The Lord here proposes about twelve [things], which for confirming his mind avail not a little. The first is: “None shall be able to resist you, all the days of your life.” But someone will say: many resisted, and with great forces. But here the Hebrew word of “resisting” means to stand, and indeed so firmly that no one either falls or yields. For the conjugation hithpael [the Hebrew reflexive-intensive stem], in which this verb is, brings [conveys] this force. But how long-lasting [was] this so great felicity of driving out the enemies? As long as Joshua would live. Just as in his name, so also in the life of the Israelites and the good fortune [faustitas] of triumphs, [this felicity] was enclosed. So that we may know [that], as long as Christ lives in us, and rules and leads us, no phalanxes of the flesh, of the world, and of Tartarus [hell] can [prevail] against us — and wars indeed will not be lacking, but [there will be] perpetual victories in them, and laurels always green, ever [flourishing].
Nor indeed does it seem absurd — [the thing] which Masius carps at in some [passages] — that I rightly hinted at those calamities into which the Israelites cast themselves, by their own sloth [socordia] and by impiety against God, after Joshua’s departure [death]. For what he objects first — [that] it is little consonant with those most prolix promises of God, which promised the highest amplitude of the land — is easily rejected by [pointing out the false] denial [assumption]. For those promises were with a condition, as [was] said quest. 8: [they held] as long as Joshua should be among the living, [and] were to be kept; and therefore also the felicity connected and joined with it [was so]. Hence [is] that [saying], Judges 2:7: “They served the Lord all his (Joshua’s) days, and [those] of the elders who lived a long time after him.” He objects, second: [that] Joshua was, after the manner of a best father, solicitous about the future safety and dignity of the Israelites; therefore the Lord ought to have indicated to him nothing about the future depravity and unhappiness of the Israelites. That conclusion is to be denied. First indeed, because Moses was the Prince and best Father of that same people; and yet Deut. 31:27 & 29 [says]: “I know that after my death you will act wickedly, and will quickly decline from the way which I have commanded you; and evils will befall you in the last time,” etc. Then, was it not a great consolation [to know] that this people — even if it were most prone to evil — yet, through the whole age of Joshua himself, would persist in [its] duty, and would obtain immense victories? Third, it is not foretold for certain [as] future that, [with] him taken from life, the Israelites would sin, and be entangled in various miseries — but it is only hinted; and it is for certain affirmed that, [with] him surviving, nothing of the like was to be dreaded. Now, fourthly, [the Lord], by this very [hint], stirs up care and solicitude always, both in those who rule and in those who are ruled — in Fathers and in sons. In those [rulers] indeed, that by laws, institutions, and precepts — the best — they should strive to instruct and prop up these [subjects] excellently for the future time; but in these [subjects], that they should obey them [the rulers], and not live [as] Epicureans, freed from all care and fear. The other [thing] is: “As I was with Moses, so will I be with thee.” The fount and origin of all the foregoing felicity is shown. For neither [is there anything] greater, nor more fortified, and more blessed than [for God] to be with us—
(col. 279)
—[than for] GOD [to be with us]. Which also is hinted by the Poets, when to Ulysses they join Minerva, to Aeneas Venus, to other heroes other gods [as] companions and, as it were, side-attendants [laterones]. Aristides in the panegyric oration: ᾧ περ ἔφη Πίνδαρος, θεοῦ δείξαντος ἀρχήν [as Pindar said, “God having shown the beginning [leading the way], there is nothing that hinders”]. And against the detractors of leisure, [again quoting] Pindar: “God showing the beginning, that which is set forth flows well [prospers].” But Suidas [gives the proverb]: θεοῦ παρόντος, ἅπαν ἄπορον πόριμον [“with God present, everything impassable [becomes] passable”]. Whence the Adage: “God going before, no obstacle hinders.” Of this, however, [there is] more in [my commentary on] Ruth, where that [phrase] “The Lord [be] with you” is explained, ch. 12 quest. 2 and following. But the Lord does not simply promise himself [as] about to be with Joshua, but comparatively, “as he was with Moses.” For in various manners — according as [there are] various effects — can God be with someone. But he was with Moses as regards grace, familiarity, [and] help, in the approach to Pharaoh and the leading-out of the Israelites from Egypt (Exodus ch. 4), in the government of the people, and the vanquishing of enemies. As regards the same [things], he was also with Joshua — although as regards familiarity, in a somewhat inferior manner. For Deut. last [ch. 34] v. 10: “There arose no more a Prophet in Israel, like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and portents.” By an elegant allusion to the eternal Word — as also often elsewhere — the Chaldee renders [it]: “as my Word [Memra] brought help to Moses, so also to thee will it bring help.”
The third [head]: “I will not send thee away, nor forsake thee.” Here [is] a certain confirmation, or rather amplification, of the foregoing reason. Many [people] are sometimes wont to be friends, familiars, [and] helpers to some; but not much after, from no [cause], or an easy cause, they desert them. Not thus will [the Lord] do with Joshua, the Lord promises — nay, [he promises] to be constant and firm in the promised friendship and help. The same, and in entirely the same words, he promised to the whole people of the Israelites also, Deut. 31:6. From which we understand: first, that from friends [one is] not rashly to withdraw; then, that God will be present to us in evils and adversities, as St. Chrysostom proves hence (homil. 6 to the people); third, [we are] to beware lest we offer ourselves [as] those whom — beyond [their] will — the Lord should have to forsake. For by him no one is forsaken, unless [that person] first forsook him, as St. Augustine somewhere said. When from the King of Babylon legates had come to Ezekiah, “the Lord left him” (2 Chron. 32:31), “that he might be tempted, and all things be made known which were in his heart.” But if he had willed, in that temptation which the Lord permitted he could have stood, nor withdrawn even a little from the Lord. For it is one thing [for] us to be somewhat left by God so that we may be tempted, another to be simply left. This — except to those [who first] leave him — does not happen.
The fourth [head]: “For thou perchance shalt divide to this people the land, which I swore to thy Fathers that I would hand over to them.” It was a great [thing] to promise that land to the Israelites’ Fathers; a great [thing] to lead them to it through so many and so great portents and victories. Why then [is it] not also a great [thing] to settle these very [people], as it were, in the best inheritance — and, in that matter, to act [as] the minister of God himself, and, as it were, [his] vicar? Truly, that Joshua would be such is said in this book, and this — as also in other places often — is repeated [as] something ample and signal (Num. 34:17, Deut. 1:38, ch. 3:[28]). In the Hebrew, however, [there is] here no mention of “lot,” but: “Thou shalt make this people inherit the land.”
(col. 280 [printed 281])
Our [Interpreter], however, expressed this very thing, and something more — namely the manner in which he was about to send that people into that inheritance. But if to lead some into the possession of land is of so great [worth], of how great, I beseech, [is it to lead them] into the eternal inheritance of the heavens? And if the consideration of this matter ought to make such great spirits for Joshua himself, in so great dangers and troubles of affairs, how great a consolation from the end set before them will they take, to whom [belongs] this one office and care — that they should constitute as many heirs of heavenly goods as possible? From this place [some] good Authors teach [that] the Angel who consoled our [Lord] JESUS — grieving and afflicted in the garden, that is, in the very vestibule of his passion — took a rich matter of consolation. But the Lord had sworn about that land, Gen. 12 & 15.
The fifth [head]: “Be comforted therefore, and be very strong, that thou mayst keep and do all the law which Moses my servant commanded thee.” From the end is drawn the argument of this confirmation. For it behooves Joshua to be of a strong spirit for this cause: that the whole law of Moses is to be kept and done by him — as the particle “that” [Ut] demonstrates, and [as] the Greeks’ infinitives φυλάσσεσθαι καὶ ποιεῖν [phylassesthai kai poiein, “to keep and to do”], and likewise the Hebrews’ “to keep, to do.” But Masius thinks these two are to be taken so that in the former the latter is concluded, thus: “Be entirely strong and very firm, so that thou observe to act according to the whole law.” Because in the following v. 8 it is said in Hebrew, “to keep to do.” Better, however, is the copulative particle “and” understood [supplied]. For the Seventy themselves judged it to be inserted, and the Latin Interpreter; and those Hebrews who refer those two infinitives to diverse [things], as R. Gerundensis [Nachmanides]: to whom “to observe” here is “to beware of forbidden things,” but “to do” pertains to those which are commanded to be done. Nay, and elsewhere in the Hebrew, between these same two words the conjunction is wont to be inserted, as Deut. 7:12. And as regards the meaning: “It is,” says Masius, “to observe to act — the same as to attend the mind to acting, and to give effort lest anything of those [things] be omitted, by which law the precepts are [given].” Rightly this indeed; but if with the Latin and Greek Interpreters we retain the copulation, does not that very geminating [doubling] of words signifying, as it were, the same [thing], bring the same force? Here, therefore, let us observe six [things]. First, why those who rule over others ought to be of a strong and lofty spirit above the rest. Namely, it behooves them not only to strive for this — that they somehow coerce the people, by a certain human prudence, and by fear or reward bend [them] to acting on those [things] which alone withdraw from them temporary evils, and conciliate goods of the same kind — but much more that the law of the Lord, and indeed [that] above all, should flourish [with them]; [that] he himself should thoroughly express this in himself; [that] he should be zealous [that] it be kept by all as most diligently [as possible]. Whence a twofold error is here cast out. One [is] that of those who, concerning the principate of faithful and Christian Princes, and their end, perceive nothing more sublime than [what they perceive] concerning the Gentiles, and those [whom] nature alone teaches: as though it were enough to ward off thefts, robberies, and other injuries, [to procure] peace, tranquillity, and the affluence of all fleeting things, but [to procure] nothing — or perchance exceedingly little — of faith and of laws above nature, somewhat—
(col. 281)
—[reason] raising us [above nature]. It is nonetheless far different to be only a Prince, and to be a Christian Prince; to be a King, and to be a Christian King. And yet even for that Ethnic [pagan], or merely natural, Prince the wise will that account be had — greatest — of virtue and of all those [things] which lead to the true end of man and the extreme good. Let the Philosopher [Aristotle] be read (bk. 1 Eth. 9, bk. 5 ch. 1, bk. 7 Polit. 1, 13, & 14); Plato (bk. 1 & 4 On Laws, in the Epinomis, and elsewhere); Plutarch (tom. 3 opusc. at the beginning, and tom. 2 on those who are slowly corrected by the deity); Demosthenes (toward the end of the oration against Aristogiton); Isocrates (to Nicocles); Hippodamus the Pythagorean (bk. on felicity). And there can be summoned hither those [things] which, in St. Thomas (1a2ae quest. 92) on the general end of laws, are wont to be discussed, and are copiously disputed by some Jurisconsults — Navarro (bk. on the ends of human acts), Epo, and Garcia Fortunio.
The other error — and indeed by far the fouler and more detestable — [is] of those who, though they wish to seem Christians, nevertheless fundamentally overturn the Christian religion. These, by some, are called “Politici,” by more “Machiavellisti” [Machiavellians]; and they esteem this one [thing] to be done by Princes: that they render [their] resources and empire as fortified and ample as possible — yet not by the true, sincere, and chaste worship of God, [nor by] faith and religion, but by a feigned, simulated [worship], and that [only] such-as-it-be, which namely they judge to please the people and [to be] plausible to the crowd. O impious ones! O hypocrites! The Lord here prescribes to Joshua — and through him to all Joshua-like, or Christian, Princes — that they put on great and altogether manly spirits, and this with that aim and end: that they, through themselves and through their subjects, should keep the whole law and discipline of God whole and covered [safe]. Let us observe, second, [that] not undeservedly, for such and so signal an aim, is fortitude enjoined. For truly difficult [things] — very many, laborious and most troublesome — occur. There is the very weakness of the peoples, mostly regarding only earthly [things]; [there is] the tergiversation of many from all [things] which are a little loftier, the slowness in the duties of virtues, and murmuring. There are the slanderous tongues of many; there are hidden seditions, enmities, snares. Which of these do we not see in those who at this time give their labor to restoring the old, holy, and Catholic religion? But some have already conquered all these things most strongly. He conquers even now, and — as divine grace bids [us] to hope — will thoroughly conquer [Vincit … peruincet], the great imitator of Joshua in his Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, the best offspring of the best parents, hero most strong, most learned, most religious, FERDINAND the Archduke. Let us observe, third, [that] not only is Joshua here said to be of a strong and corroborated spirit, but two adverbs are added in the Hebrew, which add a certainly great force, of which one is “VERY” [VALDE], the other ours [i.e. our Interpreter’s], and before it the Septuagint rendered “THEREFORE” [IGITUR] — which can also be rendered “utterly,” “altogether,” “at least” [prorsus, omnino, duntaxat]. Let us observe, fourth, that the observation of the law is required — not [only] as to some [part], but as to all — Deut. 6:2. “Whosoever [shall keep] the whole [law],” says St. James ch. 2 v. 10, “but shall offend in one [point], is made guilty of all.” On which place [there is] a beautiful [comment of] St. Augustine [in]
(col. 282 [printed 283])
epist. 29 & 102. But it is worthy of consideration on account of those who esteem one or another heresy in themselves, or in the people, tolerable: they do not trouble [themselves] if there be a dissension in one or another dogma. But how would the faith be Catholic, if there be not assent to all [the things] which it rightly proposes? Of this certainly St. Athanasius sanctions in his Symbol [the Athanasian Creed]: “Which except everyone keep whole and inviolate, without doubt he shall perish eternally.” But is it possible that anyone should keep the whole law? That any man of the Christian name should doubt of this, one will wonder — [anyone] who has seen the Lord will and command it. Does he will that we do what cannot be done? Does he command that we bear on [our] shoulders some universal weight, of which we can [bear] only some pounds and parts? Truly, [only] if the Lord be either imprudent, or importunate and Tyrannical. Nor yet is it thereby brought about that we should never sin even a little. For even if a good man should somewhat sometime depart from duty, or rather do something beside [his] duty, yet he contemns no law, but from ignorance or weakness so only offends that meanwhile the law publicly flourishes, and of that fault of his he at once grieves, and corrects it, and by prayers seeks pardon, and requires the firmer grace of God. Let us observe, fifth, [that] God thus speaks of the law as though Moses were its author, and it ought to be kept for his authority — although he was only that minister. But this is the goodness of God toward his servants: that when he uses their work and ministry, he conciliates to them as much authority as possible. It will be permitted, therefore, to think what obedience a religious man owes to the founders of his discipline; but let him keep and do those [things] which the servant of God enjoined him — St. Anthony, St. Basil, St. Benedict, Francis, Dominic, Ignatius. What when the Church herself commands anything? Let us observe, sixth, [that] the Lord did not say “which Moses commanded you,” but “which [he commanded] thee.” For even if in reality laws and precepts are given to all, yet Princes, and those set over others, ought to esteem that these look to them by a certain principal reason [concern them chiefly]. For in the life, example, and care of these [rulers] is the life of all the laws. If they keep them, the subjects also will keep [them]. If they establish rewards for [those] keeping them, punishments for [those] violating [them], these [laws] will flourish and breathe [live] in every assembly, order, sex, and age of men.
The sixth [head]: “Decline not from it [the law] to the right, or to the left, that thou mayst understand all [things] which thou doest.” First [it is] to be known [that] it can seem to someone [that] it was here written: “Decline not from him” — namely from Moses. Because in the Hebrew it is not feminine, as [it is] Deut. 17:18 & 19, but masculine; and so R. David [Kimchi] interprets. And thence it would be gathered again how great was Moses’s virtue and authority, and of what sort it ought still [now] to be [in the highest] of all superiors, so that from them the subjects should not depart even a little. Nonetheless [that] ought to be retained which in all the Latin books I see, “from it” [ab ea, feminine = the law]. Because if it were treated of Moses, it would [be treated] most of all on account of the law, of which he was the administrator, [and so] it would be [treated] as if it were “from him commanding the law”; and therefore, while [one] does not depart from that [law], neither is [one] departed from this [Moses]. 2. Because the Masoretes confess [that] here the masculine is put for the feminine. 3. Because the Seventy said—
(col. 283)
—ἀπ’ αὐτῆς [ap’ autēs, “from it” (feminine)], namely ἀπὸ τῶν ἐνταλμάτων [apo tōn entalmatōn, “from the precepts”] — [one is] not to decline. For before, they had put the verb ἐνετείλατο [eneteilato, “he commanded”], in which are included ἐντάλματα [entalmata], that is, “precepts.” Second, Ralbag [Gersonides] thinks [that] “to the right” those decline who add something of their own to the divine law, but “to the left” those who detract. But that formula of speaking extends more broadly. For it signifies, first indeed, the desertion of right life itself; then any reception whatsoever of another [way], or any deflection from that [right way] to either side — whether it be done for the sake of something useful, pleasant (nay, even [something] which seems good and pleasing to God), or on account of some detriment, pain, and torment, [or for] pleasure and impiety. For all that former is signified through “the right,” this [latter] through “the left.” For the way of the Lord’s precepts is direct, and most compendious [shortest]. If from it [one] deflects, one comes at once into an oblique [path] — just as among Geometers, while from two proposed points a line ascends or descends the least [amount, it becomes oblique]. But that [figure] is a most usual proverb in Scripture — Gen. 24; Num. 20 & 22; Deut. 2, 5, 17, 28; here, and below ch. 23:1; 1 [Sam.] 6 & 14; 2 [Sam.] 2 & 14; 4 [Kings, i.e. 2 Kings] 22:2; [1] Chron. 34; Prov. 4; Isa. 30:2; [1] Cor. 6.
Nor indeed do those decline “to the right” who — besides God’s word — retain also the sacred and Apostolic traditions, or the formulas of some religious discipline. For these do not desert the right way, but always insist [stand firm] on it; and by those very traditions or pious formulas of living they strengthen themselves in it, either that they may never fall from it, or that they may always be able more expeditiously to run forward in it. Third, one cause of this admonition is subjoined: “that thou mayst understand all [things] which thou doest.” The Chaldee, and almost the Rabbis, render: “that thou mayst prosperously act in all [things] which thou doest.” But the Hebrew word also means “to be prudent, and to understand the matter well.” And so also here the Seventy took [it]. And indeed whence [comes] true prosperity, and the felicity of things to be done, if not from true prudence — which is not carnal, nor only human, but divine also — namely from the grace of God, and drawn from the sacred fonts of his doctrine, and from the admonitions and examples of his holy servants? Of this [is] that not-vain [saying] of I-know-not-what bard: “No deity is absent, if prudence be with thee” [Juvenal, Sat. 10].
That, therefore, this [prudence] may be obtained, and its companion and shadow, felicity, one must persist in the Lord’s laws, and neither to the right nor to the left be plucked from them — as they say — a nail’s [breadth], or a hair’s [breadth], nor bend aside. The verb “to act” [Agendi] is here put by the Seventy and by ours for the Hebrew [verb] “to walk” [ambulandi], by a trope, which also at Deut. 29:8 is properly expounded through “to do” [facere] in the Hebrew.
The seventh [head]: “Let not the volume of this law depart from thy mouth.” But why “from the mouth,” and not — as at Prov. 3:21 — “from the eyes,” [and why does it forbid] this book to be laid down “from the hands”? Some answer, [that] “mouth” is put by synecdoche for the face, or even for the whole man. But in equal manner it could have said “eyes and hands.” Therefore it said “mouth.” First, because that action which we outwardly perform beyond [more than] the beasts [i.e. speech] most of all signified [the law is] to be conformed with all zeal, and to be moderated by the prescript of the divine law. For “death and life [are] in the hand of the tongue,” Prov. 18:21. If the mouth is well ruled, all the rest also are ruled well. “If anyone,” says St. James ch. 3 v. 2, “offends not in word, he [is] a perfect—
(col. 284 [printed 285])
man, powerful also to bridle the whole body with a rein.” Second. The Lord also willed to signify that it behooves his law to be thoroughly affixed and impressed in the heart. For if this volume ought not to depart from the mouth, neither ought it [to depart] from the heart itself, because — as the Lord says Matt. 12:34 — “from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” And rightly some of the ancients said τὸν λόγον εἶναι τῆς λόγου ῥεῦσιν [ton logon einai tēs logou rheusin, “that speech is the outflow of reason”] — because from it, as from a fount or some full vessel, it is wont to flow out. “The heart of the wise,” says Prov. 16:23, “instructs his mouth, and to his lips adds grace.” Third. To princely men it is especially fitting that their speech — and almost every word and syllable — be brought forth rightly, knowingly, and in order; because always very much depends on it, [and] all weigh it and far and wide judge [by it]; and from it, of his wisdom, morals, and authority, judgment is made. But truly, how can it be that from anyone’s mouth the volume of the law should never depart? It is sufficiently agreed [that] by “volume” is understood not the [physical] volume itself — or the membrane, or the papyrus, and the ink — but the things prescribed in it. Yet since so often (both to those sleeping and to those waking) silence must be [kept], and when truly [one must] speak, other [things] which daily use brings must be spoken — how can this volume be always in the mouth? In two ways some [things] are said to be always to someone “either in the mouth or in the breast [heart].” First, if always, “when one ought, or [when] it is fitting.” Second, if “most frequently.” For thus teach so many other similar formulas of speaking, and the very Masters of letters themselves. But it is [there] “most frequently,” when now the very law of God is praised, soon from it something is learned and said, taught and admonished; now about it too there is inquiry and discussion. And those [uses] indeed, in a certain manner (of which afterwards [more]), fit all Kings and Princes. But there is another manner by which “always” a book is here in someone’s mouth: if, namely, whatever he speaks, he speak from the rules of this book; [and] whenever he is silent, he be silent conveniently [in accord] with the precepts of this book. And so Ps. 118 [119]:43: “Take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth.” But from the Hebrew a little question again arises. For in it is: “Let not this book of the law depart from thy mouth” — so that not any book of the law [in general], but “this” [iste], namely one certain and demonstrated [book], is to be entrusted to the mouth. So some of the Rabbis think, and they say that book was that one which Joshua, when the Lord addressed him, had before his feet; or which he was wont to carry in his hands for a standard [ensign], and then held in his hand at that time. Yet there is no need of those fictions. “This book” demonstrates the species [kind], not the individual [copy]. And that our Interpreter and the Septuagint might teach this more clearly, they rendered “the volume of this law,” not indeed “the volume of the law [that is] this [physical one].”
The eighth [head]: “But thou shalt meditate on it days and nights, that thou mayst keep and do all [things] which are written in it.” The end to which the perpetual domicile of the divine volume in the mouth — and its nocturnal, diurnal, and assiduous meditation — ought to be referred, is here proposed. He who is perfect [does so] not — as our heretics — that he may coin new dogmas; not — as the Jews — that he may fight for the old perfidy; not — as some of every kind of men [do] — that he may contend with all and about all things: [but rather] that he be preferred to all, be pointed at with the finger, and be said [to be]—
(col. 285)
—and be said, “this is he”: but that he may live according to His precept; [and] to its exact rule [amussim, plumb-line] let all [things] done, said, and thought be diligently and accurately directed. “Not the hearers of the law are just with GOD, but the doers of the law shall be justified,” Rom. 2:13. But not less truly than skillfully it was said by the Rabbis in the tractate Sanhedrin ch. 17: “He who reads the sacred letters, and does not confer what he reads to action, is like to him who sows often, [but] never reaps; and likewise to the woman who often bears, but at once buries [her] children; finally, to the singer who sings the whole day, and afterwards has nothing.” A similar disputation also [is] in another book of the same Rabbis, which is inscribed Tseror hammor, that is, “the bundle of myrrh.” But there is a most useful [thing] for the keeping of laws and the effecting of certain matters — namely, meditation. For this does not permit any forgetfulness to creep in; it rouses the mind to acting, and even the very members of the body — in those waking indeed always, in those sleeping sometimes too — so that that most true [saying] may seem [confirmed]: πάντα μελέτη δύναται [panta meletē dynatai, “practice/meditation can do all things”]. “Meditation can [do] all things.” In the military matter, Philopoemen is commended by Plutarch, because in the very journeys he perpetually thought about battles, affairs, and places apt for the battle-line; and thence he is narrated to have obtained the highest skill of the military art — and praise, victories, and very many trophies. What, therefore, should he do to whom the law of the Lord [is] a meditation? But the Hebrew word [for “meditate”] seems to some to signify “speech” [sermonem], and by a trope the very “thought of the heart,” which is a certain speech. But truly it rather primarily signifies that very thought, and then is transferred to its first effect, namely to speech. For serious and keen meditation is wont to burst forth into words — so much [so] that those who are even alone often do not contain [their] voice, as St. Augustine noted in himself in the bk. of Confessions, [and] Lucian too, in those philosophizing. And so it is brought about that in the Scriptures sometimes “mouth and tongue” are said to “meditate” — Ps. 34 & 36, 70, 124, Isa. 59:3. But “that one should meditate nights and days — [that] cannot be done”? The same answer here is which a little before was [given], when it was said in what manner it could be done that from anyone’s mouth the book of the law should never depart. For by the use of all [men] this proverb is worn [smooth/common], by which also the Poet was saying: “You [pl.], turn over the Greek exemplars by nocturnal hand, turn [them] by diurnal [hand]” [Horace, Ars Poetica]. And our David, Ps. 1: “In his (the Lord’s) law will he (the just man) meditate day and night.” But if in the law of the Lord, and in his book, there ought to be so great [a] meditation — [a] perpetual [one] — what place, I beseech, and what time will there be for reading other [things]? [Are] the codices of the Poets, Orators, Philosophers, and other so many and so various [authors] all to be cast away? Thus they seem to have felt in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Menachoth (or on the vespertine and mealy oblations) ch. 11 fol. 99b, 41. R. Ishmael, being asked by [his] sister’s son — after he had sufficiently learned the law of Moses — whether it was permitted [him] to give some [part] of [his] time to the writings of the Gentiles, answered: “God wills that we should expend nights and days on his law.” Let him therefore consider all the parts of time, and number all the hours; and if indeed he should find some [time] outside the space of day and night, let him confer that indeed to the reading of the Gentiles. Cleverly [said]. And similar [things] are read in the Jerusalem Talmud, in
(col. 286 [printed 287])
tractate Peah & Sotah, and likewise in R. Azariah, bk. 3 Me’or Einayim [Meor henaim] ch. 2 fol. 39b. But truly of the Christians there was none to whom this same opinion smiled [was pleasing]; rather, by learned men [it was] lately [refuted] — by Espencaeus and Possevino, but once by St. Basil, St. Augustine, [and] St. Jerome — excellently confuted. And indeed R. Samuel, son of Nachman (as is subjoined in the same place of the Babylonian Talmud), and R. Jonathan in Tractate Menachoth ch. 11 fol. 99b, say [that] of so great meditation here [there] is not a precept, but a benediction [blessing] — as our [men] today would say, a “counsel”; that is, [that] they are not guilty of a violated precept who do not do [it], but they act better, and therefore [that] blessing and reward follow those who give themselves to such meditation. And so the Prophet [David] in the cited Psalm: “Blessed [is] the man who went not in the counsel of the impious: but in the law of the Lord [is] his will: and in his law will he meditate day and night.” And he subjoins by what excellent utilities he may yet [further] invite [us to it] — of which a little after [more] — and Ps. 118 [119]: “Help me, and I shall be saved: and I will meditate on thy justifications always.” “How have I loved thy law, O Lord? All the day is my meditation.” But to whom, from his occupations and affairs, is there not so much of leisure that he should so assiduously handle that thought — what should he do? It is certain [that] the states, arts, and occupations of men are various. Nonetheless all can, first, expend this time which is fixed for this matter by God or the Church — as of old was the sabbath, as Josephus writes bk. 2 against Apion (so much [so] that he says his Jews had the laws of God thoroughly sculpted in [their] mind, and held them better by memory than even their own proper names): today, with us, it is the Lord’s day [Dominicus], and other festal days. Then indeed, [is there] any prudent [man] so entangled by so great labors, cares, [and] businesses, that from single days or nights he cannot give some little [bit] of time — even if it be exceedingly little — to that so useful and praised meditation? See, if [it] please, [the things] which about the meditation of all human actions generally — from the Seven Sages — the Corinthian Periander delivers, in Ausonius. But for that matter St. Chrysostom thinks the nocturnal time most apt, when [other] mortals, and all other animals, have the deepest silence. For even at midnight David rose to confess to the name of the Lord, Ps. 118 [119]:62. But because sleep sometimes embraces the weary too tightly [for them] to be able to rise then, the matutinal [time] also has no small praise. “In the mornings,” says the same David, Ps. 62 [63], “I will meditate on thee.” Nor indeed [is] the vespertine [evening] time entirely alien [to it], Isaac demonstrates — who Gen. 24:63 had gone out to meditate, the day being already inclined [toward evening]. For I cannot assent to the Nebrissensis [Nebrija], [in his] Quinquagena ch. 28, that in that place an act of the body rather than a thought of the mind is understood; but the cause I have brought forward there [in my commentary]. But since of Princes, Kings, and Emperors the occupations are so many and so great, truly in great price and most deserved praise were always those who gave something more of effort to the reading and meditation of the sacred divine books. Among these, of our [people], were very many. For Constantine the Great — in Eusebius bk. 1 On his Life ch. 26 — with all care and thought, after he had decreed to be initiated in the sacred [rites] of the Christians, bent himself upon this study; and this was sufficiently plain in the Council of Nicaea—
(col. 287)
—[at the Council of Nicaea], where he also had a most learned oration. Whence also Porphyry the Poet wrote to him: “Amid the virtues of war, triumphs, and laurels, and the sanctions of laws, and other [things], thou art at leisure even for the Muses, thy familiars, so much — so that, amid so many insignia of divine majesty, by which thou art always among the first, of this too, by [thy] study, in thee there shines an excellent splendor.” The author of the Hungarian kingdom, St. Stephen, even as an adolescent burned with a wondrous cupidity of sacred letters, as Bishop Chartuitius narrates of him. But the most eloquent writer Osorius, bk. 6 On the Institution of a King: “Never,” he says, “shall I be able sufficiently to praise many Princes of Lusitania, who in those uncultured times — in which all excellent studies seemed to be buried — nonetheless read much; because their sermons, which we read translated into the annals, easily declare [themselves] full of the sentences of Philosophers. But in the sacred letters they were versed with the highest zeal, so that if anything were to be written by them in Latin, they wrote in entirely the same style. As King Alphonsus the First, founder of this kingdom, whose divine virtue — joined with admirable wisdom — is deservedly to be celebrated in all eternity. He, therefore, when he had comprehended in Latin letters — and not inconveniently — the site of the city Scalabis, and its most minute art, and the multitude of soldiers, the vigilant diligence, and the vigilance of the prefects defending it (that with 120 men only, most brave, well-provisioned, he had taken it in one night), and the site of the city, the fertility of the region, and that storming: yet so, that it may appear he perceived from the sacred letters not only the discipline of living, but also the style and reason of speaking.”
What [of] Charles the Great [Charlemagne]? He was so studious of the same letters that — as in the 10th epistle to him Alcuin [Albinus] writes — “from him the streams of wisdom [flowed], and the light of erudition shone forth”; and the same [Charlemagne] unravelled most difficult questions posed by him with most learned responses. Whence, admiringly, tom. 9, in the year of the Lord 778, says the most Reverend and most illustrious Baronius: “It could plainly seem a miracle, that in this rude age was found a King so cultivated in the sacred letters, and — always set in [the midst of] warlike expedition — a Prince philosophizing about divine matters as though at leisure; so that him whom they deservedly call ‘Great’ by title, I myself would by [good] right thrice call ‘Greatest’ — namely by warlike fortitude, by knowledge, and by piety.” And he who in those times bound in a commentary the deeds of the Emperor Ludovic [Louis the Pious] — Theganus — after he had reported that this [Louis], crowned by [his] Father Charles himself, instituted by various precepts on piety, religion, and justice, and sent into Aquitaine, subjoins: “The Emperor (Charles) began to do nothing else than to be at leisure for prayers and alms, and to correct books. For the four Gospels of CHRIST which are entitled by the name of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, in [his] last [days], before the day of his death, he had most excellently corrected together with Greeks and Syrians.” And it is indeed true, [the thing] which in this place Chytraeus noted — [that] the same Charles acceded to psalmody in the temples, and sang together [with the choir], and distributed lessons to be sung to [his] sons and to Princes (for in his Life this very thing Eginhard testifies); but I wonder [that] the heretic [Chytraeus] adds this: “This Charles the Great first widely propagated the Christian religion in these Saxon regions.” For since this be most true, does he not condemn both himself and his Saxons by a most sad sentence — that from that very religion, and those sacred [rites], which he first brought into those shores, they have now most basely departed—
(col. 288 [printed 289])
—[departed]? Yet he goes on: “And he founded very many Churches and Bishoprics in this Lower Saxony and Westphalia at his own expense.” Truly [so]. But why are these now overthrown, their resources — either into the treasuries of Princes, or certainly to other uses, [in] abuse and [breach of] faith — sacrilegiously snatched away, [resources] for the cause of which he had founded those [Churches], through the doctrines of new heresies? Namely, from the pious and greatest heroes of Christian Princes these Innovators cannot praise anyone, unless it burn a most base [mark] upon themselves — because they have degenerated from those [heroes]. Of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus writes — [he] who heard him twice disputing — Euthymius Zigabenus, at the beginning of his Panoply: [that Alexius], when he saw various heresies raging in his Greek Empire, [gave] signal labor to the sacred letters. “When from public,” he says, “and most grave duties and cares of the Republic something of time was left over, he consumed all that in reading accurately the volumes of the divine scriptures; and about these he conversed with excellent men, of whose great multitude the Royal [court] is always wont to be filled, cultivating above all approved discourses: with a certain immense love of which his mind burned.” But a signal [thing], and almost worthy of amazement, [is] that which bk. 2 Panormitanus writes: [that] “the King of Aragon, Alphonsus, read through the sacred Bible fourteen times, with the Glosses and Commentaries.” Of the Lord Philip II, King of the Spains, the Gallic historian Petrus Matthaeus writes (bk. 1 hist. of the Frankish peace, p. 64) in these words (translated, however, from the French): “His exercises were either in the reading of the Bibles, through which God speaks to men, or in prayers, through which men speak to God.” But from the Old Instrument [Testament], what David did in this kind, [the things] show more clearly than the noonday [light] — his very Psalms, especially the 118th [119th]. And that other pious Kings and Princes bore themselves after his manner — [kept] the precept which is fixed at Deut. 17 — who could deny [it]? It pleases indeed — because it is very much connected to this place in which I have now for a while been engaged — to recite that very [passage], and to note a few [things] about it. Thus it has, v. 18: “After the King shall have sat on the throne of [his] kingdom, he shall describe [copy out] for himself the Deuteronomy of this law in a volume, taking a copy from the Levitical priests; and he shall have [it] with him, and shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and to keep his words and ceremonies which are prescribed in the law. Neither let his heart be lifted up into pride over his brethren, nor let him decline to the right part or the left, that he may reign a long time — himself and his son — over Israel.” But three — or four — [things] are by these words enjoined to the King, and then the ends of those precepts are shown. Of those which are enjoined, the first is that the King copy out for himself the Deuteronomy of the law. Whether by another’s hand, or by his own, it is not said; and I am rather of opinion that either was permitted. First, because [the things] which we do through others, we ourselves also are said to do, as the rule of Law has [it] — in those [cases], namely, which touch only exterior work, not however proper morals. Then, because the Rabbis in Rambam [Maimonides] bk. 14 — which is called Sophetim or Judices [Judges] — in the last tractate, which is On Kings and Battles ch. 3 & 4, hand down [that] the King ought to have had two books of the law: one in his treasuries and gazae [treasure-chambers], the other always in readiness [at hand]; and [that] this could signify [that] the King received books of this kind from [his] elders, and used them, as if he himself had copied [them]. Yet [it is] more consonant with the text—
(col. 289)
—would I judge [it], if he himself should take up that labor [of copying]. For, first, thus the words of the text are taken in a simpler and more candid sense, and it satisfies the first [immediate] thought which, from those same words, occurs to any reader. Then it more agrees with the end of these precepts, which requires the perpetual memory of them. For [the things] which we ourselves write, we imprint on the memory much more firmly and tenaciously than [those] which we only read, as St. Ambrose rightly noted, epistle 45: “not only with the ears, but also with the eyes we weigh those [things] which we write.” And therefore, although they could have used amanuenses, I would believe [that] pious Kings nonetheless sometimes copied out the divine law with their own hand — as also, of our [people], there were indeed [such]. For, besides others of whom [I spoke] above, the histories testify [that] the King of the English, Alfred, completed all the books of the New Testament twice by his own writing. — The other [precept] which is enjoined is that the King copy out the law — not from any [copy] whatever, or from anyone’s exemplar, but from that which [was] in the keeping of the Levitical priests. But of what sort was that? And why so commanded? To the former [question] it seems [one] must answer that it was the very autograph of Moses, because Deut. 31:24 we thus read: “After Moses therefore wrote the words of this law in a volume, and completed it, he commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying: Take this book, and put it in the side of the covenant of the ark of the Lord your God, that it may be there against thee for a testimony.”
But it could be objected, first, [that] that book could be given [only] by the Supreme Priest [High Priest], because to him alone [was there] access to the ark — especially [after] the temple was now built — and [that] indeed only once in the year. Then, [that] by more frequent use so august a treasure would have been worn and much soiled. Third, [that] it could perhaps also, by the wickedness of some copyists, be depraved in something — either by deleting, or by erasing, or by imitating [i.e. producing a corrupt copy]. I answer, [that] it was either the autograph or an apograph [copy], but of such a kind nonetheless that it was agreed to have been copied from that [autograph], and to agree thoroughly with it. But to the latter [question] the answer is easy: [that] it was commanded so that error and all depravation might be absent. Then indeed, [so] that they might so know themselves — in both the reading and the explication of the sacred letters, all [of them], even Kings — to depend on the Priests; and so that the authority of these [priests] might be sanctioned, [and] the humility of their [the Kings’] spirit exercised. — The third of the precepts is that this law be always with the King himself. In Rambam [Maimonides], in the cited place, the Rabbis teach [that] before the King’s sight the law ought always to be, even when he was waging wars, unless these three [things] perchance occurred: First, that he should go to the latrines; Second, that [he should go] to the baths; Third, [when he should go] to some other place which was unworthy of the reading of this [law]. — The fourth and last of the precepts is that the King himself should assiduously read the book of the law which he wrote. For therefore [was it] first enjoined that it should always be before [his] eyes — so that occasion for reading it should never be lacking. But how long ought Kings to do these [things]? The context shows, saying: “After he shall have sat on the throne of his kingdom, and all the days of his life” — that is, from the first beginning of the kingdom unto the very last term of the same, and of [his] life at once. But the ends [purposes] why all these are enjoined to Kings are five — or by five
(col. 290 [printed 291])
manners at least are they indicated. The first, that they may learn to fear GOD, as says Ps. 2, David: “And now, ye Kings, understand: be instructed, ye who judge the earth.” The second, that they may keep [his] words and ceremonies — or, as the 70 render, τὰ δικαιώματα [ta dikaiōmata], his “justifications”; and in the Hebrew is added whither [to what end] it behooves to keep these, namely to doing them. The third, lest they be lifted up by pride. The fourth, lest they anywhere decline to right or left. The fifth, that both they themselves, and their sons, may long and happily govern the people of the Lord. And on account of these same [ends], conveniently, to this very text — [to] an illustrious leader of the warlike affair — this precept, in the fifth rule of Justice which he both praised in Esther, once gave the Carthaginian Ferrandus: “The study of reading,” he says, “although occupations arising from every side [press], let it grow hot by the vigor of spiritual desire, [with] tepidity removed.” And more copiously — and, the causes being repeated from the very inmost philosophy, more subtly — St. Thomas, opusc. 20 [On the Governance of Princes], bk. 1 ch. 15: “As,” he says, “[our life] is ordained, as to [its] end, to the life which we hope [for] in heaven, blessed — as [is the life] by which men here live well: so the good of the multitude he [the King] orders as to [its] end, whatsoever particular goods are procured through man — whether his riches, gains, or health, or eloquence, or erudition. If therefore he who has care of the ultimate end ought to be set over those who have care of [things] ordained to the end, and to direct them by his command, [then] it is manifest from what has been said that the King — as he ought to be subject to the Lord and to a certain governance [which] they administer through the office of the priesthood — so he ought to be set over all human offices, and to order them by the command of his governance. But to whomsoever it falls to perfect [accomplish] something which is ordained to another [thing] as to an end, this he ought to attend to: that his work be congruous to the end. As the smith makes a sword that it may suit battle, and the builder disposes a house so that it be apt for dwelling: [so], since the end of the life by which we live well in the present is heavenly beatitude, it pertains to the King’s office to procure the blessed life of the multitude by that reasoning which is congruous to attaining heavenly beatitude — namely, that he command those [things] which lead to heavenly beatitude, and, as far as it be possible, forbid their contraries. But which is the way to true beatitude, and what are its impediments, is known from the divine law, whose doctrine pertains to the office of the priests, according to that [saying] of Malachi ch. 2: ‘The lips of the priests keep knowledge, and they shall require the law from his mouth.’ And therefore in Deut. 17 the Lord enjoins: ‘After the King shall have sat on the throne of his kingdom, he shall copy out for himself the Deuteronomy of this law in a volume, taking a copy from the Levitical priests, and shall have it with him, and shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and to keep his words and ceremonies which are enjoined in the law.’ Taught, therefore, by the divine law, to this chief study he ought to bend [himself]: in what manner the multitude subject to him may live well.”
But from the camps of the heretics I see some sometimes come forth, and cry out, [that] Princes and Kings are invited by the Scripture itself to the reading of the sacred letters, but, on the contrary, [that] both they and almost all Christians are kept away [from it] by the Tridentine Council — namely in the fourth rule of the Index of prohibited books. I answer, first, [that] from the reading of the sacred letters there [in that rule] not even one [person] — either a Christian, or any little man whatsoever—
(col. 291)
—[not even one Christian] is barred, [not] in the least — but only from the vernacular versions of the Bibles, which the heretics themselves testify are not the sacred letters, as can be seen in Whitaker’s controversy. For they will [maintain] that only the fonts [sources] — that is, only the Hebrew in the Old Testament, only the Greek in the New — are the sacred letters. And this very [thing] is confirmed from their own opinion, still in threefold [manner]. First. Various among themselves — [to say nothing] of the multiple Latin [versions] — are the vernacular versions, not only in diverse tongues (German, Gallic [French], Polish, and others, which the Nuremberg Lutheran Elias Hutter ridiculously — with no fruit and greatest expense — began to heap into one volume), but even in the same one tongue. For [there is] one version among us Germans, the Lutheran; another the Zwinglian, or Tigurine [Zürich]. If these are worthy of the name of sacred letters, then diverse in diverse Nations — and in the same one, for the cause of the [same] Word — will [there] be German sacred letters. Second, they correct these their vernaculars now thus, now otherwise. Therefore they would [be] correcting the sacred letters. For of Luther I taught in the Biblical Prolegomena [that] he confessed himself often to have erred in his version, and to have believed the Jewish Rabbis more than [was] fair. The Calvinist Pastors and Professors of Geneva [and] France — to whom they hitherto had attributed so great authority — correct their Bibles, and from the edition of the year 1535 they inquire [into] many [things] noted from the Hebrews and Greeks, by which they may amend various places of that prior version, in the edition to which they so tatteredly [laciniose] prefaced in the year 1588. And behold, this very correction was still being derided — and [called] inept — in the previous week, when (over his table, by good fortune, being inspected by my associate) the English heretic Hugh Broughton [Brughtonius] was saying [so] — [he] who very often casts the highest ignorance of the Hebrew tongue upon all the Genevans. But see how great [things] that Elias Hutter delivers, in the year 1602, in a little German book, to all the magistrates. Third. The Calvinists forbid the Lutheran version, the Lutherans the Calvinian, as is known from that which was in dispute between the Heidelberg Pareus and the Helvetian [Swiss] Samuel Huber. Do they too forbid the sacred letters? “No,” they say, “but with this only [proviso], we correct the versions, and forbid [them].” Rightly. But what is the cause, that when by that fourth rule of the Index they call [men] away not simply from the versions of the Bibles, but from the vernacular [versions], you conclude [that] Christians are deterred from the sacred letters? Desist therefore, I beseech, from calumniating, and from puffing forth, among the unlearned, [such] bubbles of lies of this sort. I proceed now, and I answer, secondly, [that] that rule does not call [men] away from the vernacular versions of the Bibles altogether and utterly, but most moderately — with that very condition, namely, which the expounded place of Deuteronomy applied: that these versions be sought from the priests themselves; that is, that the faculty of having and reading them be sought from the Pastors themselves — the Bishops, I say, or (where indeed they are) from the Inquisitors. What in this modification, I beseech, [is] imprudent, worthy of cavil, or [of] reprehension? [It was] certainly said before, [that it behooved]
(col. 292 [printed 293])
even Kings themselves to demand the exemplar of the Bibles to be copied from the Levitical priests — and this, lest in the variety of other exemplars perchance some [bit] of error or depravity should be in [it]; and likewise, so that in the custody and explication of the divine volumes the authority of those Priests, and the submission of Kings, might stand [firm]. How much more equitable, therefore, [is it] for the rest of the people to depend on these same [priests] — not in the true and germane text of the Bibles, but in the vernacular versions of them, which by the universal Church are not yet approved, [and] very often are not yet sufficiently apt or emended, as we heard the adversaries themselves confessing of their own [versions] a little before? In the Sacrament of the Eucharist — than which nothing [is] more holy in the Church, nothing more [holy] to any Christian — to receive it, if one will, is more exposed [available]; [and yet] we see among them, even the Lutherans and Calvinians, [that] the faculty of receiving it is sought from the Preachers, or certainly they acknowledge — if anyone should note an abuse of their people — [that] one can ask leave for this, lest without their concession anyone should approach it. I answer, thirdly, [that] a faculty of this sort — in some regions indeed easily conceded to Kings and Princes, who obtain so many and great other [things] — in our Germany [is] seen [to be] long since conceded. For the Bishops and Parish-priests know and see [that] the German Bibles of Dietenberger are handled everywhere in the hands of Catholics, and — though they most easily could — do not reprehend [it]; nay rather, they even rejoice and praise [it], so that even thus the pestilent Biblical translations of the heretics may emigrate [be driven out], nor may Catholics be ignorant of those [things] in which the heretics are wont vainly to glory and exult. But these [things] are enough. Let us note this with Masius — [that] a beautiful and brief manner of usefully studying Theology is prescribed in this eighth verse: that first the sacred books be read very much; then that they be turned over and agitated in the mind by serious meditation; finally indeed, that they be led out into use and work [practice]. Let St. Augustine be seen, bk. 2 On Christian Doctrine ch. 9 & 8; Sixtus of Siena, Bibliotheca annot. 152.
Fourth and last, because that fourth rule seems to be less perceived by very many, I will propose a brief analysis of it. In it, therefore, [there] is a proem, then partly concessions, partly prohibitions.
1. From the sacred Bibles in the vulgar tongue — everywhere [passim], without discrimination, [being] permitted — arises something of utility. 2. There arises also something of detriment. 3. More of detriment arises, and this is proved by experience. 4. This detriment arises not on account of the things, words, spirit, or any other vice or cause of the Bibles themselves, but on account of the temerity of men. 5. Therefore not the sacred Bibles themselves are prohibited, but only the sacred Bibles in the vulgar tongue; nor are these themselves [prohibited] in any way whatever, but they are prohibited only [in this]: that they be not permitted everywhere [passim], and without discrimination. 6. But Bibles turned [translated] into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors can be permitted to men of every kind. But these are twofold: seculars, or regulars [religious]; and the seculars are either buyers of books, or sellers — that is, booksellers. 7. Of the seculars, these [rules hold].
(col. 293)
1. To seculars can be permitted those vulgar Bibles, by the Bishops, or by the Inquisitors. 2. But these [who permit] ought to do three [things]. First, the Parish-priests, or their confessors — [those] to whom the permission ought to be [given] — should adhibit [take] counsel. Second, [they should] give effort that they understand whether, from the reading of Bibles of this kind, they [the readers] can take not harm, but an augment of faith and piety. For to these alone [is] that permission to be conceded. Third, they ought to make that faculty and permission in writing. 3. Those who will [wish] to have or read vulgar Bibles of this kind ought to seek that faculty from those who [it] is said can concede [it]; and indeed so, that they may have it obtained in writing. 4. He who, without such faculty, shall have presumed to read or have those [Bibles], shall not be able to perceive, in confession, the absolution of sins — unless he shall have first returned those very Bibles to the ordinary [Bishop]. 5. Booksellers ought not to sell — or in any other way concede, for instance to give for use — Bibles of this kind to him who has not had that faculty. 6. If these Booksellers do otherwise, they shall lose the price of those Bibles, which will have to be converted to pious uses by the Bishop. They shall also lie under other penalties, which — according to the quality of the offense — will be able to be inflicted at the judgment of the Bishop himself. 7. Of the regulars [religious], these [rules hold]: 1. The prelates of the regulars can, in that permission, [act] in respect of their subjects [in the way] which was said [that] the Bishops and Inquisitors [could act] in respect of secular matters. 2. Regular subjects ought to have the faculty for reading, or emending, Bibles of this kind from their Prelates.
Ninth [confirmation-head]: “Then thou shalt direct thy way, and understand it.” This is indeed the fruit and utility of the foregoing diligence in the divine books. But “the way of a man is directed” in twofold [manner]. First, when by a right journey one proceeds to some terminus [goal]. Second, when all things flow to a man happily and prosperously. And that here it is rather about the latter direction that it is treated, the Hebrew volume shows, and the Greek [words] which correspond to it, two out of the two [versions], as it seems, left [remaining] in the 70: τότε εὐοδώσεις, καὶ διώσεις τὰς ὁδούς σου [tote euodōseis, kai diōseis tas hodous sou, “then thou shalt make thy ways prosper, and shalt direct thy ways”] — as also Isa. 48:15, “his way is directed [made prosperous],” ch. 63:10, “The will of the Lord is directed in his hand.” Afterwards “thou shalt understand” — truly, “it” could be omitted, so that the sense be: “thou shalt understand,” that is, “thou shalt become an understanding man, a prudent and wise man.” For this the Hebrew תשכיל [taskil] indicates, with which entirely agrees the Angels’ skill. That great Virgilian hero [Aeneas] was saying (bk. 12): “Learn, boy, virtue from me, and true labor; fortune from others.” But the divine codex promises — more certainly than certain — that it will teach not only that former [virtue], but will also give this [fortune]. Who, therefore, would not burn with love of it? Hence also the first Psalm [speaks] of him who in the law of the Lord meditates
(col. 294 [printed 295])
day and night. “And he shall be,” it says, “as a tree which is planted beside the running of the waters, which shall give its fruit in its time, and its leaf shall not fall off: and all whatsoever he shall do shall prosper.” For the same Hebrew word is there which here I was noting. But how unhappy the Machiavellians, who from books and counsels repugnant to the word of God hunt prosperity! In Isaiah ch. 48:18: “Thus saith the Lord thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I [am] the Lord thy God, teaching thee useful [things], governing thee in the way in which thou walkest. Would that thou hadst attended [to] my commandments: thy peace would have been made as a river, and thy justice as the gulfs [floods] of the sea; and thy seed would have been as the sand, and the offspring of thy womb as its little stones; its name would not have perished, nor been worn away before my face.” And a little after: “There is no peace to the impious, saith the Lord.” But [it is] noted, [that] by the name of “peace” in the scriptures, from the Hebraism, is signified every abundance of things, prosperity, and felicity of bodies and minds. And for that cause elegantly there the 70 rendered: οὐκ ἔστι χαίρειν τοῖς ἀσεβέσι [ouk esti chairein tois asebesi, “It is not lawful for the impious to rejoice”].
Tenth [head]: “Behold, I command thee: be comforted and be strong.” For “Behold” it could be rendered, as Job 22:5 & ch. 31:4, “Do I not command thee?” And that interrogation has great force, as if he said: “Look who it is who bids thee be of good spirit. Is he a Man? Is he an Angel? Is he not rather the very Lord of men and Angels himself?” But the same force express the 70, and our [Interpreter], through the particle of wonder, “Behold,” as Job 6:13, for the like.
Eleventh [head]: “Fear not, and dread not.”
Twelfth [head]: “For the Lord thy God is with thee in all [things], to whithersoever thou shalt go.” Now above, v. 5, [it was] said, “I will be with thee”; but the same is now iterated, so that more of firmness may accede to [his] spirit; and it is iterated with an amplification of those [things] in which the Lord says he will be with Joshua himself. “In all [things],” he says, “to whithersoever thou shalt go.” For God can be with someone, or help him, in some matter — “not in all.” But to Joshua divine help “in all” is promised. And therefore the Chaldee renders: “The Word [Memra] of the Lord thy God helps thee, in whatsoever place thou shalt be engaged.” Would that to me too — his little servant — through St. Joshua’s prayers, in this and my other little writings, the same [Lord] may deign to concede [this] — who also in Isaiah ch. 41:10 cries out: “Fear not, for I am with thee: decline not, for I [am] thy God. I have comforted thee, and helped thee, and taken thee up by the right hand of my just one.” St. Paul, Heb. 13:5: “Let your manners,” he says, “be without avarice: content with present [things]. For he himself said: I will not desert thee, nor forsake thee — so that we may confidently say: The Lord [is] my helper; I will not fear what man may do to me.” Ps. 55 [117:6].