Chapter 2.—Rule for Removing Ambiguity by Attending to Punctuation.

2.  But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation.  Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.  But if both readings, or all of them (if there are more than two), give a meaning in harmony with the faith, it remains to consult the context, both what goes before and what comes after, to see which interpretation, out of many that offer themselves, it pronounces for and permits to be dovetailed into itself.

3.  Now look at some examples.  The heretical pointing,127    John xii. 3–7; Mark xiv. 8.    John i. 1, 2. “In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat,”128    Matt. ix. 20.    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was. so as to make the next sentence run, “Verbum hoc erat in principio apud Deum,”129    This Word was in the beginning with God. arises out of unwillingness to confess that the Word was God.  But this must be rejected by the rule of faith, which, in reference to the equality of the Trinity, directs us to say:  “et Deus erat verbum;”130    And the Word was God. and then to add:  “hoc erat in principio apud Deum.”131    The same was in the beginning with God.

4.  But the following ambiguity of punctuation does not go against the faith in either way you take it, and therefore must be decided from the context.  It is where the apostle says:  “What I shall choose I wot not:  for I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better:  nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.”132    Phil. i. 22–24.  Now it is uncertain whether we should read, “ex duobus concupiscentiam habens” [having a desire for two things], or “compellor autem ex duobus” [I am in a strait betwixt two]; and so to add:  “concupiscentiam habens dissolvi, et esse cum Christo” [having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ].  But since there follows “multo enim magis optimum” [for it is far better], it is evident that he says he has a desire for that which is better; so that, while he is in a strait betwixt two, yet he has a desire for one and sees a necessity for the other; a desire, viz., to be with Christ, and a necessity to remain in the flesh.  Now this ambiguity is resolved by one word that follows, which is translated enim [for]; and the translators who have omitted this particle have preferred the interpretation which makes the apostle seem not only in a strait betwixt two, but also to have a desire for two.133    The Vulgate reads, multo magis melius, omitting the enim.  We must therefore punctuate the sentence thus:  “et quid eligam ignoro:  compellor autem ex duobus” [what I shall choose I wot not:  for I am in a strait betwixt two]; and after this point follows:  “concupiscentiam habens dissolvi, et esse cum Christo” [having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ].  And, as if he were asked why he has a desire for this in preference to the other, he adds:  “multo enim magis optimum” [for it is far better].  Why, then, is he in a strait betwixt the two?  Because there is a need for his remaining, which he adds in these terms:  “manere in carne necessarium propter vos” [nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you].

5.  Where, however, the ambiguity cannot be cleared up, either by the rule of faith or by the context, there is nothing to hinder us to point the sentence according to any method we choose of those that suggest themselves.  As is the case in that passage to the Corinthians:  “Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.  Receive us; we have wronged no man.”134    2 Cor. vii. 1, 2.  It is doubtful whether we should read, “mundemus nos ab omni coinquinatione carnis et spiritus” [let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit], in accordance with the passage, “that she may be holy both in body and in spirit,”135    1 Cor. vii. 34. or, “mundemus nos ab omni coinquinatione carnis” [let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh], so as to make the next sentence, “et spiritus perficientes sanctificationem in timore Dei capite nos” [and perfecting holiness of spirit in the fear of God, receive us].  Such ambiguities of punctuation, therefore, are left to the reader’s discretion.

CAPUT II. Ambiguitas ex verborum distinctione quo modo tollenda.

2. Sed cum verba propria faciunt ambiguam Scripturam, primo videndum est ne male distinxerimus, aut pronuntiaverimus. Cum ergo adhibita intentio incertum esse perviderit quomodo distinguendum aut quomodo pronuntiandum sit, consulat regulam fidei, quam de Scripturarum planioribus locis et Ecclesiae auctoritate percepit; de qua satis egimus, cum de rebus in primo libro loqueremur. Quod si ambae vel etiam omnes, si plures fuerint partes, ambiguitatem secundum fidem sonuerint, textus ipse sermonis a praecedentibus et consequentibus partibus, quae 0066 ambiguitatem illam in medio posuerunt, restat consulendus, ut videamus cuinam sententiae, de pluribus quae se ostendunt, ferat suffragium, eamque sibi contexi patiatur.

3. Jam nunc exempla considera. Illa haeretica distinctio, In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat, ut alius sensus sit, Verbum hoc erat in principio apud Deum, non vult Verbum Deum confiteri. Sed hoc regula fidei refellendum est, qua nobis de Trinitatis aequalitate praescribitur ut dicamus, Et Deus erat Verbum; deinde subjungamus, Hoc erat in principio apud Deum (Joan. I, 1, 2).

4. Illa vero distinctionis ambiguitas neutra parte resistit fidei, et ideo textu ipso sermonis dijudicanda est, ubi ait Apostolus: Et quid eligam ignoro: compellor autem ex duobus; concupiscentiam habens dissolvi, et esse cum Christo; multo enim magis optimum: manere in carne necessarium propter vos (Philipp. I, 23, 24). Incertum enim est utrum ex duobus concupiscentiam habens, an compellor autem ex duobus, ut illud adjungatur, concupiscentiam habens dissolvi, et esse cum Christo. Sed quoniam ita sequitur, multo enim magis optimum, apparet eum ejus optimi dicere se habere concupiscentiam, ut cum ex duobus compellatur, alterius tamen habeat concupiscentiam, alterius necessitatem; concupiscentiam scilicet esse cum Christo, necessitatem manere in carne. Quae ambiguitas uno consequenti verbo dijudicatur, quod positum est, enim: quam particulam qui abstulerunt interpretes, illa potius sententia ducti sunt, ut non solum compelli ex duobus, sed etiam duorum habere concupiscentiam videretur. Sic ergo distinguendum est: Et quid eligam ignoro: compellor autem ex duobus; quam distinctionem sequitur, concupiscentiam habens dissolvi, et esse cum Christo. Et tanquam quaereretur quare hujus rei potius habeat concupiscentiam; multo enim magis optimum, inquit. Cur ergo e duobus compellitur? Quia est manendi necessitas, 0067 quam ita subjecit, Manere in carne necessarium propter vos.

5. Ubi autem neque praescripto fidei, neque ipsius sermonis textu ambiguitas explicari potest, nihil obest secundum quamlibet earum quae ostenduntur, sententiam distinguere. Veluti est illa ad Corinthios, Has ergo promissiones habentes, charissimi, mundemus nos ab omni coinquinatione carnis et spiritus, perficientes sanctificationem in timore Dei. Capite nos. Nemini nocuimus (II. Cor. VII, 1, 2). Dubium est quippe utrum, Mundemus nos ab omni coinquinatione carnis et spiritus, secundum illam sententiam, Ut sit sancta et corpore et spiritu (I Cor. VII, 34); an, Mundemus nos ab omni coinquinatione carnis, ut alius sit sensus, Et spiritus perficientes sanctificationem in timore Dei capite nos. Tales igitur distinctionum ambiguitates in potestate legentis sunt.