Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book II: On the Editions and Versions of Scripture
Chapter 12: The Old Testament places Kemnitz calls corrupt are defended
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book II: On the Editions and Versions of Scripture. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The first place is Genesis 3, where we read: She shall crush thy head. Which place Kemnitz says is corrupt, that from it may be proved the intercession and patronage of Mary, whereas it ought to be read, it (or he) shall crush thy head; for the Scripture speaks of the seed, that is, of Christ, as all the ancients teach.
I answer: the Vulgate edition has it variously; for certain codices have He; certain, She; and therefore it is not against the Vulgate edition, if it be shown that He, or It, ought to be read. I say secondly: it is not improbable that it ought to be read She, nor is this a depravation of the Papists. For although many Hebrew codices have [hu, he], yet that one was read in which was written [hi, she], and besides, the points being removed, that Hebrew word [hu] can be interpreted she — he is too rude who knows it not. For everywhere in the sacred Bible [hi] occurs for [hu]. So Genesis 3 verse 12, Exodus 3 verse 8. Add that She was read by Claudius Marius Victor book 1 on Genesis, Alcimus Avitus book 3 of his poems chapter 6, Chrysostom homily 18 on Genesis, Augustine book 2 On Genesis against the Manichees chapter 18 and book 11 On Genesis to the letter chapter 36, Ambrose in the book On the flight from the world chapter 7, Gregory book 1 of the Morals chapter 38, Eucherius, Rupert, Bede, Rabanus, Strabus, and Lyra on this place, and Bernard sermon 2 on the Missus est. And so it is a falsehood that Kemnitz says, that all the ancients read he.
But you will say: the verb shall crush in the Hebrew is of the masculine gender; therefore it is referred to the seed, which is also of the masculine gender, not to the woman, who is feminine. I answer: it is not new in Scripture that with feminine nouns are joined masculine pronouns or verbs. Ruth 1 verse 8 Ruth says to her daughters-in-law [Hebrew], and Esther 1 verse 20 [Hebrew], and Ecclesiastes 12 verse 5 [Hebrew], and very many others of this kind are found.
The second place is Genesis 6, where we read: All the thought of the heart was bent upon evil, which place Kemnitz will have to be corrupt, for extenuating original sin, whereas in the Hebrew it is [Hebrew], the figment of his heart was only evil every day. I answer: the sense is the same; for that figment of the heart signifies the thought of the heart, because it is fashioned and formed by the heart, as the Hebrews also teach on that place. And it is the same, All the thought of the heart was bent upon evil, and the figment, that is, the thought of the heart, is nothing but evil. But it does not follow hence, as the Lutherans think, that all the works of men are evil; for that is a hyperbole of Scripture, which it often uses to extol some thing: as in the same chapter it is said, All flesh had corrupted its way; and yet in the same place it is said, Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations.
The third place is Genesis 9, where we read: Whosoever shall shed human blood, his blood shall be shed. This place Kemnitz says is mutilated, whereas in the Hebrew it is: Whoso shall shed the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. I answer: that omission does not render the sense false or imperfect, and therefore is not of great moment; for the sense is, both in the Hebrew and in the Latin, Whoso shall kill a man, shall himself also be killed.
The fourth place is Genesis 14, where we read: But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God. This place he says is corrupt, that from it we might prove the sacrifice of the Mass; for in the Hebrew there is not the verb of offering, nor the causal conjunction, as in the Vulgate edition. I answer: Kemnitz falsely says that in the Vulgate edition there is the verb of offering. For we do not read he offered, but he brought forth bread and wine. And the causal conjunction the Vulgate edition has, but the Hebrew text also has it, although Kemnitz either through unskillfulness did not see it, or through malice would not see it. For although in the Hebrew there is [vav], not [the causal particle], yet that [vav] is very often taken for because, as Isaiah 64, Thou art angry, and we have sinned, that is, because we have sinned, where likewise it is [vav] for because. Genesis 20, Behold thou shalt die for the woman thou hast taken, for she hath a husband; Genesis 30, I have learned by experience that the Lord hath blessed me; and very many such places are found in the codices of the Hebrews.
And so Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, that he might offer it to God in sacrifice, because he was a priest of the most high God; and that by this deed he bore the figure of our sacrifice, in which under the species of bread and wine we offer to God the body and blood of Christ, all the ancient Greeks and Latins affirm: as Clement of Alexandria book 4 of the Stromata, Eusebius book 5 of the Demonstration of the Gospel chapter 3, Epiphanius heresy 79, Chrysostom homily 35 on Genesis, Cyprian book 2 epistle 3, Ambrose book 4 On the Sacraments chapter 3, Jerome in his Commentary on chapter 26 of Matthew, Augustine book 17 of the City of God chapter 17, and Eucherius book 2 on Genesis chapter 18. Finally Psalm 109 it is said of Christ: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, as Paul expounds Hebrews 5 and 7. But why is Christ a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, unless because that one offered bread and wine, and this one offered himself under the species of bread and wine?
The fifth place is the last chapter of Numbers, where we have: All the men shall take wives of their own tribe and kindred, and all the women shall take husbands of the same tribe. Which place not Kemnitz, but Osiander in his Annotations on the Harmony of the Gospels noted. For this precept seems contrary to very many examples of the Scriptures. For Josabeth the daughter of King Joram of the tribe of Juda was wife of Joiada the Pontiff of the tribe of Levi, 2 Paralipomenon 22. Ruth the Moabitess was wife of Booz of the tribe of Juda, Ruth 4. Michol of the tribe of Benjamin was wife of David of the tribe of Juda, 1 Kings 18. Likewise all the Hebrews swore, Judges last chapter, that they would not give their daughters as wives to any of the tribe of Benjamin; therefore, if the oath had not intervened, it was lawful to give daughters of one tribe to men of another tribe. And the blessed Virgin Mary of the tribe of Juda was cousin to Elizabeth of the tribe of Levi, Luke 1. Finally it seems even against the Hebrew text, where it is only had that women who are heirs of the paternal goods cannot marry other men than of their own tribe; but of the men, and of the women who are not heirs, no law is had.
Abulensis on this place says that this law did not include the tribe of Levi, nor foreign women; and that in case of necessity, and for great Princes and Kings, it could be dispensed in; so he answers to all the examples alleged. But in the divine law no one could dispense. Then David, when he took Michol to wife, was not King, nor was his marriage with Michol so necessary that it should therefore have been dispensed by the divine law. Cano answers better, book 2 On theological topics chapter 14, but does not fully explain the matter. The sense therefore of the law, both of the Vulgate edition and of the Hebrew text, is this: that when any woman lacks brothers, and therefore is heir, she cannot marry anyone who is not of her tribe, and no man can take her, even if she herself would, unless he be of her tribe. And so a law is given both to the men and to the women, yet for the sake of the women's goods.
That this is the true sense of the law is plain from the end of the law. For the end is, as is there said, that inheritances be not mingled and pass from one tribe to another. Now, to obtain this end, it was not needful to command absolutely that marriages be not made outside one's own tribe, but only that they be not made outside the tribe when the woman about to marry is an heir. And in this way satisfaction is made to all the examples alleged. But to that which was said, that it is had otherwise in the Hebrew, I answer: it is false. For the law given to women in the Hebrew text is clear, as also in the Latin; but the law given to men, which these say is not had in the Hebrew, is comprehended in those words [Hebrew], The children of Israel shall cleave every one to the possession of the tribe of his fathers. The adversaries think that shall cleave is referred to the possession, so that the sense be: they shall cleave to the possession, that is, they shall remain in the possession of their tribe; but it is not so, but it is referred to the wife, so that the sense be: The children of Israel shall cleave, namely to a wife, that is, shall contract marriages, every one in the possession of his tribe, that is, not passing by marriage to the possession of another tribe. That this is the sense is gathered from the following; for there follows: And every daughter inheriting a possession shall cleave to a man of her tribe, etc. And thus this place was understood by Eusebius book 1 of the History chapter 6, Epiphanius heresy 78, Ambrose on chapter 3 of Luke, Bede on chapter 1 of Luke, and Damascene book 4 chapter 15.
The sixth is 1 Esdras 9, where he says we have pax illius (the peace of it), whereas it ought to be paxillus (a stake, a pin). I answer: here too there is an error of the copyists; for the Hebrew word is [yated], a stake or nail, and many Latin codices have paxillus.
The seventh is Job 5: Call now if there be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the saints. This place Kemnitz will have depraved, for proving the invocation of the Saints. I answer: perhaps Kemnitz was drunk when he wrote this; for most openly in the Hebrew it is Job 5 [Hebrew], which word for word has thus: Call now, if there be one answering thee, and to some of the saints look. And truly if an express word be sought, here it is most express.
The eighth place is Proverbs 16, where we have: Weight and balance are the judgments of the Lord, and his works all the stones of the world (seculi), whereas it ought to be the stones of the bag (sacculi) according to the Hebrew [kis], which signifies a purse; not world, which is [olam]. I answer: in our edition there are various readings, and that is true which has of the bag; in another, by the error of the scribes, of the world was put.
The ninth is Ecclesiastes 9, Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred. Which place Kemnitz will have depraved, that from it may be proved the doubt of Faith concerning the remission of sins; which same Calvin before wrote, chapter 5 of the Institutes section 28. I answer: our interpreter translated most excellently, not indeed numbering the Hebrew words, but weighing them and expressing their sense. Thus has the Hebrew text: [Hebrew], that is, both love and hatred man knoweth not, but all things are before their face. The sense of these words blessed Jerome will have to be this, in his Commentary on this place: “Now,” he says, “this is the sense: I have found the works of the just indeed to be in the hand of God, and yet whether they are loved by God or not, they cannot now know; in the future therefore they shall know, and in their countenance are all things, that is, the knowledge of that matter goes before them when they have departed from this life, because then is the judgment, and now the combat.” So he. Which most true understanding of this place the interpreter could not better render than by those words: Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of hatred or love, but all things are kept uncertain for the future. But lest anyone object that the wicked know themselves worthy of hatred, it is to be observed that Ecclesiastes speaks only of the just, who, though conscious to themselves of no sin, yet cannot certainly determine, while they live here, whether they be just or not; whence it follows that they know not whether they be worthy of hatred or love.
The tenth is Ecclesiasticus 5, Be not without fear about sin forgiven. This place too Kemnitz will have depraved, for proving the uncertainty of the remission of sins. I answer: here there are various readings, as Cornelius Jansenius shows on this place. For certain codices have about sin forgiven; and certain, about the propitiation, or the expiation of sin, which latter seems better, since it is more conformable to the Greek text, [peri exilasmou mē aphobos ginou]. But even hence it is convicted that the opinion of the heretics is false, whereby they bid a man certainly believe that he is just, or shall be just, if he so believe. For either the Wise Man speaks of a propitiation already obtained, so that it be the same, about the propitiation of sin and about sin forgiven; and then it is false, what they say, that a man ought to be secure of the pardon obtained: or he speaks of a propitiation to be obtained; and then it is false, what the same say, that a man ought to be secure of the pardon to be obtained. But of these in their place.
The eleventh is Ecclesiasticus 16: Mercy shall make place for every one according to the merit of his works. Kemnitz complains that we added the word merit, which is not in the Greek, and so depraved this place for showing the merits of good works; as before Calvin had complained, Institutes chapter 10 section 52. I answer: in the Greek text there is not the word merit, because this word is Latin and that text is Greek, yet there is something which signifies the same, and is most rightly expressed by the word merit; for it is [kata praxin], and no one who is even slightly skilled in the Greek tongue can deny that [kata praxin] signifies in Latin according to the merits of works.
The twelfth is Joel 2: Ready over malice. Which words Kemnitz says signify nothing, and are sung in our Church without any understanding. I answer: Jerome set down this word in his text, and used this word also in his Commentary, to whom Kemnitz must suffer us to attribute more than to himself. Now ready over malice signifies excellent in pitying and in remitting punishment, which properly belongs to God; and it is the same with that Repenting over malice, which is word for word in the Hebrew; for [nacham] is to repent, in Niphal. It could also, not ill, if we consider the Latin words, be that Ready over malice is the same as Better than that he can be overcome by malice. Which indeed is most true, since by no monstrousness or multitude of sins is the infinite goodness of God ever overcome.
The thirteenth is Micah 5, where we read: And thou Bethlehem Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda; out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel. This place Osiander in his Annotations on the Harmony of the Gospels will have to be depraved, and to be corrected, for art a little one, to it is little that thou shouldst be among the thousands of Juda, etc. For he says the unskilled interpreter did not observe that the Hebrews lack the neuter gender, and use for it the masculine or feminine; therefore, though it be of the masculine gender, yet it ought to be translated in the neuter, Little, not a little one. And he proves it, because what follows, Out of thee shall he come forth unto me, etc., does not rightly cohere with the foregoing, unless it be said, It is little, etc. I answer: our interpreter translated rightly; for the Chaldaic and Greek codex agree with him, and Jerome so reads in his Commentary on this place, and (what is greater) Matthew chapter 2 so cited it; for he said art the least, not it is little; and although the Hebrews sometimes use other genders for the neuter, yet not always. To his reason I say: the following cohere excellently with the preceding, if the preceding be read with an interrogation, as Matthew reads, who therefore translated negatively, Thou art by no means the least, because he had read art thou a little one? Better it is answered that St. Matthew cited not the words but the sense: for Bethlehem was a little city as to the circuit of its walls and the number of its inhabitants, as the Prophet says; but this the Evangelist does not deny; yet it was a greatest city by the privilege of the nativity of Christ, which the Prophet intimates when he says, Out of thee shall come forth unto me he that shall rule the people God of Israel; and to this greatness the Evangelist looked, who added the causal particle saying, For out of thee shall come forth unto me, etc. For that interrogation, Art thou a little one? is not found in any text, neither Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Latin.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII.
Defenduntur loca , quce Kemnitius depravata
esse dicit in editione vulgata.
Primus locus est Genes. III, ubi legimus :
Ipsa conteret caput tuum{ 8). Quem locum Kem¬
nitius dicit esse corruptum, ut inde probetur
intercessio, et patrocinium Mariae, cum le¬
gendum sit, ipsum conteret tuum : nam de
semine, id est Christo loquitur Scriptura, ut
omnes Veteres docent.
Respondeo : editionem vulgatam varie
habere ; quidam enim codices habent Ipse ;
quidam Ipsa; et propterea non esse contra
vulgatam editionem, si convincatur debere
legi Ipse , vel Ipsum.
Dico secundo : non esse improbabile de¬
bere legi Ipsa , neque esse hanc depravatio¬
nem Papistarum. Nam etiamsi multi codi¬
ces Hebraici habeant Nin : tamen legi unum,
in quo erat scriptum ion, id est Ipsa , ac prae-
terea remotis punctis illam vocem Hebrai¬
cam Nin posse interpretari ipsam , nimis ru¬
dis est qui nescit. Passim enim occurrit in
sacris Bibliis ain pro ion. Sic Genes. III,
vers. 12. Exod. III, vers. 8. Adde quod ipsa
legerat Claudius Marius Victor lib. I in Ge¬
nes., Alcimus Avitus lib. III carm. cap. 6.,
Chrysostomus homil. 18. in Genes., Augus¬
tinus lib. II. De Genes, cont. Manich. cap.
18., lib. XI De Genes, adiit, cap. 36., Am¬
brosius lib. De fuga seculi cap. 7. Gregorius
lib. I Moral. cap. 38. Eucherius, Rupertus,
Beda, Rabanus, et Strabus, ac Liranus in
hunc locum, et Bernardus ser. 2. super Mis¬
sus est. Itaque mendacium est quod Kemni¬
tius dicit, omnes Veteres legere ipsum.
At dices : verbum conteret in Hebraeo est
masculini generis, igitur refertur ad semen
quod etiam est masculini generis, non ad
mulierem quae est feminini. Respondeo : id
non esse novum in Scriptura, ut cum nomi¬
nibus femininis conjungantur pronomina,
(1) Luc. II, 14. — (2) Psal. II, 12. et 13. — (3) Psal. CXXXVIII, 14. — (4) Exod. I, 21. — (5) Ps.
CXII, 9. — (6) Psal. CXXXVIII, 16. — (7) Eph. III, 19. —(8) Gen. III, 15.
144
LIBER II.
aut verba generis masculini, Ruth I, vers.8.
dicit Ruth ad nurus suas oy huiO
'“iD'n □ sair hirn hw dwqh etEsther I v. 20.
larii biffi jn et Eccles. XII, vers. 5. 'nm ->3
et alia hujusmodi plurima reperiuntur.
Secundus locus est Genes. YI, ubi legi¬
mus : Cuncta cogitatio cordis intenta est adma-
lum{ 1), quem locum Kemnitiusvult esse cor¬
ruptum, ad extenuendum peccatum origi¬
nale, cum in Hebraeo sit '“fya *I3^ pl Disn
Va figmentum cordis ejus tantum malum
omni die. Respondeo : sensum esse eumdem:
nam illud figmentum cordis significat cogita¬
tionem cordis, quia a corde fingitur et for¬
matur, ut etiam Hebraei in eum locum do¬
cent. Idem autem est Cuncta cogitatio cordis
intenta est ad malum , et figmentum , id est, co¬
gitatio cordis non est nisi malum. Non autem
sequitur hinc, ut Lutherani putant, omnia
opera hominum esse mala : nam illa est hy¬
perbole Scripturae, qua saepe utitur ad rem
aliquam extollendam : sicut in eodem capite
dicitur : Omnis caro corruperat viam suam :
et tamen ibidem dicitur : Noe vir justus at¬
que perfectus fuit in generationibus suis.
Tertius locus est Genes. IX, ubi legimus :
Quicumque effuderit sanguinem humanum, fun¬
detur sanguis illius (2). Hunc locum dicit
Kemnitius mutilatum esse, cum in Hebraeo
sit : Qui effuderit sanguinem hominis , per ho¬
minem fundetur sanguis illius. Respondeo : il¬
lam omissionem non reddere sensum fal¬
sum, neque imperfectum ; proinde non esse
magni momenti ; sensus enim est, tam in
Hebraeo, quam in Latino ; Qui occiderit homi¬
nem , occidetur etiam ipse.
Quartus locus est Genes. XIY, ubi legi¬
mus : At vero Melchisedech Rex Salem profe¬
rens panem et vinum , erat enim Sacerdos Dei
altissimi (3). Hunc locum dicit corruptum,
ut inde probare possemus sacrificium Missae;
nam in Hebraeo non habetur verbum offe¬
rendi, nec rationalis conjunctio, ut in vul¬
gata editione.
Respondeo : falso Kemnitium dicere, ha¬
beri in vulgata editione verbum offerendi.
Nec enim legimus obtulit , sed protulit panem
et vinum. Conjunctionem autem rationalem
habet vulgata editio, sed habet etiam He¬
braeus textus, etsi eam Kemnitius, vel prop¬
ter imperitiam non viderit, vel propter ma¬
litiam videre noluerit. Nam licet in Hebraeo
sit 1, non Va, tamen illud i saepissime acci¬
pitur pro !>b), ut Isa- LXIV, Tu iratus es, et
peccavimus , id est, quia peccavimus , ubi simi¬
liter est *i pro !>a. Genes. XX, En morieris
propter mulierem quam tulisti, habet enim virum
Win W'2 fom Genes. XXX, Experimento di¬
dici , quia benedixerit mihi Dominus nVM
irf-mv! wrama (4), et ejusmodi loca plurima in
Hebraeorum codicibus reperiuntur.
Itaque Melchisedech protulit panem et vi¬
num, utilludDeo in sacrificium offerret, quia
erat sacerdos Dei altissimi, et hoc facto ges¬
sisse eum figuram sacrificii nostri, quo sub
specie panis et vini corpus et sanguinem
Christi offerimus Deo, omnes veteres Graeci
et Latini affirmant, utClemens Alexandrinus
lib. IV Stromat., Eusebius lib. V Demons¬
trat. Evangel. cap. 3. Epiphanius haeres. 79.
Chrysostomus hom. 35. in Gen., Cyprianus
lib. II, epist. 3., Ambrosius lib. IV. De Sa¬
cram. cap. 3., Hieronymus in Comment.cap.
26. Matth., Augustinus lib. XVII. Civ. Dei
cap. 17. et Eucherius lib. II. in Genes, cap.
18. Denique Psal. CIX. dicitur de Christo :
Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem
Melchisedech (5), ut exponit Paulus Hebr. V
et VII. At cur Christus sacerdos est secun¬
dum ordinem Melchisedech, nisi quia ille
obtulit panem et vinum, hic seipsum in spe¬
cie panis et vini?
Quintus locus est Numer. ult. cap., ubi
nos habemus : Omnes viri ducent uxores de
Tribu et cognatione sua, et cunctce feminae de
eadem Tribu maritos accipient (6). quem lo¬
cum non Kemnitius, sed Osiander in Annot.
ad Harmon. Evang. notavit. Nam hoc pra3-
ceptum videtur adversari plurimis exemplis
Scripturarum. Josabeth enim filia Regis Jo-
ram de Tribu Juda fuit uxor Joiadae Ponti¬
ficis de Tribu Levi, II Paralip. XXII. Ruth
Moabitis fuit uxor Booz de Tribu Juda, Ruth
IV. Michol de Tiabu Benjamin fuit uxor Davi-
disde Tribu Juda. IReg. XVIII. Item omnes
Hebrsei jurarunt Judic. ult., se non daturos
uxores de filiabus suis alicui ex tribu Benja¬
min; igitur si juramentum non intercessisset,
licebat dare filias de una tribu viris de altera
Tribu. Et B. Virgo Maria de Tribu Juda co¬
gnata erat Elizabeth de Tribu Levi, Lucae I.
Denique videtur etiam contra textum He¬
braeum; ubi solum habetur, ut mulieres quae
sunt haeredes bonorum paternorum , non
(1) Gen. VI, 5. — (2) Gen. IX, 6. — (3) Gen. XIV, 18. — (4) Gen. XXX, 27.; lbid. XX, 3.; Iaai.
LXIV, 5. — (5) Psal. CIX, 4. — (6) Num. XXXVI, 1. et 8.
CAPUT XII.
145
possint nubere aliis viris quam de sua Tribu:
de viris autem et de mulieribus quae non
sunt hseredes, nulla habetur lex.
Abulensis in hunc locum dicit , legem
istam non inclusisse Tribum Levi, nec mu¬
lieres alienigenas : et in casu necessitatis, et
propter magnos Principes et Reges, potuisse
in ea dispensari; sic respondet ad omnia
exempla allata : at in lege divina nemo po¬
terat dispensare. Deinde David cum accepit
Michol in uxorem, non erat Rex, nec erat
ejus conjugium cum Michol tam necessa¬
rium, ut propterea debuerit id lege divina
dispensari.
Melius respondet Canus lib. II de loc.cap.
14. sed non plene rem explicat. Sensus igi¬
tur legis tam vulgatae editionis, quam textus
Hebraici hic est, ut cum aliqua mulier caret
fratribus, et proinde est haeres, non possit
nubere alicui qui non sit de Tribu sua, et
nullus vir possit eam accipere, etiamsi ipsa
vellet, nisi sit de ejus Tribu. Itaque datur
lex, et viris, et mulieribus, sed tamen prop¬
ter mulierum bona.
Quod hic sit verus sensus legis, patet ex
fine legis. Finis enim est, ut ibi dicitur, ne
commisceantur haereditates, et transeant de
una Tribu in aliam. Porro, ad hunc finem
obtinendum, non oportuit jubere absolute
ne Matrimonia fierent extra propriam Tri¬
bum, sed tantum ne fierent extra Tribum,
cum mulier nuptura est haeres. Et hoc modo
satisfit omnibus exemplis allatis.
Ad id autem quod dicebatur, aliter haberi
in Hebraeo, respondeo : falsum esse. Namlex
data mulieribus in textu Hebraeo clara est, ut
etiam in Latino : lex autem data viris, quam
isti dicunt non haberi in Hebraeo, illis verbis
comprehenditur m "dhiaNITOO
rdnfo Wift, Filii Israel adhcerebunt unusquis¬
que in possessione Iribus patrum suorum. (I)
Adversarii putant illud adhcerebunt referri ad
possessionem, ut sit sensus: adhcerebunt pos¬
sessioni, id est, manebunt in possessione Tribus
suce : at non ita est, sed refertur ad conju¬
gem, ut sit sensus : Filii Israel adhcerebunt ,
nimirum uxori, id est, conjungent Matrimonia
unusquisque in possessione Tribus suce , id est,
non transeundo per conjugium ad possessionem
alterius Tribus. Hunc esse sensum, colligitur
ex sequentibus, sequitur enim : Et omnis
filia hcereditans possessionem adhcerebit viro
Tribus suce etc. atque ita hunc locum intel¬
lexerunt Eusebius lib. I. hist. cap. 6., Epi-
phanius haeres. 78., Ambros. in cap. III Lu¬
cae, Beda in cap. I Lucae, Damascenus lib.
IV, cap. 15.
Sextus est I Esdrae IX, ubi dicit nos habere
pax illius , cum esse deberet paxillus. Res¬
pondeo : hic etiam esse errorem Librario¬
rum : nam Hebraea vox est, "rn pax illius seu
clavus , et multi Latini codices habent paxil¬
lus.
Septimus est Job. V : Voca si est qui tibi
respondeat , et ad aliquem Sanctorum conver¬
tere (2). Hunc locum vult Kemnitius depra¬
vatum , ad invocationem Sanctorum com¬
probandam. Respondeo : forte fuisse ebrium
cum hoc scripsit Kcmnitium : nam apertis¬
sime in Hebraeo est Job V hssh cwVTpia h’2
Wi ipy iinh nj *op quae ad verbum sic ha¬
bent : Voca nunc , si est respondens tibi , et ad ali¬
quem de Sanctis respice . Et sane si quaeritur
verbum expressum, hic expressissimum est.
Octavus locus est Prov. XVI, ubi habe¬
mus : Pondus et statera judicia Domini sunt ,
et opera ejus omnes lapides seculi (3), cum de¬
beret esse lapides sacculi juxta Hebraeum D53
quod marsupium significat; non seculum ,
quod D^iir, vel h jr . Respondeo : in nostra edi¬
tione esse varias lectiones, et eam esse ve¬
ram, quae habeat sacculi : in alia errore scri¬
barum positum esse seculi.
Nonus est Ecclesiastae IX. Nescit homu,
utrum odio vel amore dignus sit (4). Quem
locum vult Kemnitius esse depravatum, ut
inde probetur dubitatio Fidei de remissione
peccatorum : quod idem antea scripsit Cal¬
vinus cap. V, Instit. §. 28.
Respondeo : interpretem nostrum optime
vertisse, non quidem numerando verba He¬
braica, sed ea expendendo, et sensum eorum
exprimendo. Sic habet textus Hebraeus :
arm !j*!N niurciss nan« qj &nwnb bhn
DiNn, hoc est, et amorem et odium non est
sciens homo , sed omnia ante faciem ipsorum.
Sensum horum verborum hunc esse vult B.
Hieronymus in Gomment. hujus loci: «Por¬
ro, inquit, hic sensus est : Inveni justorum
quidem opera in manu Dei esse, et tamen
utrum amentur a Deo, an non, nunc eos
scire non posse : in futuro igitur scient, et
in vultu eorum sunt omnia, id est, antecedit
eos, cum de vita hac recesserint, notitia
istius rei, quia tunc est judicium, et nunc
certamen.» Haec ille. Quam verissimam loci
(1) Num. XXXVI, 7. — (2) Job. V, 1. — (3) Prov. XVI, 11. - (4) Eccl. IX, 1.
11
146
LIBER II.
hujus intelligentiam non potuit interpres
melius reddere, quam illis 'verbis : Nescit
homo utrum odio vel amore dignus sit , sed om¬
nia in futurum servantur incerta.
At ne quis objiciat : scire impios se dignos
odio ; animadvertendum est, de solis justis
Ecclesiastem loqui, qui cum nullius peccati
sibi conscii sint, tamen certo statuere non
possunt, dumhievivunt, justinesintan non ;
ex quo sequitur, ut ignorent utrum odio vel
amore digni sint.
Decimus est, Eccles. Y. De propitiato pec¬
cato noli esse sine metu (i). Hunc etiam locum
vult Kcmnitius depravatum, ad probandam
incertitudinem remissionis peccatorum. Re¬
spondeo : varias hic esse lectiones, ut Cor¬
nelius Jansenius in hunc locum ostendit
Quidam enim codices habent, de propitiato
peccato \ e t quidam, depropitiatione , sive de
propitiatu peccati , qua? posterior videtur me¬
lior, cum sit conformior Grseco textui mpi
i^dxcrgov pj uyoftos ytvou.
Sed etiam hinc convincitur esse falsa hae¬
reticorum sententia, qua jubent, hominem
certo credere se esse justum, vel fore justum,
si ita credat : nam vel loquitur Sapiens de
propitiatione jam obtenta, ut sit idem, de
propitiatione peccati , et de propitiato peccato ;
et tunc falsum est, quod illi dicunt, hominem
debere esse securum de obtenta venia : vel
loquitur de propitiatione obtinenda ; et tunc
falsum est, quod idem dicunt, hominem de¬
bere esse securum de venia obtinenda. Sed
de his suo loco.
Undecimus est Ecclesiastici XYI : Miseri¬
cordia faciet locum unicuique secundum meri¬
tum operum suorum (2). Conqueritur Kemni-
tius, nos addidisse nomen meriti, quod non
est in Grasco, et sic depravasse hunc locum
ad merita bonorum operum ostendenda, si¬
cut antea conquestus erat Calvinus Institut.
cap. X, §. 52. Respondeo : in Graeco textu
non esse nomen meriti, quia hoc nomen est
Latinum, et ille textus est Graecus, tamen
esse aliquid quod idem significet, et rectis¬
sime per meriti vocabulum exprimatur ; est
enim x«rd spqx, nemo autem qui Graecae lin¬
guae vel tenuissime sit peritus negare potest,
quin xutu spqx significet Latine pro ineritis
operum.
Duodecimus est Joel II : Praestabilis super
malitia (3). Quae verba Kemnitius dicit nihil
significare, et in Ecclesia nostra sine ullo
intellectu cani. Respondeo : Hieronymum in
textu suo hoc verbum posuisse, et in Com¬
mentario etiam hac voce usum, cui pati de¬
bet Kemnitius ut plus tribuamus, quam sibi.
Significat autem praestabilis super malitia ,
excellens in miserando et in poena condonanda ,
quod proprie Deo convenit : estque idem
cum illo Pcenitens super malitia , quod ad
verbum est in Hebraeo ; nam D'na est poeni¬
tere, in niphal. Posset etiam non male, si
verba Latina consideremus, Praestabilis super
malitia idem esse quod melior , quam ut a
malitia vinci queat. Quod quidem verissimum
est, cum nulla immanitate, aut numerositate
peccatorum infinita Dei benignitas unquam
superetur.
Deoimustertius est Michaeae Y., ubi legi¬
mus : Et tu Bethlehem Ephrata parvulus es
in millibus Juda, ex te mihi egredietur , qui sit
dominator in Israel (-4). Hunc locum depra¬
vatum vult esse Osiander in annot. ad Har-
mon. Evangel., et corrigendum pro Parvulus
es, parum est ut sis in millibus Juda etc. Dicit
enim, imperitum interpretem non animad¬
vertisse, Hebraeos carere neutro genere, et
pro eo usurpare masculinum vel femininum :
proinde licet sit masculini generis, ta¬
men debere verti in neutro Parum , non Par¬
vulus. Et probat, quia quod sequitur Ex te
mihi egredietur etc. non recte cohaeret cum
superioribus, nisi dicatur Parum est etc.
Respondeo : interpretem nostrum recte
vertisse : nam ei consentiunt Chaldaeus et
Graecus codex, et Hieronymus sic legit in
Comment. hujus loci, et quod majus est,
Matthaeus cap. II, sic citavit; dixit enim
Minima es, non Parum est, et quamquam
Hebraei utantur interdum aliis generibus
pro neutro, tamen non semper. Ad rationem
ejus dico : optime cohaerere sequentia cum
praecedentibus, si praecedentia legantur cum
interrogatione, ut legit Matthaeus, qui prop-
terea vertit negative : Nequaquam minima es,
quia legerat parvula es. Melius respondetur
S. Matthaeum non citasse verba, sed sensum:
nam Bethlehem erat parvula civitas quoad
circuitum murorum et frequentiam habita¬
torum, ut dicit Propheta : at hoc non negat
Evangelista ; sed tamen erat maxima civitas
privilegio nativitatis Christi , quod innuit
Propheta, cum ait : Ex te mihi egredietur qui
regat populum Deum Israel, et ad hanc magni¬
tudinem respexit Evangelista, qui addidit
(1) Eccl. V. 7. — (2) Eccl. XVI, 15. — (3) Joel II, 13. — (4) Mich. V, 2.
CAPUT XIII.
147
particulam rationalem dicens : Ex te enim
mihi egredietur etc. nam illa interrogatio :
Parvula es? non invenitur in ullo textu, ne¬
que Hebraico, neque Grseco, neque Latino.