Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book III: On the Interpretation of Scripture
Chapter 2: The objections of the adversaries are solved
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).
They take their first objection from those words of Deuteronomy 30: The commandment which I command thee this day is not above thee, nor far off, nor placed in heaven, nor beyond the sea, etc. In which words a certain supreme easiness of the Scriptures is shown: “So that there is no need,” says Brentius, “to cross mountains and go to Rome for the interpretation of the Scriptures.” I answer: this place is wont to be understood in two ways. Very many of the ancients understand this place not of the easiness of understanding the Scriptures, but of the easiness of fulfilling the commandments of the Decalogue when the help of grace is present. Which is against all the Lutherans, who teach that the commandments of God are impossible. So Tertullian expounds book 4 against Marcion, Origen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others on chapter 10 to the Romans, and Augustine in the book On perfect justice, second-to-last answer.
Others, however, among whom is Abulensis on this place, understand these words of the easiness of knowledge — not indeed of the holy Scriptures, which perhaps then as yet were none, but only of the precepts of the Decalogue, which, being natural, are most easily understood; and those Jews especially could easily know them, who had heard Moses explaining, and had confessed that they had perceived all things, and had promised that they would observe them; therefore it is subjoined: The word is very near thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart; that is, in thy heart, because thou hast already understood what is to be done; and in thy mouth, because thou hast already confessed that thou hast understood. Nor does it fight with this explanation that David, cited above, confesses that the Law of the Lord was hard for him to understand. For David by the name of Law understands not those ten precepts alone, but all the divine Scriptures; which signification the Lord also uses in the Gospel, when he says: That the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law, because they hated me without cause, John 15.
The second argument, from Psalm 18, The commandment of the Lord is lightsome, enlightening the eyes, and Psalm 118, Thy word is a lamp to my feet, and The declaration of thy words giveth light, and Proverbs 6, The commandment is a lamp, and the law a light. I answer first: the matter here is not of all the Scriptures, but only of the Lord's precepts, which are called lightsome, a lamp, and light — not because they are easily understood (although this too is true; for what is easier than Thou shalt love thy neighbor?), but because, being understood and known, they direct man in acting. Secondly it can be said that the matter is indeed of all the Scriptures, but that the Scriptures are called lightsome, nay light and a lamp, not because they are easily understood, but because, when they have been understood, they illumine the mind. For the Prophet in Psalm 18 had spoken of the knowledge of the Philosophers, which they had attained from the creatures, when he says, The heavens declare the glory of God, etc. Afterward, to show that they did not attain to that light to which they attain whom God vouchsafes to instruct, and to whom he gave a written law, he subjoins: The law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls, etc. Likewise Psalm 118 he wished to demonstrate that the knowledge which is had from the revealed word of God is greater than that from the creatures; and therefore he compared the word of God to a lamp, which for dispersing the darkness of night is much more useful to us than the light of all the stars.
The third argument, Matthew 5, You are the light of the world. But if the Apostles are the light of the world, how are the preaching and Scriptures of the Apostles not most clear? I answer: the Lord speaks of the light of examples, of probity, and of morals; for he willed that there should be certain examples of holiness in the Apostles set before all men to imitate. Wherefore he immediately subjoins: So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works. Besides, if the Lord spoke of the light of doctrine, the sense would not be that the Scriptures of the Apostles are most easy to understand, but that, being understood, they illumine the mind and instruct concerning the highest things, and put to flight the darkness of all errors. For he does not so much illumine who speaks or writes clearly, as he who, whether he speak or write clearly or obscurely, kindles the light of truth in the mind and drives away the darkness of errors.
The fourth argument, 2 Peter 1: We have the more firm prophetical word, whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place. I answer: here too the words of the Prophets are called a lamp, not because they are easily understood, but because, being understood, they illumine and show the way to Christ, who is the true Sun of justice.
The fifth argument, 2 Corinthians 4: But if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the glory of Christ should not shine unto them. To all the Faithful, therefore, Scripture is open and easy. I answer: the Apostle speaks not of the understanding of the Scriptures, but of the knowledge of and Faith in Christ, which the Apostles preached. For he had said in the foregoing chapter that this is the difference between the old Testament and the new, that in the old men did not see the mysteries of Christ — the incarnation, the passion, etc. — save through the veil of figures and shadows; which that veil signified, wherewith Moses covered his face when he spoke to the people. But in the new Testament, all the figures being now fulfilled, with open face we behold the glory of the Lord; and there is no old woman or Christian child who knows not that God was incarnate, suffered, etc. Since therefore someone could ask, if it is so, why so many after the Gospel preached still believe not, and see nothing (especially the Jews) but shadows and figures — therefore the Apostle subjoins that to some the Gospel is hid, because their inner eyes are blinded by depraved affections; of whom the Lord said John 5, How can you believe, who receive glory one from another? Now the god of this world is not understood to be some god, creator of corporeal things, distinct from the true God, as the Marcionites and Manichees interpreted (as Chrysostom here relates); but either that of this world ought to be joined not with god but with unbelievers, as Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others on this place will have it, and Augustine book 21 against Faustus chapter 2; or certainly the Devil is called the god of this world, not because he is God absolutely, but because he is the god of the unbelievers, as Psalm 95 it is said, The gods of the Gentiles are devils. So Augustine book 21 against Faustus chapter 9, and Cyril in Oecumenius.
The sixth argument: Augustine book 2 On Christian Doctrine chapter 6 thus says: “Magnificently and wholesomely the Holy Ghost so tempered the holy Scripture that by the more open places he might meet hunger, but by the more obscure wipe away disdain; for almost nothing is dug out of those obscurities which is not found most plainly said elsewhere.” I answer: not in vain did blessed Augustine add that almost; for certain things are found most obscure which are nowhere in the whole Scripture explained, as a great part of the Apocalypse, the beginning and end of Ezechiel, etc. Then this very thing is very difficult, namely to find where that is plainly said which in one place is said most obscurely; otherwise how would the same Augustine say in epistle 119 chapter 21 that he knows not more things than he knows in the sacred Letters? And what of this, that even those places which seem to us most open will perhaps seem obscure to some other? Not therefore does Scripture alone suffice to settle controversies. Certainly those words of Matthew 26, This is my body, seem to us so clear that the Evangelist could not have spoken more clearly; but to the Zwinglians they seem obscure and figurative. And those in the same place, Drink ye all of this, seem most clear both to us and to the Lutherans; and yet they are most diversely explained. For we, when we read Mark 14, And they all drank of it, which is understood of the twelve Disciples, interpreting Scripture by Scripture, say that the Lord said to the twelve Disciples, Drink ye all of this. But Brentius in those his Prolegomena says most clearly that here it is commanded not only to the Apostles, but also to all others, that they drink of the chalice of the Lord. And when we ask whether even the Turks, and Jews, and infants ought to drink, then indeed they add the gloss: All, that is, all the adult Faithful.
The seventh argument: The sum of the whole Scripture, which consists in the precepts of the Decalogue, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Sacraments, has in the Scriptures most open testimonies; therefore the whole Scripture is most open. I answer: both the consequence and the antecedent are denied. The consequence, indeed, because although all things can in some way be reduced to those, yet they in themselves are most obscure, as is plain of the prophecies of the Prophets, of the Canticle of Canticles, of the epistle to the Romans, of the Apocalypse, etc. But that the antecedent is false is more certain than certain; for if such clear testimonies existed of all the articles of the Creed and all the Sacraments, all controversies would be ended; whereas about each article of the Creed, and each Sacrament also, there are most grave controversies, and not only do the Catholics disagree with the heretics about these things, but even the heretics among themselves.
The eighth argument: John Chrysostom homily 3 On Lazarus, where he shows that the Philosophers spoke obscurely, thus subjoins: “But the Apostles and Prophets did all the contrary; the things which they delivered, being manifest and clear, they set forth to all, as it were common Teachers of the world, so that each one by himself might be able to learn the things which are said, from the reading alone.” Likewise homily 3 on the second to the Thessalonians: “Wherefore,” he says, “is there need of a preacher? All things are clear and plain from the divine Scriptures; but because you are dainty hearers, seeking delight in hearing, therefore you seek preachers.” I answer: Chrysostom, to shake off the torpor of many who could, if they would, read the Scriptures with great fruit, is wont to use those amplifications. For otherwise, in the same places, he affirms that the Scriptures are difficult. In homily 3 On Lazarus, before the words cited, he thus says: “What then, they say, if we understand not the things contained in the books? Even so, although you understand not the things hidden there, yet from the very reading much holiness is born.” And below he testifies that when he says the Scriptures are easy he speaks only of the histories and like things; and that not even these are clear and easy to all: “Take the book in your hands,” he says, “read the whole history, and hold in memory the things which are known, and the things which are obscure and little manifest, run over frequently. But if by assiduity of reading you cannot find what is said, go to one wiser, go to a teacher.” And in that homily 3 on the second to the Thessalonians, after the words cited he adds: “What obscurity is that, tell me, I pray? Are they not histories? Do you know the things which are clear, that you should inquire about those which are obscure? There are a thousand histories in the Scriptures; tell me one of them — but you will not; these are pretexts and words.” Likewise homily 10 on John he admonishes his hearers that before they come to the sermon they read the lesson beforehand, and note the things which are obscure, that they may receive the explanation from the preacher. Finally homily 44 on John he most clearly teaches that the Scriptures are obscure, as was said above.
The ninth argument: This is the difference between the old Testament and the new, that in the old the Scripture was a sealed book, as is said Isaiah 29, but in the new it is an open book, as is said Apocalypse 5, for the slain Lamb opened the book. In argument of which thing, at the death of the Lord the veil of the Temple was rent, Matthew 27; and it is confirmed from Jerome on chapter 44 of Ezechiel, where he expounds those places of Scripture of the difficulty and easiness of Scripture itself. I answer: the difference between the old Testament and the new consists in this, that then not only the sentences of the Scriptures, but even the mysteries of Christ were not understood, because all were covered with figures; and therefore Isaiah 29 it is called a sealed book, both to him that knows letters and to him that knows not. But in the new Testament, because Christ fulfilled the figures and prophecies, although many understand not the sentences of the Scriptures, yet they understand the very mysteries of redemption, even the country folk and women. But that neither the Scriptures nor Jerome speak of the sentence of Scripture is plain, both from Origen homily 12 on Exodus, where he says that even now there is need that the Lamb of the tribe of Juda open to us the sealed books; and from Jerome himself, who in the epistle to Paulinus On the instruction of a monk says that even today the veil remains, not only on the face of Moses, but also on the face of the Evangelists and Apostles, if we consider the difficulty of the Scriptures; and therefore we must pray with the Prophet: Open thou mine eyes, and I will consider the wondrous things of thy law.
The tenth argument, proper to Luther: The Fathers prove their opinions from Scripture; but that which is better known ought not to be proved from the less known; therefore the Scriptures are clearer than the Commentaries of the Fathers. I answer: it is a marvel that Luther, who so often reprehends the Sophists, now does not fear to play the Sophist. For when the Philosophers say that the less known ought to be proved from the more known, they speak not of the knowledge of words, which consists in the perspicuity of the sentence — as we say that a proper sentence is more known, that is, easier and clearer, than a figurative one — but of the knowledge of the truth of the thing, which is placed in this, that one understand that what is said is true. Let motion and life be the example. For if you regard the words, this sentence, Man lives, is understood as easily as that, Man is moved. And yet, as far as concerns the knowledge of the truth of the thing, it is more known that man is moved than that he lives. So therefore the Fathers confirm their opinions by the testimonies of the Scriptures, because it is more known that what is had in the Scriptures is true than what is had in the Fathers; and yet the same Fathers by their Commentaries illustrate the Scriptures, because the words of Scripture are more obscure than the words of the Fathers.
The eleventh argument: The Fathers of the primitive Church read without Commentaries; and the same did all the other ancients afterward; wherefore then do we enter upon this new path of Commentaries? I answer: the contrary is true, nor did Luther bring any example, whereas we can bring innumerable. I say therefore that the first Fathers, who were immediately after the Apostles, did not read Commentaries, because there were none; but yet they went to living Commentaries, that is, to the Apostles and their disciples, and were not willing to understand the Scriptures from their own genius. So Papias testifies of himself in Eusebius book 3 of the History last chapter, and Clement of Alexandria book 1 of the Stromata, where he enumerates his teachers, the disciples of the Apostles, and among them especially Pantaenus. Then Justin, and Irenaeus, and others began to write Commentaries on the divine Letters, as Jerome testifies in the book On Illustrious Men, in John; and likewise the later men began to unroll the writings of the more ancient, which of Basil and Gregory Rufinus writes book 2 of the History chapter 9, and Jerome of himself in the preface of his Commentary to the Ephesians. And the same could be shown of all the rest, if there were need.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II. Solvuntur objectiones adversariorum. Objectionem primam desumunt ex illis ver¬ bis Deuter. XXX. Mandatum , quod ego 'prae¬ cipio tibi hodie , non supra te est , neque pro¬ cul positum , nec in coelo situm, neque trans mare ete (1). In quibus verbis summa quae¬ dam ostenditur Scripturarum facilitas : « Ut non sit opus », inquit Brentius, « montes su¬ perare. et ire Romam pro interpretatione Scripturarum. » Respondeo : bifariam hunc locum intelligi solere. Plurimi Veterum hunc locum intel- ligunt, non de facilitate intelligendi Scrip¬ turas, sed de facilitate implendi mandata Decalogi, cum adest gratiae auxilium. Quod est contra omnes Lutheranos, qui docent, impossibilia esse Dei mandata. Ita expo¬ nit Tertullianus lib. IV. Contra Marcionem, Origenes, Ambrosius, Chrysostemus, et alii in cap. X. ad Rom., et August. lib. Deper- fec. justit. resp. penult. Alii tamen, in quibus est Abulensis in hunc locum, intelligunt haec verba de facilitate cognitionis, non quidem Scripturarum sanc¬ tarum, quae tunc adhuc nullae erant fortasse, sed praeceptorum tantum Decalogi, quae cum sint naturalia, facilime intelliguntur ; et Ju¬ daei illi praecipue facile poterant ea scire, qui Mosen explicantem audierant, et con¬ fessi fuerant se percepisse omnia, et promis¬ erant se ea observaturos ; ideo subditur : Prope est sermo in ore tuo , et in corde tuo (2) ; id est, in corde tuo, quia jam intellexisti quid sit agendum; et in ore tuo, quia jam confessus es te intellexisse. Neque pugnat cum hac explicatione quod David supra citatus fateatur, sibi dificilem fuisse Legem Domini ad intelligendum. David enim nomine Legis non intelligit decem illa prteoepta solum, sed omnes divinas Scripturas, Qua signi¬ ficatione utitur etiam Dominus in Evangelio, (1) Dent. XXX. 11, 12. — (2) Ibid. 14. CAPUT II. 171 cum ait : Ut adimpleatur quod in lege eorum scriptum est , quia odio habuerunt me gratis , Joan, XY (1). Secundum argumentum ex Psal. XVIII. Prceceptum Domini lucidum illuminans oculos, et Psal. CXYIII. Lucerna pedibus meis ver¬ bum tuum. Et : Declaratio sermonum tuorum, etc. Et Proverb. YI. Mandatum. \ lacerna est , et lex lux (2). Respondeo primo : non agi hoc loco de universis Scripturis, sed tantum de prae¬ ceptis Dominicis, quae dicuntur lucida, lu¬ cerna et lux. Non quod facile intelligantur, quamquam et hoc est verum ; quid enim facilius, quam Diliges proximum tuum ? sed quod intellecta et cognita dirigant hominem in operando. Secundo dici potest, agi qui¬ dem de Scripturis omnibus, sed Scripturas dici lucidas, imo lucem, et lucernam, non quod facile intelligantur, sed quod intellec¬ tae cum fuerint, mentem illustrant. Propheta enim in Psal. XVIII, locutus fuerat de cog¬ nitione Philosophorum, quam assecuti fue¬ rant ex creaturis, cum ait : Cceli enarrant gloriam Dei etc. Postea ut ostenderet, eos non pervenisse ad eam lucem, ad quam perveniunt ii, quos Deus erudire dignatur, et quibus legem scriptam dedit, subjungit : Lex Domini immaculata , convertens animas etc. (3). Similiter Ps. CXVIII, demonstrare voluit, majorem esse cognitionem quae ha¬ betur ex verbo Dei revelato, quam ex crea¬ turis ; ac propterea comparavit verbum Dei lucernae, quae ad noctis tenebras dissipandas multo nobis utilior est, quam omnium stel¬ larum lumen. Argumentum tertium Matt. V. Vos estis lux Mundi (4). at si Apostoli lux mundi sunt quomodo praedicatio et Scripturae Aposto¬ lorum non clarissimae sunt ? Respondeo : loquitur Dominus de luce exemplorum, probitatis, et morum : voluit enim Apostolorum esse quaedam exempla sanctitatis omnibus hominibus ad imitandum proposita. Quocirca subjicit continuo : Sic luceat lux vestra coram hominibus , ut videant opera vestra bona (5). Ad haec, si loqueretur Dominus de luce doctrinae, non esset sensus, Apostolorum Scripturas esse facillimas ad intelligendum, sed intellectas illustrare men¬ tem, et erudire de rebus altissimis, et tene¬ bras errorum omnium effugare. Non tam enim illuminat, qui clare loquitur, vel scri¬ bit, quam qui sive clare sive obscure loqua¬ tur aut scribat, lumen veritatis in mente accendit, et tenebras errorum depellit. Argumentum quartum II, Petr, J. Habe¬ mus firmiorem propheticum sermonem , cui be¬ nefacitis attendentes tanquam lucernce lucenti in caliginoso loco. (6). Respondeo : hoc etiam loco Prophetarum voces vocari lucernam, non quia facile in¬ telligantur, sed quia intellectae illuminant, et iter ostendunt ad Christum, qui est verus Sol justitiae. Argumentum quintum II. Corint, IV. Quod si opertum est Evangelium nostrum ; in iis qui pereunt est opertum , in quibus Deus hu¬ jus seculi exccecavit oculos infidelium, ut non fulgat eis illuminatio glorice Christi (7). Fideli¬ bus igitur omnibus Scriptura est aperta et facilis. Respondeo : Apostolus non loquitur de intelligentia Scripturarum, sed de cogni¬ tione et Fide in Christum, quam Apostoli praedicabant. Dixerat enim capite superiore, hoc esse discrimen inter vetus Testamentum et novum, quod in veteri homines non vide¬ bant mysteria Christi, incarnationem, pas¬ sionem etc. nisi per velamen figurarum et umbrarum. Id quod significabat velamen illud, quo Moses faciem suam tegebat, cum loqueretur ad populum : at in novo Testa¬ mento, figuris omnibus jam impletis, re¬ velata facie gloriam Domini speculamur, et non est anus, nec puer Christianus, qui non sciat, Deum incarnatum, passum etc. Quoniam igitur poterat aliquis petere, si ita est, cur tam multi post Evangelium prae¬ dicatum adhuc non credunt, et nihil vident, praesertim Judaei, nisi umbras et figuras? Ideo subjungit Apostolus, quibusdam esse opertum Evangelium, quia oculi interni eorum pravis affectibus exceecati sunt, de qualibus dixit Dominus Jo. V. Quomodo vos potestis credere, qui gloriam ab invicem acci¬ pitis (8) ? Porro Deus hujus seculi, non in- telligitur Deus aliquis creator rerum corpo¬ ralium distinctus a Deo vero, ut Marcionis^ tae et Manichaei interpretabantnr, ut hic re¬ fert Chrysostomus, sed vel illud Hujus seculi conjungi debet, non cum Deus , sed cum (1) Joan. XV, 25. — (2) Psal. XVIII, 9, ; Ib. CXVIII, 105 et 130. ; Prov.VI, 23. — (3) Psal. XVIII, 1 et 8. — (4) Math. V, 14. — (5) Ibid. 16. — (6) II. Petr. I, 19. — (7) II. Cor. IV. 3 et 4. — (8) Joan. V, 4. 472 LIBER III. ♦ Infidelium , ut Ambrosius, Ghrysostomus, et alii in hunc locum volunt, et Augustinus lib. XXI, cont. Faustum cap. 2. Yel certe Deus hujus seculi vocatur Diabolus, non quia sit Deus absolute, sed quia est Deus infidelium, sicut Psal. XLY, dicitur : Dii Gentium daemonia. Ita Augustinus lib. XXI, cont. Faustum cap. 9, etCyrillus apud QEcu- menium. Argumentum sextum : Augustinus, lib. II, doctr. Christ. c. 6. sic ait : « Magnifice et salubriter Spiritus sanctus ita Scripturam sanctam modificavit, ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret, obscurioribus autem fasti¬ dia detergeret, nihil enim fere de illis ob¬ scuritatibus eruit, quod non planissime dic¬ tum alibi reperiatur. » Respondeo : non frustra B. Augustinum addidisse illud Fere : nam quaedam repe- riuntur obscurissima, quae nunquam in tota Scriptura explicantur, ut magna pars Apo¬ calypsis, principium et finis Ezechielis etc. Deinde hoc ipsum est valde difficile, inve¬ nire nimirum id, quod uno loco obscurissime dicitur, ubinam aperte dicatur ; alioqui quo¬ modo diceret idem Augustinus inepist. 119, cap. 21, se plura nescire, quam scire in sa¬ cris Litteris? Quid quod illa etiam loca, quae nobis videntur apertissima, alicui alteri ob¬ scura forte videbuntur? Non igitur Scriptu¬ ra sola sufficit dirimere controversias. ■ Certe illa verba Matth. XXVI : Hoc est cor¬ pus meum( 1) videntur nobis tam clara, ut non potuerit clarius loqui Evangelista : at Zwin- glianis videntur obscura, et figurata. Et illa ibidem Bibite ex hoc omnes (2) videntur cla¬ rissima et nobis, et Lutheranis : et tamen diversissime explicantur. Nos enim cum le¬ gamus Marci XIV. Et biberunt ex illo omnes, quod de duodecim Discipulis intelligitur, Scripturam per Scripturam interpretantes dicimus, Dominum duodecim Discipulis di¬ xisse : Bibite ex hoc omnes. JBrentius vero in suis illis prolegomenis dicit clarissime, hic praecipi non solum Apostolis, sed etiam aliis omnihus, ut ex calice Domini bibant. Et cum petimus, an etiam Tureae, et Judaei, et in¬ fantes bibere debeant ? tum vero adjiciunt glossam : Omnes , id est, omnes Fideles ad¬ ulti. Argumentum septimum. Summa totius Scripturae, quae in praeceptis Decalogi, Sym¬ bolo, Oratione Dominica, et Sacramentis consistit, habet in Scripturis apertissima te¬ stimonia ; igitur tota Scriptura apertissima est. Respondeo : negatur consequentia et an¬ tecedens. Consequentia, quidem, quia etsi omnia aliquo modo ad illa reduci possint : tamen ipsa in se obscurissima sunt, ut patet de vaticiniis Prophetarum, de Canticis Can¬ ticorum, de Epistola ad Romanos, de Apo¬ calypsi etc. Antecedens autem esse falsum, certo certius est : si enim tam clara testimo¬ nia exstarent de omnibus articulis Symboli, omnibusque Sacramentis, omnes controver¬ siae essent finitae ; cum tamen de singulis ar¬ ticulis Symboli, et singulis etiam Sacramen¬ tis controversiae sint gravissimae, nec solum de his rebus Catholici cum haereticis, sed etiam haeretici inter se dissideant. Argumentum octavum. Joannes Chryso- stomus hom. 3, de Lazaro, ubi ostendit, Philosophos obscure locutos, ita subjungit : « Apostoli vero et Prophetae omnia contra fecerunt, manifesta claraque quae prodide¬ runt, exposuerunt omnibus veluti commu¬ nes orbis Doctores, ut per se quisque disce¬ re possit ea, quae dicuntur, e sola lectione. » Item hom. 3, in II ad Thessalonicenses : « Quamobrem » , inquit, « opus est concio- natore? omnia clara sunt, et plana ex Scri¬ pturis divinis : sed quia delicatuli estis au¬ ditores, delectationem audiendo venantes, propterea concionatores quaeritis. » Respondeo : Ghrysostomus ad excutien¬ dum torporem multorum, qui possent si vel¬ lent magno cum fructu Scripturas legere, illis amplificationibus uti solet. Nam alioqui in iisdem locis affirmat, Scripturas esse dif¬ ficiles. In hom. 3, de Lazaro, ante verba citata, sic ait : « Quid igitur », inquiunt, (t si non intelligamus ea, quae continentur in libris? Maxime quidem etiam si non in- telligas illic recondita, tamen ex ipsa lectio¬ ne multa nascitur sanctimonia. » Et infra testatur, se, cum dicit Scripturas esse faci¬ les, loqui solum de historiis, et similibus rebus ; ac ne ista quidem esse omnibus clara et facilia : « Sume » , , inquit , « librum in manus, lege historiam omnem, et quae nota sunt memoria teneas, et quae obscura sunt, parumque manifesta, frequenter percurre. Quod si non poteris assiduitate lectionis in¬ venire quod dicitur, accede ad sapientiorem, vade ad doctorem. » Et in illa homil. 3, in (1) Matth. XXVI, 27. — (2) Mare. XIV, 23. GAPUT II. 173 II ad Thess. post verba citata subdit : «Quae- nam ea obscuritas ; dic quaeso ? An non sunt historiae? Nosti ne quae clara sunt, ut de his quae sunt obscura perconteris? Mille historiae sunt in Scripturis, dic mihi unam ex illis : sed non dices, praetextus sunt ista, et ver¬ ba. » Item bom. 10, in Jo. monet auditores, ut antequam ad concionem veniant, praele¬ gant lectionem, et quae obscura sunt, notent, ut a Concionatore explicationem accipiant. Denique homil. 44, in Jo. clarissime docet, Scripturas esse obscuras, ut supra dictum est. Argumentum nonum. Hoc est discrimen inter Testamentum vetus et novum, quod in vetere Scriptura erat liber signatus, ut dici¬ tur Isa. XXIX, in novo autem est liber aper¬ tus, ut dicitur Apocal. V, aperuit enim Agnus occisus librum. In cujus rei argumentum, in morte Domini velum Templi scissum est Matth. XXVII, et confirmatur ex Hieronymo in cap. XLIV. Ezech. ubi ista loca Scripturae de ipsius Scripturae difficultate et facilitate exponit. Respondeo : discrimen veteris Testamenti et novi in hoc consistere, quod tunc non so¬ lum sententiae Scripturarum, sed etiam my¬ steria Christi nonintelligebantur, quia omnia tecta erant figuris, et propterea Isa XXIX, dicitur liber signatus, tam scienti litteras, quam nescienti. At in novo Testamento, quia Christus implevit figuras et prophetias, etsi multi non intelligant sententias Scriptu¬ rarum, intelligunt tamen ipsa mysteria re¬ demptionis etiam rustici et mulieres. Quod autem neque Scripturae, neque Hieronymus loquantur de sententia Scripturae, patet tum ex Origene in hom. 12. in Exod., ubi dicit, adhuc nunc esse opu^, ut Agnus de tribu Juda aperiat nobis libros signatos ; tum ex ipso Hieronymo, qui in epist. ad Paulinum de instit. Monae, dicit, adhuc hodie manere velamen, non solum in facie Mosis, sed etiam in facie Evangelistarum et Apostolorum, si consideremus Scripturarum difficultatem, et propterea orandum cum Propheta : Revela oculos meos , et considerabo mirabilia de Lege tua (1). Argumentum decimum proprium Lutheri. Patres probant sententias suas ex Scriptura : sed non debet probari quod notius est ex minus noto ; igitur Scripturse sunt clariores, quam Commentaria Patrum. Respondeo : mirum est, chr Lutherus, qui tam saepe Sophistas reprehendit, nunc So¬ phistam agere non vereatur. Cum enim Philosophi dicunt, minus notum ex magis noto probandum esse, non loquuntur de no¬ titia verborum, quae in perspicuitate senten¬ tiae consistit, quemadmodum dicimus, notio¬ rem esse, id est, faciliorem et clariorem sententiam propriam, quam figuratam ; sed de notitia veritatis rei, quae in eo posita est, ut quis intelligat, id quod dicitur esse ve¬ rum. Exemplo sint motus et vita. Nam si verba respicias, aeque facile intelligitur haec sententia Homo vivit , atque ista Homo move¬ tur. Et tamen quod ad notitiam attinet veri¬ tatis rei, notius est, hominem moveri, quam vivere. Ita igitur Patres sententias suas Scri¬ pturarum testimoniis confirmant, quia notius est, verum esse quod in Scripturis habetur, quam quod habetur in Patribus , et tamen iidem Patres Commentariis suis Scripturas illustrant, quia verba Scripturae sunt obscu- tiora, quam verba Patrum. Argumentum undecimum. Patres primae Ecclesiae sine Commentariis legerunt : et idem fecerunt postea omnes alii Veteres ; quorsum igitur nos novam istam semitam Commentariorum ingredimur? Respondeo : contrarium est verum, nec ullum exemplum Lutherus attulit, cum nos innumerabilia possimus adferre. Aio igitur, primos Patres, qui continuo post Apostolos fuerunt, non legisse Commentaria, quia nul¬ la erant : sed tamen adiisse Commentaria viva, id est, Apostolos et eorum discipulos, et non ex proprio ingenio Scripturas intel- ligere voluisse. Ita Papias de se ipso testatur apud Eusebium lib. III, hist. cap. ult., et Clemens Alexandrinus lib. I, Stromat., ubi enumerat praeceptores suos Apostolorum discipulos, et in iis praecipue Panthenum. Deinde Justinus, et Irenaeus, et alii coepe¬ runt Commentaria in divinas Litteras scri¬ bere, ut Hieronymus testatur in lib. de vir. illustr. in Joanne, et similiter coeperunt po¬ steriores antiquiorum scripta evolvere, quod de Basilio et Gregorio scribit Ruffinus lib. II, histor. cap. 9. et Hieronymus de seipso praefat. Comment. ad Ephes. Et idem de- aliis omnibus ostendi posset, si opus esset. (1) Psal. CXVIII, 18. 174 LIBEE III.