Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book III: On the Interpretation of Scripture
Chapter 10: The objections 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).
But they object first that of Isaiah 54: I will give all thy children to be taught of the Lord. I answer: Isaiah speaks not of a private revealing spirit, but either he speaks of the doctrine of the Gospel, which God himself, that is, Christ, preached and taught (as Cyril expounds this place), so that the sense is, “I will teach the Christian people not through the Prophets, but through myself,” according to that of Hebrews 1, In many places, and in many ways, etc.; or (which is the subtler and more genuine exposition) he speaks of the grace of the Holy Ghost, whereby a man is inwardly moved by God and sweetly impelled to believe and to love, as blessed Augustine expounds in the book On the grace of Christ chapters 12, 13, and 14. And so the sense is not that all Christians will understand by divine revelation all the secrets of the Scriptures, but that they will be such that they not only hear the master outwardly explaining the word of God, but also hear inwardly God the master persuading them to do what they hear. While the sermon is made, all hear and understand what is said; but one believes, another believes not; one is converted from sin to penance, another is not converted; those former are said to be taught of God, those latter not so. In this sense the Lord brought forward the testimony of this place, John 6: It is written in the Prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me. And the Apostle 1 Thessalonians 4: Concerning the charity of brotherhood we have no need to write to you, for you yourselves have learned of God that you should love one another.
The second argument, Jeremiah 31: I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, saying: Know the Lord. For all shall know me, from the least of them even to the greatest. I answer with Augustine, in the book On the spirit and the letter chapter 24, that by those words I will give my law, etc., is signified the grace of the New Testament, that is, Faith working through charity, which God pours forth in our hearts, that we may not only know but also fulfill the divine commandments; but by those words and they shall teach no more, etc., is signified the reward of Faith, that is, beatitude, in which all the elect shall see God face to face. If, however, anyone contend that even those last words are to be understood of this present time, it can be answered that here the Prophet speaks not of the hidden mysteries of the Scriptures, but of the knowledge of one God. For since in the time of the Old Testament not only the Gentiles adored false gods, but even most frequently the people of God turned to idols and strange gods, Jeremiah foretold that it should come to pass that in the time of the New Testament all men should know one God — which we now certainly see fulfilled. For the Gentiles are converted to the Faith, and even the Jews and Turks themselves, though impious, yet worship one God.
The third argument, Matthew 23: But be not you called Rabbi, for one is your master. Therefore we ought to be content with the internal Teacher alone. I answer: the Lord does not forbid the name and office of a master, but the ambition and affectation of that honor. For 2 Timothy 1 the Apostle calls himself the doctor and master of the Gentiles. Besides, in that chapter 23 the Lord had reprehended the Scribes and Pharisees because they loved the first chairs, and to be saluted by men, Rabbi. And in the same place he says, And call none your father upon earth; whereas it is more certain than certain that neither the name nor the office of father is forbidden, but too great an affection toward parents.
The fourth argument, John 5: I receive not testimony from man; therefore neither does the word of God receive testimony from the word of man; but the Pontiff and the Council are men; therefore the Scriptures need not their testimony, but suffice of themselves to settle all controversies. I answer: Christ needed not the testimony of men for himself, because he had greater testimonies, yet he used the testimonies of men for the sake of others. John 1: This man came for a testimony, to give testimony of the light. And John 15: You shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning. Acts 1: You shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea. Finally, why are the Martyrs called Martyrs, but because they were witnesses of Christ? When therefore the Lord says, You sent to John, and he gave testimony to the truth; but I, John 5, receive not testimony from man, but these things I say that you may be saved, the sense is: I bring forward to you the testimony of John, which you yourselves sought, not that I need it for myself, but because it is useful to you, that you may the more easily believe. In the same manner, the Scripture for itself needs not the testimony of men; for whether it be understood or not, it is in itself most true; yet for our sake it needs the testimony of the Church, since otherwise we are not certain which are the truly sacred and divine books, nor what is their true and genuine understanding.
The fifth argument, John 7: If any man will do the will of him that sent me, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God. Therefore, besides the spirit of the love of God, no other teaching is required to understand the Scriptures. I answer: the Lord does not say this to show that all good men can of themselves understand all places of the Scriptures, but to teach that upright men are free from certain impediments, on account of which certain others can, neither of themselves nor through others, understand the truth of Faith; for the desire of glory, and of money, and of like things, blinds the eyes. Whence John 5, How can you believe, who receive glory one from another? And Luke 16: Now the Pharisees, who were covetous, heard all these things, and they derided him.
The sixth argument, John 10: My sheep hear my voice, and follow me; therefore we need no other teacher. I answer: the Lord speaks of the predestinate, as Augustine here expounds, who before death altogether hear the calling of God and follow it, persevering unto death; nor is there here any discourse of the difficulties of the Scriptures. But if the matter were even of the understanding of the Scriptures, we should say that Christ speaks to his sheep in many ways — by Scripture, by internal inspiration, and most openly by the mouth of his Vicars, of whom he said Luke 10: He that heareth you, heareth me. For when the Lord says, My sheep hear my voice, he did not exclude his vicars, but his enemies. For so he says in the same place: But a stranger they follow not, and, They hear not the voice of strangers.
The seventh argument, Acts 17: the Beroeans searched the Scriptures, whether the things which Paul preached were so. If then it was lawful for those men, doubtless laymen, to examine the words of Paul, why is it not lawful for us to examine the words of the Pope and of Councils? I answer: although Paul was an Apostle, and could not preach false doctrine, yet this was not established at first to the Beroeans, nor were they bound to believe at once, unless they first saw miracles or other probable reasons of believing. And so, when Paul proved Christ to them from the oracles of the Prophets, they rightly searched the Scriptures whether these things were so. But Christians, to whom it is established that the Church cannot err in explaining the doctrine of Faith, are bound to receive it, and not to doubt whether it be so. I add also that, although a heretic sins by doubting of the authority of the Church, into which he was regenerated by Baptism (nor is the condition of a heretic, who once professed the Faith, the same as that of a Jew or heathen who was never a Christian), yet, this doubt and this sin being supposed, he does not ill in searching and examining whether the places of Scripture and of the Fathers brought forward by the Council of Trent are so, provided he do it with the intention of finding the truth, not of calumniating. He ought indeed to receive the doctrine of the Church without examination; yet it is better that by examining he be prepared for the truth than that by neglecting he remain in his darkness.
The eighth argument, Romans 12: And having different gifts, according to the grace that is given us: either prophecy, to be used according to the rule of faith; or ministry, in ministering, etc. Here the Apostle teaches that the gift of prophecy, that is, of interpreting the Scriptures, is had according to the rule (in Greek analogian) of Faith, that is, according to the measure and proportion of Faith; therefore the interpretation of Scripture ought not to be sought from the Pope or a Council, but from him who more abounds in Faith, whosoever he be. I answer: first, the consequence could be denied; for the Pope and the Council more abound in Faith than any private man, since neither the Pope teaching from the chair, nor the Council, can err in Faith, but every private man can. Secondly, it could be said that prophecy in this place is taken not for the interpretation of Scripture, but properly for the gift of foretelling future things, as Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact, Thomas, and others expound this place, and Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 14. But thirdly I say, in whatever way prophecy be taken, whether for the gift of foretelling future things or for the gift of interpreting, nothing is gathered from this place against us; for that according to the rule of Faith is joined not with the word having, but with the understood word let us minister. For the Apostle sets forth the use of the freely-given graces, and teaches that prophecy ought to be administered according to the rule of Faith, so that no one prophesy anything against Faith (as the false prophets did), nor interpret the Scriptures in any sense contrary to the Catholic Faith (as the heretics for the most part do).
The ninth argument, 1 Corinthians 2: But the spiritual man judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man; therefore the interpretation of the Scriptures belongs to spiritual men, not to the Pope or to Councils. I answer: we do not deny that there have been and are in the Church spiritual and perfect men who rightly interpret the Scriptures, nay even foresee future things and search out the secrets of hearts. Yet we deny that to them belongs the definitive judgment of the controversies of Faith, for two causes. First, because we are not certain, with the certainty of Faith, who these spiritual men are, as we are certain that the Pope and the Council are spiritual, namely ruled by the Holy Ghost. Secondly, because we know that even the most spiritual are not always illumined, and sometimes are ignorant of certain things, as is plain of Elisha, who had the double spirit of Elias, and yet says 4 Kings 4: The Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told me. You will say: what then does that judgeth all things signify? I say: it signifies all things, both spiritual and temporal, both heavenly and earthly; for he had said that animal men perceive not the things that are of God, but can only judge of earthly things; now he says that the spiritual judge all things, that is, both earthly and divine; yet it does not follow that one can judge all divine things. For who would deny that many of the ancient Fathers had excellently the gift of interpreting, and were spiritual, and yet it is established that certain of the chief of them slipped not slightly in certain things?
The tenth argument, 1 Corinthians 12, the Apostle speaking of the gift of interpreting and like graces: All these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will. This gift, therefore, is not bound to a Council or to the Pope, but is freely given by God to whom he himself will. And they confirm it, because often, the Priests and Pontiffs being passed over, God raised up Prophets out of the people; for Amos was a herdsman, and yet was made a Prophet, and Debbora a woman prophesied. I answer: the Apostle speaks of particular men, and means to say that the gift of interpreting is not given to all men everywhere. Nor does it follow hence that the gift of interpretation is not in a Council, or in the Pontiff teaching from the chair; for the case of a Council and a Pontiff is one, that of private men another. To those confirmations I say: the privileges of a few do not make a general law. But if they contend that it is given to all because it was given to Amos and Debbora, they will also conclude that the gift of speaking is given to all beasts of burden, because it was given to the ass of Balaam. Besides, it is one thing to speak of new revelations, another of the explanation of doctrine already received; for new revelations are not bound to the Pontiffs, neither now nor in the Old Testament. For in the Old Testament Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the like prophesied, but not Aaron and his successors; and in the New Testament Agabus prophesied, and the daughters of Philip, and yet the Pontiffs Linus and Clement and the rest prophesied not. But the explanation of received doctrine, and the judgment of doctrines, always looked to the Pontiffs, as we showed above.
The eleventh argument, 1 Thessalonians 5: Prove all things; hold that which is good; and 1 John 4: Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God. Therefore the opinion even of a Council and of the Pope is to be proved and examined; for Paul and John except nothing. They also gather from these places that the books of the heretics are unjustly prohibited, since Paul says Prove all things, etc. I answer, and say two things. First, that Paul and John, when they say Prove all things or Try the spirits, do not mean that all in the Church should do this, but that those should do it to whom it belongs. As if it be written to some University that they examine a certain book, it is not signified that the book is to be given to all the men of that University to examine, but only to the doctors of that faculty of which that book treats. I say secondly: in both places the matter is of doubtful doctrine, for that alone needs proving. But the doctrine of prohibited books is not doubtful, for it is openly bad, since it has been examined and condemned; nor is the doctrine of Councils doubtful, but openly good. And therefore the Apostle Paul, Acts 15, when he carried to the Churches the decree of the Council of Jerusalem, did not say prove, but commanded them to keep that decree.
The twelfth argument, 1 John 2: You have no need that any man teach you, but the unction teacheth you of all things. I answer: John speaks not absolutely of the knowledge of divine things, as though they who have received the Holy Ghost needed a master in nothing. For if it were so, why would John write this epistle, and admonish and instruct those whom the unction taught of all things? and to what end would God have placed pastors and doctors in the Church? He speaks therefore only of those doctrines which they had already received from the Apostles, and, the unction of the Holy Ghost cooperating, had learned and believed; and he admonishes them to remain in the Faith, and not to lend their ears to the false apostles teaching the contrary. As if some Catholic should write to Catholics who were besieged and troubled by heretics: You have no need that any Lutheran or Calvinist teach you the doctrine of Christ, for what you ought to know you have already learned and hold from the preaching of the Church, the unction of the Holy Ghost helping. That this is the sense, the preceding and following words teach; for in the preceding he thus says: I have not written to you as to them that know not the truth, but as to them that know it, and let that which you have heard from the beginning abide in you: these things I have written to you concerning them that seduce you. And in the following: As it hath taught you, abide in it, that when he shall appear we may have confidence, and not be confounded at his coming.
The thirteenth argument: the Apostle Ephesians 2 writes: You are fellow-citizens of the saints, and the domestics of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. But if the understanding of Scripture depended on the Pope or on Councils, our foundation would be upon the Pope and Councils rather than upon the writings of the Apostles and Prophets. I answer to this argument, which Calvin often repeats and inculcates: we do not deny, nay we defend against those who deny it, that the word of God ministered by the Apostles and Prophets is the first foundation of our Faith; for we believe whatever we believe because God revealed it through the Apostles and Prophets. But we add that, besides this first foundation, another secondary foundation is required, that is, the testimony of the Church. For we do not certainly know what God revealed except from the testimony of the Church; and therefore, as we read that Christ is the fundamental stone and the first foundation of the Church, so we read Matthew 16 of Peter, Upon this rock I will build my Church. And so our Faith adheres to Christ, the first truth revealing the mysteries, as to the primary foundation; it adheres also to Peter, that is, to the Pontiff proposing and explaining these mysteries, as to the secondary foundation.
The fourteenth argument: If the Pontiff judges of the Scriptures, it follows that the Pontiff or the Council is above the Scripture; and if the sense of Scripture is not authentic without the Pontiff or the Council, it follows that the word of God receives strength and firmness from the word of men, etc. I answer: this argument, which is much made of by the heretics, turns wholly on an equivocation. For in two ways can it be understood that the Church judges of the Scriptures: in one way, that it judge whether what the Scriptures teach be true or false; in another way, that, it being laid down as a most certain foundation that the words of Scripture are most true, it judge what is their true interpretation. And indeed if the Church judged in the first way, it would truly be above the Scripture; but this we do not say, although the heretics calumniously say that we say it, who everywhere cry out that we subject the Scripture to the feet of the Pope. But that the Church or the Pontiff judges of the Scriptures in the second way, which we assert, is not for the Church to be above the Scripture, but above the judgments of private men. For the Church judges not of the truth of the Scripture, but of thy understanding, and mine, and others'; nor does the word of God take any strength hence, but our understanding does; for the Scripture is not truer or more certain because it is so expounded by the Church, but my opinion is truer when it is confirmed by the Church.
The fifteenth argument: If our Faith depends on the judgment of the Church, then on the word of men; therefore it rests on a most weak foundation. Besides, the Scripture was made by the Spirit of God; therefore it is to be understood by the Spirit of God, not of the Church. I answer: the word of the Church, that is, of a Council or of the Pontiff teaching from the chair, is not altogether the word of man, that is, a word liable to error, but in some manner the word of God, that is, uttered with the Holy Ghost assisting and governing. Nay I say that it is the heretics who truly lean on a reed. For it is to be known that a proposition of Faith is concluded by such a syllogism: Whatever God revealed in the Scriptures is true; this God revealed in the Scriptures; therefore this is true. Of the propositions of this syllogism, the first is certain to all; the second, among Catholics, is also most firm, for it rests on the testimony of the Church, the Council, or the Pontiff, of whom we have in the Scriptures open promises that they cannot err — Acts 15, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us; and Luke 22, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. But among the heretics it rests on mere conjectures, or on the judgment of one's own spirit, which for the most part seems good and is bad; and since the conclusion follows the weaker part, it must needs be that the whole Faith of the heretics is conjectural and uncertain.
The sixteenth argument: Augustine and the other Fathers, when they expound the Scriptures, do not usurp the praetorian power of judging, but permit their explanations to be judged by others. I answer: it is one thing to interpret a law after the manner of a doctor, another after the manner of a judge. For explanation after the manner of a doctor, erudition is required; for explanation after the manner of a judge, authority is required. For a doctor does not propose his opinion as necessarily to be followed, but only so far as reason persuades; but a judge proposes it as necessarily to be followed. We receive otherwise the glosses of Bartolus and Baldus, otherwise the declaration of a Prince. Augustine therefore and the other Fathers in their Commentaries discharged the office of Doctors; but Councils and Pontiffs discharge the office of a judge committed to them by God.
The seventeenth argument: “Augustine contends that the Church ought not to prefer itself to Christ, because he always judges truthfully; but the Ecclesiastical judges, being men, are for the most part deceived.” These are Calvin's words in the preface of the Institutes, from which he deduces that the Prelates are not judges of controversies. I answer: first, the place is falsely cited by Calvin; for he puts in the margin chapter 2 against Cresconius; but against Cresconius there are four books, and in no chapter 2 of those books are those words found, but they are had book 2 chapter 21, where Augustine speaks of questions of fact, not of law, in which the Ecclesiastical judges can be deceived. For he teaches that in this the Ecclesiastical judges are often deceived, that they baptize those who approach the Sacrament with a feigned mind, and yet seem to approach with a sincere will. And because Calvin saw that this place made nothing for him, therefore perhaps he did not note the place distinctly. For he is wont at other times to note books and chapters diligently enough, except when the places carry with them a most open solution.
Many other arguments which might seem able to pertain here we shall solve then, when we treat whether the Church, or a Council, or the Pope can err, and to whom it belongs to preside in Councils.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X.
/
Solvuntur objectiones.
At objiciunt primo illud Isai. LIY : Dabo
universos filios tuos doctos aDomino{ 3). Respon¬
deo : non loquitur lsaias de spiritu privato
revelante, sed vel loquitur de doctrina Evan-
gelii, quam Deus ipse, id est, Christus preedi-
cavit et docuit, ut exponit hoc loco Cyrillus,
ut sensus sit : « Populum Christianum non
docebo per Prophetas, sed per meipsum, »
juxta illud Hebr. I : Multifariam , multisque
modis , etc. Yel (quse est subtilior et germa¬
nior expositio) loquitur de gratia Spiritus
sancti, qua homo interius a Deo movetur, et
(1) Rom. XIII, 2. — (2) Joan. XXI, 15 et seq. ;
VI, 45. — (5) I. Thess. IV, 9. — (G) Jerem. XXX
suaviter impellitur ad credendum et aman¬
dum, ut exponit B. Augustinus lib. de grat.
Christi, c. 12, 13 et 14. Itaque non est sen¬
sus, omnes Christianos intellecturos divina
revelatione omnia arcana Scripturarum, sed
tales futuros ut non solum audiant magistrum
exterius explicantem verbum Dei, sed etiam
audiant intus magistrum Deum suadentem,
ut faciant quod audiunt. Dum fit concio,
omnes audiunt, et intelligunt quod dicitur :
sed unus credit, alius non credit : unus con¬
vertitur a peccato ad poenitentiam, alius
non convertitur : illi priores dicuntur docti
a Deo, illi posteriores non item. In hunc sen¬
sum protulit ex hoc loco testimonium Domi¬
nus Jo.YI : Est, inquit, scriptum in Prophetis :
Et erunt omnes docibiles Dei. Omnis qui audi¬
vit a Patre , et didicit , venit ad me (fi). Et Apo¬
stolus I Thess. IV : De charitate fraternitatis
non necesse habemus scribere vobis , ipsi enim
a Deo didicistis , ut diligatis invicem (o).
Secundum argumentum Hierem. XXXI :
Dabo legem meam in visceribus eorum , et in
corde eorum scribam eam,, et non docebit ultra
vir proximum suum , dicens : Cognosce Domi¬
num. Omnes enim cognoscent me a minimo eo¬
rum, usque ad maximum (6).
Respondeo cum Augustino lib. de spirit.
et Iit. c. 24. illis verbis Dabo legem meama tc.
significari gratiam Testamenti novi, id est,
Fidem per charitatem operantem , quam
Deus diffundit in cordibus nostris, ut non so¬
lum sciamus, sed etiam impleamus divina
mandata : illis autem Et non docebit ultra
etc. significari praemium Fidei, id est, bea-
titudinem, in qua omnes electi videbunt
Deum facie ad faciem.
Si tamen quis contendat, etiam ista ulti¬
ma verba de hoc tempore intelligenda 6sse;
responderi potest: hic non loqui Prophetam
de mysteriis absconditis Scripturarum, sed
de cognitione unius Dei. Cum enim tempore
Testamenti veteris non solum Gentiles ado¬
rare ntjD e os falsos, sed etiam frequentissime
populus Dei ad idola et Deos alienos conver¬
teretur; praedixit Hieremias futurum , ut
tempore novi Testamenti omnes homines
cognoscant unum Deum, quod certe nunc
impletum cernimus. Nam Gentiles conversi
sunt ad Fidem, et ipsi etiam Judaei et Tur¬
eae, licet impii sint, tamen ununl Deum co¬
lunt.
Matth. XVI, 19. — (3) Isai. LIV, 13. — (4) Joan.
I, 33.
CAPUT X.
189
Tertium argumentum Matth. XXIII : Vos
autem nolite vocari Rabbi, unus est enim ma¬
gister vester (1). Igitur solo interno Doctore
. debemus esse contenti. Respondeo : non
prohibet Dominus nomen et officium magis¬
tri, sed ambitionem et affectationem illius
honoris. Nam II Timoth. I, Apostolus vocat
se doctorem et magistrum Gentium. Praete¬
rea in illo c. XXIII, Dominus reprehenderat
Scribas et Pharisoeos, quod amarent primas
cathedras, et salutari ab hominibus, Rabbi.
Et ibidem dicit : Et nolite vocare patrem su¬
per terram , cum tamen certo certius sit, non
prohiberi nomen, aut officium patris, sed
nimium affectum erga parentes .
Quartum argumentum Jo. Y. Ego testi¬
monium ab homine non accipio (2) ; nec ver¬
bum igitur Dei accipit testimonium a verbo
hominis : sed Pontifex et Concilium homines
sunt ; igitur eorum testimonio Scripturae
non egent, sed per se sufficiunt ad omnes
controversias dirimendas.
Respondeo : Christus non eguit testimonio
hominum pro se, quia majora testimonia ha¬
bebat, sed tamen testimoniis hominum ute¬
batur propter alios. Jo. I : Hic venit in testi¬
monium , ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine.
Et Jo. XV : Vos testimonium perhibetis quia
. ab initio mecum estis (3). Actor I : Eritis mihi
testes in Hierusalem , et in omni Judaea (4). De¬
nique Martyres cur dicuntur Martyres, nisi
quia testes Christi fuerunt. Cum ergo Domi¬
nus ait : Vos misistis ad Joannem , et testimo¬
nium perhibuit veritati : ego autem , Jo. V, non
ab homine testimonium accipio , sed heee dico,
ut salvi sitis ; sensus est : Ego profero vobis
Joannis testimonium , quod vos ipsi quaesivistis ,
non quod ego indigeam pro me , sed quia utile
\st vobis , ut facilius credatis. Ad eumdem mo¬
dum, Scriptura pro se non eget hominum
testimonio, sive enim intelligatur, sive non,
in se verissima est, tamen propter nos eget
testimonio Ecclesiae, qui alioqui non sumus
certi qui sint libri vere sacri ac divini, nec
quae sit eorum vera ac germana intelligentia.
Quintum argumentum Jo.YII : S quis vo¬
luerit voluntatem ejus facere qui misit me,
agnoscet de doctrina mea , utrum ex Deo sit (3).
Non ergo praeter spiritum dilectionis Dei re¬
quiritur aliud magisterium ad Scripturas in-
telligendas.
Respondeo : non hoc dicit Dominus, ut
ostendat, omnes viros bonos per se intelli-
gere posse omnia loca Scripturarum, sed ut
doceat, viros probos carere impedimentis
quibusdam, propter quae alii quidam, nec
per se, nec per alios Fidei veritatem intelli-
gere possint : nam cupiditas gloriae, et pe¬
cuniarum, et similium rerum excsecat ocu¬
los. Unde Jo.Y. Quomodo vos potestis credere,
qui gloriam ab invicem accipitis ? Et Luc.XYI :
Audiebant haec omnia Phariscei , qui erant avari,
et deridebant eum (6).
Sextum argumentum Jo. X : Oves mece vo¬
cem mea maudiunt , et sequuntur me (7) ; igitur
non egemus alio praeceptore. Respondeo :
loquitur Dominus de praedestinatis, ut hic
exponit Augustinus, qui ante mortem om¬
nino audiunt vocationem Dei, et eam se¬
quuntur perseverantes usque ad mortem ;
neque est hic sermo de difficultatibus Scrip¬
turarum. Quod si etiam ageretur de Scrip¬
turarum intelligentia, diceremus, Christum
loqui suis ovibus multis modis, per Scriptu¬
ram, per internam inspirationem, et aper¬
tissime per os Vicariorum suorum, de qui¬
bus dixit Lucae X : Qui vos audit, me audit{ 8).
Nec enim cum Dominus ait, oves mece vocem
meam audiunt exclusit vicarios, sed hostes
suos. Sic enim ibidem ait : Alienum autem
non sequuntur. Et, JSon audiunt vocem alieno¬
rum (9).
Septimum argumentum Actor. XVII, Be-
roenses scrutabantur Scripturas, an ita se
haberent, quae Paulus praedicabat : si ergo
licuit hominibus illis, haud dubie laicis, exa¬
minare verba Pauli, cur non liceat nobis
examinare verba Papae, et Conciliorum?
Respondeo : etsi Paulus erat Apostolus, et
non poterat falsam doctrinam praedicare, ta¬
men non constabat hoc initio Beroensibus,
nec tenebantur mox credere, nisi prius vi¬
derent miracula, aut alias probabiles ratio¬
nes credendi. Itaque cum Paulus probaret
illis Christum ex oraculis Prophetarum, me¬
rito illi scrutabantur Scripturas, an ha;c ita
se haberent. At Christiani, quibus constat
Ecclesiam non posse errare in explicanda
doctrina Fidei, tenentur eam recipere, et
non dubitare, an beee ita se habeat.
Addo etiam, quod etsi hsereticus peccat
dubitando de auctoritate Ecclesiae, in quam
(1) Matth. XXIII, 8. — (2) Joan. V, 3, 4. — (3) Joan. I, 7. ; XV, 27. — (4) Act. I, 8. — (5) Joan.
VII, 17. — (6) Joan. V, 44.; Luc. XVI, 14. — (7) Joan. X, 27. — (8) Luc. X, 16. — (9) Joan.
X, 5.
190
LIBER III.
per Baptismum regeneratus est, neque est
eadem conditio haeretici, qui -semel Fidem
professus est, et Judeei aut Ethnici qui nun¬
quam fuit Christianus : tamen posito hoc
dubio, et hoc peccato, non male facit scru¬
tando, et examinando, an loca Scripturae et
Patrum a Concilio Tridentino prolata ita se
habeant, modo id faciat intentione inve¬
niendi veritatem, non calumniandi. Deberet
quidem ille sine examine recipere doctrinam
Ecclesise : tamen melius est, ut examinando
praeparetur ad veritatem, quam negligendo
remaneat in suis fenebris.
Octavum argumentum Rom. XII : Haben¬
tes autem donationes secundum gratiam , quce
data est nobis, differentes : sive prophetiam se¬
cundum rationem Fidei , sive ministerium in
ministrando, etc. (1) Hic Apostolus docet, do-
uum prophetiae , id est , interpretationis
Scripturarum, haberi secundum rationem,
Graece ava^iav Fidei, id est, secundum men¬
suram, et proportionem Fidei ; igitur non
debet peti Scripturae interpretatio a Papa
vel Concilio, sed ab eo, qui magis Fide abun¬
dat, quicumque ille sit.
Respondeo : posset primo negari conse¬
quentia : nam Papa, et Concilium magis
abundat Fide, quam ullus homo privatus,
cum nec Papa ut docet ex cathedra, nec
Concilium in Fide errare possit : omnis au¬
tem homo privatus possit. Secundo posset
dici, prophetiam hoc loco non accipi pro in¬
terpretatione Scripturae , sed proprie pro
dono praedicendi futura, ut exponunt Am¬
brosius, Theodoretus, Theophylactus, Tho-
mas, et alii hoc loco, et Chrysostomus in I
Corinth. XIF. Sed tertio dico, quomodocum¬
que sumatur prophetia, sive pro dono prae¬
dicendi futura, sive pro dono interpretandi,
ex hoc loco nihil colligi contra nos : nam il¬
lud secundum rationem Fidei non conjungitur
cum verbo habentes, sed cum verbo subintel-
lecto aaministremus. Exponit enim Apostolus
usum gratiarum gratis datarum, et docet,
prophetiam debere administrari secundum
rationem Fidei, ita ut nemo vaticinetur ali¬
quid contra Fidem, ut faciebant Pseudopro¬
pheta), 'neque interpretetur Scripturas in ali¬
quem sensum Catholicae Fidei contrarium,
ut haeretici plerumque faciunt.
Nonum argumentum I Corinth. II : Spiri¬
tualis autem judicat omnia, et ipse a nemine ju¬
dicatur (2); igitur ad spirituales homines
pertinet interpretatio Scripturarum, non ad
Papam, aut ad Concilia. Respondeo : non
negamus, fuisse in Ecclesia et esse homines
spirituales et perfectos, qui recte interpre¬
tentur Scripturas , imo etiam futura pro¬
spiciunt, et cordium secreto scrutentur. Ne¬
gamus tamen, ad eos pertinere judicium de¬
finitivum controversiarum Fidei, duplici de
causa. Primo, quia non sumus certi certitu¬
dine Fidei, quinam sint isti spirituales, sicut
certi sumus, Papam et Concilium esse spiri¬
tuales, regi videlicet a Spiritu sancto. Se¬
cundo, quia scimus etiam maxime spiritua¬
les non semper illustrari, et quaedam inter¬
dum ignorare, ut patet de Elisaeo, qui ha¬
bebat duplicem spiritum Eliae, et tamen di¬
cit IV Reg. IV : Dominus celavit hoc a me, et
non indicavit mihi (3).
Dices : quid ergo significat illud Judicat
omnia? Dico : significare omnia tam spiritua¬
lia, quam temporalia ; tam coelestia, quam
terrena : dixerat enim, homines animales
non percipere quae Dei sunt, sed tantum ju¬
dicare posse de rebus terrenis : nunc dicit,
spirituales judicare omnia, id est, et terrena,
et divina ; non tamen sequitur, quod possit
omnia divina. Nam quis neget multos vete¬
rum Patrum habuisse excellenter donum in¬
terpretandi, et' fuisse spirituales, et tamen
constat quosdam ex praecipuis eorum non
leviter in quibusdam lapsos?
Decimum argumentum I Corinth. XII, lo-
quens Apostolus de dono interpretandi, et
similibus gratiis : Hcec omnia, inquit, opera¬
tur unus, atque idem spiritus dividens singulis
prout vult (4). Non est igitur alligatum hoc
donum Concilio, vel Papae, sed datur libere
a Deo cui ipse voluerit. Et confirmant, quia
saepe, praeteritis Sacerdotibus et Pontifici¬
bus, Deus excitavit Prophetas ex populo :
nam Amos erat pastor ovium, et tamen fac¬
tus est Propheta, et Debora mulier prophe¬
tavit/
Respondeo : Apostolum loqui de particu¬
laribus hominibus, ac dicere velle, non dari
omnibus hominibus passim donum interpre¬
tandi. Neque hinc sequitur, non esse in Con¬
cilio, vel Pontifice docente ex Cathedra do¬
num interpretationis : alia enim ratio est
Concilii et Pontificis, alia privatorum homi¬
num.
Ad illas confirmationes dico : privilegia
paucorum non facere legem generalem.
(1) Rom. XII, 6. — (2) I. Cor. II, 15. — (3) IV. Reg. IV, 27. — (4) I. Cor. XII, 11.
CAPUT X.
491
Quod si contendant dari omnibus, quia da¬
tum est Amos, et Deborae, etiam conclu¬
dent dari donum loquendi omnibus jumen¬
tis, quia datum est asinae Balaam. Praeterea,
aliud est loqui de novis revelationibus, aliud
de explicatione doctrinae jam acceptae : nam
novae revelationes non sunt alligatae Pontifi¬
cibus, nec nunc, nec in Testamento veteri.
Nam in Testamento veteri prophetabant
Isaias, Hieremias, et similes, non autem Aa-
ron, et ejus successores : et in testamento
novo prophetavit Agabus, et filiae Philippi,
et tamen Pontifices Linus, et Clemens, et
caeteri non prophetabant. At explicatio doc¬
trinae acceptae, et judicium de dogmatibus
semper spectavit ad Pontifices, ut supra os¬
tendimus.
Undecimum argumentum I Thessal. V :
Omnia probate , quod bonum est tenete , et I
Joan. IV : Nolite omni spiritui ctedere, sed
probate spiritus , si ex Deo sint (1). Igitur
etiam Concilii, et Papae sententia probanda,
et examinanda est : nihil enim Paulus et
Joannes excipiunt. Colligunt etiam ex his
locis, injuste prohiberi libros haereticorum,
cum Paulus dicat, omnia probate, etc.
Respondeo, et dico duo. Primo, Paulum
etJoannem cum aiunt, omnia probate , vel
probate spiritus, non velle dicere, ut omnes
de Ecclesia id faciant,' sed ut id faciant ii,
ad quos pertinet. Sicut si scribatur ad ali¬
quam Academiam, ut examinent aliquem li¬
brum, non significatur ut detur examinan¬
dus liber omnibus hominibus illius Acade¬
miae, sed tantum doctoribus ejus facultatis,
de qua liber ille tractat. Dico secundo : in
utroque loco agi de doctrina dubia, nam illa
sola probatione indiget. Non est autem doc¬
trina dubia librorum prohibitorum, aperte
enim est mala, cum sit examinata, et dam¬
nata : neque est doctrina dubia Concilio¬
rum, sed aperte bona. Et ideo Paulus Apo¬
stolus Act. XY. cum deferret ad Ecclesias
decretum Concilii Hierosolymitani, non di¬
cebat probate , sed praecipiebat custodire
decretum illud.
Duodecimum argumentum I. Joann. II
Non necesse habetis ut aliquis doceat v»s, sed
unctio docet vos de omnibus (2). Respondeo :
non loquitur Joannes absolute de cognitione
rerum divinarum, quasi non egeant magis¬
tro ulla in re, qui Spiritum sanctum acce¬
perunt. Nam. si ita esset; cur Joannes hanc
epistolam scriberet, et moneret ac instrue¬
ret eos, quos unctio docebat de omnibus?
et quorsum Deus in Ecclesia posuisset pas¬
tores, et doctores? loquitur igitur de iis
tantum dogmatibus quae jam acceperant ab
Apostolis, et cooperante unctione Spiritus
sancti didicerant, et crediderant : atque eos
monet, ut in Fide permaneant, et non prae¬
beant aures Pseudo-apostolis contraria do¬
centibus. Quomodo si Catholicus aliquis
scriberet Catholicis, qui ab haereticis obsi¬
derentur, et perturbarentur : non necesse
habetis, ut aliquis Lutheranus, vel Calvi-
nista doceat vos doctrinam Christi, omnino
enim quae vos scire oportet jam didicistis,
et tenetis ex praedicatione Ecclesiae adju¬
vante unctione Spiritus sancti. Hunc esse
gensum, docent verba praecedentia, et se¬
quentia; in praecedentibus sic ait : Non scrip¬
si vobis quasi ignorantibus veritatem , sed
quasi scientibus eam , et vos quod audistis ab
initio, in vobis permaneat : haec scripsi vobis de
his qui seducunt vos , etc. In sequentibus au¬
tem ait : Sicut docuit vos, manete in eo, ut
cum apparuerit, habeamus fiduciam, et non
confundamur in adventu ejus (3),
Decimumtertium argumentum. Apostolus
Ephes. cap. II scribit : Estis cives Sanctorum
et domestici Dei, superaedificati supra funda -
mentum Apostolorum et Prophetarum (4). At
si Scripturae intelligentia penderet a| Papa
vel a Conciliis, fundamentum nostrum esset
super Papa, et Conciliis magis, quam super
Apostolorum et Prophetarum scriptis.
Respondeo ad hoc argumentum, quod
saepe repetit, et inculcat Calvinus : nos non
negare, imo defendere contra negantes, ver¬
bum Dei ministratum per Apostolos et Pro¬
phetas esse primum fundamentum nostrae
Fidei; ideo enim credimus quidquid credimus,
quia Deus id per Apostolos, et Prophetas re¬
velavit: sed addimus, praeter hoc fundamen¬
tum primum, requiri aliud fundamentum se¬
cundarium, id est, Ecclesiae testificationem.
Neque enim scimus certo quid Deus revelave¬
rit, nisi ex testimonio Ecclesiae : et propterea
sicut legimus, Christum esse lapidem funda¬
mentalem, et fundamentum primum Eccle -
siae, ita legimus Matth. XVI de Petro super
(1) I. Thessal. V, 21.; I. Joan. IV, 1. — (2) I. Joan. II, 27. — (3) Ibid. 21 et 28. — (4) Eph. II,
19 et 20.
192
LIBER III.
hanc Petram cedificabo Ecclesiam meam {{).
Itaque Fides nostra adhaeret Christo primae
veritati revelanti mysteria, ut fundamento
primario : adhaeret etiam Petro, id est, Pon¬
tifici proponenti et explicanti haec mysteria,
ut fundamento secundario.
Decimumquartum argumentum. Si Ponti¬
fex judicat de Scripturis ; sequitur, Pontifi¬
cem seu Concilium esse supra Scripturam :
et si Scripturae sensus sine Pontifice vel Con¬
cilio non est authenticus ; sequitur, verbum
Dei accipere robur et firmitatem a verbo ho¬
minum etc.
Respondeo : hoc argumentum, quod ab
haereticis plurimi fit, totum in sequivocatio-
ne versari. Nam duobus modis potest intel-
ligi Ecclesiam judicare de Scripturis : uno
modo, quod judicet, verum ne sit an falsum
quod Scripturae docent : altero modo, quod
posito ut fundamento certissimo, Scripturaa
verba esse verissima, judicet quae sit vera
eorum interpretatio. Et quidem si primo
modo Ecclesia judicaret, vere esset supra
Scripturam, sed hoc non dicimus, quamvis
haeretici calumnientur id nos dicere, qui
passim vociferantur, nos subjicere Scriptu¬
ram pedibus Papae. At secundo modo judi¬
care Ecclesiam, vel Pontificem de Scripturis,
quod nos asserimus, non est Ecclesiam esse
supra Scripturam, sed supra judicia priva¬
torum hominum. Non enim judicat Ecclesia
de veritate Scripturae, sed de intelligentia
tua, et mea, et aliorum : neque hinc sumit
verbum Dei aliquod robur, sed intelligentia
nostra ; non enim Scriptura est verior, aut
certior, quia sic ab Ecclesia exponitur, sed
mea sententia est verior, quando ab Ecclesia
confirmatur.
Decimumquintum argumentum. Si a judi¬
cio Ecclesiae pendet Fides nostra, igitur a
verbo hominum ; ergo debilissimo nititur
fundamento. Praeterea Scriptura facta est
spiritu Dei ; ergo spiritu Dei, non Ecclesiae
intelligenda est.
Respondeo : verbum Ecclesiae, id est, Con¬
cilii, vel Pontificis docentis ex cathedra, non
esse omnino verbum hominis, id est, verbum
errori obnoxium, sed aliquo modo verbum
Dei, id est, prolatum assistente et gubernante
Spiritu sancto ; imo dico, haereticos esse
qui revera nitantur baculo arundineo. Scien¬
dum est enim, propositionem Fidei concludi
tali syllogismo. Quidquid Deus revelavit in
Scripturis est verum : hoc Deus revelavit in
Scripturis ; ergo hoc est verum. Ex propo¬
sitionibus hujus syllogismi prima certa est
apud omnes, secunda apud Catholicos est
etiam firmissima ; nititur enim testimonio
Ecclesiae, Concilii, vel Pontificis, de quibus
habemus in Scripturis apertas promissiones
quod errare non possint. Actor. XV. Visum
est Spiritui sancto et nobis. Et Luc. XXII, Ro¬
gavi pro te, ut non deficiat Fides tua (2). At
apud haereticos nititur solis conjecturis, vel
judicio proprii spiritus qui plerumque vide¬
tur bonus, et est malus : et cum conclusio
sequatur debiliorem partem ; sit necessario,
ut tota Fides haereticorum sit conjecturalis,
et incerta.
Decimumsextum argumentum. Augustinus
et alii Patres cum Scripturas exponunt, non
usurpant praetoriam judicandi potestatem,
sed permittunt explanationes suas ab aliis
judicari.
Respondeo : aliud est interpretari legem
more doctoris, aliud more judicis : ad ex¬
planationem more doctoris requiritur eru¬
ditio, ad explanationem more judicis. requi¬
ritur auctoritas. Doctor enim non proponit
sententiam suam ut necessario sequendam,
sed solum quatenus ratio suadet : at judex
proponit ut sequendam necessario. Aliter
accipimus glossas Bartholi et Baldi, aliter
declarationem Principis. Augustinus igitur,
et eseteri Patres in Commentariis fungeban¬
tur officio Doctorum : at Concilia, et Ponti¬
fices funguntur officio judicis a Deo sibi
commisso.
Decimumseptimum argumentum. « Augu¬
stinus contendit, Ecclesiam non debere se
Christo praeponere, quod ille semper vera¬
citer judicet ; Ecclesiastici autem judices,
sicut homines, plerumque falluntur. » Haec
sunt Calvini verba in prsefat. Instit. , ex qui¬
bus deducit, non esse Praelatos judices con¬
troversiarum.
Respondeo : in primis falso citari locum a
Calvino, is enim in margine ponit cap . 2,
contra Cresconium : at contra Gresconium
sunt quatuor libri, et in nullo eorum libro¬
rum cap. 2, illa verba inveniuntur, sed ha¬
bentur lib. II, cap. 21, ubi loquitur Augusti¬
nus de quaestionibus facti non juris, in qui¬
bus judices Ecclesiastici falli possunt. Docet
(1) Matth. XVI, 18. — (2) Act. XV, 28. ; Luc. XXII, 32.
CAPUT X.
193
enim, in eo saepe Ecclesiasticos judices falli,
quod eos baptizent, qui ficto animo acce¬
dunt ad Sacramentum, et tamen sincera vo¬
luntate accedere videntur. Et quoniam Cal¬
vinus videbat nihil pro se facere locum illum,
ideo forte non notavit distincte locum. Solet
enim alias satis diligenter notare libros, et
capita, praeterquam quando loca solutionem
secum ferunt apertissimam.
Alia multa argumenta, quae huc pertinere
posse videbantur, tunc solvemus, cum trac¬
tabimus : an Ecclesia, vel Concilium, vel
Papa errare possunt, et cujus sit in Conciliis
praesidere.