Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book III: On the Interpretation of Scripture
Chapter 5: The same proved from the New Testament
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).
Now from the New Testament. The first testimony is Matthew 16, To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, etc. For by those keys is understood not only the power of loosing from sins, but also from all other bonds and impediments, which unless they be taken away, one cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven; since the promise is general, and it is not said whomsoever thou shalt loose, but whatsoever thou shalt loose, that we may understand that all knots — whether by dispensing in laws, or by relaxing sins and punishments, or by explaining doctrines and controversies — can be loosed by Peter and his successors. But of this place we shall say more in the first book On the Supreme Pontiff.
Another testimony can be that of Matthew 18, If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. But it is to be observed in this place that here indeed the Lord speaks of the injuries which one suffers from another; but by the greater it is to be understood also of the injuries which are done to the whole Church, and to God, such as is heresy. For he who bids the adulterer be brought to the judgment of the Church, much more the heretic. But it cannot be that they be brought to the congregation of all the Faithful; therefore by the name of Church is to be understood the Prelate, as Chrysostom expounds, or (as others prefer) the congregation of Prelates. For as a man neither speaks nor hears save through the head, and yet the whole man is said to speak and hear, so the Church through its Prelates hears and speaks. If therefore he who hears not the Church, that is, the Pastors of the Church, ought to be as a heathen and a publican, it follows that the final judgment is the Pastors'.
The third testimony, Matthew 23: The Scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses; all things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works do ye not. Here note three things. First, that in that whole chapter the Lord reprehends the vices of the Scribes and Pharisees; and because the weak could gather from this that Prelates who live ill are not to be believed, therefore at the beginning of the chapter he wished to teach openly that, notwithstanding the evil life of the Prelates, their doctrine is to be followed. Secondly, note with Cyprian book 4 epistle 9 that never did the Lord or the Apostles in the whole Scripture reprehend the Pontiffs and Priests of the Jews by naming them Pontiffs or Priests, but only under the name of Scribes and Pharisees; lest they should seem to reprehend the chair and the priesthood, and that we might understand that honor is always due to the priesthood and the pontificate, even if perchance the person who sits in the chair be less good. From which we understand that the heretics of this time, who everywhere inveigh against Bishops and Priests, and especially against the supreme Pontiff of the Church himself, have nothing in common with the manners of the Lord and of the Apostles. Thirdly, note that what the Lord says of the chair of Moses is to be understood a fortiori of the chair of Peter. For so the ancients understood it, and especially Augustine in epistle 165: “In that order of Bishops which is reckoned from Peter himself down to Anastasius, who now sits in the same chair, even if some traitor had crept in through those times, it would in no way prejudice the Church and the innocent Christians, for whom the Lord, providing, says of evil rulers: The things they say, do; the things they do, do ye not.”
The fourth testimony, John last chapter: Simon Peter, feed my sheep. Here too three things are to be noted. First, that what is said to Peter is said also to his successors; for Christ willed to provide for the Church not for twenty-five years only, but as long as the world should last. Secondly, that feed is understood chiefly of doctrine; for so are rational sheep fed. Jeremiah 3: I will give you pastors according to my own heart, and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine. Thirdly, that sheep signifies all Christians; for he who will not be fed by Peter is not a sheep of Christ. From these it is effected that to Peter and his successors it was singularly committed that they should teach all Christians. But this cannot be more conveniently understood than in this way, that we say it was committed to Peter and his successors to teach all what is to be held concerning the doctrine of Faith. For if we understand it only of sermons, this precept will never be fulfilled; for the Pontiff cannot preach to all men, nor is there need, since there are in the several Churches those who may preach. And if we understand it only of preaching and commentaries on the holy Letters, that those whom the Pontiff cannot teach by word he may teach by written commentaries, we reprehend very many most holy Pontiffs who did nothing of the kind; therefore the Lord speaks of the singular office of teaching the whole Church, by constituting and decreeing what is to be believed by all. And in this manner blessed Jerome understood this place in the epistle to Damasus On the word hypostasis; for, seeking from the Pontiff the explanation of a certain controversy concerning Faith, he says: “From the Shepherd I, a sheep, demand protection.”
The fifth testimony, Luke 22: I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. From this place, that the Roman Pontiff teaching from the chair cannot err, blessed Bernard deduces epistle 90 to Innocent, and before him Lucius I in epistle 1 to the Bishops of Spain and Gaul, Felix I in the epistle to Benignus, Mark in the epistle to Athanasius, Leo I sermon 3 On his assumption to the pontificate, Leo IX in the epistle to Peter Patriarch of Antioch, Agatho in the epistle to the Emperor Constantine (which was read in the Sixth Synod, act 4, and then act 8 approved by the whole Council), Paschal II in the Roman Council (in the Abbot of Ursperg in his Chronicle); to whom I add, will they nill they the heretics, Innocent III, chapter Majores On Baptism and its effect. If therefore the Roman Pontiff cannot err teaching from the chair, certainly his judgment is to be acquiesced in, and he himself ought to be the supreme Judge.
The sixth testimony is Acts 15; for there we read that, when a grave question of Faith had arisen — whether the Law of Moses was to be kept by the converted Gentiles — each one was not sent back to his own spirit, but to the Council held at Jerusalem, over which Peter presided; and that Peter spoke first of all in the Council, then James confirmed the opinion of Peter, and so the question was solved by those words: It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, etc. By which they show that the opinion of a Council over which Peter presides is the opinion of the Holy Ghost. And in the same place at the end of the chapter we read that Paul, wherever he went, was wont to command that they keep the decree of that Council, that is, that they acquiesce, and not wish themselves to judge of the opinion of the Council.
The seventh is in the epistle to the Galatians chapter 2. I went up, says Paul, to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and conferred with them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles; but apart with them who seemed to be something, lest perhaps I should run, or had run, in vain. And who those were with whom he had conferred, he explains below, saying they were Peter, James, and John. Which place explaining, Tertullian book 4 against Marcion, blessed Jerome in epistle 80 to Augustine (which is the eleventh among Augustine's epistles), and Augustine book 18 against Faustus chapter 4 expressly affirm that the Church would not have believed Paul unless his Gospel had been confirmed by Peter; therefore it was Peter's then, and accordingly his successor's now, to judge of the doctrine of Faith.
The eighth testimony, 1 Corinthians 12: To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, to another the interpretation of speeches, to another prophecy, etc. Here it is openly said that the spirit of interpreting the Scriptures is not given to all the Faithful. And besides, it is established from that of 2 Peter 1, No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation, that without the spirit of interpreting the Scripture cannot be well expounded. Therefore it is evidently gathered that no private man is the judge of the true sense of Scripture. For what shall he do who has not the spirit? nay, who shall be certain that he now has the spirit, since we know that it is not given to all, and we know not to whom it is given? It remains, therefore, that we acknowledge as judge the Church alone, of which it cannot be doubted that it has the Spirit of God and teaches its sons without error, being the pillar and ground of truth. Which even Luther confesses in the book On the power of the Pope in these words (whatever he wrote elsewhere, as he was wonderfully various and unstable): “Of no private man are we certain whether he have the revelation of the Father or not; but the Church itself is that of which it is not lawful to doubt, etc.” Now the Church speaks not otherwise than by the mouth of the Pastors and Doctors, and especially those gathered in a general Council; which Council either had the Supreme Pontiff present and presiding, or deserved to obtain confirmation and approbation from him.
But, they say, he is certain that he has it, who asks; for it is written: How much more will your Father from heaven give the good Spirit to them that ask him, Luke 11; and James 1, If any of you want wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men abundantly. I answer: in these and like places the Lord speaks not of the spirit of interpretation, which is a certain freely-given grace, but of the spirit of Faith, Hope, Charity, and Wisdom necessary for salvation. For, as blessed Augustine teaches tractates 73, 81, and 102 on John, prayer does not infallibly obtain save that which is necessary or useful for the salvation of him who prays. Now the gift of interpreting, like the gift of tongues and of miracles, and the others there enumerated, is not always useful to him who has it. As therefore we cannot always obtain the spirit of speaking with tongues or of working miracles, even though it be written, He will give the good Spirit to them that ask him, so neither the spirit of interpretation. For otherwise it could happen that the whole body of the Church were one member, that is, all were eyes, all hands, etc., against the Apostle Romans 12.
Besides, even if the Lord in those places spoke of the gift of interpreting, still whoever asks would not be certain that he has it, because he is not certain whether he asks well; for it is written: You ask and receive not, because you ask amiss, James 4. Otherwise, since the Lutherans ask for that spirit, and the Anabaptists ask, and the Zwinglians ask, whence is it that they receive most diverse and mutually fighting spirits, if that one and true Holy Ghost is given to all that ask?
The ninth testimony is 1 John 4: Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. The spirit of private men must be tried, whether it be of God; for many boast of the Holy Ghost who are driven by the spirit of giddiness and of lying, as is said 3 Kings last chapter, 2 Paralipomenon 18, Isaiah 19 and 29. Therefore the private spirit cannot be judge; for how shall it be judge, when it itself is still to be judged? Wherefore if anyone expound that This is my body by This signifies my body, because the spirit so reveals to him, the question is still not defined. For John admonishes that we try that spirit, whether it be of God, lest perhaps it be rather the spirit of giddiness. But it cannot be proved from Scripture, as they will have it, because it is of the very sentence of Scripture that we doubt in this place; therefore it must be proved from its conformity to the spirit of those whom it is established have the true spirit; and such are the Prelates lawfully gathered in a Council. For we read Acts 15 that the Council said, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us; such also is the Pontiff teaching from the chair, whom we have shown to be always directed by the Holy Ghost, so that he cannot err; such too were the Apostles and the ancient Faithful, who it is certain had the Holy Ghost.
Nor can Calvin deny this, since he reasons in this manner in the Institutes book 1 chapter 9 section 1 against Schwenckfeld, who would have the spirit alone judge, the Scriptures being rejected: If that spirit were good, it would be the same with the spirit of the Apostles and of the first Faithful; but the spirit of those did not wish to be judge with the Scriptures despised. But so also we argue against Calvin and the other heretics: If their spirit were good, it would be the same with the spirit of the Apostles and of the first Faithful; but the spirit of those did not wish to be judge, but had recourse to Peter and to the Council, and acquiesced in their opinion, as we showed above from Acts 15; therefore the spirit of these men, who set themselves up as judge, is not a good spirit.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT Y. Idem probatur ex Testamento novo. Jam vero ex novo Testamento. Primum testimonium est Matth. XVI. Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum etc. (4). Per istas enim claves non solum intelligitur potestas solvendi a peccatis, sed etiam ab omnibus aliis vinculis et impedimentis, quae nisi tollantur, non potest intrari in regnum coelorum : siquidem promissio generalis est, nec dicitur / Quem¬ cumque solveris , sed Quodcumque solveris , ut intelligamus, nodos omnes , seu legum dis¬ pensando , seu peccatorum et poenarum re¬ laxando, seu dogmatum et controversiarum explicando, a Petro ej usque successoribus solvi posse. Sed de hoc loco in I. lib. de sum. Pontif. plura dicemus. Alterum testimonium esse potest illud Matth. XVIII. Si Ecclesiam non audierit , sit tibi velut Ethnicus et Publicanus (5). Est au¬ tem hoc loco observandum, hic quidem Do- (l)Eccl. XII, 11. — (2) Aggse. II, 12.; 'Malach. II, 7. — (3) II. Paralip. XIX, 18. — (4) Mattii. XVI, 19. — (5) Matth. XVIII, 17. I CAPUT V. 170 minum loqui de injuriis , quas unus ab ali¬ quo patitur : sed a majori intelligendum etiam esse de injuriis, quae fiunt in totam Ecclesiam, et in Deum , qualis est hceresis. Qui enim jubet deferri adulterum ad Eccle¬ siae judicium, multo magis haereticum. Non autem potest fieri, ut deferantur ad congre¬ gationem omnium Fidelium ; igitur nomine Ecclesiae intelligi debet Praelatus, ut Chry- sostomus exponit, vel (ut alii malunt) Praela¬ torum congregatio. Ut enim homo non lo¬ quitur, neque audit, nisi per caput , et ta¬ men totus homo dicitur loqui et audire ; ita Ecclesia per suos Praelatos audit, et loquitur. Si ergo qui Ecclesiam, id est, Ecclesiae Pas¬ tores non audit, debet esse ut Ethnicus et Publicanus; sequitur, Pastorum esse ultimum judicium. Tertium testimonium Matth. XXIII. Super cathedram Moysi sederunt Scribce et Phariscei, qucecumque dixerint vobis, servate , et facite , secundum opera vero eorum nolite facere (1). Ubi nota tria. Primo , toto illo capite Domi¬ num reprehendere vitia Scribarum et Phari- sseorum : et quia poterant infirmi ex eo col¬ ligere, non esse credendum Praelatis qui male vivunt ; ideo initio capitis aperte do¬ cere voluisse , non obstante mala vita Prae¬ latorum, sequendam esse eorum doctrinam. Secundo, nota cum Cypriano lib. IV, epist. 9. nunquam Dominum, neque Apostolos in tota Scriptura reprehendisse Pontifices et Sacer¬ dotes Judaeorum, nominando eos Pontifices vel Sacerdotes , sed solum sub nomine Scri¬ barum et Pharisaeorum ; ne viderentur re¬ prehendere cathedram et sacerdotium, et ut intelligeremus , semper deberi honorem sa¬ cerdotio et pontificatui, etiam si forte per¬ sona, quae in cathedra sedet, sitminusbona. Ex quo intelligimus, haereticos hujus tempo¬ ris, qui passim in Episcopos et Sacerdotes, et praecipue in ipsum summum Ecclesiae Pontificem invehuntur, nihil habere com¬ mune cum moribus Domini , et Apostolo¬ rum. Tertio nota, quod Dominus de cathedra Mosis dicit, intelligi a fortiori de cathedra Petri. Sic enim Veteres intellexerunt, et prae¬ cipue Augustinus in epist. 165. : « In illum, inquit, ordinem Episcoporum, qui dicitur ab ipso Petro usque ad Anastasium , qui nunc eamdem cathedram sedet, etiamsi quisquam traditor per illa tempora subrepsisset , nihil praejudicaret Ecclesiae, et innocentibus Chri¬ stianis, quibus Dominus providens ait , de N praepositis malis : Qute dicunt, facite; quae faciunt, facere nolite. » Quartum testimonium Joannis ult. Simon Petre , pasce oves (2). Ilie etiam sunt anno¬ tanda tria. Primo, quod dicitur Petro, dici etiam successoribus : nec enim providere voluit Christus Ecclesiae ad annos 25. tantum sed quousque Mundus duraret. Secundo, illud pasce intelligi praecipue de doctrina : sic enim pascuntur oves rationales. Hierem. III. Dabo vobis pastores juxta cor meum, et pascent vos scientia et doctrina (3). Tertio , il¬ lud oves significare omnes Christianos : qui enim non vult pasci a Petro , non est ovis Christi. Ex his efficitur, Petro et successoribus ejus singulariter commissum esse, ut doceant omnes Christianos., Id autem non potest com¬ modius intelligi, quam hoc modo , ut dica¬ mus, commissum esse Petro et successoribus, ut doceant omnes, quid circa doctrinam Fi¬ dei tenendum sit. Nam si id intelligamus tan¬ tum de concionibus, nunquam implebitur hoc praeceptum ; nec enim potest Pontifex om¬ nibus hominibus concionari, nec est opus, cum sint in singulis Ecclesiis qui condo¬ nentur. Si etiam intelligamus solum de concione et commentariis in sanctas Litteras , ut quos Pontifex non potest verbo docere, doceat per scripta commentaria ; reprehendimus pluri¬ mos sanctissimos Pontifices, qui nihil tale fecerunt ; ergo loquitur Dominus de singu¬ lari officio docendi totam Ecclesiam, consti¬ tuendo ac decernendo quid ab omnibus sit credendum. Atque ad hunc modum intel¬ lexit hunc locum B. Hieronymus in epist. ad Damas., de nom. Ilypost., petens enim a Pontifice controversia} cujusdam explicatio¬ nem circa Fidem : « A Pastore, inquit, prae¬ sidium ovis flagito. » Quintum testimonium Lucoe XXII. Ro¬ gavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua, et tu ali¬ quando conversus, confirma fratres tuos (4). Ex hoc loco , Romanum Pontificem ex ca¬ thedra docentem non posse errare, deducit B. Bernardus epist. 90. adlnnocent., et ante eum Lucius I, in epist. 1. ad Episc. Hispan. et Gallise. Felix I, in epist. ad Benignum. Marcus in epist. ad Athanas. Leo I, serm. 3. de assumpt. sua adpontific. Leo IX. in epist. (1) Mattii. XX11I, 2 et 3. — (2) Joan. XXI, 15 et seq. — (3) Jerem. III, 15. — (4) Luc. XXII, 32. 480 LIBER III. ad Pet. Antioch. Patriarch. Agatho in epist. ad Constantinum Imperatorem, quse lecta est in VI Synodo act. IV. et deinde act. VIII. a toto Concilio approbata. Paschalis II. in Concilio Romano, apud Abbatem Ursper- gensem in Chronico ; quibus addo, velint no¬ lint haeretici, Innocentium III. cap. Majores de Baptismo et ejus effectu. Si ergo Ro¬ manus Pontifex errare non potest ex cathe¬ dra docens , certe judicio ejus acquies¬ cendum est, et ipse esse debet summus Judex. Sextum testimonium est Act. XV. ibi enim legimus, cum orta esset quaestio gravis de Fide, an servanda esset Lex Mosis a Genti¬ bus conversis, non fuisse remissos unum¬ quemque ad spiritum suum , sed ad Conci¬ lium Hierosolymai habitum, cui Petrus prae¬ erat, et Petrum omnium primum in Conci¬ lio locutum, deinde Jacobum sententiam Petri confirmasse, et sic quaestionem solutam illis verbis ; Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis etc. (1). Quibus ostendunt, sententiam Con¬ cilii, cui praeest Petrus, sententiam esse Spi¬ ritus sancti. Et ibidem in fin. cap. legimus, Paulum quocumque ibat praecipere solitum, ut servarent decretum illius Concilii , id est, ut acquiescerent, et non vellent ipsi de sen¬ tentia Concilii judicare. Septimum est in epist. ad Galatas cap. II. Ascendi , inquit Paulus, Hierosolymam eum Barnaba , et contuli cum illis Euangelium, quod pr ce dico in Gentibus ; seorsum autem iis, qui videbantur aliquid esse, ne forte in vacuum currerem, aut cucurrissem (2). Qui¬ nam autem essent illi quibuscum contu¬ lerat, inferius explicat dicens, fuisse Petrum, Jacobum et Joannem. Quem locum expli¬ cantes Tertullianus lib. IV. in Marcion., B. Hieronymus in epist. 80. ad August., quae est 11. inter epist. August., et Augustinus lib. XVIII. contra Faustum cap. 4. diserte affirmant, Ecclesiam non esse Paulo credi¬ turam, nisi ejus Evangelium a Petro confir¬ matum fuisset : ergo Petri erat tunc, et pro¬ inde successoris ejus nunc de doctrina Fidei judicare. Octavum testimonium I. Cor. XII. Alii datur per Spiritum sermo sapientiae , alii sermo scien¬ tiae, alii interpretatio sermonum, alii prophetia etc. (3). Hic aperte dicitur, non dari omnibus Fidelibus spiritum interpretandi Scripturas. Et praeterea constat ex illo II. Petri I. Omnis prophetia Scripturce propria interpretatione non fit (4), non posse sine spiritu interpre¬ tandi bene Scripturam exponi. Igitur evi¬ denter colligitur, non esse judicem veri sen¬ sus Scripturae ullum hominem privatum. Quid enim faciet, qui spiritum non habet ? imo quis erit certus , se habere nunc spi¬ ritum, cum sciamus, non dari omnibus, et non sciamus quibus detur? Restat igitur, ut judicem agnoscamus solam Ecclesiam , de qua dubium esse non potest, quin habeat Spiritum Dei, et filios suos sine errore do¬ ceat, cum sit columna et firmamentum veri¬ tatis. Id quod etiam Lutherus in lib. De potest. Papae his verbis confitetur : (quid¬ quid alibi scripserit, ut miro modo varius et instabilis fuit) « De nullo privato homine certi sumus habeat necne revelationem Pa¬ tris : Ecclesia autem ipsa est , de qua dubi¬ tare non licet etc. » Porro Ecclesia non ali¬ ter loquitur, quam per os Pastorum et Doc¬ torum, ac praecipue in generali Concilio con¬ gregatorum. Quod Concilium vel Summum Pontificem habuerit praesentem, et praesi¬ dentem, vel confirmationem , atque appro¬ bationem ab eo meruerit obtinere. At, inquiunt, ille est certus se habere, qui petit; scriptum est enim : Quanto magis Pa¬ ter vester de Ccclo dabit Spiritum bonum pe¬ tentibus se. Luc. XI. et Jacob. I. Si quis ves¬ trum indiget sapientia, postulet a Deo, qui dat omnibus abundanter (5). Respondeo : in his et similibus locis Dominum loqui non de spiritu interpretationis , qui est gratia quae¬ dam gratis data, sed de spiritu Fidei , Spei, Charitatis , et Sapientiae necessariae ad salu¬ tem. Ut enim B. Augustinus docet tract. 73, 81. et 102. in Jo., non impetrat oratio infal- libiliter, nisi id quod est necessarium, vel utile ad salutem ei, qui orat. Porro donutti inter¬ pretandi, sicut donum linguarum etmiracu- culorum , et alia ibidem enumerata, non semper sunt utilia ei, qui illa habet. Sicut igitur spiritum loquendi linguis, vel faciendi miracula, non possumus semper im¬ petrare, etiam si scriptum sit ; Dabit Spiri¬ tum bonum petentibus se, ita nec spiritum in¬ terpretationis. Nam alioqui posset fieri, ut totum corpus Ecclesiae esset unum mem¬ brum, id est, omnes essent oculi, omnes manus etc. contra Apostolum Roman. XII. (1) Act. XV, 28. — (2)Galat. II, 2. — (3) I. Corinth.XII, 8 et seq. — (4) II. Petr. I, 20. — (5) Luc. XI, 13. ; et Jacob. I, 5. I CAPUT VI. 481 et I. Gorinth. XII. Praeterea etiamsi Domi¬ nus in illis locis loqueretur de dono inter¬ pretandi, adhuc non esset certas quicunque petit se illud habere, quia non est certus an bene petat; scriptum est enim : Petitis , et non accipitis , eo quod male petatis (1). Jacob. IV. Alioqui cum spiritum istum petant Lu- therani, petant Anabaptistae, petant Zwin- gliani ; unde est quod diversissimos et inter se pugnantes spiritus accipiunt, si omnibus petentibus datur ille unus et verus Spiritus sanctus ? Nonum testimonium est I. Joan. IV. Cha- rissimi, nolite omni spiritui credere , sed pro¬ bate spiritus , si ex Deo sint : quoniam multi Pseudoprophetae exierunt in Mundum (2). Spi¬ ritus hominum privatorum probandus est, an ex Deo sit ; multi enim jactant Spiritum sanctum, qui agitantur spiritu vertiginis et mendacii, ut dicitur III. Reg. ult. II. Paralip. XVIII. Isaiee XIX. et XXIX. igitur non pot¬ est privatus spiritus esse judex ; quomodo enim erit judex, cum de ipso adhuc judican¬ dum sit ? Quare si quis illud Hoc est corpus meum exponat per Hoc significat corpus meum , quia sic ei spiritus revelat, “adhuc non est quaestio definita. Nam Joannes monet, utilium spiri¬ tum probemus an sit ex Deo, ne potius forte sit spiritus vertiginis. Non autem potest pro¬ bari ex Scriptura, ut ipsi volunt , quia de Scriptura*, ipsius sententia hoc loco dubita¬ mus ; ergo debet probari ex conformitate ad spiritum eorum , quos constat verum spiri¬ tum habere, tales autem sunt Prselati in Con¬ cilio legitime congregati. Legimus enim Act. XV. Concilium dixisse / Visum est Spi¬ ritui sancto et nobis : talis etiam est Pontifex ex cathedra docens, quem ostendimus sem- per a Spiritu sancto dirigi, ut errare non possit : tales etiam fuerunt Apostoli et anti¬ qui Fideles, quos certum est, Spiritum sanc¬ tum habuisse. Neque id Calvinus negare potest , quippe qui in hunc modum ratiocinatur in Instit. lib. I, cap. 9, §. 1. contra Swencfeldium, qui solum spiritum volebat judicem , repu¬ diatis Scripturis. Si spiritus iste esset bonus, idem esset cum spiritu Apostolorum, et pri¬ morum Fidelium : at spiritus illorum non volebat esse judex, Scripturis contemptis. Sed ita etiam nos contra Calvinum et alios haereticos argumentamur : Si spiritus ipso¬ rum esset bonus, esset idem cum spiritu Apostolorum et primorum Fidelium : sed spiritus illorum non volebat esse judex, sed recurrebat ad Petrum et ad Concilium, et eorum sententhe acquiescebat, ut supra os¬ tendimus ex Actor XV. igitur spiritus isto¬ rum, qui se judicem constituit , non est spi- tus bonus.