Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book III: On the Interpretation of Scripture
Chapter 3: The question of the judge of controversies proposed, and the senses of Scripture
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).
Since it has now been established that Scripture is obscure and needs an interpreter, there follows another question: whether the interpretation of Scripture is to be sought from some one visible and common judge, or is to be left to the judgment of each individual? Which is indeed a most grave question, and on it, as it were, depend all controversies. Many have written on this question, but especially John Driedo book 2 chapter 3 On Ecclesiastical doctrines; John Cochlaeus in the book On the authority of Scripture and the Church; the Cardinal of Ermland books 2 and 3 against the Prolegomena of Brentius; Peter a Soto in the defense of his Confession against the same Prolegomena of Brentius, parts 2 and 3; also Martin Peresius in the book On tradition, assertions 2, 3, 4, and 5; Michael Medina book 7 On right faith in God; and Melchior Cano book 2 On theological topics chapters 6, 7, and 8.
That it may first be understood what it is that is in question, some things must be premised; and first, of the senses of Scripture. For it is proper to divine Scripture, because it has God for its author, that it often contains two senses, the literal (or historical) and the spiritual (or mystical). The literal is that which the words immediately present; the spiritual is that which is referred to something other than what the words immediately signify. Which division is gathered from the Apostle 1 Corinthians 10, where he says that all things happened to the Jews in figure for our correction. And the things which are said literally of the departure of the Jews out of Egypt, of the passage of the sea, of the manna which rained in the desert, of the water which flowed from the rock, he accommodates spiritually to the Christians. Which two senses were also signified by the book written within and without, of which the matter is treated Apocalypse 5 and Ezechiel 2, Jerome teaches on chapter 2 of Ezechiel. Philo, in the book On the contemplative life, and Nazianzen to Nemesius, compare the literal to the body, the spiritual to the soul; and as the begotten Word of God has an invisible divine nature and a visible human one, so the written word of God has an external and an internal sense. And that this is proper to the divine Scripture alone, blessed Gregory teaches book 21 of the Morals chapter 1.
Moreover the literal is twofold: one simple, which consists in the propriety of the words; the other figured, whereby the words are transferred from their natural signification to a foreign one. And of this there are as many kinds as there are kinds of figures. When the Lord John 10 says, Other sheep I have, that are not of this fold, etc., the literal sense, but figured, is that other men besides the Jews are to be gathered into the Church; which was said properly John 11, that he might gather in one the children of God that were dispersed. See of these figured expressions Augustine book 3 On Christian Doctrine.
The spiritual sense is by the more recent Theologians distinguished as threefold: allegorical, tropological, anagogical. They call it allegorical when the words of Scripture, besides the literal sense, signify something in the new Testament which pertains to Christ or the Church; as Abraham, who in truth literally had two wives, one free and one a bondwoman, and two sons, Isaac and Ismael, signified God the author of the two Testaments, and the Father of two peoples, as the Apostle explains Galatians 4. They call it tropological when words or deeds are referred to signifying something which pertains to morals; as Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn, Deuteronomy 25, which is understood literally of real oxen, signifies spiritually that preachers ought not to be hindered from receiving sustenance from the people, as the Apostle explains 1 Corinthians 9. They call it anagogical when words or deeds are referred to signifying eternal life; as that of Psalm 94, To whom I swore in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest, which is understood literally of the land of promise, is spiritually referred also to eternal life, as the Apostle explains Hebrews 4.
This distinction of the spiritual senses is not always observed by the ancients. For although they acknowledge, as to the substance, all these senses, yet sometimes they call them all allegories, as Basil at the beginning of homily 9 of the Hexaemeron, and Augustine in the book On the usefulness of believing chapter 3. Moreover Jerome, in the epistle to Hedibia question 12, comprehends under the name of Tropological also the Allegorical, and on the contrary on chapter 4 of Amos comprehends the Tropological under the name of Allegorical.
Of these senses, the literal is found in every sentence, both of the old and of the new Testament. Nor is it improbable that sometimes several literal senses are found in the same sentence, as blessed Augustine teaches in many places, and especially book 12 of the Confessions chapter 26, book 11 of the City of God chapter 19, and book 3 On Christian Doctrine chapter 27. But the spiritual is found, indeed, in both Testaments. For of the old Testament no one doubts that it has the allegorical, tropological, and anagogical sense; and of the new Testament very many think the same, and rightly. For Augustine allegorically expounds, tractate 122 on John, that catch of fishes when the net was broken, Luke 5; and anagogically that when the net was not broken, John 21. And likewise tractate 124 on John he expounds allegorically what was said to Peter, Follow me, and anagogically what was said of John, So I will have him to remain, John 21. And the Lord himself tropologically expounds John 13 that his humility whereby he washed the disciples' feet.
But although these things are so, yet the spiritual sense is not found in every sentence of Scripture, neither in the old Testament nor in the new. For that Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, Deuteronomy 6 and Matthew 22, and like precepts, have but one sense, that is, the literal, as Cassian rightly teaches Conference 8 chapter 3. These things being thus established, it is agreed between us and the adversaries that efficacious arguments ought to be sought only from the literal sense; for that sense which is immediately gathered from the words, it is certain, is the sense of the Holy Ghost. But the mystical and spiritual senses are various, and although they edify when they are not against Faith or good morals, yet it is not always established whether they are intended by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore blessed Augustine in epistle 48 to Vincentius rightly laughs at the Donatists, who from those words mystically explained, Show me where thou feedest, where thou liest in the midday, gathered that the Church of Christ had remained in Africa alone. Jerome too, in his Commentary on Matthew chapter 13, teaches that the doctrines of Faith cannot be efficaciously confirmed from the mystical senses.
But of the literal sense itself doubts sometimes arise for two causes. The former is the ambiguity of words, such as is seen in that of Matthew 26, Drink ye all of this. That all is ambiguous if those words alone be regarded; for it is not known whether it signify all men absolutely, or all the Faithful only, or all the Apostles. The latter and graver is the propriety of words. For since the literal sense is now (as we said) simple, now figured, it is doubtful in many places whether the true sense be simple or figured. For that of Matthew 26, This is my body, the Catholics will have taken simply according to the propriety of the words, but the Zwinglians by the figure Metonymy. And from this cause some have sometimes fallen into most grave errors. Let Origen be the example, who erred for this reason, that things which were to be taken simply he took figuratively, as Jerome teaches in the epistle to Pammachius On the errors of John of Jerusalem, where he says that Origen so allegorizes the earthly Paradise as to take away the truth of the history, while by trees he understands Angels, by rivers heavenly Virtues; and interprets the garments of skins of Adam and Eve to be human bodies, as though before sin they had lived without a body. Others on the contrary have slipped, in that they took simply and properly things which were to be taken figuratively, as Papias, and those who followed him — Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, and some others — who thought that the things said Apocalypse 20 of the new Jerusalem and the thousand years in which the Saints are to reign with Christ were to be fulfilled here on earth; whose error Jerome reprehends in his preface to book 18 on Isaiah, and on chapter 36 of Ezechiel, and Augustine book 20 of the City of God chapter 7.
It is agreed also between us and the adversaries that the Scriptures ought to be understood by that spirit by which they were made, that is, the Holy Ghost. Which the Apostle Peter teaches epistle 2 chapter 1, when he says: Understanding this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time; but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost. Where blessed Peter proves that the Scriptures ought not to be expounded from one's own genius, but according to the dictate of the Holy Ghost, because they were not written by human genius, but from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
The whole question, then, is placed in this: where that Spirit is. For we think that this Spirit, although it is often granted to many private men, yet is certainly found in the Church, that is, in a Council of Bishops confirmed by the supreme Pastor of the whole Church, or in the supreme Pastor with a Council of the other Pastors. For we do not wish in this place to dispute of the Supreme Pontiff and Councils, whether the Pontiff alone can define a matter, and whether a Council alone; for of this we shall treat in its place. But here in general we say that the judge of the true sense of Scripture and of all controversies is the Church, that is, the Pontiff with a Council, in which all Catholics agree; and it is had expressly in the Council of Trent session 4.
But all the heretics of this time teach that the Holy Ghost, the interpreter of Scripture, is not bound to the Bishops, or to any kind of men, and therefore that each one ought to be judge, either by following his own spirit, if he himself have the gift of interpretation, or by adhering to some other whom he sees endowed with the same gift. Luther, in the preface to the assertion of his articles, openly sends us back to the spirit which each one has had while he diligently read the Scriptures. And in article 115 of those five hundred which Cochlaeus collected out of Luther's books, he thus says: “Take this Gospel, because it is committed neither to the Pope, nor to Councils, nor to any of men, to constitute and conclude what Faith is. Therefore I must say: Pope, thou hast concluded with the Councils; now I have the judgment whether I can accept it or not. Why? because thou wilt not stand for me and answer for me when I must die. And a false doctrine no one can judge but a spiritual man. Therefore it is an insane thing that Councils wish to conclude and establish what is to be believed, since often there is no man there who has smelt even a little of the divine Spirit.” The same he confirms in his assertions, articles 27, 28, and 29.
Philip Melanchthon, in the Loci, chapter On the Church, seems indeed to attribute something to the Church; but in truth he leaves the whole judgment to each private man. “Who,” he says, “shall be judge when a dissension arises about the sense of Scripture, since then there is need of the voice of one settling the controversy? I answer: the very word of God is judge, and the confession of the true Church is added.” So there. Yet below, when he teaches that by the true Church are understood not the Prelates of the Church, nor the greater part of the Faithful, but those few who agree with the word of God, he involves all in darkness and makes each one judge. For I cannot judge which is the true Church, unless I first judge which is the opinion agreeing with the word of God. “There is,” he says, “some dissimilitude between the judgments of the Church and political judgments. For in political matters, either the Monarch alone pronounces by his authority, or in the Senate the opinion of the greater part prevails; but in the Church there prevails the opinion agreeing with the word of God, and the confession of the pious, whether the impious be more or fewer.” See more in the place On the marks of the Church.
Similarly Brentius teaches in the Wittenberg Confession, chapter On sacred Scripture, and more copiously in his Prolegomena against Peter a Soto, where he says two things. First: “It is not lawful, in the cause of eternal salvation, so to adhere to another's opinion as to embrace it without our own judgment.” Secondly he adds: “It belongs to each private man to judge of the doctrine of religion, and to distinguish the true from the false. But this is the difference between the private man and the Prince, that as the private man has a private, so the Prince has a public power of judging and deciding concerning the doctrine of religion, etc.” And in almost the whole book he strives to prove these two things: that the secular Prince is bound to compel his subjects, even by the punishment of death, to that Faith which he himself judges to be true; and at the same time that the subjects are obliged to follow their own judgment, not another's, whosesoever it be. Nor does Brentius observe how absurd and self-contradictory these things are, that the Prince be bound to command and the subjects be bound not to obey. Nor does he observe that, if this opinion be true, Caesar and the other Catholic Princes of Germany would do rightly if they compelled all the Lutherans, even by the punishment of death, to the Catholic Faith.
John Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes chapter 9 sections 8, 12, and 13, bids the definitions of Councils, even the most general, be examined by the rule of the Scriptures; and accordingly he makes private men judges in the cause of Faith, not only of the Fathers, but even of the Councils, and leaves no common judgment at all to the Church. Finally Martin Kemnitz in his Examination of the fourth session of the Council of Trent, and all the other heretics of this time, bring down the authority of interpreting Scripture from the Councils of Bishops to the spirit of private men.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III. Proponitur quaestio de judice controversiarum , et simul disseritur de sensibus Scripturarum. Cum Scripturam obscuram esse, et inter¬ prete indigere jam constiterit, sequitur alia quaestio : Num Scripturae interpretatio ab uno aliquo visibili et communi judice peten¬ da sit, an uniuscujusque arbitrio relinquen¬ da? Quae sane gravissima quaestio est, et ex ea quasi dependent omnes controversiae. Scripserunt multi de hac quaestione, sed praecipue Joannes Driedo II, cap. 3, De Ec- cles. dogmat. Joannes Cochlaeus in lib. De Script. et Eccles. auctorit. Gardinalis War- miens/s lib. II et III, contra Prolegomena Brentii, et Petrus de Soto in defensione suae Confessionis contra eadem Prolegomena Brentii par. 2 et 3, necnon Martinus Pere- sius in lib. De Tradition. assert. 2, 3, 4 et 5. Michael Medina lib. VII, De recta in Deum fide, et Melchior Canus lib. II, De loc. Theo- log. cap. 6, 7 et 8. Ut igitur in primis intelligatur, quid sit quod quaeritur, sunt aliqua praenotanda : ac primum de sensibus Scripturae. Est enim Scripturae divinae proprium, quia Deum ha¬ bet auctorem , ut saepenumero contineat duos sensus, litteralem, sive historicum, et spiritualem, sive mysticum. Litteralis est, quem verba immediate praeferunt : Spiri¬ tualis est, qui alio refertur, quam ad id quod verba immediate significant : quae partitio ex Apostolo colligitur I. Corinth. X, ubi dicit, omnia accidisse Judaeis in figura ad correc¬ tionem nostram. Et quae ad litteram dicun¬ tur de egressu Judaeorum ex Aegypto, de transitu maris, de manna quod pluit in de¬ serto, de aqua quae fluxit de petra, spiritua- liter accommodat Christianis. Quos etiam duos sensus significatos esse per librum scriptum intus et foris, de quo agitur Apoc. V, et Ezecli. II, docet Hieronymus in c. II Ezech. Philo in lib. de vita Theot. supplic., et Nazianzenus ad Nemesium, litteralem com¬ parant corpori, spiritualem animae, et sicut Verbum Dei genitum habet naturam divinam invisibilem, et humanam visibilem : ita ver¬ bum Dei scriptum habet sensum externum et internum. Esse autem hoc proprium so¬ lius divinae Scripturae, docet B. Gregorius lib. XXI. Moral. cap. I . Porro litteralis est duplex, alius simplex, qui consistit in proprietate verborum, alius figuratus, quo verba transferuntur a naturali significatione ad alienam. Et hujus tot sunt genera, quot sunt genera figurarum. Cum Dominus Jo. X, dicit : Alias oves habeo , quae non sunt ex ovili etc. (I) sensus litteralis est, sed figuratus, alios homines praeter Judaeos congregandos in Ecclesiam : quod proprie dictum est Jo. XI, ut filios Dei qui erant di¬ spersi congregaret in unum. Vide de his fi¬ guratis locutionibus Augustinum lib. III, de doctr. Christ. Spiritualis autem sensus a recentioribus Theologis distinguitur triplex, allegoricus, tropologicus, anagogicus. Allegoricum vo¬ cant, cum verba Scripturae, praeter litteralem sensum, significant aliquid in novo Testa¬ mento, quod ad Christum, vel Ecclesiam pertineat, quomodo Abraham, qui revera ad litteram habuit duas uxores, unam liberam et unam ancillam, et duos filios, Isaac et Is- mael, Deum auctorem duorum Testamento¬ rum, et Patrem duorum populorum signifi¬ cavit, ut Apostolus explicat Galat. IV. Tro¬ pologicum appellant, cum verba aut facta referuntur ad aliquid significandum, quod pertineat ad mores. Quomodo Non alligabis os bovi trituranti (2). Deuter. XXV, quod in- telligitur ad litteram de veris bobus, signifi¬ cat spiritualiter non debere prohiberi Con- cionatores, quin victum accipiant a populo, ut Apostolus explicat I. Corinth. IX. Anago¬ gicum vocant, cum verba aut facta referun¬ tur ad significandam vitam aeternam. Quo¬ modo illud Ps. XCIV. Quibus juravi in ira mea , si introibunt in requiem meam (3), quod ad litteram intelligitur de terra promissio¬ nis, spiritualiter etiam refertur ad vitam ae¬ ternam, ut Apostolus explicat Heb. IV. Haec distinctio spiritualium sensuum a Veteribus non semper observatur. Etsi enim agnoscunt, quantum ad rem attinet, hos omnes sensus ; tamen interdum omnes vo¬ cant allegorias, ut Basilius initio liom. 9, Hexam. et August. lib. Deutilit. cred. cap. 3. (1) Joan. X, 16. — (2) Deut. XXV, 4. — (3) Psal. XCIV, 11. CAPUT III. 175 Porro Hieronymus in epist. ad Hedibiam quoest. 12, nomine Tropologici comprehen¬ dit etiam Allegoricum, et e contrario in cap. IV, Amos, nomine Allegorici comprehendit Tropologicum. Ex his sensibus, litteralis invenitur in omni sententia, tam veteris, quam novi Testamen¬ ti. Nec est improbabile, interdum plures lit¬ terales in eadem sententia reperiri, ut B. Augustinus docet multis in locis, et preeser- tim lib.* XII, Confess. cap. 26, lib. XI, de Civ. Dei cap. 19 et lib, III. De doct. Christ. c. 27. At spiritualis invenitur quidem omnis in utroque Testamento. Nam de Testamento veteri nemo dubitat, quin habeat sensum al¬ legoricum, tropologicum, et anagogicum : de Testamento novo idem sentiunt permulti, et merito. Nam allegorice exponit Augusti¬ nus tractat. 122, in Joan. illam capturam piscium, quando scindebatur rete, Luc. V, .anagogice autem illam, quando rete non scindebatur, Joan. XXI. Et similiter tract. 124, in Joan. allegorice exponit, quod dictum est Petro Sequere me , et anagogice, quod dictum est de Joanne Sic eum volo manere , Joan. XXI. Tropologice autem exponit ipse Dominus Joan. XIII, illam suam humilita¬ tem, qua discipulorum pedes lavit. Sed quamquam haec ita se habeant, tamen non invenitur spiritualis sensus in omni sen¬ tentia Scripturae, nec in Testamento veteri, nec in novo. Illud enim Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo (I), Deuter. VI, et Matth. XXII et similia praecepta, non ha¬ bent nisi unum sensum, id est, litteralem, ut recte docet Cassianus collat. VIII, cap. 3. His ita constitutis, convenit inter nos et ad¬ versarios, ex solo litterali sensu peti debere argumenta efficacia : nam eum sensum, qui ex verbis immediate colligitur, certum est sensum esse Spiritus sancti. At sensus my¬ stici et spirituales varii sunt, et licet aedifi¬ cent cum non sunt contra Fidem, aut bonos mores, tamen non semper constat, an sint a Spiritu sancto intenti. Quocirca B. Augusti¬ nus in epist. 48. ad Vincentium, merito ridet Donatistas, qui ex illis verbis mystice expli¬ catis : Indica mihi , ubi pascas , ubi cubes in meridie , colligebant, Ecclesiam Christi in sola Africa remansisse. Hieronymus quoque in Comnient Matthaei c. 13, docet, Fidei dogmata ex mysticis sensibus non posse ef¬ ficaciter confirmari. De ipso autem sensu litterali duabus de causis interdum dubia oriuntur. Prior est verborum ambiguitas, qualis cernitur in illo Matth. XXVI : Bibite ex hoc omnes (2). Illud omnes est ambiguum, si sola ista verba in- spiciantur : nescitur enim, an omnes homi¬ nes absolute significet, an omnes Fideles tantum, an omnes Apostolos. Posterior et gravior est verborum proprietas. Cum enim litteralis sensus modo sit (ut diximus) simplex, modo figuratus; dubium est in mul¬ tis locis, an sensus verus sit simplex, an fi¬ guratus. Illud enim Matth. XXVI : Hoc est corpus meum (3) Catholici volunt accipi sim¬ pliciter secundum verborum proprietatem, Zwingliani autem per figuram Metonymiam. Et ex hac causa in gravissimos errores ali¬ quando nonnulli inciderunt. Exemplo sit Origenes, qui propterea erravit, quod qme accipienda erant simpliciter, accepit figu¬ rate, ut Hieronymus docet in epist. adPam- machium de error. Jo. Hierosol., ubi dicit, Origenem sic Paradisum terrestrem allego- risare, ut historiae auferat veritatem, dum pro arboribus Angelos, pro fluminibus Vir¬ tutes coelestes intelligit; et tunicas pelliceas Adae et Evae corpora humana interpretatur, quasi ante peccatum sine corpore vixerint. Alii e contrario lapsi sunt, quod simplici¬ ter et proprie acceperint, quae accipienda erant figurate, ut Papias, et qui eum secuti sunt, Justinus, Irenaeus, Tertullianus, Lac¬ tantius, aliique nonnulli, qui quae dicuntur Apocal. XX de nova Hierusalem* et mille annis, quibus regnaturi sunt Sancti cum Christo, hic in terris, implenda existimave¬ runt, quorum errorem reprehendit Hierony¬ mus praefat. lib. XVIII in Isa., et in cap. XXXVI Ezech. et Augustinus lib. XX Do Civ. Dei cap. 7. Convenit etiam inter nos et adversarios, Scripturas intelligi debere eo spiritu, quo factae sunt, id est, Spiritu sancto. Quod Apo¬ stolus Petrus epist. II, c. 1. docet, cum ait : Hoc primum intellig entes, quod omnis prophe¬ tia Scripturae propria interpretatione non fit . Non enim humana voluntate allata est aliquan¬ do prophetia, sed Spiritu sancto inspirati lo¬ cuti sunt sancti Dei homines (4)k Ubi B. Petrus probat , non debere exponi Scripturas ex proprio ingenio, sed secundum dictamen Spiritus sancti, quia non sunt scriptae huma¬ no ingenio, sed ex inspiratione Spiritus sancti. (1) Deut.VI, 5.; Matth. XXII, 37. — (2) Matth. XXVI, 27. — (3) Ibid. 26. — (4) II. Petr. I, 20 et 21. 176 LIBER III. Tota igitur quaestio in eo posita est, ubi sit iste Spiritus. Nos enim existimamus, hunc Spiritum , etsi muttis privatis hominibus sa3pe conceditur, tamen certo inveniri in Ecclesia, id est, in Concilio Episcoporum confirmato a summo Ecclesiae totius Pastore, sive in summo Pastore cum Concilio aliorum Pastorum. Non enim disputare volumus hoc loco de summo Pontifice et Conciliis, an so¬ lus Pontifex possit rem definire, et an so¬ lum Concilium; de hoc enim suo h)co age¬ mus. Sed hic in genere dicimus, judicem veri sensus Scripturae et omnium controver¬ siarum esse Ecclesiam, id est, Pontificem cum Concilio, in quo omnes Catholici conveniunt; et habetur expresse in Concilio Tridentino sess. IV. At haeretici omnes hujus temporis docent, Spiritum sanctum Scripturae interpretem non esse alligatum Episcopis, vel ulli homi¬ num generi, et ideo unumquemque judicem esse debere, sive spiritum suum sequendo, si ipse donum interpretationis habeat, sive alicui alteri adhaerendo, quem eodem dono praeditum viderit. Lutherus praefat. assert. suor, artic., aperte nos remittit ad spiritum, quem quisque habuit, dum Scripturas dili¬ genter legit. Et in art. 115. ex illis quingen¬ tis, quos Cochlaeus collegit ex libris Lutheri, sic ait : « Capite hoc Evangelium, quia ne¬ que Papae, neque Conciliis, neque ulli homi¬ num commissum est, ut constituat, et con¬ cludat, quid sit Fides. Ideo debeo dicere : Papa, tu conclusisti cum Conciliis, nunc ha¬ beo ego* judicium , an acceptare queam, necne. Quare? quia non stabis pro me, et respondebis pro me, quando debeo mori. Et falsam doctrinam nemo judicare potest, nisi spiritualis homo. Ideo res est insana, quod Concilia concludere et statuere volunt quid credendum sit : cum saepe nullus vir sit ibi, qui divinum Spiritum vel modicum olfecerit. » Idem confirmat in assertionibus art. 27, 28 et 29. Philippus in Locis cap. de Eccles., vide¬ tur quidem aliquid Ecclesiae tribuere ; sed revera totum judicium unicuique privato ho¬ mine relinquit : « Quis, inquit, erit judex, quando de Scripturae sententia dissensio ori¬ tur, cum tunc opus sit voce dirimentis con¬ troversiam? Respondeo, ipsum verbum Dei est judex, et accedit confessio verae Eccle¬ siae. » Haec ibi. Tamen infra cum docet, per veram Ecclesiam non intelligi Praelatos Ec¬ clesiae, nec majorem partem Fidelium, sed paucos illos, qui cum verbo Dei consentiunt; omnia tenebris involvit , et unumquemque judicem facit. Nec enim judicare possum, quae sit vera Ecclesia, nisi prius judicem quae sit sententia congruens cum verbo Dei : « Est, inquit, dissimilitudo aliqua judiciorum Ecclesiae, et judiciorum politicorum. Nam in politicis, aut Monarcha solus auctoritate sua pronuntiat, aut in Senatu valet sententia majoris partis : sed in Eccle?ia valet senten¬ tia congruens cum verbo Dei, et confessio piorum, sive sint plures, sive pauciores im¬ pii. » Yide plura in loco de notis Ecclesiae. Similiter Brentius docet in conf, Wirtem- berg., cap. de sac. Script. : et copiosius in Prolegomenis contra Petrum a Soto ; ubi duo dicit. Primo ; « Non licet, inquit, in causa aeternae salutis alienae sententiae ita in¬ haerere, ut eam sine nostro ipsorum judicio amplectamur. » Secundo addit : « Ad unum¬ quemque hominem privatum pertinet, de. doctrina religionis judicare, etveram a falsa internoscere. Sed hoc interest inter priva¬ tum et Principem, quod ut privatus priva¬ tam, ita Princeps publicam habet de doc¬ trina religionis potestatem judicandi et de¬ cidendi, etc. » Et toto fere libro haec duo probare nititur, quod Princeps saecularis te¬ neatur cogere subditos, etiam mortis suppli¬ cio, ad eam Fidem, quam ipse judicat esse veram. Et simul quod subditi obligentur se¬ qui proprium judicium, non alienum, cujus- cumque sit : nec advertit Brentius, quam sint haec absurda et pugnantia, ut teneatur Princeps jubere : et subditi teneantur non obedire. Nec illud advertit, si haec sententia vera sit, recte facturum Caesarem, et alios Catholicos Germaniae Principes, si etiam mortis supplicio cogant omnes Lutheranos ad Fidem catholicam. Joannes Calvinus lib. IY Institut. cap. 9, §.8, 12 et 13, Conciliorum, etiam maxime generalium, definitiones ad amussim Scrip¬ turarum examinari jubet ; proinde privatos homines judices facit in causa Fidei, non solum Patrum, sed etiam Conciliorum, nec ullum omnino relinquit Ecclesiae commune judicium. Denique Martinus Kemnitius in examine IY. sess. Cone. Trid., caeterique omnes hujus temporis haeretici, auctorita¬ tem interpretandae Scripturae ab Episcopo¬ rum Conciliis ad privatorum hominum spiri¬ tum deducunt.