|
The Scriptures
The Scholastic Reformer explains
the doctrine of the verbal revelation of God in the Bible.
The Necessity of Verbal Revelation
The Necessity of Scripture
The Divine Imperative of Written Revelation
The Authority of Scripture
Apparent Contradictions in Scripture
The Knowledge of Scriptural Authority
The Preservation of the Canon
The Canonicity of the Old Testament
The Canonicity of the Apocrypha
The Purity of the Original Text
The Authentic Version of Scripture
The Authenticity of the Hebrew Text
The Need of Translations
The Authenticity of the Septuagint
The Authenticity of the Vulgate
The Perfection of Scripture
The Perspicuity of Scripture
The Reading of Scripture
The Meaning of Scripture
The Supreme Judge of Controversies and the Interpreter of Scripture
The Authority of the Fathers
The Necessity of Verbal Revelation
QUESTION 1: Was revelation by the word necessary?
Affirmative.
I. Since the word of God is the unique foundation (principium)
of theology, its necessity is properly investigated at the very
beginning: was it necessary for God to reveal himself to us by the
word? or, was the word of God necessary? There have been in the past,
and are also today, some who maintain that sufficient capacity for
living well and happily resides in human nature, so that they regard
any revelation from heaven as not only superfluous, but even as
absurd. Since nature takes care of the needs of people just as it does
those of other living creatures, so, they believe, reason, or the
light of nature, is fully sufficient for the guidance of life and the
pursuit of happiness.
II. But the orthodox church has always believed very
differently, declaring that the revelation of God's word is absolutely
and simply necessary to humanity for salvation because [the word] is
the seed which causes rebirth (I Peter 1:23), the lamp by which we are
guided (Ps. 119:105), the food by which we are nourished (Heb. 5:13
-14), and the foundation upon which we depend (Eph.2:20).
III. The following evidence proves the above: (1) the supreme
goodness of God, communicative of itself;
since he has created mankind for himself, that is, for a supernatural
end, and for a condition far happier than this earthly existence, he
cannot be conceived as willing that they should lack in this respect,
but he made clear to them by means of the word this very happiness and
the way for obtaining it, which ["natural"] reason did not
know. (2) The extreme blindness and corruption of people, who,
although after sin still have some residual light for guidance in
earthly and mundane affairs, yet in divine and heavenly matters which
concern blessedness (felicitas)
are so blind and depraved that they can neither know anything of the
truth, nor perform anything of the good, except through the initiative
of God (I Cor. 2:14; Eph.5:8). (3) Right reason, which teaches that
God can be known and worshiped for salvation only through the light of
God, just as the sun can be seen by us only through its own light (Ps.
36:10). Nor would impostors who have devised new religions have
invented their conversations with divine beings or with angels, as
Numa Pompilius did with the nymph Aegeria, or Mohammed with Gabriel,
unless everybody was convinced that the correct form of worship of the
divine being depended on his own revelation. Thus the common opinion
of all nations, even of barbarians, is that for the welfare of
humanity there is needed, besides that reason that they call the guide
of life, some heavenly wisdom. This [conviction] gave rise to the
various religions that are scattered about the globe. In this
connection those who maintain that these religions are merely
ingenious human schemes for uniting people in civic responsibilities
are not to be believed. It will be granted that it is certain that
many clever men have manipulated religion in order to instill
reverence into the common people, as a means of keeping their spirits
submissive, but they could never have accomplished this unless there
was already inborn (ingenitus) in the human mind a sense of its own ignorance and
helplessness, by which the more readily people were led astray by
those vagabonds and quacks.
IV. A double appetite which is implanted in mankind by
nature--the longing both for truth and for immortality--confirms this.
The one desire is to know the truth; the other, to enjoy the highest
good. As the intellect is brought to perfection by the contemplation
of truth, the will is brought to perfection by the enjoyment of the
good, of which the blessed life consists. Since it is impossible that
these two appetites should be in vain,
revelation, which makes evident, as nature cannot, both the primal
truth and the highest good, and the path to both of them, was
necessary. Finally, the glory of God and the salvation of mankind
demand revelation, because the school of nature cannot lead us to the
true God and to legitimate worship of him, nor can it disclose the
plan (ratio) of salvation,
by which people may escape from the wretchedness of sin to the state
of perfect bliss which exists in union with God. The higher school of grace was therefore necessary, in which
God teaches us true religion by his word, to establish us in the
knowledge and worship of himself, and to lead us to the enjoyment of
eternal salvation in communion with him, to which neither philosophy
nor any human effort (ratio)
can attain.
V. Granted that in the works of creation and providence God
manifests himself clearly, so that "what can be known about God
is plain to them [men)" and his invisible nature has been clearly
perceived from the creation of the world (Rom. 1:19 - 20), this real
revelation cannot suffice for salvation after sin,
not only in the subjective sense, because it has not, as an
accompaniment, the power of the Spirit, by which human blindness and
evil are corrected; but also in the objective sense, because it
contains nothing concerning the mysteries of salvation, and God's
mercy in Christ, without whom there is no salvation (Acts 4:12). What
can be known about God is indeed presented, but not what is to be
believed.
God is known from the work of creation as creator, but not as
redeemer; his power and divinity, that is, the existence of the divine
being (numen) and his
unlimited power (virtus)
[are known], but not his grace and saving mercy. It was therefore
necessary to make up the deficiency of the prior revelation, which,
because of the sin that had been committed, was useless and
inadequate, by another one, more splendid not only in degree but also
in kind, that God might use not only a silent teacher, but also open
his sacred mouth, that he could not only make known his more wonderful
power, but also disclose the mystery of his will for our salvation.
VI. Although natural theology deals with various matters
concerning God and his properties, his will and his works, it does
not, without the supernatural revelation of the word, teach us that
understanding of God which can serve for salvation. It shows that God
is and what he is like, both in unity of essence and in the nature of
some attributes, but it does not show who he is, either in his
personal unity (in individua)
or with regard to the persons [of the Trinity].
["Natural revelation"] shows God's will with regard
to the law, imperfectly and obscurely (Rom. 2:14-15), but the mystery
of the gospel is entirely lacking in it. It proclaims the works of
creation and providence (Ps.19; Acts 14:17;
Rom. 1:19 - 20). But it does not rise to the works of
redemption and grace, which can become known to us only by the word
(Rom. 10:17; 16:25 - 26).
The Necessity of Scripture
QUESTION 2: Was it necessary for the word to be committed to
writing? Affirmative.
I. Since in the preceding question we have proved the
necessity of the word, in this one the necessity of Scripture, or the
written word, is argued against the Roman Catholics. For, just as to
establish more easily their traditions and unwritten teachings, and
the authority of their supreme pontiff, they strive earnestly to
denigrate the authority of Scripture, they also try, in more ways than
one, to disparage its necessity. They call it useful for the church,
but not necessary, as Bellarmine argues in De
Verbo Dei, book 4, chapter 4. Cardinal Hosius even utters such
blasphemy as to say, "It would have been a better situation for
the church if no Scripture at all had ever existed," and Valentia
says, "It would have been more convenient had it not been
written."
II. With regard to the state of the question, let it be noted
that "Scripture" may be understood in two ways--either materialiter
with regard to the teaching transmitted, or formaliter
with regard to the writing and form of transmission. In the first
sense we regard it to be simply and absolutely necessary, as said
above, so that the church can
never live without it. But in the second sense, which is here
under discussion, we acknowledge that it is not absolutely necessary
on God's part because, just as he taught
the church by the spoken word alone for two thousand years
before Moses, so, if he had wished, he could have taught it later the
same way. But [Scripture] is necessary
hypothetically
on account of the divine will, since it I seemed good to God, for
weighty reasons, to commit his word to writing. For this reason
[Scripture] has, by divine ordinance, been made so necessary that it
pertains not only to the well-being of the church, but to its very
being, so that now the church cannot exist without the Scripture.
Therefore, God is not bound to the Scripture, but has bound
us to it.
III. The question, therefore, is not whether the writing of
the word is absolutely and simply necessary, but whether it is
necessary secundum quid on
account of the hypothesis; not for every age, but for the present age
and circumstances; not in relation to God's power and freedom, but in
relation to his wisdom and to the economy of his dealing with the
human race. For, just as in the economy of the natural order parents
change their manner of dealing with their children as these grow
older, so that infants are first directed by the spoken word, then by
the voice of a teacher and the reading of books, and finally are freed
from the guidance of the teacher and learn on their own from books, so
the heavenly Father, who instructs his people as the head of a family
(Deut. 8:5), taught the church, when it was still young and childish,
by the spoken word, the most simple form of revelation. Then, as it
began to mature and was established under the law in its early youth,
he taught both by the spoken word, because of continuing
childishness, and by writing, because of the beginnings of
maturity, until the apostles' time. But when [the church] had reached
adulthood, under the gospel, he wanted it to be satisfied with the
most perfect form of revelation, that is, the written light.
Therefore, Scripture is necessary not only by the necessity of a
commandment, but also by the hypothesis of the divine economy, which
God wanted to be varied and manifold in the different ages of the
church (Eph.3:10).
IV. The distinction between the word as written and as
unwritten has arisen because of this process. This is not, as Roman
Catholics hold, the division of a genus into species, as if the
written word differed from the unwritten, but it is the division of
the subject into its accidents, because the same Word is always
involved; it was once unwritten, but now has been written. It is
therefore called "unwritten," not with respect to the
present, but to past time, when God chose to teach his church by a
spoken word, not by writing.
V. Although God formerly spoke to the fathers "in many
and various ways" (Heb. 1:1), sometimes by an audible voice,
sometimes by internal and nonsensory action, sometimes in dreams and
visions, sometimes taking the appearance of human form, often using
the ministry of angels and other appropriate means, yet the teaching
was always the same, and was not changed either by the form of
revelation and transmission or by changing times.
VI. Three [needs] in particular support the necessity of
Scripture: (1) the preservation of the word; (2) its defense; (3) its
proclamation. It was necessary for the written word to be given to the
church to be the fixed and changeless rule of faith of the true
religion, which could thus more readily be preserved pure and whole in
spite of the weakness of memory, the perversity of humanity, and the
shortness of life; more surely defended against the frauds and
corruptions of Satan, and more readily proclaimed and transmitted not
only to people who were scattered and separated from one another, but
to future generations as well. As Vives reminds us (De
causis corruptium artium 1), "By letters all the arts are
preserved as in a treasury, so that they can never be lost, although
transmission by hand is uncertain." "Divine and marvelous is
this blessing of letters," says Quintilian, "which protects
words and holds them like a deposit for an absent person." Nor
are the statutes and edicts of kings and commonwealths inscribed in
bronze or posted in public places for any other reason than that this
is the surest means of preserving them in their original form, and of
proclaiming throughout the ages matters which it is important for
people to know.
VII. Although before Moses the church did without the written
word, it does not follow that it can do so now, for the situation of
the infant church of those days, which did not yet form a numerous
body, was very different from that of the present church, which is
established and of large size. The church of former times differed
from that of later days: in it the unwritten word could more easily be
preserved because of the longevity of the patriarchs, the small number
of covenant people, and the frequency of revelations (even if many of
them underwent corruption). But in another age, when human life had
been shortened, and the church was not limited to one or another
family, but had increased to a very large company, and the divine
oracles were more rarely given, another form of governance was called
for, so that this sacred commonwealth was ruled not merely by the
spoken word, but by written laws.
VIII. Although some individual churches may have been without
the written word of God at some particular time, especially when they
were first established, they were not without what was written in the
Word of God, which certainly sounded in their ears through human
ministry; nor did the church as a whole lack the Scripture.
IX. The Holy Spirit as helper (epicorhgia),
by whom believers are to be taught by God (Jer.31; John 6:43[45]; I
John 2:27), does not make the Scripture any less necessary, because
(1) he is not given us to bring new revelations, but to impress the
written word on our hearts, so that the Word can never be separated
from the Spirit (Isa.59:21).
The Word acts objectively; the Spirit, efficiently. The Word
strikes the ears externally; the Spirit lays bare the heart,
internally. The Spirit is the teacher; Scripture is the teaching that
he gives us. (2) The words in Jeremiah 31 and I John 2:27 are not to
be understood absolutely and simply, as if it were no longer necessary
for believers, under the new covenant, to use the Scripture; if this
were so, there would have been no point in John's writing to them. But
they are to be understood in a relative sense, because, on account of
the greater abundance of the Holy Spirit under the new covenant,
believers were not to be taught in so burdensome a form as through the
primitive and undeveloped elements of the old. (3) Jeremiah's promise
will receive its complete fulfillment only in heaven, where, on
account of the brilliant vision of God, there will no longer be need
for the ministry of Scripture or of pastors, but everyone will see God
directly, face to face.
X. It is not true that the church was preserved without
Scripture during the Babylonian captivity, for Daniel is said to have
perceived, from the books, before the end of the seventy-year period,
the number of the years (Dan. 9:2), and in Nehemiah 8:2, Ezra is said
to bring forth the book of the laws, not to write it anew. IV Esdras
[II Esdras] 4:23,
being apocryphal, proves nothing. Even if Ezra gathered the sacred
books into one corpus, and corrected the careless errors of scribes,
it does not follow that the church had completely lacked Scripture [in
his time].
XI. There is no evidence for Bellarmine's assumption that,
since the time of Moses, any from other nations who have been led to
the true religion had tradition only, and lacked Scripture, for if any
became proselytes, they were instructed thoroughly in Moses and the
prophets, as the single example of the eunuch of Queen Candace in Acts
8 [26-39] proves adequately. Nor was Scripture completely unknown to
the Gentiles, especially after it was translated into Greek in the
time of Ptolemy Philadelphus.
XII. Christ therefore is our only teacher (Matt. 23:8) in
such a way that the ministry of Scripture is not excluded, but is
included of necessity, because he now speaks to us in it only, and
builds us up through it. Nor is Christ opposed to Scripture, but to
the false teachers of the Pharisees, who ambitiously pretended to the
magisterial authority that belongs to Christ alone.
XIII. Although formally Scripture has no personal value for
illiterates, who cannot read, nevertheless it serves materially for
their instruction and edification, inasmuch as the teaching which goes
on in the church is not taken from any other source.
The Divine Imperative of Written Revelation
QUESTION 3: Was the Holy Scripture written because of the
circumstances of the time (occasionaliter),
and without divine command? Negative, against the Roman Catholics.
I. This question is debated between us and the Roman
Catholics, who, in order to minimize the authority and perfection of
Scripture, teach not only that it is less than necessary, and that the
church could do without it, but even that it was written without any
express divine commandment, and simply passed on to the church as a
result of special circumstances. [They also] teach that Christ gave
the apostles no commandment to write, and that they had no intention
of writing the gospel, except in a secondary sense and because of
special circumstances, as Bellarmine argues (De
Verbo Dei, book 4.3-4).
II. That the sacred writers responded to circumstances of
time and place is unquestioned. We do not deny that they often put the
mysteries of God into writing under such influence. The question is
whether they wrote under such circumstances that they did not write by
divine revelation and commandment. We indeed hold that this is not a
matter of opposition, but of combination. They could write under the
influence of circumstances and at the same time from divine
commandment and inspiration. Indeed, since such a circumstance was not
presented to them except through divine action, the writing was in
accordance with the divine commandment, and the situation neither
arose without design (temere)
nor was used of their own will (sponte).
III. An implicit and general commandment is to be
distinguished from an explicit and special one. Granted that all the
sacred writers did not have a special commandment to write, although
this is frequent (Exod.17[:14]; Deut. 31:19; Isa. 8:1; Jer. 36:2; Hab.
2:2; Rev. 1:12[11]), yet they all had the general one. For the
commandment to teach (Matt. 28:19) includes the commandment to write,
since without writing we cannot teach those who are in another place
or who come after us, whence preaching is said to be done in writing,
in deed, and in word. Further, immediate inspiration and the internal
direction by which they were led by the Holy Spirit were the
equivalent of a commandment (loco
mandati) for the sacred writers, so that Paul called Scripture
"God-breathed" (II Tim. 3:16), and Peter said,
"Prophecy did not come by the will of man, but men of God spoke,
moved by the Holy Spirit" (II Peter 1:21): that is, the apostles
wrote when God inspired and moved them, although not in a mechanical
manner, under coercion. No more effective commandment could be given
than by the inspiration of the things to be written, nor is any one of
the promises made by ambassadors fulfilled except one they have been
commanded to make.
IV. Granted that the apostles do not always mention a special
commandment of Christ, which however they often do (for instance,
John, Jude, and others), yet they witness strongly enough to such a
commandment (1) when they professed themselves to be universal
teachers of all nations, (2) when they called themselves faithful
servants of Christ, and therefore peculiarly anxious to carry out his
commandments, (3) when they witness that they were guided by the
Spirit (II Peter 1:21). Therefore, Gregory sums the matter up well:
"He who uttered these words wrote them; he who was the inspirer
of their works wrote them."
V. Not all the apostles were required to write, although all
were required to preach. As they were jointly sent of divine
inspiration to the task of preaching, so they should all proclaim the
same message and follow it with writing; there was an equal
responsibility in all matters that were essential for the apostolate,
since all were equal as God-breathed teachers. But they did not have
equal responsibility in the performance of every particular action, so
it is not strange if, through the freedom of the Holy Spirit, some
were called to both preaching and writing, and others to preaching
only.
VI. A single book was not put together by all the apostles
conjointly, both so that they would not seem to have acted together in
conspiracy, and so that it might not seem to have greater authority
than what each one wrote individually; it would seem that for the same
reason Christ refrained altogether from writing: that we might say
that he is the one who wrote his teaching not with ink but by the
Spirit of the living God, not on tablets but in the heart (II Cor.
3:2[-3]). It was therefore sufficient that that which was approved by
all [the apostles] should be written by some of them. Indeed it adds
much weight and authority to the apostolic writings that, although
they were written in different places, for different purposes and
circumstances, in different styles and different forms, addressed to
different people, yet [they] are so harmonious.
VII. It was not necessary for a catechism to be written by
the apostles; (1) it was sufficient for them to transmit that by which
all symbolic books and catechisms were to be tested. (2) If they did
not write a catechism formally, yet materially they passed on, both in
the Gospels and in the Epistles, that from which we may do
catechetical work in the best possible manner.
VIII. As we ought not to impose law on the Holy Spirit, and
prescribe to him the method of revealing his will, so we ought not to
doubt that the form of writing that has been followed is the most
suitable, not only because at that time teaching by means of letters
was a widely accepted procedure, because this manner of teaching was
most useful for spreading the gospel rapidly, which was the chief
purpose of the apostles; but also because this simple and popular form
of writing suits the capacities of all, the uneducated as well as the
educated, and teaches a theology that is not ideal and merely
theoretical, but practical and specific (in hypothesi).
IX.The Apostles' Creed is so called, not efficiently because
it was passed on by the apostles, but materially, because it was
composed from the apostolic teaching, and is the kernel (medulla)
and compendium of the apostolic teaching.
X. Those who wrote under the influence and compulsion (necessitas)
of circumstances could nevertheless be writing from a [special]
commandment: two realities, one of which is subordinate to the other,
ought not to be understood as contradictory. Christ's commandment was
the primary activating cause and the circumstance a secondary, less
significant (minus principalis) activating cause, by which, as they wrote for the
glory of God and the edification of the neighbor, the apostles
preached both from divine commandment and on account of circumstances.
XI. Granted that it was proper for the apostles to write
because they were under obligation to teach, it does not follow that
pastors are now always under the same obligation to write as to teach,
because they work under different conditions. The apostles were
obligated to teach all nations, as ecumenical teachers, but this is
not the case with ordinary pastors, who have a particular congregation
(grex) committed to them.
The Authority of Scripture
QUESTION 4: Are the Holy Scriptures genuine and divine?
Affirmative.
I. The question of the authority (authoritas) of Scripture depends upon its origin, which has just
been discussed. Since it
is from God, it cannot be other than genuine (authenticus)
and divine.
Hence arises the question or its authority, which can have two
aspects: (1) with atheists and pagans (ethnici), who grant to Scripture no more authority than to any other
writing; (2) with Christians who, while acknowledging [its authority],
understand it as depending, at least in our understanding (quoad nos), on the testimony of the church. With the first, it must
be asked whether Holy Scriptures are credible in themselves and
divine; with the second, how this is made known to us, or on what
testimony, above all, the authority of Scripture depends. Here we are
discussing the first question, not the second.
II. Granted that in truth the first question seems hardly
necessary among Christians, where it should be assumed without
controversy that Scripture is God-breathed and the primary foundation
of the faith, yet because there are even today among Christians too
many atheists and libertines who seek in every way to erode this most
sacred truth,
it is of first importance for salvation that we protect our faith
fully against the demonic scoffing of such irreligious folk.
III. The authority of Scripture, concerning which we are now
writing, is nothing else than the right and dignity of the sacred
books, by which those articles which are set forth in them to be
believed are most worthy of faith, and those which are set forth as to
be left undone or to be done demand obedience. The basis is the divine
and infallible truth of the books, which have God as author, because
he has the supreme privilege of binding mankind to faith and
obedience. This can be either intrinsic or extrinsic. The first is the
worthiness of faith of the Word in itself, which is always the same
and which rests upon itself, whether human testimony supports it or
not. The second is the opinion or judgment of people concerning
Scripture, which differs by reason of the difference between subjects
[persons].
IV. Further, authority (authentia)
is either that of history and narration, or that of truth and the
norm. According to the former whatever is told in Scripture is true as
it is told, whether good or evil, true or false. The latter refers to
matters true in themselves, that are communicated as the norm of faith
and morals. Not everything in Scripture has the authority of a norm,
inasmuch as words of blasphemous people and of the devil are recorded,
but everything has the authority of historical truth.
V. It is not a question of whether the sacred writers simply
as human beings and in private matters would err. We readily concede this. Nor is it a question whether they
could err as holy men led by the Holy Spirit, and in the substance,
the total message. This I suppose no one of our adversaries, except a
defender of pure atheism, will uphold. The question is whether in
writing they were so led and inspired by the Holy Spirit that, with
regard to both the substance and the words, their writings were
authoritative (authenticus)
and divine. The adversaries deny this; we affirm it.
VI. Scripture shows itself to be divine, in an authoritative
manner and by means of an artless argument or testimony, when it calls
itself "God-breathed." This testimony can be used with
profit in disputes among Christians, who themselves profess to accept
[Scripture], but not against others who reject it. But Scripture [also
shows itself to be divine] rationally (ratiocinative)
by means of arguments constructed by reason, based on marks (notae)
which God has impressed on Scripture, which carry before them the
unquestionable proofs (argumenta)
of divinity. For just as the works of God proclaim the incomparable
excellence of their creator, seen in certain qualities perceived by
the eyes, and as the sun becomes known by its own light, even so [God]
wills that various rays of divinity, by which he may be recognized,
should flow out from Scripture, which is the effluence of the Father
of lights and the sun of righteousness.
VII. These marks are both extrinsic and intrinsic. The
former, although they are insufficient for a full proof of the matter,
nevertheless are of great weight for confirming it, and convincing
those who deny it. [But] it is in the latter that the chief strength
of the argument lies.
VIII. The external marks are: (1) the origin [of Scripture]:
its primal antiquity surpassing all pagan monuments; as Tertullian
said, "Whatever is first is most true"; (2) its survival (duratio):
the wonders of the divine Word through the provision for its
protection against the most powerful and hostile enemies who sought to
destroy it by sword and fire, right down to the present day, while a
multitude of other books, against which nothing of the kind was
attempted, have been altogether lost; (3) its agents and writers, who
showed the greatest candor and sincerity in writing, and did not
conceal their failures, but openly avowed them; (4) its adjuncts: the
number, constancy, and condition of the martyrs, who sealed it with
their blood. For since nothing is dearer to people than life, so many
myriads of both sexes, and of all ages and walks of life, could not
have so willingly gone forth to death, even in its most cruel forms,
in defense of Scripture, unless they were convinced of its divinity.
Nor would God have cared to exercise his omnipotence in the performing
of so many and great miracles as were performed, both under the law
and under the gospel for producing faith in the divinity of Scripture,
if it were merely a product of human intellect.
In addition there is the testimony of adversaries themselves,
as that of the pagans to Moses, of Josephus and the authors of the
Talmud to Christ, and of Mohammed to both Testaments, which can be
found in the writings of Vives, Plessaeus, Grotius, and others.
Finally there is the consensus of [Christian] people, who, although
they differ concerning religious teaching, worship, language, and
behavior, yet receive this Word as a most precious treasury of divine
truth, and hold it as the foundation of religion and the worship of
God; nor is it credible that God would have permitted such a multitude
of people, who sought him earnestly, to be deceived for so long by
lying books.
IX. The internal marks, which are more significant, are also
of many kinds. (1) The content (materia):
the awe-inspiring sublimity of the mysteries such as the Trinity, the
incarnation, the satisfaction of Christ, the resurrection of the dead,
and others, which could not be found out by the wisdom of any mind;
the holiness and purity of the commandments, which bring (cogo) into order the very meditations and inward desires of the
heart and are fit to make people perfect in every form of virtue, and
worthy of God; the certainty of the prophecies (oracula)
concerning the most hidden and distant matters. Knowledge and
prediction of the future, depending on the will of God alone, is
unique to God (Numen)
(Isa.41:23). (2) The style: the divine majesty, appearing no less in
the simplicity than in the gravity, and that absolute uncompromising
manner of laying obligation upon all without distinction--on both the
exalted and the humble. (3) The form: the divine consensus and total
harmony, not only between the Testaments, with the fulfillment of
prediction and typology, but also between individual books of both
Testaments, so much the more amazing in that these books were the work
of many authors, who wrote at different times and places, so that they
were unable to confer with one another about the matters on which they
wrote. (4) The purpose: the aim of everything toward the glory of the
one God and the holiness and salvation of humanity. (5) The effect:
the light and efficacy of the divine teaching, which, with more
penetrating power than a two-edged sword, pierces into the very soul,
engenders faith and piety in the minds of hearers, and unfailing
constancy for confessors, and always come forth triumphant from the
reign of Satan and false religions. These criteria are truly such that
they: cannot apply to any human writings, all of which bear the
evidence of human weakness, but they truly show that Scripture is
divine, especially when they are taken, not one at a time, but
altogether.
X. It is not to be thought that these marks appear in equal
force in all the books of Scripture. Just as one star differs from
another in brilliance, so in this heaven of Scripture some books send
forth more glorious and plentiful rays, others fewer and more meager
ones, depending on whether they are more or less necessary for the
church, and contain teachings of greater or less importance. This
brilliance shines forth much more in the Gospels and the Epistles of
Paul than in the Books of Ruth and Esther, but it is nonetheless
certain that those evidences of truth and majesty, which prove them
divine and authoritative in themselves, are in all of them, or at
least that nothing is found in them that makes their authority
doubtful.
XI. It is not necessary that there should be these marks in
every pericope or verse of the canonical books, or in particular parts
of Scripture, separated from the whole, those marks by which they can
be distinguished from the Apocrypha. It is enough that they are
present in the divine writings considered together and as a whole.
XII. Granted that false religions are accustomed to use these
criteria to vindicate their teaching, yet nonetheless the true one may
ascribe them to itself, for the false opinion of human beings does not
destroy the truth. Nor will a believer be unable truly to proclaim the
divine quality of the Holy Scripture, in which he sees everywhere the
most brilliant rays of divine truth, [merely] because a Turk falsely
attributes this divine quality (divinitas)
to his Qur'an, or a Jew attributes it to his Cabala, because the
fictions and lies of which both books are altogether composed are
obvious.
XIII. Although faith rests on the authority of testimony, and
not on scientific demonstration, it does not follow that it cannot be
supported by intellectual arguments at times, especially when faith is
first formed, because faith, before it believes, should (debere)
have the clearly perceived divine quality of the witness whom it
should believe, [known] from sure marks found in [the witness];
otherwise it cannot believe him. For where such grounds for believing
anyone are lacking, the testimony of such a witness is not worthy of
belief.
XIV. The witness of the prophets and apostles is superior to
all objection, and cannot be questioned by reason. For, if it were
uncertain and fallible, this would be either because they were
deceived or because they wished to deceive others, but neither can be
said. (1) They were not deceived, nor could they have been. For if
they were deceived, they were deceived either by another or by
themselves. The former cannot be said, for [they were not deceived]
either by God, who, just as he can be deceived by no one likewise
cannot deceive anyone,
nor by unfallen angels, nor by demons, since this teaching leads to
the
total destruction of the kingdom of the devil. [That they
deceived themselves] is no more possible, for if anyone is deceived
about any event, it is mainly either because he did not see it himself
but heard from others whom he trusted, or because he saw it
incidentally and in passing, or because it is obscure and too
difficult for human understanding, or because the person is of
impaired mind and limited by some pathological condition because of
which he interprets poorly. But in this case nothing of this sort took
place. For (1) they reported what they knew not by doubtful report or
from others who knew imperfectly, but what they themselves knew by the
most certain and experiential knowledge, since they were witnesses by
eye and ear, in matters in the comprehension of which they were
engaged with earnest concern and zeal. (2) Nor did they speak of
remote and distant affairs, but of events which happened in their own
time and in the place in which they wrote, as is written, "What
we have seen with our eyes, what we have heard concerning the word of
life, that we proclaim" (I John 1:1- 2). (3) It is not a question
of matters that were obscure or that rested on mere speculation,
concerning which simple and uneducated people, not comprehending their
sublimity, might easily have been deceived, but of events that took
place in their presence and before their eyes: for example, the
resurrection of Christ, of whom, before his death, they were regular
companions, and who had shown himself openly to them after his
resurrection, not in passing, but for a significant amount of time,
not once, but often, not before one or another individual, but before
many of both sexes, and all walks of life.
(4) Finally, it cannot be said that their faculties were
impaired; for not only is there no distorted imagination or disturbed
mind, but rather they give evidence of wisdom and sound mind in both
word and life; and furthermore not one or another individual but many
people experience and report the same thing. From this it follows that
there is no reason why they can be said to have been deceived.
XV. [2] But, just as they were not deceived, neither did they
wish to deceive. For those who deceive and lie have in mind some gain
from lying and deception, either to receive honor (gloria), or the gratitude of the human race, or to gain wealth and
ease. But what reward, either in life or in death, was sought by the
men of God when they proclaimed this testimony? While alive, they
often experienced on its account the very fate by which people are
driven to deception--poverty, exile, crucifixion, and extreme
torture--and, after death, infamy and everlasting loss.
Nevertheless, disregarding such considerations, they, knowing the
risk, did not hesitate to meet ultimate decisions for the sake of
confirming their witness, and, forever dying, to undergo the most
bitter humiliation and suffering. Who could believe that they would
have been willing to bear all this for the sake of something they knew
to be doubtful or false, when it was known for a certainty that anyone
who took their course would meet loss of reputation and property, if
not death? No one, surely, can argue that they were so enamored of a
desire for lying that they did it in a manner at once most stupid and
evil; most stupid, that they should want to lie not for their
advantage but most certainly for their disadvantage, when they wrote
against their very religion itself, which so strictly forbids lying;
most evil, because in lying they would have sought to deceive the
whole world, and, with no advantage for themselves, to involve
everyone in evil with them.
XVI. Further, they could not have deceived, even if they
wanted to. For they did not write of events that were remote and
separated from their experience, or which took place before their
time, or secretly and in some comer in the absence of witnesses, as
those who impose on the masses commonly do, nor could they easily have
conspired in falsehood. But they described events which took place in
their own time, in public and in the light of day (coram
sole),
in the very place where they wrote, and indeed which often concerned
those who had seen and heard what they wrote about, who would readily
have detected fraud and deceit, if they were present. If, therefore,
they were not deceived and did not deceive, there is no doubt but that
their witness is sacred (divinus),
and that all teaching that depends on it is authoritative (authenticus).
XVII. That the prophets and apostles were such, and that they
wrote the books attributed to them, cannot be called in question
without destroying all belief in historical records (antiquitatis fides), and giving rise to total scepticism (Pyrrhonismus).
It is just as possible to raise the question with regard to all other
books that have survived, but since it is certain that these books
were written by some authors, what sane person would not more readily
believe that they were written by those whose names they bear, as the
Christian church everywhere has always held, and over which no
controversy has been begun either by Jews or by pagans, and which in
the earliest times, when it was possible to know the facts, was
already accepted, than [to believe that they were written] by somebody
else?
XVIII. Anything that can be brought up to destroy faith in
the Mosaic history can easily be refuted if examined in detail. For
(1) if anyone should deny that Moses ever existed, or was the author
of the books ascribed to him, he could be shown wrong without
difficulty, both because not only Jews and Christians but also many
profane writers acknowledge him, and also because [his authorship] has
always been accepted by a multitude of people, nor can it be
questioned on any ground unless we wish to overthrow historical belief
altogether, and to deny that Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and others ever
lived and wrote the books that bear their names, which no one except a
demented person would maintain. Much less can this be maintained with
regard to Moses than with regard to these others, because there is no
book which the Jews would have had more reason to throw away, since by
so doing they would have freed themselves from the yoke of a most
burdensome law. But on the contrary, none has been received and preserved by
them with greater care and enthusiasm, nor accorded, contrary to
expectation, such authority, as it has been regarded as divine law and
the norm of religion; certainly (sane)
for no other reason than conviction concerning the truth contained in
it.
XIX. (2) Secondly, if anyone, convinced by another, gives up
this point and admits that Moses lived and wrote the books attributed
to him, but maintains that he was an outstanding impostor and
falsifier, who deceived the Israelite people by empty lies and false
miracles (prodigii), and subjected them to himself by means of the law which
he proclaimed, such a person can be refuted no less easily. For, not
to mention that the pagans themselves, and irreconcilable opponents
like Porphyry (Adversus
Christianos, book 4),
give praise to Moses as a truthful writer, it cannot easily be
understood how that outstanding wisdom and admirable character, in
which the entire life of Moses shines, can be harmonized with such a
wicked imposture, or in what way he would have been able to think
through that marvelous law, from which whatever good others possess
has been borrowed, which provides for the glory of the one God and the
holiness of the people, to further his fraud and imposture. Further,
if he were an impostor, it is surprising that he followed a path
plainly contrary to his design, in which he could easily be convicted
of falsification. For if the account which he gives of the origin of
the world is false, nothing would have been easier than to demonstrate
its falsity, because of the small number of generations which he
records between Adam and the flood, and between the flood and the
people's departure from Egypt, since in the time of Moses some who had
seen Joseph could still be living, whose parents would have seen Shem,
who, up to the hundredth year of his life could have associated with
Methuselah, who survived to that time, and who himself had seen Adam;
thus the truth or falsity of the matter could have been discovered
without difficulty. (3) If Moses was an impostor, and wished to
deceive the Israelites, he certainly hoped that the Israelites would
believe his lies and deceptions, but how would he have been able to
convince them of so many and such great signs as are said to have been
given both in Egypt and in the desert, if nothing of the sort had
happened? Especially in
view of the fact that he wrote for people who would have been
witnesses, by ear and eye, of the events, and he wrote concerning
actions which were not performed many centuries earlier, but in that
very time, not secretly and in some comer, and before a few witnesses
who could easily have been corrupted, but openly and in public before
the eyes of six hundred thousand men [Exod. 12:37], and their
irreconcilable enemies, who would be able to describe him as a
falsifier? Would he have been able to hope that there would be among
the people no one who doubted these claims, or who would not inquire
into the truth of what happened in Egypt? Is it believable that, out
of so many people, whom he repeatedly described most bitterly as
rebellious and ungovernable, and whom he often afflicted with the most
painful punishments, striking with sudden death not simply hundreds,
but thousands, and [performing] similar actions by which he could have
most justly aroused their anger against him, there was not one who
exposed his deceit and imposture, when all of them are seen
complaining and rebelling so unfairly against him? Finally, if he
engaged in imposture, he certainly took some gain from it, either
honor or wealth, as he might have gained authority (imperium)
for himself and his posterity, or sought praise for wisdom and heroic
character (virtus); but both
the facts themselves and the sincerity with which he so frankly
confessed his own sin, and above all his failure to believe,
sufficiently show how far Moses was from desire for riches or honor.
XX. But perhaps the Israelites, recognizing the falsity of
the accounts which were given by Moses, joined in deceit and
imposture, in order to secure the greater glory of the nation. But (1)
who dares believe that they were so senseless as to agree that they
would not resist in such a tremendous fraud by which they were
subjected to the unbearable (abastaktw?|/) yoke of a most burdensome
law, if they were convinced that this law was simply the invention of
Moses? Is it possible to assert, in any true fashion, that, of six
hundred thousand men, all would agree in such deceit, so that not one
was found who would set himself against such a plan? (2) So far from
truth is it that they secured honor and praise among others by this
action that, on the contrary, the hatred and scorn of all came upon
them, rightly; for who would maintain that it advanced the honor of a
nation to have its worst sins and grumblings exposed to the eyes of
the world, so that they were shown as the most stiff-necked and
ungrateful of mortals, and the very heavy penalties by which God
punished their obstinacy and rebellion were recorded more than once?
Who does not see that these facts show forever the honesty of the
[Israelite] nation? In short, there is no reason why a people of such
stiff neck and so fond of pleasure would so readily have sought
subjection to a most burdensome law, one the least transgression of
which was so severely avenged, unless they were convinced of the
divine quality (divinitas)
of the call of Moses, and of the truth of his words.
XXI. The conversion of the world and the success of the
gospel is a most striking argument for its divine quality, for unless
the apostles were men of God and imparted heavenly truth, it is beyond
comprehension who could have accomplished this, since their teaching
lacked all those supports by which every human teaching is made
popular and spread abroad, and was attacked stubbornly by those forces
by which any teaching can be resisted: the authority of elders, the
consensus of popular opinion, the favor of princes, the eloquence of
orators, the subtlety of philosophers, agreement with human customs
and inclination. [This
teaching] was spread by a few ignorant and weak men, who were
altogether foreign not only to deceit in teaching, but also to the
appearance of it. They were not helped by the support of eloquence,
[were] educated in no skill of pleading, [were] scorned and despised.
By persuasion alone, without any support from authority and public
approval, without the aid of weapons, through a thousand deaths and
hardships and in the shortest time, [this teaching] was so spread to
almost every place that it had overcome all obstacles, and emerged
victor over other religions that were well furnished with all these
supports, so that entire nations and kings themselves had embraced it,
without hope of reward, and indeed with the certain prospect of evils
which were absurd to reason and unwelcome to the flesh, and which
would seem to drive people away from it rather than attract them to
it.
XXII. Certainty is of three kinds: (1) mathematical, (2)
moral, and (3) theological. (1) Mathematical or metaphysical certainty
consists of first principles known through nature and in themselves,
and of conclusions demonstrated from such principles, such as
"the whole is greater than any part," and "the same
object cannot both exist (esse) and not exist at the same time." (2) Moral certainty
is found in matters which cannot be demonstrated but which
nevertheless are commended to belief by such most probable evidences
and arguments that no prudent person can doubt them. [In this class
are the conclusions] that the Aeneid
was written by Virgil, and Livy's history by Livy.
Although, to be sure, the matter is not known through itself,
yet it is so witnessed to by unchanging report that nobody who has any
conception of history and literature can doubt it. (3) Theological
certainty is found in matters which, although .they cannot be
demonstrated, nor known through themselves or by nature, and do not
depend on most probable evidence and moral arguments, yet [depend on]
arguments truly theological and divine, namely, divine revelation,
which therefore produce not merely a moral and conjectural certainty,
but a faith truly divine. Scripture does not hold (habeo)
metaphysical certainty. If it did, the assent which we would give it
would take the form of knowledge (scientiam),
not faith. It does not hold a certainty simply moral and probable. If
it did, our faith would be no more certain than the historical assent
which is given to human writings. But it does hold a theological and
infallible certainty, which cannot deceive the person who is faithful
and illuminated by the Spirit of God.
XXIII. The prophets made no mistakes when they wrote inspired
by God and as prophets, not even in matters of little significance,
because if they did, faith in the whole of Scripture would be turned
into doubt. But in other ways, as men, they were capable of error. In
this way, David erred in the letter concerning the killing of Uriah
[II Sam. 11:14-15], which has historical but not normative authority,
and Nathan erred in the advice which, without seeking God's will, he
gave David about building the temple (II Sam. 7:3), because the
influence of the Holy Spirit was neither universal nor continuous, nor
is it to be understood as a normal motion or effect of nature (II
Kings 2:17).
XXIV. The apostles were infallible in faith, not in morals,
and the Spirit was their guide in all truth so that they never erred,
but not in all godly living (pietas)
so that they never sinned, because they were like us in all things.
The pretense and hypocrisy of Peter, recorded in Galatians 2:12, was a
sin in life, not an error in faith, a moral lapse and failure in
conduct resulting from weakness and fear of incurring the hatred of
the Jews. It was not, however, an intellectual error (error
mentis) resulting from ignorance of Christian freedom, his
understanding of which is sufficiently shown by his fellowship with
Gentiles previous to the arrival of the Jews.
XXV. When Paul says, "I say, not the Lord" (I Cor.
7:10[12]), he does not deny the inspiration of the Lord, by whose
words he vindicates his own (v. 40). Rather this precept, or law
expressly given by the Lord, was hidden before him, so that the
meaning is that this controversy over sinful desertion had not yet
arisen in Christ's time, nor had he had any opportunity of settling
it, which Paul, illumined by the Spirit, now did.
XXVI. Anything in the Law which seems absurd and useless will
be found by the pious and wise to be of the greatest significance for
the motivating of obedience, the overthrowing of idolatry, the
cultivation of morals, and the proclamation of the Messiah, if taken
rightly and properly. The genealogies, and other records that seem
unnecessary, are witnesses to the origin, spread, and preservation of
the church and to the fulfillment of the promises of a Messiah
descended from the seed of Abraham and David.
XXVII. The prophecy of Hosea (Hos.1:2) does not command that
he marry the adulteress, for the sons of a marriage cannot be called
illegitimate, which is the meaning of this verse. But this must be
understood as allegory, since Israel, impure because of her idolatry,
is represented by this symbol.
Apparent Contradictions in Scripture
QUESTION 5: Are there in Scripture true contradictions, or
any irreconcilable passages, which cannot be resolved or harmonized in
any way? Negative.
I. When the divine quality of Scripture, which was argued in
the preceding question, has been accepted, its infallibility follows
of necessity.
But in every age the enemies of true religion and of Scripture
have thought that they had found contradictory passages in Scripture,
and have vigorously presented them in order to overthrow its
authority; for example, Porphyry, Lucian, and Julian the Apostate
among the pagans of antiquity, and today various atheists, who in
hostile fashion declare that there are contradictions and
irreconcilable differences which cannot be harmonized in any way.
Therefore this particular question must be discussed with them, so
that the integrity of Scripture may be upheld against their impiety by
a completed fabric and covering.
II. Our controversy is not with open atheists and pagans, who
do not recognize Holy Scripture, but with others who, although they
seem to accept it, yet indirectly deny it in this manner: for example,
the enthusiasts, who allege the imperfection of the written word in
order to attract people to their esoteric word or special revelations;
the Roman Catholics, who, although they defend the divine quality of
Scripture against the atheist, yet do not fear to oppose, with
powerful weapons, and to the full extent of their ability, their own
cause and that of all Christendom, and to enter the struggle as its
enemies, by teaching the corruption of the sources
in order to win agreement for the authority of their Vulgate version;
and finally, various libertines, who, although living in the bosom of
the church, never stop calling attention to some "irreconcilable
differences" and "contradictions," so as to erode the
authority of Scripture.
III. To deal with them, the scholars (doctores) follow various paths. Some think the question may be
easily handled by granting that the sacred writers could have made
mistakes, by failure of memory, or in unimportant details.
This argument is used by Socinus when he treats the authority
of Scripture, by Castellio in his Dialogue,
and by others. But this does not counter the argument of the atheists;
it joins them in a blasphemous manner. Others hold that the Hebrew and
Greek sources have been corrupted in places, through the malice of
Jews and heretics, but that the correction is easy by means of the
Vulgate and the infallible authority of the church. This is the
teaching of most Roman Catholics. We will argue against it in a later
section,
when we discuss
the purity of the sources. Others concede that small errors have
appeared in Scripture, and remain, which cannot be corrected by
reliance on any
manuscript or by collation, but which are not to be ascribed
to the sacred writers, but explained partly by the ravages of time and
partly by the faults of copyists and editors, and which do not destroy
the authority of Scripture because they occur only with regard to
unnecessmy or unimportant statements. Scaliger, Cappel, Amama, Voss,
and others are of this opinion. Finally, others uphold the integrity
of Scripture and do not deny that various seeming contradictions--not,
however, true or real ones--occur;
[they believe] that these passages are difficult to
understand but not altogether contradictory and impossible. This is
the more common opinion of the orthodox, which we follow as the more
safe and the more true.
IV. It is not a question of errors in spelling and
punctuation, or of variant readings, which everyone admits are not
infrequent, nor whether the copies that we have agree so completely
with the original autographs that they do not differ in the least. But
the question is whether our manuscripts so differ from the originals
that the true meaning has been corrupted, and the original texts can
no longer be regarded as the rule of faith and practice.
V. It is not a question of the faultiness of some individual
codices, or of the errors which the carelessness of copyists and
printers may have introduced into the copies of this or that edition.
No one denies that there are various corruptions of this sort. The
question is whether there are corruptions and "universal
errors" so distributed through all the copies, whether
handwritten or printed, that they cannot be corrected either by the
comparison of variant readings or from Scripture itself and the
collating of parallel passages, and whether these are true and real
contradictions, which we deny, or merely apparent ones.
VI. The reasons are: (1) Scripture is
"God-breathed" (II Tim. 3:16). The Word of God cannot lie
(Ps. 19:8 - 9; Heb.6:18), it cannot perish and pass away (Matt. 5:18),
it abides forever (I Peter 1:25), and it is truth itself (John 17:17). How could this be predicated of it if there were deadly
contradictions, and if God had allowed the sacred writers either to
err and to forget, or to introduce into it irreparable deceit?
VII. (2) Unless unimpaired integrity is attributed to
Scripture, it cannot be regarded as the sole rule of faith and
practice, and a wide door is opened to atheists, libertines,
enthusiasts, and others of that sort of profane people to undermine
its authority and overthrow the foundation of salvation. Since error
cannot be part of the faith, how can a Scripture which is weakened by
contradictions and corruptions be regarded as authentic and divine?
Nor should it be said that these corruptions are only in matters of
little significance, which do not affect the fundamentals of the
faith. For as soon as the authenticity of Scripture has been found
wanting, even if it be a single corruption [of the text] that cannot
be corrected, how can our faith any longer be sustained? If corruption
is conceded in matters of little importance, why not also in others of
more significance? Who will be able to give me faith that there has
been no forgetfulness or deceit in the fundamental passages? What
answer can be given the subtle 'atheist or heretic who persistently
claims that this or that text, unfavorable to him, rests on falsehood?
The reply should not be that divine providence has willed the
[Scripture] be preserved from serious corruptions, but not from minor
ones. For not only is this an arbitrary assumption, but it also cannot
be made without grave insult [to Scripture], implying that it lacks
something necessary for its full self-authentication, nor can it
easily be believed that God, who spoke and inspired every single word
to God-inspired men, would not have provided for the preservation of
all. If human beings preserve their words with the greatest care so
that they will not be changed or corrupted, especially when--as is the
case, for instance, with wills and contracts--they are of some
importance, how much more should God be thought to have taken care for
his Word, which he willed to have the status of testament and public
notice of his covenant with us, so that nothing could corrupt it,
especially when he could have easily foreseen and prevented such
corruptions, to uphold the faith of his church?
VIII. There are four main arguments for the integrity of
Scripture, and the purity of the sources. (1) Above all, the
providence of God, who, since he wished to provide for our faith,
could be expected to keep the Scripture pure and uncontaminated, both
by inspiring the sacred authors who wrote it, and by protecting it
from the efforts of enemies who left nothing untried to destroy it,
that our faith might always have a firm point on which to rest. (2)
The religion of the Jews, who were always careful guardians of the
accuracy of the sacred codices, even to the point of superstition. (3)
The diligence of the Masoretes, who, by their marks, placed, as it
were, a fence around the Law. (4) The number and completeness of
copies, with the result that even if one codex could have been
corrupted, all could not be.
IX. Whatever contradictions seem to be in Scripture are
apparent but not real. [They appear] only with respect to the
understanding of us who are not able to perceive and grasp everywhere
their harmony. They are not in the material itself. If the laws of
true contradiction are observed, so that seeming contradictions are
brought together in accordance with simple identity of qualities (secundum
idem), circumstance (ad idem),
or time, the various so-called contradictions of Scripture can readily
be reconciled, for either (1) they are simply not discussions of the
same things, as when James ascribes justification to works, although
Paul disparages them. One speaks of an explanatory justification of
effect, a posteriori; the other of a justification of cause, a priori.
So also in Luke 6:36 mercy is required, "be merciful," while
it is forbidden in Deuteronomy 19:13, "you shall show no
mercy." One commandment is for private citizens; one for
magistrates. Or (2) the same thing is not described according to the
same qualities, as Matthew in 26:11 denies the presence of Christ in
the world, "You will not always have me/, while in 28:20 he
promises it, "I am with you always, to the end of time." One
statement is made with respect to the human nature [of Christ] and his
bodily presence; the other with respect to the divine nature and his
spiritual presence. Or (3) the statements are not made with regard to
the same circumstances, as when one is absolute and the other
relative. "Honor your father,” but, Luke 14:26, "if anyone
does not hate his father." One statement is to be understood as
absolute; the other as relative, in that our [earthly] father must be
loved less and placed after Christ. Or the statements do not refer to
the same time, whence the maxim, "Distinguish the scriptural
times and relationships." Thus circumcision is both exalted, as
the great privilege of the Jews (Rom. 3:1- 2), and deprecated as a
thing of naught (Gal. 5:3). One statement refers to the time of the
Old Testament, when it was the ordinary sacrament and seal of the
righteousness of faith; the other to the time of the gospel after the
abrogation of the ceremonial law. Likewise the apostles were sent on a
special mission to the Jews alone before Christ's passion, and were
forbidden to go to the Gentiles, "Do not go into the way of the
Gentiles" (Matt. 10:5), but after the resurrection [they were
sent] on a general mission to all people (Mark 16:15).
X. Although we attribute absolute integrity to Scripture, we
do not hold that the copyists and printers have been inspired, but
only that the providence of God has so watched over the copyists that,
although many errors could have entered, they did not, or at least
they did not enter the codices in such a manner that they cannot
easily be corrected by comparison with other copies (ex
collatione aliorum) or with [other parts of] Scripture itself.
So the basis of the purity and integrity of the sources does
not rest on the inerrancy of human beings but on the providence of
God, who, although the men who copied the sacred works could have
introduced many errors, always carefully looked after them and
corrected them, or else they can easily be corrected either by
comparison with the Scripture itself or with better codices. Therefore
it was not necessary to make all the scribes infallible, but only so
to guide them that the true reading can always be found, and this book
far surpasses all others whatsoever in purity.
XI. Although we cannot quickly find an obvious harmonization,
free from all obscurities, between Scripture texts which involve
names, numbers, or dates, these problems, are not to be quickly
classed as insoluble, or if they are called insoluble, they are such
because of human ignorance, and not because of the problem itself, so
that it is better to acknowledge our ignorance than to accept any
contradiction. These records are not written so exactly that all the
circumstances were included. Many facts were certainly condensed into
an epitome; others, which seemed unnecessary, were omitted; and it is
even possible that these passages have various relationships which
were well known to the writers, although now hidden from us.
Hence Peter Martyr says very well concerning II Kings 8:17,
"Granted that there are obscure passages in the chronologies, it
is not to be conceded that, for the purpose of reconciling them, we
say that the sacred codex is false. For God, who in his mercy willed
that the holy (divinus)
books be preserved for us, gave them whole and not corrupted.
Therefore when we are not able to explain the number of years, the
ignorance under which we work must be admitted, and it must be
remembered that the sacred book is written with such brevity that it
is not easy to find out from what point the reckoning of time was
begun; the Scripture, which, if it failed in one or another place,
would also be suspect in others, remains uncorrupted." And again,
about I Kings 15:1 [he says], "It is not uncommon, in this
record, for the number of years which is attributed to the kings to
appear to have little consistency. Doubts of this kind can be
dispelled on manifold grounds. It may be that one and the same year is
attributed to two persons, when it was not lived through its entirety
by either. Sometimes sons ruled jointly with their parents for some
years, and these years were assigned now to the reign of the parents,
and now to that of the children. An interregnum sometimes took place
and the empty period was attributed, now to the earlier king, and now
to the later. There are even some years, in which the sovereigns ruled
illegally and without religious sanction (tyrannice et impie), which are therefore disregarded, and not added
to the other years of the reign." XII. Luke 3:36, concerning the
younger Cain who is placed between Arpachshad and Shelah, contrary to
the truth of the Mosaic record (Gen. 11:13), offers indeed a difficult
problem, which learned scholars interpret in different ways, but it
should not be regarded as an insoluble one, since various forms of
solution are possible. For our part, not mentioning other opinions, we
consider most appropriate that which regards this Cain as a
suppositious and spurious [person], who crept in, through the
carelessness of copyists, from the Septuagint version, in which he had
existed before the time of Christ, as the chronology of Demetrius
q |
