Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book III: On the Interpretation of Scripture
Chapter 1: That Scripture is not so clear of itself as to suffice, without exposition, for settling controversies of Faith
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book III: On the Interpretation 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).
In this third book, on the interpretation of the divine Letters, I have thought that a beginning should be made from this question: whether the sacred Scriptures are of themselves most easy and most clear, or whether they need interpretation. And indeed Martin Luther, in the preface to the assertion of his articles condemned by Pope Leo, thus says: “We must, Scripture being judge, pass this sentence, which cannot be done unless we give to Scripture the chief place in all things which are attributed to the Fathers, that is, that it be of itself most certain, most easy, most clear, its own interpreter, proving, judging, and illuminating all things of all men, etc.” In the same place he contends that Scripture is clearer than the Commentaries of all the Fathers. He teaches like things in the book On the bondage of the will, and elsewhere.
But because Luther saw that it could presently be objected — whence come so many controversies, if Scripture is so clear? — he devised two evasions. One, that Scripture, although in some place it be obscure, yet elsewhere clearly proposes that same thing. The other, that Scripture, though of itself most clear, is yet obscure to the proud and unbelieving, on account of their blindness and depraved affection. Brentius, in his Prolegomena against Peter a Soto, adds a third evasion: that although it be sometimes obscure on account of the idioms of a foreign tongue, that is, Hebrew and Greek, yet its sense is most clear.
Which opinion is manifestly false; for Scripture itself bears witness to its own difficulty and obscurity. Psalm 118: Give me understanding, and I will search thy law. In the same place: Open thou mine eyes, and I will consider the wondrous things of thy law. In the same place: Make thy face to shine upon thy servant, and teach me thy justifications. And certainly David knew all the Scripture which then was, and knew the idioms of the Hebrew tongue, nor was he proud or unbelieving. Wherefore St. Jerome rightly, in the epistle to Paulinus, treating these words, thus says: “If so great a Prophet confesses the darkness of his ignorance, with what night of unskillfulness thinkest thou that we little ones, and almost sucklings, are encompassed?”
Besides, in the last chapter of Luke the Lord interpreted the Scriptures to his disciples, who certainly knew the Hebrew idioms, being Hebrews, and were not proud or unbelieving. Acts 8, the eunuch of the queen of the Ethiopians was occupied in the Scriptures and diligently read them, and was holy, pious, and humble, as Jerome teaches in the epistle to Paulinus On the study of the Scriptures; and yet, being asked by Philip, Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? he answered, And how can I, unless some man show me?
Finally 2 Peter last chapter, blessed Peter asserts that in the epistles of Paul there are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest. Where it is to be noted that the Apostle Peter did not say that there are certain things hard for the unlearned and unstable, as the heretics expound, but hard absolutely. For blessed Augustine, who certainly was not unlearned or unstable, in the book On Faith and Works chapters 15 and 16, confesses that that place is most hard for him to understand, 1 Corinthians 3, But if any man build upon this foundation, etc., and says that this is one of those places which blessed Peter admonished to be hard to understand.
Then, besides the testimony of Scripture, the same can be shown from the common consent of the ancient Fathers. Irenaeus book 2 chapter 47, after he has taught that in created and natural things very many are hidden from us, adds: “If therefore even in the things of the creature, some of them lie with God, but some have come into our knowledge, what evil is it, if of those things also which are sought in the Scriptures — all the Scriptures being spiritual — we resolve some according to the grace of God, but commend some to God, and not only in this world, but also in the future, so that God may always teach, and man always learn the things which are from God?”
Origen book 7 against Celsus: “Other men also of sound heart, by searching the Scripture, have been able to find its meaning, although in truth it is in many places obscure.” Likewise homily 5 on Leviticus he has a like opinion, bringing the similitude of the victims, part of which was eaten by the Priests and part burned to God. Likewise homily 12 on Exodus: “Day and night,” he says, “we must beseech that the Lamb of the tribe of Juda may come, and himself vouchsafe to open the sealed book.” Of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen Rufinus thus writes book 2 of the History chapter 9: “Both noble, both learned at Athens, both colleagues, all the secular books of the Greeks being set aside, gave their labor to the volumes of the divine Scripture alone, and followed the understanding of them not from their own presumption, but from the writings and authority of their elders, who themselves too, it was established, had received the rule of understanding from the Apostolic succession.”
Now Chrysostom, whom alone the heretics are wont to object to us, homily 40 on John, on that Search the Scriptures: “Christ,” he says, “sent back the Jews to the Scriptures, not to a simple and bare reading, but to a most diligent investigation. For he said not, Read the Scriptures, but Search. For divine things need the highest diligence. For not without cause did he speak to those men of old in shadow; therefore he bids us dig deeper, that we may be able to find the things which lie hidden deep. For we do not dig up a thing placed on the surface and in readiness, but that which, like a treasure, is deeply hidden. For he who seeks such a thing, unless he apply the highest diligence and labor, will never find what he seeks.” Likewise the author of the Unfinished Work, homily 44 on Matthew, brings two reasons why the Scriptures are obscure. The first, because God willed some to be masters, others disciples. The second, lest, if it were clear, it should be not so useful as contemptible.
Ambrose in epistle 44 to Constantius: “The divine Scripture,” he says, “is a sea, having in itself deep senses, the depth of prophetic enigmas, etc.” Jerome, in the epistle to Paulinus On the study of the Scriptures, of set purpose teaches that the Scriptures cannot be learned without a master, and running briefly through the names of the several books, shows that in all there are great and many difficulties. The same, in the preface of his Commentary on the epistle to the Ephesians: “Not that from my youth I ceased either to read, or to ask learned men the things which I knew not, and had myself alone for master. In fine, lately for this cause especially I went to Alexandria, to see Didymus, and to inquire of him about all the doubts which I had in the Scriptures.” And in the epistle to Algasia question 8: “The whole epistle to the Romans,” he says, “is involved in too great obscurities.”
Augustine, book 2 On Christian Doctrine: “But by many and manifold obscurities and ambiguities are they deceived who read rashly, thinking one thing for another; and in certain places they find nothing to suspect even falsely, so obscurely are certain things said, that they draw over them a most dense fog. Which I doubt not to have been divinely provided, to subdue pride by labor, and to recall from disdain the understanding, to which things easily searched out generally become worthless.” Likewise book 12 of the Confessions: “Wonderful is the depth of thy words, whose surface, behold, is before us, soothing the little ones; but wonderful is the depth, O my God, wonderful is the depth. It is a horror to look into it, a horror of honor, and a trembling of love.” And epistle 3, now 137: “So great is the depth of the Christian letters, that I should daily profit in them, if I strove to learn them alone, from earliest boyhood to decrepit old age, with the greatest leisure, the highest study, and a better genius.” And epistle 119, now 55, chapter 21: “In the holy Scriptures themselves I know not many more things than I know.”
Gregory homily 6 on Ezechiel book 1: “Of great usefulness,” he says, “is the very obscurity of the words of God, because it exercises the understanding, that it may be enlarged by the fatigue, and, being exercised, may grasp what the idle cannot grasp. It has also yet another and greater thing, because the understanding of holy Scripture, which, if it were open in all things, would become worthless, in certain more obscure places refreshes with so much the greater sweetness when found, as it fatigues the mind with the greater labor in the seeking.” Certainly these Fathers knew the idioms, and were not proud or unbelieving, and yet frankly confess that the Scriptures are difficult. From which the temerity and vanity of Luther and Brentius is, I think, plainly enough convicted.
Nor is there wanting, to confirm this same thing, besides the authorities, also reason. For in the Scriptures two things can be considered, the things which are said, and the manner in which they are said. If you consider the things, it must necessarily be confessed that the Scriptures are most obscure; since they deliver the highest mysteries — of the divine Trinity, of the Incarnation of the Word, of the heavenly Sacraments, of the nature of the Angels, of the operation of God in human minds, of eternal predestination and reprobation, and of other secret and supernatural things, which are not searched out without great study and labor, nor without the danger of most grave error. Certainly, if the science of the Metaphysicians is more difficult and obscure than all the other natural disciplines, because it treats of the highest causes, how shall not the sacred Scripture be most obscure, which treats of things far higher? And what of this, that a great part of Scripture contains prophecies of future things, and prophecies written in verse, than which certainly nothing is more difficult, nothing more obscure?
But if we consider the manner of speaking, we shall find innumerable grounds of difficulty. First, there are in the Scriptures very many things which at first sight seem contrary, as that of Exodus 20, I am a jealous God, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation; and that of Ezechiel 18, The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, but the soul that sinneth, the same shall die. Secondly, there are words and sentences ambiguous, as John 8, the Jews asking, Who art thou? Christ answered, The beginning, who also speak to you; for here all the Interpreters wonderfully torment themselves, nor is it yet known what that is, The beginning, who; and in the Greek it is still more obscure, where Beginning is of the accusative case. Thirdly, there are imperfect sentences, as Romans 5, As by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned, and what follows, where in the whole period there is no principal verb. Fourthly, there are inverted sentences, as Genesis 10, These are the sons of Sem according to their kindreds and tongues and countries in their nations; for immediately there follows at the beginning of chapter 11, And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech. Fifthly, there are idioms proper to the Hebrews, as Psalm 88, His throne as the days of heaven; likewise Psalm 118, My soul is always in my hands; and very many others. Sixthly, there are very many figured sentences, Tropes, Metaphors, Allegories, Hyperbata, Ironies, and others of the kind without number.
Let there come lastly the testimony of the adversaries, which, will they nill they, they are compelled to bear to this truth. For if Scripture were so clear as they say, why did Luther and the Lutherans write so many commentaries? why did they publish so diverse versions of Scripture? why did they explain Scripture so variously? Certainly Osiander, in his confutation of the writing which Philip had published against him, testifies that twenty most diverse opinions on justification according to the Scriptures are current among the Confessionists alone. And Luther himself, in book 1 against Zwingli and Oecolampadius, did he not leave it written: “If the world shall stand longer, it will again be necessary, on account of the diverse interpretations of Scripture which now are, that for preserving the unity of the Faith we receive the decrees of the Councils, and flee to them”? And whence, I pray, so many interpretations of Scripture, if Scripture is so easy and clear? And what of this, that in this opinion they fight wonderfully with themselves?
Luther, who in the preface to the assertion of his articles asserted that Scripture is of itself most clear and most plain, and in the book On the bondage of the will boasted that there is no difficulty in the sacred Letters, and that no place can be brought to him which he does not easily interpret — the same nevertheless in his preface on the Psalms: “I would not,” he says, “that this be presumed of me by anyone, which none of the most holy and most learned has yet been able to perform, that is, to understand and teach the Psalter in all its legitimate sense. It is enough to have understood some, and those in part. Many things the Spirit reserved to himself, that he might always have us as disciples; many he only shows to allure, many he delivers to affect.” And below: “I know it is of most impudent temerity for one to dare to profess that he has understood one book of Scripture in all its parts.” And in the book On Councils page 12: “Twenty years ago,” he says, “I was compelled to despise the commentaries of the Fathers, when Scripture had to be read in the schools, and with great sweat to seek the true and genuine sense.”
Brentius, in his Prolegomena against Peter a Soto: “They trifle,” he says, “who say that Scripture is obscure, and therefore needs interpretation.” And below he says: “Scripture is obscure only to the impious and unbelieving, but not to the pious who believe.” But he himself, in his Wittenberg Confession, chapter On sacred Scripture, thus says: “It is not obscure that the gift of interpreting Scripture is not of human prudence, but of the Holy Ghost; and the Holy Ghost is most free, nor is bound to a certain kind of men, but distributes gifts to men according to his own good pleasure.” But why, I pray, Brentius, is the gift of interpretation necessary, if, as you yourself a little before said, Scripture needs not interpretation?
Now Martin Kemnitz, in his Examination of the fourth session of the Council of Trent: “God,” he says, “willed that in the Church there should be the gift of interpretation, which, like the gift of healings, of miracles, and of tongues, is not common to all.” And below: “Gratefully and reverently we use the labors of the Fathers, who usefully illustrated many places of Scripture by their commentaries.” Very grateful indeed to the labors of the Fathers was your parent Luther, when in the book On Councils page 52 he wrote that the commentaries of the Fathers are coals for gold. Nor less do the Centuriators — who nevertheless are rigid Lutherans — contradict their own Luther, century 1 book 2 chapter 4 column 52, when they thus write: “The Apostles perceived that the Scriptures cannot be understood without the Holy Ghost and an interpreter.” But let us see the arguments of Luther and Brentius.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT I. Scripturam non esse tam apertam per se, ut sine explicatione sufficiat ad controversias Fidei terminandas. s Scripturis in hoc tertio lib. de interpreta- tione divinarum Litterarum, ab illa quaestio- ne principium faciendum esse duxi : sintne Scripturae sacrae per se facillimae , atque apertissimae ; an vero interpretatione indi¬ geant. Et quidem Martinus Lutherus praefat. assert. artic. a Leone Pontif. damnat., sic ait : « Oportet, Scriptura judice, hanc sen¬ tentiam ferre, quod fieri non potest, nisi Scripturae dederimus principem locum in omnibus, quae tribuuntur Patribus, hoc est, ut sit ipsa per se certissima, facillima, aper¬ tissima sui ipsius interpres , omnium omnia probans, judicans , et illuminans etc. » Ibi¬ dem contendit, Scripturam esse clariorem omnium Patrum Commentariis. Similia do¬ cet in lib. De servo arbitrio, et alibi. Quia tamen videbat Lutherus mox posse objici : unde sint tot controversiae, si Scrip¬ tura est tam sacra? duo effugia excogitavit. Unum, quod Scriptura , etiamsi alicubi sit obscura, tamen illud idem alibi clare pro¬ ponat. Alterum, quod Scriptura, licet per se clarissima, tamen superbis et infidelibus sit obscura ob eorum caecitatem et pravum af¬ fectum. Addit Brentius in Proleg. contra Petrum a Soto tertium effugium, quod etiam interdum sit obscura, propter phrases alienae linguae, id est, Hebraicae et Graecae, tamen sensus ejus clarissimus sit. Quae sententia manifeste falsa est : nam Scriptura ipsa de sua difficuL tate atque obscuritate testimonium perhi- bet. Psalm. CXVIII. Da mihi intellectum , et scrutabor legem tuam (1). Ibidem : Revelabo oculos meos, et considerabo mirabilia de lege tua. Ibidem : Faciem tuam illumina super ser^ vum tuum, et doce me justificationes tuas. Et certe David noverat totam Scripturam, quae tunc erat, et noverat phrases linguae Hebrai¬ cae, nec erat superbus aut infidelis. Quocirca merito S. Hieronymus in epist. ad Paulinum, tractans haec verba, sic ait : « Si tantus Pro¬ pheta tenebras ignorantiae confitetur, qua nos putas parvulos, et pene lactentes insci¬ tiae nocte circumdari? » Praeterea , Lucae ult. Dominus interpreta¬ batur Scripturas discipulis suis, qui certe noverant phrases Hebraicas cum essent He¬ braei, nec erant superbi, vel infideles. Actor. VIII. Eunuchus Reginae ^Ethiopum versaba¬ tur in Scripturis, easque diligenter legebat, et sanctus, pius , et humilis erat , ut Hiero¬ nymus docet , in epist. ad Paulinum de Stud. Script. , et tamen interrogatus a Phi- dit : Putas intelligis, quae legis ? respondit : Et quomodo possum , nisi aliquis ostenderit mihi (2). Denique II. Petri ult., B. Petrus asserit, in epistolis Pauli esse quaedam difficilia in¬ tellectu, quce indocti et instabiles depravant. Ubi notandum est Apostolum Petrum non (1) Psal. CXVIII, 34 et seq. — (2) Act. VIII, 30. 168 LIBER III. dixisse, esse qusedam difficilia indocti^ et in¬ stabilibus, ut haeretici exponunt , sed diffi¬ cilia absolute. Nam B. Augustinus, qui certe indoctus et instabilis nop erat, lib. De Fide et operib. cap. 45. et 16. fatetur, sibi diffi¬ cillimum esse intellectu locum illum, I. Cor. III. Si quis autem superaedificat super funda¬ mentum etc. et dicit, hunc esse unum ex illis locis, quae B. Petrus monuit esse difficilia intellectu. Deinde, praeter Scripturae testimonium, idem ostendi potest ex communi consensu veterum Patrum. Iremeus lib. II, cap. 47. posteaquam in rebus creatis et naturalibus plurima nos latere docuit , adjungit : « Si ergo et in rebus creaturae, quaedam quidem eorum adjacent Deo, quaedam autem et in nostram venerunt scientiam : quid mali est, si et eorum , quae in Scripturis requiruntur, universis Scripturis spiritualibus existenti- bus, quaedam quidem absolvamus secundum gratiam Dei, quaedam autem commendemus Deo, et non solum in hoc saeculo, sed et in futuro, ut semper quidem Deus doceat , ho¬ mo autem semper discat quae sunt a Deo? » Origenes lib. VII. cont. Celsum : « Alii quoque cordati viri scrutando Scripturam, intellectum ejus invenire potuerunt, licet revera sit multis locis obscura. » Item ho- mil. 5. in Levit, similem sententiam habet, adducens similitudinem hostiarum , quarum pars comedebatur a Sacerdotibus, et pars incendebatur Deo. Item hom. 12. in Exod. « Diebus ac noctibus, inquit, obsecrandum, ut veniat Agnus ex tribu Juda, et ipse li¬ brum signatum dignetur aperire. » De Basi- lio, et Gregorio Nazianzeno ita scribit Ruffi- nus lib. II, histor. cap. 9. « Ambo nobiles, ambo Athenis eruditi, ambo collegse, omni¬ bus Graecorum saecularium libris remotis, solis divinae Scripturae voluminibus operam dabant, earumqueintelligentiam non ex pro¬ pria praesumptione, sed ex Majorum scriptis et auctoritate sequebantur, quos et ipsos ex Apostolica successione intelligendi regulam suscepisse constabat. » Jam Clirysostomus , quem solum haeretici nobis objicere solent homil. 40. in Jo. in il¬ lud : Scrutamini Scripturas. « Christus, inquit, Judaeos ad Scripturarum non simplicem et nudam lectionem, sed ad investigationem perquam diligentem relegavit. Non enim dixit: Legite Scripturas, sed Scrutamini. Divina enim summa indigent diligentia. In umbra enim majoribus illis non abs re locu¬ tus est, idcirco effodere profundius jubet, ut quae alte delitescunt , invenire possimus. Non enim rem in superficie, et in promptu positam effodimus , sed quae tanquam the¬ saurus profunde reconditur. Qui enim hujus¬ modi quaerit, nisi summam adhibeat diligen¬ tiam et laborem, nunquam quaesita inveniet. Item auctor operis imperfecti hom. 44. in Matth., duas adfert rationes, cur obscurae sint Scripturae. Prima, quia Deus voluit alios esse magistros, alios discipulos. Secun¬ da , ne si clara esset, non tam esset utilis, quam contemptibilis. Ambrosius in epist. 44. ad Constantium : « Mare, inquit, est Scriptura divina, habens in se sensus profundos, altitudinem prophe¬ ticorum enigmatum etc. » Hieronymus in epist. ad Paulinum de Stud. Script., ex insti¬ tuto docet, non posse Scripturas disci sine magistro, et percurrens breviter nomina sin¬ gulorum librorum, ostendit in omnibus ma¬ gnas et multas esse difficultates. Idem prse- fat. Comment. in epistol. ad Ephes. « Non quo, inquit, ab adolescentia, aut legere, aut doctos viros, quae nesciebam interrogare cessaverim, et meipsum tantum habuerim magistrum. Denique nuper ob hanc vel ma¬ xime causam Alexandriam perrexi , ut vide¬ rem Didymum , et ab eo in Scripturis omni¬ bus, quae habebam dubia, sciscitarer. » Et in epist. ad Algasiam queest. 8 : c Omnis, inquit, epistola ad Romanos nimiis obscuri¬ tatibus involuta est. » Augustinus II. Doctr. Christ. « Sed mul¬ tis » , inquit, « et multiplicibus obscuritati¬ bus, et ambiguitatibus decipiuntur, qui te¬ mere legunt, aliud pro alio sentientes : qui¬ busdam autem locis, qui vel falso suspicentur non inveniunt; ita obscure qusedam dicta densissimam caliginem obducunt. Quod to¬ tum provisum divinitus esse non dubito ad edomandam labore superbiam, et intellectum a fastidio revocandum, cui facile investigata plerumque vilescunt. » (1) Item XII. Con- fess. « Mira », inquit, « profunditas eloquio¬ rum tuorum, quorum ecce ante nos super¬ ficies blandiens parvulis , sed mira pro¬ funditas, Deus meus, mira profunditas. Horror est intendere in eam, horror ho¬ noris, et tremor amoris. » Et epist. 3. nunc 137. «Tanta est Christianarum profun- (1) Lib. II, Cap. 6. CAPUT I. 169 ditas litterarum, ut in eis quotidie profice¬ rem, si eas solas ab ineunte pueritia usque ad decrepitam senectutem, maximo otio, summo studio, meliore ingenio conarer ad¬ discere. » Et epist. 119. nunc 55. cap. 3. 21. « In ipsis sanctis Scripturis multa nescio plura, quam scio. » Gregorius hom. 6. inEzech.lib. I. : «Ma¬ gnae », inquit, « utilitatis est ipsa obscuritas eloquiorum Dei, quia exercet sensum, ut fatigatione dilatetur, et exercitatus capiat, quod capere non potest otiosus. Habet quo¬ que adhuc majus aliud, quia Scripturae sa¬ crae intelligentia, quae si in cunctis esset aperta, vilesceret, in quibusdam locis obscu¬ rioribus tanto majore dulcedine inventa re¬ ficit, quanto majore labore fatigat animum quaesita etc. » Certe isti Patres norant phra¬ ses, nec erant superbi, infideles, et tamen ingenue confitentur, Scripturas esse diffici¬ les. Ex quo Lutheri et Brentii temeritas ac vanitas' satis, opinor, aperte coarguitur. Neque deest ad hoc idem confirmandum praeter auctoritates etiam ratio. Nam in Scripturis duo considerari possunt, res quae dicuntur, et modus quo dicuntur.- Si res con¬ sideres ; necessario fatendum est Scripturas esse obscurissimas : siquidem tradunt sum¬ ma mysteria, de divina Trinitate, de Incar¬ natione Verbi, de Sacramentis coelestibus, de natura Angelorum, de operatione Dei in mentibus humanis, de aeterna praedestina¬ tione ac reprobatione, deque aliis rebus ar¬ canis et supernaturalibus, quae non sine magno studio et labore, nec sine gravissimi erroris periculo investigantur. Certe si scien¬ tia Metaphysicorum difficilior atque obscu¬ rior est omnibus aliis naturalibus discipli¬ nis, quia causas altissimas tractat, quomodo non obscurissima erit sacra Scriptura, quae de rebus longe altioribus agit? Quid quod magna pars Scripturae vaticinia continet de rebus futuris, et vaticinia carmine scripta, quibus certe nihil difficilius, nihil obscurius. Si vero modum dicendi consideremus, in¬ veniemus innumerabiles rationes difficulta¬ tis. Primo, sunt in Scripturis plurima, quae prima fronte videntur contraria, ut illud Exod. XX. Ego Deus zelotes , visitans peccata patrum in filios , in tertiam et quartam gene¬ rationem (1). Et iilud Ezech. XVIII. Filius non portabit iniq uitatem patris , sed anima, quce peccaverit , ipsa morietur (2). Secundo, sunt verba et orationes ambiguae, ut Jo. VIII. pe- teqtibus Judaeis : Tu quis esi respondit Chris¬ tus : Principium , qui et loquor vobis? (3) Mire enim torquent hic se omnes Interpretes, nec adhuc scitur quid illud sit : Principium qui: et in Graeco adhuc est res obscurior, ubi Principium est accusativi casus, tv jv &.pyb. Tertio, sunt orationes imperfectae, ut Rom. V. Sicut per unum hominem peccatum intra¬ vit in Mundum , et per peccatum mors : et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit, in quo om¬ nes peccaverunt (4) et quae sequuntur : ubi in tota periodo non est verbum principale. Quarto, sunt orationes praeposterae, ut Ge¬ nes. X. Isti sunt filii Sem secundum cogna¬ tiones, et linguas , et regiones in gentibus suis. Nam continuo sequitur initio cap. XI. Erat autem terra labii unius, et sermonum eorum- dem (5). Quinto, sunt phrases propriae He¬ braeorum, ut Psalm. LXXXVIII. Thronus ejus sicut dies coeli. Item Psalm. CXVIII. Anima mea in manibus meis semper (6), et aliae permultae. Sexto, sunt orationes figu¬ ratae plurimae, Tropi, Metaphorae, Allegoriae, Hyperbata, Ironiae, et alia id genus sine ullo numero. Accedat postremo testimonium adversa¬ riorum, quod velint nolint, huic veritati co¬ guntur perhibere. Nam si Scriptura esset tam clara, ut ipsi dicunt, cur tot commenta¬ ria Lutherus et Lutherani scriberent ? cur tam diversas ederent Scripturae versiones ? curtam varie Scripturam explicarent? Certe Osiander in confutatione scripti, quod ad¬ versus eum Philippus ediderat, testatur, vi- ginti sententias diversissimas de justificatio ne secundum Scripturas versari inter solos Con- fessionistas. Et Lutherus ipse in lib. 1. cont. Zwingl. et GEcolampad., nonne scriptum re¬ liquit. « Si diutius steterit Mundus, iterum fore necessarium, propter diversas Scrip¬ turae interpretationes quae nunc sunt, ut ad conservandam Fidei unitatem, Conciliorum decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugia¬ mus. » Et unde, quaeso, tot Scripturae inter¬ pretationes, si Scriptura est tam facilis et aperta ? Quid quod in hac sententia ipsi se- cum mirifice pugnant ? Lutherus, qui in praefat. assert. artic. suor, asseruit, Scripturam per se apertissimam et clarissimam esse: et lib. de ser. arb. jacta - (1) Exod. XX, 5. — (2) Ezech. XVIII, 4 et 20. — (3) Joan.VIII, 25. — (4) Rora.V, 12. — (5) Gen. X, 3.; Ib. XI, 1. — (6) Psal. CXVIII, 30. ; Ib. CXVIII, 109. 170 LIBER III. vit, nihil difficultatis esse in sacris Litteris, et nullum sibi locum adferri posse, quem ipsi non facile interpretetur : idem tamen in praefat. in Psal. «Nolim», inquit, «ab ullo id de me praesumi, quod nullus adhuc praestare potuit sanctissimorum et doctissi¬ morum, id est, Psalterium in omnibus suo le¬ gitimo sensu intelligere, et docere. Sat est, aliquot, et eosdem ex parte intellexisse. Multa sibi reservavit Spiritus, quo nos semper disci¬ pulos habeat; multa solum ostendit ut alliciat, multa tradit utafficiat. » Et infra: «Scio esse impudentissimae temeritatis, eum qui audeat profiteri, unum Scripturae librum a se in omnibus partibus intellectum. » Et in lib. de Goncil. pag. 12. « Ante viginti annos », in¬ quit, « coactus sum contemnere Patrum commentaria, cum Scriptura legenda esset in Scholis, et magno sudore veram et ger¬ manam sententiam quaerere. » Brentius in prolegom. contra Petrum a Soto : « Nugantur », inquit, « Scripturam esse obscuram, ideoque interpretatione in¬ digere. » Et infra dicit : « Impiis et incre¬ dulis tantum Scripturam esse obscuram, non autem piis credentibus,» At ipse in suaCon- fess. Wirtemberg, cap. de sac. Script. sic ait: « Non est obscurum, inquit, « quod donum interpretandae Scripturae non sit humanae prudentiae, sed sancti Spiritus: Spiritus sanctus autem est liberrimus, nec est ad certum genus hominum obligatus, sed dis¬ tribuit dona hominibus pro suo ipsius bene- placito. » At cur, quaeso, Brenti, donum interpreta¬ tionis necessarium est, si ut tu ipse paulo ante dicebas, Scriptura interpretatione non eget? Jam vero Martinus Kemnitius in Exam. IV, sess. Cone. Trid. : « Deus », inquit, « voluit in Ecclesia exstare donum interpre- tationis, quod sicut donum sanationum, mb raculorum, et linguarum, non est commune omnibus. » Et infra: « Grati », inquit, « et reverenter utimur Patrum laboribus, qui multa Scripturae loca commentariis suis uti¬ liter illustrarunt. » Valde gratus nimirum Patrum laboribus fuit parens vester Luthe- rus, cum in lib. de Concil. pag. 52. Patrum commentarios scripsit esse carbones pro auro. Nec minus Luthero suo repugnant Centuriatores, qui tamen rigidi sunt Luthe- rani, cent. 1. lib. II, cap. 4. colum. 52. dum ita scribunt : « Senserunt Apostoli, Scriptu¬ ras non posse intelligi sine Spiritu sancto et interprete. » Sed argumenta Lutheri et Brentii videamus.