§ 1. A manifold dispute is raised against us in this place: our version is rejected, our interpretation is attacked, and liberty of prophesying—that is, of interpreting—is sought. To this pertain conflicting versions, vernacular readings, the interpretations of the unlearned, the easiness of Scripture, and adulterations of divine law and right.
The accusations are various and come from various persons. John Gisenius, in The Remembrance of the Reformation, thesis 14: “The authentic edition in the Old Testament is the Hebrew, and in the New the Greek”; and thesis 18: “Scripture is clear, perspicuous, and manifest in the doctrines which it is necessary to know for salvation.” So also thesis 22; and thesis 20: “The interpretation of Scripture is not to be brought in from elsewhere, but must be derived from Scripture itself.” Yet John Salmuth claims for himself the palm of malicious speaking in this part, page 10 and the following pages. He says that the book of the law was as it were lost, partly through contempt, partly through corruption, and partly through burning; that a bad Latin version of the Bible was preferred to the Hebrew and Greek; that the Bible is doubtful, has no certain meaning that can be had from it, and is called the book of heretics, the mother of all heresies, a dead letter, a waxen nose, a Lesbian rule; that the Pope is said to have greater authority than the Sacred Writings; that the decrees of the Pontiffs are preferred to Scripture in many ways; that in sermons Saint Thomas and others were cited more frequently than Scripture, and that Scripture was rarely explained; that Paul’s Epistles were held to be fables; and that power to act contrary to them is asserted for the Pontiff. Balthasar Meisner of Wittenberg calls the festival of their jubilees the festival of the Bibles’ discovery. Wolfgang Franz, in his sermon, approves Luther’s hyperbolical calumny, in which Luther writes to Johann Sylvius that there was no preacher of his time who could expound even a single chapter of Scripture, and he asserted this under oath. The same Meisner, in his sermon for the second day, says that Scripture is called by us the black Gospel, ink theology, and the express word of the devil unless it is understood according to the meaning of the Church.
Indeed, Pareus formerly imposed the same things upon us in the prologue to Hosea 3, question 1, page 13, and now repeats them in his thesis. Erhard Lauterbach does the same in his preparatory sermon and in the second sermon, in which he says that there had been no public preaching, but only preaching in the hearts of the pious. But Catholics judge most rightly in this matter, sectarians most badly. I explain the matter in the following propositions.
First proposition. It is not enough to acknowledge the authority of Scripture; it is also necessary to possess a certain and known exemplar which is authentic. Otherwise it will have no authority among the ignorant. For no one doubts that the word of God is of the highest truth and the highest authority, but one must know that this very thing is the word of God—a true and authentic exemplar. This is beyond controversy.
Proposition 2. The authentic exemplar of the divine law was deposited in the ark; from it various exemplars were copied. Then, as the number of sacred books increased, the prophets’ autograph exemplars were without doubt preserved publicly, and many copies were made; these, however, I do not think were placed in the ark.
Proposition 3. Some think that the Bible wholly perished in the war of Nebuchadnezzar; Bellarmine, book 2, chapter 1 of On the Word of God, and Serarius, prolegomena, chapter 12, question 1, refute them well. Ezra therefore established the order and perhaps, admonished by the Spirit of God, added certain small portions on account of chronology, such as those concerning the death of Joshua and of Samuel. Nor do we dispute concerning this controversy. This alone must be noted: Ezra changed the ancient characters of the Jews into Chaldean ones, for ancient shekels exhibit different characters.
Proposition 4. The Old Testament, if one excepts a few things in Chaldean, was written in Hebrew, and certain things in Greek; the New Testament was written in Greek, although others contend that Matthew’s Gospel and certain other things were written in Hebrew. But however that matter may stand, the Hebrew editions now in circulation do not possess authority.
Proposition 5. The ancient Hebrew text was not wholly corrupted by the malice or negligence of the Jews—neither before Christ’s advent nor afterward. Not before it, because there was no cause, and they were not accused of that matter by Christ or the apostles. Next, since they were variously dispersed, they could not agree upon one error. Third, Christ himself refers the Jews to the Scriptures, cites them, and explains them: John 5:39; Luke 4:17; Matthew 2:47.
Saint Jerome indeed says in his letter to Augustine that he translated the Bible in order that he might bring forth those testimonies which had been omitted or corrupted by the Jews. But he means the Jewish translators who translated it into Greek: Aquila and Symmachus.
Proposition 6. Nothing has been maliciously changed by the Jews during the last one thousand one hundred years; for the Masoretes counted all the verses, words, and letters, so that none could be removed. Rabbi Saadia counted them thus:
Aleph 42,377
Beth 38,218
Gimel is found 29,537
Daleth 32,530
He 47,554
Vau 76,922
Zain 22,867
Chet 23,447
Tet 11,052
Iod 66,420
Caph 48,253
Lamed 41,517
Mem 77,778
Nun is found 41,696
Samec 13,580
Ain 20,175
Phe 22,725
Tsade 21,822
Koph 22,972
Resch 22,148
Schin 32,148
Tau 59,343
Total 8,211,081.
Proposition 6. In Jerome’s time the Hebrew text had not been maliciously corrupted. Thus he says on Isaiah 6: “If some say that after the advent of the Lord and Savior and the preaching of the apostles the Hebrew books were falsified, I shall not be able to restrain my laughter: as though the Savior and the apostles had brought forth testimonies in such a way as the Jews were afterward going to falsify them.”
Proposition 7. Nevertheless, afterward they changed certain things in those exemplars in which they were able to do so. Examples are found in Bellarmine, book 2, chapter 2 of On the Word of God, and in Serarius, chapter 12, question 2. Broughton on Daniel 9, page 45; Hunnius against Bellarmine, book 2, chapter 2; and Junius on Psalm 22, chapter 2, book 2, confess the same. Nothing is more tasteless than this reading which the Jews now defend, οὐδὲν ὑγιές, nothing sound; scarcely a word is complete, nor is there sense. Let Serarius be read in the place cited.
Proposition 8. Therefore, as Serarius rightly teaches in question 12, chapter 2, proposition 7, the Hebrew text which is commonly seen in present-day exemplars, if it is considered mathematically or physically, must be said to be corrupted absolutely; morally, however, it must be said to be corrupted not wholly but in a certain respect: namely, with respect not to all exemplars but to certain ones, or with respect only to certain passages. The former part is evident because, both from the human weakness of either carelessness or someone’s lack of skill, it contains certain errors, and from the wickedness of the Jews it contains some corruptions, as was shown. Now, when the integrity and due perfection of any whole is in question, that is certainly said to be absent both mathematically and physically if even one part is missing or is distorted and corrupted. The latter part is proved because, morally, that author or text does not seem to be wholly corrupted and lost which either is sincere and complete in certain exemplars, or whose true and genuine reading is noted in other books and preserved by the memory and judgment of the learned.
From this, therefore, it is apparent that the source which they boast to be most pure is not so—not only because through the negligence of scribes and human weakness it happened that errors occurred, but because malice revealed itself here and there.
Proposition 9. Bibles as they are now generally published, with vowel points, are not authentic exemplars, for since the points themselves did not exist at the beginning but were added afterward, they are not part of sacred Scripture. Most authors teach this, and Nicholas Serarius does so most learnedly in the prolegomena to the Bible, chapter 3, question 5. Münster says that they were invented at Tiberias, the one in Paphlagonia. But Serarius reports more correctly that it was done at Tiberias in Palestine, about the five-hundredth year of the Lord; even the innovators agree with him. Zwingli, in his preface to the Explanation upon Isaiah, says: “The letters of the Hebrews lacked vowel signs, which their Rabbis, with little civility, both devised and foisted in. This is gathered not only from the fact that Saint Jerome made no mention at all of them, but also from the fact that their most ancient codices, although they now possess those signs, nevertheless did not once possess them, as is detected both from the difference of the ink and from their position.” And a little afterward: “Therefore the reading of this kind was established by usage.” His disciple Pellican says: “Great men think that the Hebrews formerly lacked the signs of vowels and diphthongs; and one may even now find authentic books of the Jews, of venerable antiquity, written with the characters of consonants alone, not of vowels.” The Wittenberg and Tübingen defenders of Lutheran theology, in their book against Scherer, say: “At the beginning the Bible did not possess vowel points.” And a little afterward: “If at the time when the Latin translation which we use was made the Bible had possessed points, the Latin translator could not have changed anything among the vowels. And therefore the points ought not to occasion any difficulty for anyone when true knowledge is sought in the books of the Old Testament.”
The innovators, therefore, cannot appeal to pointed Bibles as authentic, since the points are the work of treacherous Jews. From these things I conclude thus: since the Hebrew text has been corrupted in certain things by human weakness, negligence, and wickedness; since half of it as it is read today does not pertain to the text but is an addition—namely, all the vowel points—one ought not to appeal to it as the purest and most inviolate source, nor to correct all other versions from it.
Proposition 10. Our Latin version is sincere and learned, partly from Saint Jerome as translator and partly from him as corrector. For all confess that he was most learned in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages; Luther alone, in Table Talk, chapter 69, denies what the world concedes: Wer Hieronymum für einen Hebreer schildt / der thut ihm gewalt und unrecht. “He who calls Jerome a Hebraist does him an injustice.” But Luther is not a competent witness in so great a matter, since in the same table conversations he admits himself ignorant of the Hebrew and Greek language: Ich kan weder Griechisch noch Hebräisch; and then: Ich bin kein Hebreer nach der Grammatica, dan ich lass mich nicht anbinden / sondern ich gehe frey hindurch. “I know neither Greek nor Hebrew,” and so forth. “I am not a Hebraist according to grammar, for I do not allow myself to be bound, but pass through freely.” Cochlaeus much more correctly reports concerning Rabbi Elijah: “While I was staying at Rome and employed Elijah the German as my teacher in such rudiments of Hebrew as I possessed, he told me that if someone were to give him payment for his labor, he wished, with my assistance—for he himself was ignorant of the Latin language—to defend Jerome’s interpretation—which, as I read, I compared with his German interpretation from the Hebrew—against all its assailants, whether they were Jews or Christians, from the Hebrew in such a way that it could seem to be justly attacked by no one.”
To the highest skill he added a diligence more than human, concerning which he himself testifies and appeals to all persons skilled in the Hebrew language: the letter to Sophronius; book 2, letter 6 of the earlier Apology; Letter 65 to Pammachius; Letter 4 to Rusticus. Erasmus, in the preface to volume 4, describes him thus:
“In the best kind of theology,” he says, “Saint Jerome holds the first place—I speak of the Latins—and so holds the first place that he leaves all others far behind him. Indeed, we possess no one whom we could in any way compare with him, so that even learned Greece itself, among so innumerable theologians, scarcely possesses anyone who may equal our Jerome, if only you weigh not merely some one excellence but all his endowments together. In one man you will find so great a knowledge of secular letters, as they call them, so great a knowledge of all antiquity, so complete a knowledge of so many languages, so admirable an acquaintance with all places and histories, so uncommon an erudition in the mystical volumes, so great an inimitable eloquence, so exact a
judgment indeed, so sacred an ardor of a divinely inspired breast, so well-arranged and ready a memory of such diverse matters, so felicitous and rich a mixture, and finally a severity seasoned with so great a charm, that, just as men eloquent in themselves, if compared with Cicero, immediately seem to become mute, so all the Doctors whom we admire without comparison, when compared with Jerome, scarcely seem to know, scarcely to speak, scarcely to live.” And David Chytraeus in the Onomasticon: “Jerome, pleasing in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin eloquence alike, an exemplar of morals and teacher of the world.”
Proposition 11. It received authority from the time of Saint Gregory the Great, until thereafter, by the approval of the Doctors alone, it began to be in use. Hugh of Saint Victor, question 9: “The Church of Christ throughout the whole Latin world established that this version alone was to be read and held in authority.” But this was not in use immediately from the time of Gregory.
Proposition 12. The Council of Trent approved this version, but wished its edition to be as emended as possible. And rightly so, for it is most ancient, is from the best author, is praised by many, and was approved by the Churches even of old.
Proposition 13. That at last I may repel so many calumnies in one word, I freely affirm that our Latin version is approved in such a way that nevertheless their own authority remains to the Greek and Hebrew sources. Reader, accept the opinion of Nicholas Serarius, my teacher, which is in the prolegomena, chapter 9, questions 11 and 12, and is worthy of being read in more than one codex.
How Great an Authority Was Attributed by the Council of Trent to Our Vulgate Version
The quantity or greatness of the authority which is attributed by the Synod of Trent to our Vulgate edition can be considered in two ways: 1. Absolutely. 2. Comparatively. For that phrase in the preamble of the decree, “from all the Latin editions,” signifies a comparison. And because the innovators press and demand this very strongly, it will be treated in the following little questions; for now, only the authority acquired for our edition without comparison will be treated.
§ 2. The authority which in that decree is attributed to our edition is contained within the class of version alone. To understand this, it must first be noted that a writing can be authentic and its version not authentic. Second, a version can be authentic and the writing not authentic. Third, both the writing and the version can be authentic. An example of the first class is found in so many heretical versions of the Bible. For the Bible is authentic; those men’s versions are not. An example of the second class would exist if someone faithfully translated a false letter, or a pseudepigraphical and mendacious book—for example, Origen’s books περὶ ἀρχῶν, On First Principles; or some papers and doctrines of Calvin or Luther, so that they might be examined in a Council. An example of the third class is found in the Bible and in our version of it. I say, however, that although both the Bible and our version of it are authentic, nevertheless in this decree the authority only of the version itself is sanctioned. First, because both the aim and the words of the decree show this. Second, because the authority of all the biblical books and parts had already been sanctioned by the earlier decree concerning the canonical Scriptures.
§ 3. How this authority of our version is to be understood is customarily explained in two ways. First, without limit and without any restriction. Second, definitely and restrictively. In the former manner the heretics of whom question 10 treats appear to understand and assail this decree; certain Catholics also sometimes appear to intimate this, such as Suárez in part 3, volume 1, question 7, disputation 21, and the declarations concerning session 4 of the Council of Trent recently printed at Frankfurt in this very year 1603. Many Catholics understand it in the latter manner.
For first, Driedo, book 2, chapter 1, frequently—as on folios 33 and 35, but especially in conclusion 3, folio 24—says that this edition is declared authentic not in every manner, but only in this: that, diligently collated, examined, and tested against the Scriptures in their source, it contains nothing deceitfully added or altered.
Second, Cano, book 2, chapter 13, conclusion 1, says that this edition must be retained in all those matters which concern faith and morals.
Third, Andrés de Vega, book 15, chapter 9, says that this version is authentic in such a way that the faithful may know certainly that no pernicious error can be derived from it, and that it can be read safely and without danger. And afterward: “The Synod wished it to be held authentic to this extent: that it should be certain to all that it is defiled by no error from which any pernicious dogma in faith and morals could be gathered.”
Fourth, Andradius, book 4, follows Driedo on folios 254–256 and Vega on folio 257.
Fifth, Sixtus of Siena, at the end of book 8, although conceding that errors and slight defects are found in the Vulgate edition, nevertheless wishes it to be authentic, “because it is certain,” he says, “that neither in the old nor in the new edition has anything ever been found which departed from the truth of the Christian faith; was false and mendacious or contrary to orthodox dogmas and rules; was added beyond the truth, changed contrary to the truth, or omitted to the prejudice of the truth; was so corrupted that it furnished occasion for pernicious error; supplied matter and fuel for heresies and depraved dogmas; or was translated so obscurely and ambiguously that it concealed the mysteries of our faith or failed to explain them sufficiently and as much as is enough for salvation.” And again a little afterward he says that those slight defects are indeed in the edition, but without any detriment to faith and morals.
Sixth, Bellarmine, book 2, chapter 11: “The Church wished to make us certain that, especially in matters which pertain to faith and morals, there are no errors of translators in this version.”
Seventh, Bellarmine’s own opponent, book 2, chapter 0, page 537, explains the authority of this edition in such a way that it everywhere attains the meaning of the Holy Spirit so far as doctrine and morals are concerned. There is a similar restriction on page 542: “so far as the dogmas of faith and morals are concerned”; and on page 565: “Did Saint Jerome err in those things which the Church approved as authentic and which pertain to dogmas of faith and morals?”
Eighth, Father John Sacrobosco, cited by the same author on page 541: “When we say that we possess Scripture authentic in the Latin language, we wish to say nothing other than that our translation is the true word of God, complete and incorrupt, from which Christ’s flock may be taught and questions concerning faith and morals may be defined without fear.”
Ninth, Alfonso Salmerón, prolegomenon 3, in question 2 concerning the Vulgate edition: “The Council of Trent leaves liberty to all who meditate more profoundly upon the Scriptures,” and so forth, “yet not so that they may condemn it as falsely interpreted, especially in matters concerning faith or good morals, or as containing an intolerable error.”
Two propositions.
I. The authority attributed by the Council of Trent to the Vulgate version must not be understood without limit, but definitely, with certain qualifications. This is evident:
-
Because the aim of the council and the cause of the decree are best preserved with qualifications of this kind.
-
Because so many and such competent authors think thus.
-
Because through just qualifications of this kind, as though by a certain bridle and bit, the unbridled and immoderate insolence and abusive speech of the heretics against this decree are restrained.
-
Because the grave and trustworthy theologian Andrés de Vega, cited in the place indicated, solemnly affirms that he frequently heard from the president of the council himself, the Cardinal of the Holy Cross,
that the council’s intention was that qualifications of this kind should be understood. He wrote this while that cardinal was still living and could be questioned about the whole matter. Indeed, this is the very man who afterward, in the year 1555, between sessions 16 and 17 of Trent, was called to be Supreme Pontiff Marcellus II.
5. Andradius recalls the same matter in book 4, folio 257: “That most learned man, Brother Andrés de Vega,” he says, “who participated with the greatest praise in the Council of Trent under Paul III,” is confirmed by many.
6. Vega proves the same matter not by authority alone but also by reason. He says that this was the mind of the Synod and that it wished to establish nothing further; you can gather this from the words themselves and from other customary approvals of the council.
7. The heretics cannot deny that it is just for sound qualifications to be employed in explaining this authority, because they either do the same regarding the authority of their own versions, or, whether they wish it or not, ought to do it. For:
1. Whitaker, controversy 1, question 2, chapter 8, says: “Although some of our interpretations differ in certain passages, nevertheless they do so neither in many nor dangerously.” Behold a qualification and limitation in these last words.
2. They confess that they do not yet possess versions which are perfect and in which nothing ought to be changed. For this reason, first, they frequently alter and correct the versions they possess, as was stated in chapter 18, question 1, and as is apparent in Beza’s version of the New Testament, in Letter 80, page 348, and in the Genevan correction and edition of the Bible in 1588. Second, for this reason the Dutch are still considering and preparing new versions, as John Drusius testifies in the preface to the book On the Tetragrammaton, the Name of God; and the English likewise do so, as Hugh Broughton often related to me. He had been invited and almost drawn to that work by the studies and letters of many persons and even by royal rewards, so that he had already applied his hand to both Testaments, but especially to the New, and had interpolated very many things, as I myself saw in the English Bible of the London edition of the Old Testament in 1578. And Robert Gentilis, in the year 1605, says in a prefatory little letter to John Howson, in his father’s previously cited little book On the Latinity of the Old Version of the Bible Wrongly Accused: “You are now engaged with others, by the king’s command, in preparing the English version”—in the year 1605.
Indeed, the pastors and professors of the Church of Geneva, as they call themselves, write in the preface to the previously mentioned Genevan correction: “Versions are perfected little by little, so that at last one may be possessed”—therefore one is not yet possessed among them—“which, if it is not altogether perfect, a thing rather to be wished than hoped for”—behold, they despair of a perfect translation—“may nevertheless be at least so pure that those who are not endowed with that knowledge by which they can hear the Lord speaking with his own mouth—that is, in the Hebrew and Greek language—in the prophets and apostles may be able to rest upon that version, or to establish and confirm themselves in it. Thus whatever should still appear to be lacking would be noted with great care by diligent pastors as they teach their flocks.”
There is added the fact that, as was stated in chapter 11, question 2, these innovators do not think that the word of God is authentically contained in the versions themselves. It is therefore necessary, for the sake of all their own people, that they variously qualify and restrict the authority of the versions which they either read or set before the people to be read. Thus they cannot blame us when we attach sound explanations and qualifications to our version.
II. The qualifications with which the authority of our version must be understood are principally four. Of these, the first pertains to the subject of this assertion, “The Latin version is authentic”; the remaining three pertain to the predicate.
-
That this version be emended, or rather most emended.
-
That it contain nothing opposed to truth, faith, and good morals.
-
Likewise, that it contain nothing which may furnish anyone a just occasion for any harmful or useless opinion whatsoever.
-
That it be good within the very class of version—that is, that it translate the original text and render its meaning.
The several points are proved.
I. From the preceding question 10. But I have now added “or rather most emended,” because the superlative by which the Synod of Trent commands this edition to be printed—the adverb “most emendedly”—shows that it speaks of the edition itself insofar as it is most emended, namely by paronymy and by an argument from conjugates. Therefore Andradius, book 4, folio 257, after exposing the cunning and malice of Chemnitz, who enumerates many errors which he contends were imposed upon us as divine oracles by the Fathers of Trent, adds: “For he could not have failed to read that part of the decree in which the sacred Synod established that henceforth sacred Scripture, especially this very old and Vulgate edition, should be printed as emendedly as possible, in order to demonstrate that it approved only that Vulgate edition which had been purged from all errors with the greatest diligence.” And on folio 257: “When we have received from the Apostolic See the old Vulgate Latin edition as emended as possible, we shall be free from all concern and doubt.”
2. From the concordant explanation of the many theologians who have been cited, almost all of whom indeed fight against the heretics; and, as was said, from the very aim and words of the decree.
3. From the same source.
4. From the nature of the very matter treated here. For to approve any version is nothing other than to judge that it renders well what had been written in another language. Thus it can happen, and indeed frequently does happen, that a book or letter written in some language is authentic while its translation is not; and conversely that a book or letter is not authentic while its version is. Gregory of Valencia, book 8 of the Analysis, chapter 5, says: “That any version is authentic means nothing other in this place than that it conforms altogether in meaning to the original writing.”
Now it is evident that this explanation must be joined to the preceding ones, because otherwise the Synod would scarcely attribute anything more to our Vulgate version than a sound and accurate censure customarily attributes to the books of those whom Catholics judge. From this explanation, moreover, just as from Gregory of Valencia in the passage cited, it follows that the Council here declares the authority of our version to be divine, for the reason, namely, which was explained in chapter 11, question 2. But I always say “well” and “good” in the positive degree, because comparison will be treated in the following questions, as I said at the end of the preceding question.
Besides the things objected in the preceding little question, one thing occurs which can be objected. Declarations of the Council of Trent were recently published at Frankfurt in this year 1608. At their beginning, concerning session 4, it is read thus: “Vega, book 15, chapter 9 of On Justification, who spoke so boldly concerning this, must be sharply reproved—”
But I answer: while revering, as is proper, the authority of declarations of this kind—whether they are judgments of judges, opinions of doctors, responses of wise men, or some other thing of this kind—it can be doubted whether they were published without corruption and error. For neither is the grammar sufficiently sound in the words immediately preceding, nor does Vega appear in that passage to affirm anything opposed to them. Next, the typesetters, the other workmen, and the master of these declarations were heretics. And in his own preface to the reader he intimates that something somewhere is corrupt, which he nevertheless ascribes to the intricate hand of the exemplar itself.
I myself have seen the same declarations in manuscript, in which none of these things existed.
- That declaration pertains to the words which precede the decree that we are treating, “with all their parts,” and declares that the complete books of the Bible with all their parts are to be held sacred and canonical. For it adds: “Even if it were only one period, one clause, one word, syllable, or iota which conflicted with the Vulgate Latin edition.” But not only we, but Vega himself, willingly confesses this whole matter concerning the emended or most emended version.
§ 4. I brought forward the grave accusations above. Sharp rubs anew the old falsehoods in controversy 6.
Eck is cited as though he said that Scripture is not authentic except by the authority of the Church. Next, a certain Hermann is produced by Pareus, Sharp, and others as though he said that the Scriptures are of no greater force than Aesop’s fables if the authority of the Church is absent. But Eck speaks of the Bible with respect to our knowledge; that Hermann is nowhere and never existed except in the brain of those who fashioned an enemy for themselves so that they might conquer him. And nevertheless a great part of the Jubilarians have covered their own inventions with this fable as though with snow. But so that they may perceive in this part also the true and stable faith of Catholics, I shall explain the matter in a few words.
First proposition. The authority of sacred Scripture is supreme: efficiently from God, and formally in itself on account of truth, which is the conformity of the utterance and the things, or of the sign and the things signified. In this matter the more cautious do not dissent from us, except that Calvin and certain others impute some false things and petty lies to it, as I taught a little above.
Second proposition. In order that any truth may be known and approved, it is not enough for it to be in itself ἀξιόπιστον, to possess firmness from itself and to be worthy of belief; it is also necessary that it be taught through competent witnesses and instruction. There are three persons in the Godhead; the world was created in six days; man fell; the world was overwhelmed by the flood. These things are certain, but in order that they may be believed, it is not enough for them to be certain in themselves; it is necessary that their certainty be explained to the ignorant and the doubtful.
These things must also be applied to the Bible itself. For just as I believe that Moses led the people out of Egypt and promulgated the law on Mount Sinai, so too I believe that he wrote those books which are called the books of Moses. For with the same faith I embrace the truth of the books and of the history. Yet this is not established sufficiently from the Bible itself, because history is not known from the nature of the matter, nor is a thing heard believed unless there is some reason which persuades us of its truth. Robert Rollock, Calvin, Pareus, and the fervor of the Jubilarians therefore err when they deny that there is need of anything else by which we may discern the Scriptures, just as we know the sun, discern darkness from light, white from black, and sweet flavors from bitter.
For if someone relates Mosaic history to an ignorant person or reads it to him, will he not still doubt the truth of the history and consequently the credibility of the book in which it is contained? The Calvinists rejected the Apocalypse; now they approve it. Were the former men therefore blind, or did they not distinguish the sun from darkness? And if in a matter αὐτοπίστῳ, by its own nature most known and most clear and the cause of that light which is in the Church and in the hearts of human beings, they erred, why do they still retain authority among those who err?
Third proposition. With respect to human beings, God first gave the authority of Scripture to the person to whom he revealed it, so that he might know certainly that he possessed those things from God. Next he made them known to the people and confirmed them by miracles. Hence the Church which then existed received them and handed them down to posterity—the Church, that is, the assembly governed by the Spirit of God. Hence comes that saying of Augustine, book Against the Fundamental Epistle, chapter 5: “Indeed, I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.”
Fourth proposition. The authority of Scripture and of the Church is believed by us under this formal reason: because God revealed it. Besides that revelation there are motives of credibility which induce us so that it may be evident that the matter can prudently be believed. They are not, however, the reason of believing itself, but only motives, which can be proposed to someone concerning Scripture in such a way that he believes its authority although he does not expressly think about the authority of the Church; nevertheless, the authority of the Church is implicitly believed even in this act.
Fifth proposition. The Church is not only a known object, or an object of faith believed, as it is in the Creed, “I believe the holy Catholic Church,” but also one of the motives. It is indeed older and better known than Scripture, and therefore its authority possesses very great weight in believing the Scriptures. Yet it would not be necessary if there were other arguments by which the authority of the Bible could be proved perspicuously and without suspicion of falsehood. But this cannot be done. For how can not only the West Indians, ignorant of reading, but also the Japanese and Chinese immediately read through all the books of the Bible and know their authority? Indeed, how can those who cannot pronounce Hebrew and Greek learn those languages?
Sixth proposition. The authority of Scripture in itself is absolutely greater than that of the Church, because the whole of it and all its apices are from the Holy Spirit. But in the definitions of the Church only the judgment which is defined is believed to be from the Holy Spirit; the preceding disputations and arguments are not of faith, and even the words can be unnecessary and superfluous. Next, Scripture was handed down by holy and most wise prophets; without the labor of meditating, studying, or disputing, they wrote entirely by heavenly instruction and confirmed their writings by miracles. Finally, all and each of the things in the Scriptures are most certain, whether they treat generally of faith and morals or of individual things, past or future. But only those definitions of the Church are believed by faith which have been sufficiently proposed, are general, and concern faith or morals.
Seventh proposition. When, therefore, the authority of councils, the Supreme Pontiff, or, in one word, the Church is equated by some with Scripture, this is to be understood only of the truth of their decrees. Thus the words of Saint Gregory, book 1, Letter 24, must be understood: “As I venerate and confess that I receive the four books of the holy Gospel, so I venerate and receive the four Councils.” Here the particle “as” is one of similarity, not equality, as Bellarmine and Serarius teach in the prolegomena, chapter 7, question 12. Nor ought anyone to be offended by this proposition, for Saint Athanasius rightly says in his letter to the African bishops: “The word of God, through the ecumenical Synod of Nicaea, remains forever.” For the Holy Spirit assists his Church and governs it forever. Nor ought it to seem wonderful to any human being that the authority of the Church is constantly true and never fallacious, when we see that those who spurn it attribute wholly to their own authority
what they took away from the Church. For they profess themselves to be certain by private impulse. If any unlearned person possesses such great certainty in his own judgment, why do they deny it to the Church, since God himself testifies that the word of the Church is the word of God and that those who contemn it reject God himself? Matthew 16:18 and 18:17; Luke 22:32.
Eighth proposition. In some respect, with regard to certain human beings, the authority of the Church is greater than that of Scripture. No one who has observed something similar in every sect will wonder at this. First, the Church proposes Scripture as something to be believed, expounds it, and proves its authority in whatever manner it can to catechumens. They believe the Church which proposes it, and its authority is more evident than that of Scripture, many parts of which they do not know. The Lutherans value their own church more highly—the church which rejects the Epistles to the Hebrews and of James. Indeed, this is altogether necessary for them, as is established from the things said before. For since most do not possess Hebrew and Greek exemplars, scarcely anyone has examined all things according to the original languages, and no one at all has read the αὐτόγραφα, the autographs, they believe their churches. The Lutherans say that their own Bible is rightly translated and condemn the Zurich Bible; the Calvinists, conversely, condemn the Lutheran Bible and believe their own. Thus each person so claims the sacred law for himself that he denies it to others.