panta, oute pasin, oute pantote). From these things it is clear that the Papists are by no means able to prove their opinion. But our opinion, and that orthodox, is this: Unwritten traditions about things necessary to eternal salvation, and therefore about faith and good works, besides the divinely inspired Scripture, are not necessary in the Church of Christ at this time. Which opinion we confirm by the following arguments: I. Because it cannot be proved by any suitable arguments or witnesses that there are such traditions. But that which plainly does not exist, how can it be necessary to hold and observe? Of a non-entity there is no necessary observance. II. Because without them Holy Scripture can make a man wise unto salvation. 2 Timoth. 3. v. 15. Without them Holy Scripture teaches all things that comprise faith and the manners of living, and therefore all things necessary to salvation. III. Because God does not will the Church of the later times to depend on unwritten traditions (agraphōis), just as of old, when he was still sending to the Church prophets and apostles immediately called and instructed by himself, he did not will it then either, but [willed it] to depend on the prescribed word. Iohan. 5. v. 39. Search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and they are they that testify of me. 1 Tim. 4. v. 13. In the meantime, until I come, give attention to reading, exhortation, doctrine. 2 Tim. 3. v. 15, 16. All Scripture is divinely inspired, etc. 1 Pet. 1. v. 25. The word of the Lord remains forever: and this is the word which has been evangelized to you. 2 Pet. 1. v. 19. And we have the more sure prophetic word: to which you do well that you take heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn and the daystar arise in your hearts. The apostles taught nothing beyond those things which Moses and the other prophets had foretold would come; they recalled the faithful to the Scriptures of Moses and the prophets, never to unwritten traditions. IV. Because unwritten traditions either teach the same thing as Holy Scripture, or something else. If the same, then they are superfluous; if something else, then they are to be shunned; because we are forbidden by the express word of God to accept another Gospel and another Law than that which God has delivered in Scripture. Gal. v. 8 & 9. But even if we or an angel from heaven should evangelize to you beyond that which we have evangelized to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now again I say: If anyone should evangelize to you beyond that which you have received, let him be anathema. Deut. 4. v. 2. You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Prov. 30. v. 6. Do not add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar. V. Because those unwritten traditions which today clash Christians together with such atrocious dissensions for the most part manifestly fight against Holy Scripture, which all true Christians without contradiction confess to be the word of God and the canon of faith and of good works; others are silly and ridiculous.

VI. Because those traditions do not contain things necessary to eternal salvation. For if they were necessary, by divine command they would have been written down, so that they could be preserved amid such great forgetfulness of men, or malice prone to corrupt the doctrine of salvation, and in so many dissensions and disputes of empires, kingdoms, and churches. Indeed, neither would those ἄγραφα dogmas have been preserved, nor could they be preserved, unless they had been committed to writing by some. But if those traditions were not to be written, but to be propagated by living voice, why were they written by certain ancients? But if indeed they were to be written, why were they to be written by others rather than by the apostles, the authors divinely inspired? VII. Because those traditions are utterly uncertain: for concerning one and the same tradition, one of the ancients affirms that it is apostolic, another denies it; as with the tradition which the Chiliasts pretend, some used to say it was apostolic, others afterwards denied it. VIII. Because unwritten traditions have also led the ancients into harmful errors, as happened to Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, and to the Chiliasts, as Eusebius testifies, book three of the Ecclesiastical History, in the last chapter. IX. Because those traditions which the Papists urge are infinite: but of infinite things there is no knowledge. X. Because by their multitude they slavishly burden Christians more grievously than the Jews were once burdened: therefore they are rather to be abolished than imposed upon Christians. See Augustine, tome two, to Januarius, epistle one hundred and nineteenth. XI. Because if also at this time, when God no longer, as of old, raises up prophets and apostles immediately inspiring his word to them, unwritten traditions besides Holy Scripture were necessary, grave absurdities would follow therefrom: for they would make religion infinite (apeireton) and boundless, since what and how many unwritten traditions there are cannot be shown by any suitable arguments; we would slide down into human inventions; whereby many things would be peddled as divine oracles which are not; many things would be added to the Testament of God, which is Holy Scripture, although it is not permitted to add anything even to a human testament; we would accept other things, indeed things alien to those which are written in the tablets of the covenant which God has made with us; religion would be changed every year, as now this man, now that, would bring forth new traditions as divine and apostolic; we would wander outside the bounds within which the apostles themselves kept themselves, adhering so sharply to Holy Scripture that they said nothing beyond those things which Moses and the other prophets foretold would come; how much more ought we to adhere to it, we who are endowed neither with an equal measure of the gifts of the Holy Spirit nor furnished with equal authority, after that old canon has been augmented and enriched by so bright an accession of the New Testament! The prophets and apostles would be accused of having, as couriers and clerks of the Church of God, passed over the greatest part of the things necessary to salvation, of having left the Testament of God imperfect, of having offered to the Church in the name of God the tablets of the covenant between God and us, truncated and mutilated, with so many necessary things omitted:

and, not acquiescing in those alone, they would deny, or at least call into doubt, Holy Scripture, the true and genuine principle of the Christian religion, by which God decides all controversies whatsoever that can arise in his house; nor would they act otherwise than those heirs who, wishing to defraud their coheirs, either conceal the testament in which the testator, in the presence of witnesses above all exception, most accurately set forth his will, or allege that it is imperfect and not sufficient. Therefore, with unwritten traditions omitted, let us abide in those things which we have learned and which have been entrusted to us, knowing that we have learned them from God himself speaking with us through the prophetic and apostolic writings: let us apply ourselves to the knowledge and meditation of the sacred letters, which it has been necessary and salutary for us to know from childhood; let us insist upon them in the whole of theology and religion - those which are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be praise, honor, and glory unto the infinite myriads of ages, AMEN. Thus far therefore we have set forth the principles of Christian theology; perhaps at greater length, yet, as we hope, more fruitfully, since if we had handled them too briefly in passing, without which all the other things which are to be treated hereafter could not have been explained conveniently and abs without any interruption of the didactic order which, the Lord kindly helping, we have resolved to maintain. First the word “Theology” was explained and distinguished according to its significations; then, as regards the matter itself, a definition of theology and its division into archetypal and ectypal was given, and these in turn were divided into their species, until we came to Christian theology, such as in this life is communicated to us by Christ, whose external principle is the Sacred Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture, which is the very voice of God, from which alone true religion is to be taught and learned, from which alone all controversies arising about religion are to be decided; by no means, however, from the writings of the Fathers who taught in the Church after the times of the Apostles. For it would plainly be absurd to speak otherwise about God or about divine religion than God himself does in Holy Scripture; it would also be unjust, in the business of salvation, to call back and bind the consciences of men to the words of men rather than to the words of God; and if in divine Scripture there were not found entire and perfect instruction necessary for salvation, much less would it be found in human writings. All equity and reason also demand that God by his word should rather judge concerning men and their word, than that men and their writings should judge concerning God and his Scriptures. Scripture inspired by God is, with the best right, preferred to the writings of men; and from that same Scripture of God it is more equitable that all controversies stirred up in the house of God be decided, than from human writings. By no means must it be allowed that we transfer to the writings of the Fathers the prerogative owed to divine Scripture alone: which would happen, if we should wish to seek and depend upon a judgment concerning religion from the writings of men rather than of God himself. Men are changeable in their opinions; and unless there were a certain and unchangeable norm of religion, every year new religions would be forged. To the writings of the orthodox Fathers we ascribe as much as is fitting

and as much as they themselves wished. For although we rightly judge that Scripture is to be interpreted from Scripture, nevertheless, that help may also in this matter be brought to the common infirmity of men, we do not reject the expositions and opinions of the Fathers, but we accept whatever they have that is agreeable to the analogy of faith and conformable to the divine Scriptures, giving thanks to God for the most useful labors by which the Fathers have benefited the Church of Christ. Indeed, from the Fathers we refute the Papists, because they acknowledge them for the principle of religion and as judges of ecclesiastical controversies. The sum is this: The writings of the Fathers who lived after the Apostles we do not accept as the principle of religion, nor do we grant that controversies ought to be judged from them by a supreme judgment to which one must wholly acquiesce, even if all with unanimous consent should be on our side; because it is not fitting to make men the highest judges of controversies of religion in the place of God; it is not becoming to transfer to human writings the right and privilege that belong to divine Scripture alone; the falsity of many dogmas can be judged much more easily from Holy Scripture than from the commentaries and writings of the Fathers, who often contradict Scripture, and approve what Scripture disapproves, condemn what Scripture praises; often they doubt about those things which Scripture clearly and perfectly determines; often they disagree with other Fathers, often with themselves. Therefore, when there is speech about the things of God, let us concede to God the knowledge of himself, and let us serve his sayings with pious veneration. For he is a sufficient witness to himself, who is not known except through himself. Satisfy us, O Jehovah, each morning with your kindness, that we may sing and rejoice all our days. Make us glad, for many days you have afflicted us, for many years we have experienced evil. Let your work be clear toward your servants, and your comeliness upon their children. Finally, let the pleasantness of Jehovah our God be upon us; and establish the work of our hands for us; yes, I say, establish the work of our hands. AMEN. THE END OF THE FIRST BOOK.

I N DEX