Book Three: On the Interpretation of the Word of God
Chapter Five: The Same is Proved from the New Testament
Now from the New Testament. The first testimony is Matthew ch.16, “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven etc.” For by these keys is understood not only the loosing from sins but also the loosing from all bonds and impediments which, unless they are taken away, entrance into the kingdom of heaven is impossible; for the promise is general; nor is it said, “whomever you loose,” but “whatever you loose,” so that we may understand that all knots, whether of laws by dispensing from them, or of sins and punishments by relaxing them, of or dogmas and controversies by explaining them, can be loosed by Peter and his successors. But we will say more about this place in the first book on the Supreme Pontiff.
The second testimony can be that of Matthew ch.18, “If he will not hear the Church let him to be to you as a heathen and a publican.” But one must observe in this place that here indeed the Lord is speaking of injuries which one person suffers from another, but a fortiori it should also be understood of injuries that are done against the whole Church and against God, of which sort is heresy. For he who bids an adulterer to be brought to the judgment of the Church, much more bids a heretic to be so. But it cannot be that they be brought to the congregation of all the faithful; therefore by the name of the Church must 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 his head, and yet the whole man is said to speak and to hear, so the Church hears and speaks through its Prelates. If therefore he who does not hear the Church, that is, the Pastors of the Church, ought to be as a heathen and a publican, it follows that ultimate judgment belongs with the Pastors.
The third testimony is from Matthew ch.23, “The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, and whatever they say to you, that keep and do, but do not according to their works.” Here note three things. First, that in this whole chapter the Lord is censuring the vices of the Scribes and Pharisees; and because the infirm could collect from this that one should not believe Prelates who live badly, therefore he wished at the beginning of the chapter to teach openly that, notwithstanding the bad life of Prelates, their doctrine should be followed. Second, note with Cyprian bk.4 epist.9, that never did the Lord or the Apostles in the whole of Scripture censure the Pontiffs and priests of the Jews, by naming them Pontiffs and priests, but only under the name of Scribes and Pharisees; lest they should seem to be censuring the chair and the priesthood, and so that we might understand that honor is always due to the priesthood and the pontificate, even if by chance the person who sits on the chair is less good. From which we understand that the heretics of this time, who inveigh everywhere against Bishops and priests, and especially against the Supreme Pontiff of the Church, have nothing in common with the morals of the Lord and of the Apostles. Third, note that what the Lord says of the chair of Moses is understood a fortiori of the chair of Peter. For thus did the ancients understand, and especially Augustine in epist.165, who says, “In the order of Bishops, which is traced from Peter up to Anastasius who now sits on the same chair, even if some traitor had during that time crept in, there would be no prejudice to the Church and to innocent Christians, to whom the Lord by foresight says about evil leaders, ‘What they say, do; what they do, do not do’.”
The fourth testimony is the last chapter of John, “Simon Peter, feed my sheep.” Here also three things are to be noted. First, that what is said to Peter is also said to his successors; for Christ did not want to provide for his Church for twenty five years only, but for as long as the world would last. Second, the ‘feed’ is understood in particular of doctrine, for thus are rational sheep fed, Jeremiah ch.3, “I will give you pastors in accord with my heart, and they will feed you with knowledge and doctrine.” Third, the ‘sheep’ signifies all Christians, for he who does not wish to be fed by Peter is not of the sheep of Christ.
From these the result is that it was singularly committed to Peter and his successors to teach all Christians. But that cannot be more properly understood than in this way, that we should say it was committed to Peter and his successors to teach everyone what should be held in doctrine of faith. For if we understand it only of homilies, this precept will never be fulfilled; for the Pontiff cannot preach to all men, nor is there need, since in each individual Church there are those who preach.
If we also understand it only of homilies and comments on sacred letters, so that whom the Pontiff cannot teach by word he teaches by written commentaries, we may censure many of the most holy Pontiffs, who did no such thing. Therefore the Lord is speaking of a singular office of teaching the whole Church, by establishing and decreeing what all should believe. And in this way did Blessed Jerome understand this place in his epistle to Damasus about the word hypostasis, for when asking the Pontiff for an explanation of a certain controversy about the faith he says, “Ask for protection of the sheep from the pastor.”
The fifth testimony is Luke ch.22, “I have asked for thee, that thy faith fail not, and when thou art converted, confirm they brethren.” From this place Blessed Bernard epist.90 to Innocent, deduces that the Roman Pontiff when teaching ex cathedra cannot err, and before Bernard so did Lucius I in his epistle to the Bishops of Spain and France, Felix I in his epistle to Benignus, Marcus in his epistle to Athanasius, Leo in serm.3 about his assumption to the Pontificate, Leo IX in his epistle to Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, Agatho in his epistle to the Emperor Constantine, which was read at the sixth Synod act.4, and then in act.8 was approved by the whole Council, Paschal II in the Roman Council, in Abbot Vispergensis in his Chronicle; to whom I add, whether the heretics will or no, Innocent III ch. Maiores, on baptism and its effect. If therefore the Roman Pontiff cannot err when teaching ex cathedra, certainly one should acquiesce in his judgment, and he himself must be supreme Judge.
The sixth testimony is Acts ch.15, for there we read that when a serious question arose about the faith, whether the law of Moses should be kept by the converted Gentiles, they were not referred each to his own spirit, but to the Council held at Jerusalem, over which Peter presided, and Peter spoke first of all in the Council, then James confirmed the opinion of Peter, and thus the question was resolved in these words, “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, etc.” By which words they show that the opinion of the Council, presided over by Peter, is the opinion of the Holy Spirit. And in the same place at the end of the chapter we read that Paul was accustomed, wherever he went, to prescribe that they keep the decree of the Council, that is, they should acquiesce and not wish themselves to judge the opinion of the Council.
The seventh testimony is Galatians ch.2, “I went up,” says Paul, “to Jerusalem with Barnabas and I communicated to them the Gospel that I preach among the Gentiles; but separately with those who seemed to be something, lest perhaps I should run or had run in vain.” Now who they were with whom he consulted he explains later, saying they were Peter, James, and John. When explaining this place Tertullian Against Marcion bk.4, Blessed Jerome in epist.89 to Augustine, which is number 11 among the epistles of Augustine, and Augustine Against Faustus bk.28 ch.4, expressively affirm that the Church would not believe Paul unless his gospel had been confirmed by Peter. Therefore it was Peter’s job then, and accordingly his successor’s job now, to judge the doctrine of faith.
The eighth testimony is I Corinthians ch.12, “To another is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, to another the interpretation of words, to another prophecy etc.”
Here it is openly said that the spirit of interpreting the Scriptures is not give to all the faithful. And it is in addition clear from II Peter ch.1, “No prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation,” that the Scripture cannot be well expounded without the spirit of interpretation.
Therefore is evidently collected that no private man is judge of the true sense of Scripture. For what will he do who does not have the spirit? Nay who will be certain that he has this spirit, since we know it is not given to all and we do not know to whom it is given? It remains then that we acknowledge the Church alone to be the judge, about which there can be no doubt but that it has the Spirit of God and teaches its sons without error, since it is the pillar and ground of the truth. This point even Luther on the Power of the Pope confesses in these words (whatever he wrote elsewhere, as he was varying and unstable in a remarkable way), “About no private man are we certain whether he has the revelation of the Father or not; but the Church is that about which one is not permitted to doubt, etc.” Further, the Church does not otherwise speak than through the mouth of the Pastors and Doctors, and especially when gathered in a general Council.
But, they say, he is certain he has it who asks; for it is written, Luke ch.11, “How much more will the Father give the good Spirit to those who ask him,” and James ch.1, “If one of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God who gives to all abundantly.” I reply that in these and similar places the Lord is not speaking 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 tracts.73, 81, 102 on John, a prayer does not infallibly have its effect save for what is necessary or useful for the salvation of him who prays. Further, the gift of interpreting, like the gift of tongues and miracles, and others there enumerated, is not always useful to him who has them.
Just as therefore we cannot always obtain by prayer the spirit of speaking in tongues or of performing miracles, even if it is written, “I will give the good spirit to those who ask,” so neither the spirit of interpretation. For otherwise it could happen that the whole body of the Church would be one member, that is, all would be eyes and all hands, etc., contrary to the Apostle Romans ch.12 and I Corinthians ch.12.
Besides, even if the Lord in these places were speaking 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 you do not receive, because you ask badly,” James ch.4. Otherwise, since the Lutherans ask for this spirit, and the Anabaptists, and the Zwinglians, how is it that they receive very diverse and mutually conflicting spirits, if to all who ask the one and true Holy Spirit is given?
The ninth testimony is I John ch.4, “Most beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are from God. For many false prophets have gone out into the world.” The spirit of private men is to be tested whether it is from God; for many boast of the Holy Spirit who are driven by the spirit of giddiness and mendacity, as is said III Kings last chapter, II Chronicles, Isaiah chs.19 and 29.
Therefore private spirit cannot be the judge. For how will it be judge since about it judgment must still be made?
Wherefore, if someone expounds “This is my body” as “This signifies my body,” because so the spirit reveals to him, the question will still not be defined. For John advises that we test the spirit whether it is from God, lest rather perhaps it be the spirit of giddiness. But it cannot be tested from Scripture, as they wish, because we are in doubt here about a sentence of Scripture itself, therefore it must be tested from conformity with the spirit of those who it is clear have the true spirit, but such are the Prelates legitimately congregated in a Council. For we read Acts ch.15 that the Council said, “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us;” such also now is the Pontiff teaching ex cathedra, whom we showed is always directed by the Holy Spirit so that he cannot err; such too were the Apostles and the ancient faithful, who it is certain had the Holy Spirit.
Nor can Calvin deny it, seeing that on this place he reasons in Institutes bk.1 ch.9 sect.1 against Svenckfeld, who wanted the Spirit alone to be judge, having repudiated the Scriptures. If this spirit were good, it would be the same as the spirit of the Apostles and the first faithful; but their spirit did not wish to be judge to the contempt of the Scriptures. But now we too argue against Calvin and other heretics: if their spirit were good, it would be the same as the spirit of the Apostles and the first faithful, but their spirit did not wish to be judge but had recourse to Peter and the Council, and acquiesced in their opinion, as we showed above in Acts ch.15.
Therefore their spirit, which makes itself judge, is not the good spirit.
Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME