Book Two: On the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek and Latin Vulgate Editions
Chapter Ten: On the Authority of the Latin Vulgate Edition
There remains the third and most important question, namely how much of authority there is in the Latin Vulgate edition. And indeed the heretics of our time, although they differ among themselves not a little in choosing an authentic Latin edition, yet they all miraculously agree against the Church. For the Lutherans want only the version of Luther to be held as authentic, as is plain from a certain Leipzig decree to which Melancthon, Pomeranus, Major, and many others have subscribed.
About which decree see Staphilus in the third preaching topic of Lutheran Theology.
But the Zwinglians, with whom the Anabaptists and Calvinists agree, want no version to be authentic, as is plain from the preface to the Zurich edition, where they teach that the Church should not be bound to any one version. Yet nevertheless both Lutherans and Zwinglians agree in this, that the Latin Vulgate edition is not to be held as authentic, since they detect innumerable errors in it.
There advanced hence into the battle line Martin Chemnitz from the camp of the Lutherans, and John Calvin from the camp of the Zwinglians, who write against the Council of Trent and tax the fourth session above the rest, wherein the Council defines that the Latin Vulgate edition is to be held as authentic. George Major also writes about the same matter in his preface to the Psalms, and Tilemann Hesshus in his book on the 600 Errors of the Pontiffs, tit.1.
But no fewer have written in favor of the Vulgate edition, among whom are John Driedo on Ecclesiastical Dogmas and Scriptures bk.2 ch.1, Franciscus Titelmann in his Apologetic Prologue for the Vulgate edition of the New Testament, Andreas Vega On the Council of Trent bk.15 ch.9, Iodocus Tiletanus in his Apology for the Council of Trent par.1 against Chemnitz, Lindanus On the Best Kind of Translating bk.1, Melchior Cano On Places bk.2 ch.13, Sixtus Senensis Sacred Library bk.8, in refutation of the last heresy. Desiring to imitate whose diligence, we will prove the same thing with the following arguments.
First is an argument of the Council itself. For the Tridentine Synod says that it approves the Latin edition of the sacred books, which has for so many centuries been approved by use itself in the Church. For not rashly for almost 1,000 years, that is, from the time of Blessed Gregory, the whole Latin Church has used this one edition, all the orators have explained and proposed it to the people, all the Councils have produced testimonies from this edition to confirm the dogmas of the faith.
Further, that the Church for the whole of 800 or 900 years has lacked a genuine translation of the Scriptures, and in matters that pertain to faith and religion has cultivated as the word of God the errors of who knows what translator, is astonishing if it seem to anyone not astonishing and absurd, especially if he has learnt from the Apostle, I Timothy ch.3, that the Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth.”
The second argument I take from the testimonies of the ancients. For this our version is either Jerome’s or certainly the ancient common one that Augustine calls the Italic; if it is the ancient one, it has great testimony from Augustine Christian Doctrine bk.2 ch15, where he says that is to be preferred to all the others; but if it is of Jerome, as we have proved above, it has the testimonies of all the ancients who could have seen it. For in the first place Blessed Augustine City of God bk.18 ch.43 says, “There was not lacking in our times the priest Jerome, a most learned man and most skilled in three languages, who translated the divine Scriptures from Hebrew into Latin, whose great labor in letters the Hebrews confess to be veracious.” And in epistle 10 to Jerome he says that his version or rather emendation of the New Testament is approved by all. Again Blessed Gregory Morals bk.20 ch.24 says, “Because this new translation from Hebrew is said to have poured out in eloquence everything more truly for us, we must believe whatever is said in it, and our exposition should cling more subtly to its words.”
St. Isidore in Etymologies bk.6 ch.5 says, “The priest Jerome, most skilled in three languages, translated the divine Scriptures from Hebrew into Latin eloquence, and eloquently poured it out, whose translation is rightly preferred to the rest.” And on the Divine Office bk.1 ch.12 he says, “Only the priest Jerome translated the sacred Scriptures from Hebrew to Latin eloquence, whose edition all Churches generally always use, because it is truer in its opinions and clearer in its words.” So Isidore, to whom Rabanus subscribes, on the Institution of Clerics bk.2 ch.54.
Further, those who followed next, Blessed Anselm, Blessed Bernard, Rupert, Haymo, Hugo, Richard, and all the others sufficiently show that they approved this edition before the rest, since it alone did they undertake to explain. Add too that not only do the Latins approve this version but also the Greeks, who themselves transferred from Latin to Greek certain of the divine volumes that Jerome translated into Latin from Hebrew, as Blessed Jerome testifies, in his book on Illustrious Men, on Sophronius, and Against Ruffinus bk.2
Third argument. The Hebrews have the authentic Scripture in their own tongue; the Greeks also have the authentic Scripture in Greek, that is, the Old Testament from the Septuagint and the first sources themselves of the New Testament; therefore it is right that the Latin Church, in which is the see of Peter and in which the Christian faith will perpetually remain, should have the authentic Scripture in its own tongue; but it had no other for almost 1,000 years than this one; therefore this one is to be reckoned authentic.
Fourth argument. In the general Councils of the Church either very few or sometimes none were found who were skilled in the Hebrew tongue; therefore the Church would have been badly provided for if in grave matters it could not trust the Latin edition, but had to have recourse to Hebrew codices and beg the truth from hostile Rabbis. We can say the same about the Greek tongue, for although now many are found who know Greek, yet it was not always so. For if we believe Ruffinus Hist. bk.10 ch.21, from 600 bishops who convened at the Council of Rimini there was none who knew what ‘homoousion’ [‘consubstantial’] meant. And therefore when certain clever Arian heretics proposed to the Synod whether it wished to worship Christ or homoousion, they all shouted that they did not want homoousion but Christ.
Next, the same is proved by experience. For we see the heretics, who have contemned the ancient edition and are eager for new translations, are coining editions so diverse and conflicting among themselves that almost nothing certain can be got from their editions. Wherefore Martin Luther in a book against Zwingli on the truth of the body of Christ in the Eucharist says, “if the world stands for a longer time, it will again be necessary for us, because of the diverse translations of Scripture that now exist, to accept the decrees of the Councils and flee to them to preserve the unity of the faith.”
It remains to solve the arguments of the adversaries, but it first pleases us to note certain open lies that Martin Chemnitz and John Calvin have mixed in their arguments.
The first lie is from Calvin, that it was not done by judgment or right choice out of diverse interpretations one obtains among the unlearned. But certainly, since, all translations being done away with, this our translation has above 1,000 years been in use in the whole Latin Church, either there were no learned men for the whole 1,000 years in the Church, or Calvin is impudently lying. Next I do not think that Sophronius, Augustine, Gregory, Isidore, Bede, Anselm, Rupert, Bernard, so many other distinguished men should be numbered among the unlearned; and yet all of them, as we showed above, praised our edition either among the rest or even beyond the rest.
The other lie of the same Calvin is that the Tridentine Fathers decreed that those are not to be heard who bring forward pure drink from the source itself and demonstrate what is false from certain truth. I call this a lie because nothing of this sort is read in the decree of the Council. For the Fathers did not make any mention of the sources, but only chose from among the many Latin versions that are now circulating one that they preferred to the others, and chose (as befitted the gravity and constancy of the Church) the old before the new, the one approved by long use before those still recent and, so to say, raw, and finally one before many that disagree and conflict with each other.
The third lie of the same Calvin is that so much is there not one complete page in the Vulgate edition that there are scarce three continuous verses not marred by some signal error. But if it is so, why in the same place does Calvin, when he undertook the noting of places falsely translated in the Psalms, he indicated nothing at all in the translation of the first Psalm? Does the first Psalm perhaps not have three continuous verses? But there is no need, I think, to delay over refuting such open lies. Let us come to Chemnitz.
The first lie of Chemnitz is that the Council of Trent decreed that in place of what the Holy Spirit wrote in the Hebrew and Greek sources, we receive what has been changed, mutilated, or added by the copyists. That this is a manifest lie there is none who does not understand. For which man, I do not say a Catholic, but a man of sound mind ever said that the faults of the copyists were to be taken for the words of the Holy Spirit? Next does not the Council in the same place command that Sacred Bibles should be printed that are as well emended as possible?
The second lie of the same Chemnitz is that in the index of prohibited books published by Paul IV, all editions of the Bible are condemned, even of the old translation, in which some even of the most manifest errors in the Vulgate edition have been corrected. This also is a most crass lie; for condemned in that index are only certain editions produced by heretics or by suspect printers, and all others are permitted.
The third lie of the same Chemnitz is that the Council of Trent sess.21 ch.2, in order to prove that the Church has authority to make dispensation in substantial parts of the sacraments against the institution of Christ, abuses an equivocation in the old translation, where I Corinthians ch.4 the ministers of Christ are called dispensers of the mysteries of Christ. On which place Chemnitz exclaims: “Good God, how great is the impudence of Antichrist to play games, amid so great a light of knowledge of languages, about a matter so grave in such a puerile fashion? For Paul calls the ministers of Christ domestic managers (oikonomoi).” So Chemnitz.
But we are rightly permitted to exclaim: Good God, how great is the impudence of a heretical man that he not fear to impose a most crass lie for truth? For the Council expressively testifies that the Church cannot change the substantial parts of the sacraments, but only establish the mode and order in which the sacraments should be administered. Next the Council does not abuse the word dispenser, as Chemnitz fancies; for it does not say that the Church can make dispensation in the sacraments in the way that it does in vows and laws, but that it can dispense the sacraments, that is, administer, offer, hand them over to the faithful; and in the manner of a faithful and prudent domestic manager in dispensing the goods of his master, and in nurturing the family, can prescribe a definite reason and mode, provided nothing is done against the laws and mandates of the prince.
The last lie of Chemnitz is that the Council of Trent for this reason wanted the Vulgate edition to be authentic, because it is wholly transformed into Pontifical dogmas. Which is not only the lie of an impudent man but even of an imprudent one, since it is altogether in conflict with its own author. For if Pontifical dogmas are contained in the Vulgate edition, it follows that Pontifical dogmas are most ancient and the dogmas contrary to them are plainly recent; for they themselves confess that the Vulgate edition is very old.
Besides, if the Vulgate edition had been made after the times of Luther, there would be some reason to suspect that it was purposely accommodated to Pontifical dogmas; but it was made over 1,000 years ago, and everything that they blame in the Vulgate edition we will show to have been thus cited by the most ancient Fathers, and that these were always thus in the Vulgate edition. But the adversaries believe that what they themselves are doing is being done also by others; and because Martin Luther translated the Bible in very bad faith, as is plain from John Cochlaeus in his Life and Acts of Luther, 1522, where we read that in the new translation of the New Testament made by Luther there have been noted up to 1,000 places which are changed, that is, added, or taken away, or corrupted, therefore do they think that Catholics do the same; but they are deceived. For Catholic faith does not need the fortification of lies as their inventions do.
Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME