Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book III: On the Interpretation of Scripture
Chapter 4: Testimonies from the Old Testament for the Catholic view
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).
The opinion of the Catholics is now proved: first, by the testimonies of the Old Testament. The first testimony is had Exodus 18; for there we read that, when the people of God had begun to be reduced to a certain form of an Ecclesiastical commonwealth, Moses sat as prince and head of that Church, and answered to all the doubts that arose about the law of the Lord, nor did he send men back to some revealing spirit. In the same place, when he had appointed, according to the counsel of his father-in-law, lesser magistrates to judge the people, he yet always reserved to himself the doubts about religion; namely, that we might understand that there ought to be one common tribunal, from which all may seek the interpretation of the divine law, and in which all may simply acquiesce.
This argument is wont to be eluded by some, who say that Moses was a political Prince, not a Pontiff or Priest, since Aaron was the high Pontiff; and therefore that from this place it cannot be concluded that judgment on matters of Faith pertains to Pontiffs, but rather in some way pertains to Kings. I answer: Moses was a Pontiff, and indeed the highest, and greater than Aaron — not indeed the ordinary one to whom succession is made, for that could be but one, and that was Aaron, but an extraordinary one specially constituted by God. Just as in the new Testament all the Apostles were — not indeed greater, nor altogether equal, but yet in some way equal to Peter in Ecclesiastical power, as Cyprian teaches in the tract On the simplicity of prelates — with this difference, however, that Peter was the ordinary Pastor of the whole Church, to whom alone succession was to be made, the rest extraordinary, in whose power there was no succeeding. And that Moses was a Priest, David testifies, when he says in Psalm 98: Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among them that call upon his name.
But, they say, Moses is called a priest because he was a chief man, as in 2 Kings chapter 8 we read that the sons of David were priests. But on the contrary: because if in this place chief men were called priests, then Samuel too, who was a chief man, would have been called a priest. Which David did not do, who knew that Samuel was not a priest, but only a judge; for he descended not from the family of Aaron, but of Core his kinsman, 1 Paralipomenon 6. But that Moses was truly and properly a priest is plain from Exodus 28 and 29, where Moses exercises all the priestly functions; since he sacrifices, teaches, consecrates the vestments, and (what is greater) anoints and initiates the Pontiff and the priests. Wherefore that Moses was properly a priest almost all the ancients teach: Philo book 3 On the life of Moses at the end; Dionysius chapter 5 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; Gregory Nazianzen in the oration delivered before Gregory of Nyssa; Augustine on Psalm 98; Jerome book 1 against Jovinian, where he also shows that Samuel was not a priest.
The second testimony is had Deuteronomy 17, where a general law is given: If thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment, between blood and blood, cause and cause, leprosy and leprosy, and thou see that the words of the judges within thy gates do vary, arise and go up to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, and thou shalt come to the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge that shall be at that time; and thou shalt ask of them, and they shall show thee the truth of the judgment. And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, that preside in the place which the Lord shall choose, and what they shall teach thee according to his law; and thou shalt follow their sentence, neither shalt thou decline to the right hand nor to the left. But he that will be proud, refusing to obey the commandment of the priest who ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God, by the decree of the judge that man shall die. Here too, very clearly, the doubting are not sent back to their own spirit, but to a living judge, that is, the high Priest.
But Brentius objects that the precept is conditional, because it is added: Thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say that preside in the place, and what they shall teach thee according to his law. For it seems to be gathered from this place that one is not to stand to the judgment of the high Priest unless he bring forth the testimony of the divine Law. I answer: that and what they shall teach thee, etc., is only in the Vulgate edition, which the Lutherans do not receive, and does not sound a condition, but an assertion, or promise. For he did not mean to say, Stand to the judgment of the priest, if he teach thee according to the law; for then men would have been more doubtful and perplexed than before, nor would there have been need to go to the priest, if they could have judged their own cause of themselves out of the Law of the Lord. Nay, then not the priest would have been judge, but they themselves, since they were to judge of the priest's sentence. Not therefore is that a condition, but a promise; for the Lord wishes to make secure the people which acquiesces in the judgment of the priest, which he does when he affirms that he will judge according to his Law.
Secondly Brentius objects that in this place the doubting are sent back not only to the priest, but also to the judge; and that the judge was a political Prince. I answer: by the name of judge can here be understood the Prince of the priests; for in the Hebrew it is Go up to the priests and to the judge, as if he said, to the council of the priests, and to their Prince the high Priest. I say secondly: if we understand by the name of judge a political Prince, here there are distinct offices. For to the priest is attributed the definitive sentence, but to the judge the execution upon the contumacious: He that will be proud, he says, refusing to obey the commandment of the priest, by the decree of the judge shall die.
Thirdly they object that here the matter is not of doubts of religion, but of political ones. I answer: it is false; for the law is general, of all the doubts which arose from the Law. Besides, the occasion of this law was on account of those who serve strange gods, as is plain from the beginning of the chapter; and to serve strange gods is against religion.
The third testimony is Ecclesiastes 12: The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails deeply fastened in, which by the counsel of masters are given from one shepherd. More than these, my son, require not. In this place Solomon teaches that there is to be no further inquiry, but a complete acquiescence, when a sentence has been given by the supreme Pastor, especially with the counsel of the wise added. And if these things are said of the priest of the Old Testament, how much more can they be said of the priest of the New Testament, who received from God far greater promises?
The fourth testimony is Aggeus 2: Thus saith the Lord of hosts: Ask the priests concerning the law. Malachi 2: The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth, because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts. From which words we understand that it is not for private men to judge of the sentence of the Law of the Lord, but for the priest, who, being an angel, that is, a messenger of God, has it as his office to explain the sentence of God.
Let there come lastly that from 2 Paralipomenon chapter 19, where the most excellent King Josaphat thus speaks to the priests: Every cause that shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in their cities, between kindred and kindred, wheresoever there is question concerning the law, the commandment, the ceremonies, the justifications, show it to them, that they sin not against the Lord. And Amarias the priest and your pontiff shall preside in the things which regard God; and Zabadias the son of Ismahel, who is ruler in the house of Juda, shall be over those works which belong to the king's office. You see here how clearly the King distinguishes the office of the Pontiff from the office of the King, and attributes to the Pontiff alone the judgment of the doubts of the Law.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV.
177
CAPUT IV.
Adferuntur testimonia ex Testamento veteri pro
sententia Catholicorum.
♦
Probatur nunc sententia Catholicorum;
primo, testimoniis Testamenti veteris. Pri¬
mum testimonium habetur Exod. XVIII, ibi
enim legimus, quod cum coepisset populus
Dei redigi ad quamdam formam Ecclesiasti¬
cae Reipublicae, sedebat Moses tanquam prin¬
ceps et caput illius Ecclesiae, et ad omnia
dubia circa legem Domini exorta responde¬
bat, nec homines remittebat ad spiritum ali¬
quem revelantem. Ibidem : cum constituis¬
set juxta consilium soceri sui minores Ma¬
gistratus, qui populum judicarent, semper
tamen sibi reservabat dubia circa religio¬
nem : nimirum ut intelligeremus, unum
esse debere commune tribunal, a quo omnes
petant divinae legis interpretationem, et cui
omnes simpliciter acquiescant.
Hoc argumentum a quibusdam eludi so¬
let, quod dicant ; Mosen fuisse Principem
politicum, non Pontificem, aut Sacerdotem,
cum Aarou esset Pontifex summus. Et prop-
terea ex hoc loco non posse concludi, judi¬
cium de rebus Fidei pertinere ad Pontifices,
sed potius aliquo modo pertinere ad Reges.
Respondeo: Mosen fuisse Pontificem, et qui¬
dem summum, et Aarone majorem, non
quidem ordinarium cui succederetur, is enim
unus tantum esse poterat, et ille erat Aaron,
sed extraordinarium a Deo specialiter con¬
stitutum. Sicut in novo Testamento Apostoli
omnes, non quidem majores, nec omnino
pares, sed tamen aliquo modo aequales Pe¬
tro erant in Ecclesiastica potestate, ut Cy¬
prianus docet intract. de simplicit. Praelat.:
cum hoc tamen discrimine, quod Petrus or¬
dinarius erat Pastor totius Ecclesiae, cui soli
succedi debebat, reliqui extraordinarii, qui¬
bus non erat in illa potestate succedendum.
Quod autem Moses fuerit Sacerdos, testatur
David, cum ait in Psal. XCVIII : Moses et
Aaron in Sacerdotibus ejus , et So.rnv.el inter
eos , qui invocant nomen ejus (1).
Sed, inquiunt : dicitur Sacerdos Moses,
qui erat vir primarius, quomodo lib. II Reg.
cap. VIII, legimus filii David Sacerdotes
erant. At contra : quia si hoc loco viri pri¬
marii dicerentur Sacerdotes, etiam Samuel,
qui erat vir primarius, fuisset vocatus Sacer¬
dos. Quod tamen non fecit David, qui scie¬
bat, Samuelem non fuisse Sacerdotem, sed
judicem tantum : non enim descendit ex fa¬
milia Aaron, sed Core consobrini ejus, I Pa-
ralip. VI. Vere autem et proprie fuisse Mo¬
sen Sacerdotem, patet ex lib. Exod. XXVIII
et XXIX, ubi Moses exercet omnia munera
sacerdotalia. Siquidem sacrificat , docet,
consecrat vestes, et quod majus est, Pontifi¬
cem et Sacerdotes inungit et initiat. Quo¬
circa Mosen proprie Sacerdotem fuisse, do¬
cent omnes fere Veteres ; Philo lib. III de
vita Mosis extremo; Dionysius cap. 5. Eccl.
hierarc. Gregorius Nazianzenus in oratione
habita coram Gregorio Nysseno; Augustinus
in Psal. XCVIII, Hieronymus lib. I. in Jovi-
nianum, ubi etiam ostendit, Samuelem non
fuisse Sacerdotem.
Secundum testimonium habetur Deuter.
XVII, ubi lex generalis fertur. Si difficile at¬
que ambiguum apud te judicium esse perspexe¬
ris inter causam et causam , lepram et lepram ,
et judicum intra portas tuas videris verba va¬
riari ; surge, et ascende ad locum , quem elege¬
rit Dominus Deus tuus , veniesque ad Sacerdo¬
tem Levitici generis , et ad judicem , qui fuerit
illo tempore , quaeresque ab eis , qui indicabunt
tibi judicii veritatem. Et facies quodeumque
dixerint , qui praesunt loco, quem elegerit Do¬
minus , et docuerint te juxta legem ejus, seque-
risque sententiam eorum, nec declinabis ad dex¬
teram neque ad sinistram. Qui autem super bie-
rit, nolens obedire Sacerdotis imperio, qui eo
tempore ministrat Domino Deo tuo, ex decreto
judicis morietur (2). Hic etiam valde clare
non remittuntur dubitantes ad spiritum suum,
sed ad judicem vivum, id est, summum Sa¬
cerdotem.
Sed objicit Rrentius : proeceptum esse
conditionale, quia additur : Facies quodeum¬
que dixerint., qui praesunt loco, et docuerint te
juxta legem ejus. Videtur enim ex hoc loco
colligi, non esse standum judicio summi Sa¬
cerdotis, nisi proferat testimonium Legis di¬
vinae. Respondeo : illud, Et docuerint te etc.
non esse nisi in editione vulgata, quam Lu-
therani non recipiunt, nec sonare conditio-
fl) Psal. XCVIII. 6. — (2) Deut. XVII, 8 et seq.
13
478
LIBER III.
nem, secl assertionem, sive promissionem :
non enim voluit dicere Sta judicio Sacerdo -
tis, si docuerit te secundum legem : tunc enim
fuissent homines magis dubii et perplexi
quam antea : nec opus fuisset ire ad Sacer¬
dotem, si ipsi potuissent ex Lege Domini
per se judicare causam suam. Imo tunc
non Sacerdos fuisset judex, sed ipsi; quippe
qui de sententia Sacerdotis judicaturi erant:
non igitur illa conditio est, sed promissio,
vult enim Dominus securum reddere popu¬
lum, qui Sacerdotis judicio acquiescit; quod
facit, cum affirmat judicaturum eum secun¬
dum Legem suam.
Secundo objicit Brentius : hoc loco non
solum ad Sacerdotem, sed ad judicem etiam
remitti eos, qui dubitant : judicem autem
fuisse politicum Principem. Respondeo : no¬
mine judicis posse hic intelligi Principem
Sacerdotum; nam in Hebraeo est Ascende ad
Sacerdotes et ad judicem , quasi diceret, ad
concilium Sacerdotum, et eorum Principem
summum Sacerdotem. Dico secundo : si in-
telligamus nomine judicis politicum Princi¬
pem, hic esse distincta officia. Nam Sacer¬
doti tribuitur sententia definitiva, judici au¬
tem executio in contumaces : Qui superbie -
rit, inquit, nolens obedire Sacerdotis imperio ,
ex decreto judicis moriatur.
Tertio objiciunt : hic non agi de dubiis
religionis, sed de politicis. Respondeo : fal¬
sum esse ; nam lex generalis est de omnibus
dubiis, quae ex Lege oriebantur. Praeterea
occasio hujus legis fuit propter eos, qui ser¬
viunt diis alienis, ut patet ex initio capitis,
servire autem diis alienis contra religionem
est.
Tertium testimonium est Eccles. XII :
Verba sapientum sicut stimuli , et quasi clavi
in altum defixi , quce per magistrorum consi¬
lium data sunt a pastore uno. His amplius , fili
mi nerequiras{\) A\oc loco Salomon docet, non
esse ulterius inquirendum, sed acquiescen¬
dum penitus, quando sententia data est a
summo Pastore, adjuncto praesertim consi¬
lio sapientum. Quod si haec dicuntur de Sa¬
cerdote veteris Testamenti ; quanto magis
dici possunt de Sacerdote Testamenti novi,
qui longe majores promissiones a Deo acce¬
pit?
Quartum testimonium est Aggaei II : Haec
dicit Dominus exercituum , interroga Sacerdo¬
tes legem. Malach. II : Labia Sacerdotis custo¬
dient scientiam , et legem requirent ex ore ejus ,
quia Angelus Domini exercituum est (2). Ex
quibus verbis intelligimus, non esse privato¬
rum hominum judicare de sententia Legis
Domini, sed Sacerdotis, qui cum sit Ange¬
lus, id est, nuntius Dei, ad eum pertinet ex
officio explicare sententiam Dei.
Accedat ultimo illud ex lib. II Paralip. c.
XIX, ubi sic loquitur ad Sacerdotes Rex op¬
timus Josaphat : Omnem causam , quce vene¬
rit ad vos fratrum vestrorum , qui habitant in
urbibus suis , inter cognationem et cognationem,
ubicumque qucestio est de lege , de mandato , de
caeremoniis , de justificationibus , ostendite eis ,
ut non peccent, in Dominum. Amarias autem
Sacerdos et Pontifex vester , in his , quce ad
Deum pertinent , praesidebit : porro Zabadias
filius Ismahel, qui est Dux in domo Juda , su¬
per ea opera erit , quce ad Regis officium per¬
tinent (3). Vides hic, quam clare Rex distin¬
guat officium Pontificis ab officio Regis, et
soli Pontifici tribuat judicium de dubiis Le¬
gis.