Book Three: On the Interpretation of the Word of God

Chapter Ten: the Objections are Solved

But they object first the verse of Isaiah ch.54, “I will give all your sons to be taught by God.”

I reply that Isaiah is not speaking of a private spirit giving revelation, but he is speaking of the doctrine of the Gospel, which God himself, that is, Christ preached and taught, as Cyril expounds on this place, and the sense is that I will teach the Christian people not through Prophets but by myself, according to that verse of Hebrews ch.1, “In many forms and in many ways, etc.” Or (and this is a subtle and more genuine interpretation) he is speaking of the grace of the Holy Spirit whereby man is interiorly moved by God and is sweetly impelled to believe and love, as Blessed Augustine expounds in his book on the Grace of Christ chs.12-­‐14. Therefore the sense is not that all Christians will by divine revelation understand all the secrets of the Scriptures, but that they will be such as not only to hear a master explaining the word of God outwardly but also to hear God the master persuading them inwardly so that they do what they hear. While the homily is being given, all hear and understand what is said, but one believes, another does not believe; one is converted from sin to penitence, another is not converted; the former are said to be taught by God, the latter not. In this sense does the Lord from this place bring forward testimony, John ch.6, “It is written,” he says, “in the prophets, and they will all be taught of God. All who have heard the Father and learnt come to me.” And the Apostle I Thessalonians ch.4, “About the charity of brotherhood we have no necessity to write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love each other.”

The second argument is from Jeremiah ch.31, “I will give my law in their hearts, and in their heart I will write it, and a man will no longer teach his neighbor saying, Know the Lord, for everyone will know me from the least of them to the greatest of them.”

I reply with Augustine on the Spirit and Letter ch.24 that in these words “I will give my law etc.” is signified the grace of the New Testament, that is, faith working through charity, which God pours out in our hears, so that not only do we know but we also fulfill the divine commands; but in the words “and a man will no longer teach etc.” is signified the reward of faith, that is, beatitude, in which all the elect will see God face to face.

But if someone contends that these last words too are to be understood of the present time, one can reply that here the Prophet is not speaking of the hidden mysteries of the Scriptures but of knowledge of the one God. For since in the time of the Old Testament not only did the Gentiles adore false gods but also very frequently the people of God turned to idols and strange gods, Jeremiah predicted the future, that in the time of the New Testament all men would know the one God, which we certainly see now to have been fulfilled. For the Gentiles have been converted to the faith, and also the Jews themselves and the Turks, although they are impious, yet worship the one God.

The third argument is from Matthew ch.23, “But do not you wish to be called rabbi, for one is your master, Christ.” Therefore we should be content with the sole internal Teacher.

I reply, God does not forbid the name and office of master, but the ambition and affectation of this honor. For II Timothy ch.1 the Apostle calls himself the teacher and master of the Gentiles. Besides in Matthew ch.23 the Lord censured the Scribes and Pharisees because “they loved the first seats and to be greeted by men as rabbi;” and in the same place he says, “and do not call anyone father on earth,” although however it is more certain than certain that not the name or office of father is forbidden, but too great affection for parents.

The fourth argument is from John ch.5, “Therefore I do not receive testimony from man.” The Word of God, therefore, does not receive testimony from the word of man; but the Pontiff and the Council are men; therefore the Scriptures do not need their testimony, but are per se sufficient for taking away all controversies.

I reply that Christ did not need the testimony of man for himself, because he had greater testimonies, but yet he used the testimonies of men for others’ sake.

John ch.1, “He came as testimony, to give testimony to the light.” And John ch.15, “You will give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning.” Acts ch.1, “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea.” Finally why are martyrs called martyrs save because they were witnesses for Christ? When, therefore, the Lord says, “You sent to John, and he gave testimony to the truth, but I do not receive testimony from man, but this I say so that you may be saved.” The sense is, I offer you the testimony of John, which you asked for; not that I need him for myself, but because it is useful for you, so that you may believe. In the same way Scripture does not need the testimony of men for itself; for whether it is understood or not it is in itself very true, yet it needs the testimony of the Church for the sake of us, who otherwise are not certain which books are truly sacred and divine nor what is their true and genuine understanding.

The fifth argument is from John ch.7, “If anyone wishes to do his will who sent me, he will recognize from my doctrine whether it is from God.” Therefore, beside the spirit of the love of God no other master is needed for understanding the Scriptures.

I reply that the Lord does not say this to show that all good men can per se understand all places of Scripture, but to teach that honest men lack certain of the impediments because of which certain others can neither themselves nor through others understand the truth of the faith; for love of glory and riches and the like things blinds their eyes. Hence John ch.5, “How can you believe who receive glory from each other?” And Luke ch.16, “The Pharisees, who were avaricious, heard all these things and they mocked him.”

The sixth argument is from John ch.10, “My sheep hear my voice and they follow me.” Therefore we do not need any other preceptor.

I reply that the Lord is speaking of the predestined, as Augustine here expounds, who altogether hear the call of God before death, and follow him persevering to the end; nor is the discussion here about the difficulties of the Scriptures. But even if it were a question of understanding the Scriptures, we would 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 ch.10, “He who hears you hears me.” For neither when the Lord says, “my sheep hear my voice,” does he exclude his Vicars but his enemies. For thus does he say in the same place, “they do not follow a stranger.” And “they do not hear the voice of strangers.”

The seventh argument is from Acts ch.17, “The Beroenses examined the Scriptures whether things were so as Paul preached.” If it was licit for these men, who were without doubt laymen, to examine the words of Paul, why would it not be licit for us to examine the words of the Pope and of the Councils?

I reply that although Paul was an Apostle and could not preach false doctrine, yet it was not at the beginning clear to the Beroenses, nor were they held to believe at once unless they saw miracles or other probable reasons for belief. Therefore when Paul proved Christ to them from the oracles of the Prophets, they rightly examined the Scriptures whether these things were so. But Christians, for whom it is clear that the Church cannot err in explaining the doctrine of the faith, are held to receive it and not to doubt whether these things are so.

I add too that although a heretic sins by doubting of the authority of the Church into which he has been regenerated by baptism, and although the condition of a heretic, who has once professed the faith, is not the same as that of a Jew or a heathen who was never a Christian, yet once this doubt and this sin exist, he does not do ill in examining and investigating whether the places of Scripture and the Fathers brought forward by the Council of Trent are so, provided he do it with the intention of finding, not misrepresenting, the truth. He should indeed accept without examination the doctrine of the Church, yet it is better that by examination he be prepared for the truth than that by neglect he remain in his darkness.

The eighth argument is from Romans ch.12, “But having different gifts, according to the grace that is given us; whether prophecy according to the reason of faith, or ministry in ministering, etc.” Here the Apostle teaches that the gift of prophecy, that is, of interpretation of the Scriptures, is had according to the reason, or in the Greek the analogy, of the faith; therefore the interpretation of Scripture is not to be sought from the Pope or a Council but from him who abounds more in faith, whoever he is.

I reply first that the consequence can be denied; for the Pope and a Council abound more in faith than any private man, since neither the Pope, when he teaches ex cathedra, nor a Council can err in the faith; but any private man can. Second, one could say that prophecy in this place is not taken for interpretation of Scripture but properly for the gift of predicting the future, as is expounded by Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact, Thomas, and others on this place, and by Chrysostom on I Corinthians ch.12. But I say, third, that however prophecy be taken, whether for the gift of predicting the future or for the gift of interpreting, nothing can be collected against us from this place; for the ‘according to the reason of faith’ is not conjoined with the verb ‘having’ but with the verb ‘let us administer’ understood. For the Apostle is explaining the use of graces freely given, and he is teaching that prophecy should be administered according to the reason of faith, so that no one should prophesy anything against the faith, as the False Prophets did, nor should he interpret the Scriptures in any sense contrary to the Catholic Faith, as heretics for the most part do.

The ninth argument is from I Corinthians ch.12, “Now the spiritual man judges all things but is himself judged by no one.” Therefore the interpretation of the Scriptures pertains to spiritual men, not to the Pope or to Councils.

I reply that we do not deny that there were and are in the Church spiritual and perfect men who rightly interpret the Scriptures, nay who even foresee the future and scrutinize the secrets of hearts. Yet we deny that definitive judgment about controversies of the faith pertains to them, and for two reasons. First, because we are not certain with the certitude of faith who are these spiritual men, in the way we are certain that the Pope and Councils are spiritual, namely ruled by the Holy Spirit. Second, because we also know that the most spiritual men are not always illumined, and that sometimes there are things they do not know, as is plain of Elisha, who had the double spirit of Elijah, and yet says IV Kings ch.4 that the Lord hid this from me and did not show it to me.

You will say, what then does the ‘he judges all things’ signify? I say that it signifies all things both spiritual and temporal, both heavenly things and earthly. For he had said that animal men do not perceive 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 things; yet it does not follow that he has power for all divine things; for who denies that many of the ancient Fathers had in excellent fashion the gift of interpreting and that they were spiritual, and yet it is clear that some of the chief of them had no slight falls in some things?

The tenth argument is from I Corinthians ch.12, when the Apostle speaks of the gift of interpreting and of the like graces. “All these things,” he says, “are worked by one and the same spirit dividing to each as he wills.” This gift, then, is not tied to a Council or to the Pope, but is given freely by God to whom he wills. And they confirm it by the fact that often God, passing over the priests and the Pontiffs, raised up Prophets from the people; for Amos was a pastor of sheep and yet became a Prophet, and Deborah a woman prophesied.

I reply that the Apostle is speaking of particular men and means to say that the gift of interpreting is not everywhere given to all men. Nor does it follow from this that the gift of interpreting is not in a Council or a Pontiff teaching ex cathedra. For there is one account of Council and Pontiff and another of private men.

To the confirmations I say the privileges of a few do not make a general law.

But if they maintain that it was given to all because it was given to Amos and Deborah, let them 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 to speak of explaining a doctrine already accepted; for new revelations are not tied to the Pontiffs, neither now nor in the Old Testament. For in the Old Testament Isaiah, Jeremiah and the like prophesied, but Aaron and his successors did not; and in the New Testament Agabus and the daughters of Philip prophesied and yet the Pontiffs Linus and Clement and the rest did not prophesy.

But the explanation of doctrine already accepted, and judgment about dogmas, always had regard to the Pontiffs, as we showed above.

The eleventh argument is from II Thessalonians ch.5, “Prove all things, hold on to what is good.” And I John ch.4, “Do not believe every spirit, but prove the spirits whether they be of God.” Therefore even the opinion of Council and Pope should be proved and examined; for Paul and John except nothing. The adversaries even collect from this place that the books of heretics are unjustly prohibited, since Paul says to prove all things etc.

I reply and say, first, that when Paul and John say to prove all things, or to prove the spirits, they do not mean to say that everyone from the Church should do this, but that they should do it to whom it pertains. Just as if it were written to some Academy that they should examine some book, the signification is not that the book be given for examination to all the men of that Academy, but only to the doctors of the faculty about which the book treats. I say, second, that in both places dubious doctrine is being treated of, since it alone needs to be proved. But the doctrine of prohibited books is not dubious, for it is openly evil, since it has been examined and condemned; nor is the doctrine of Councils dubious, but openly good. And therefore the Apostle Paul in Acts ch.15, when he delivered to the Churches the decree of the Council of Jerusalem, did not say to prove it, but commanded them to keep the decree.

The twelfth argument is from I John ch.2, “You have no need that anyone should teach you, but the unction teaches you about all things.”

I reply that John is not speaking absolutely of the knowledge of divine things, as if they who have received the Holy Spirit do not need a master in anything. For if so why would John write this letter and warn and instruct those who were being taught about all things by the unction? And why did God place pastors and doctors in the Church? Therefore he is speaking only of those dogmas that had already been accepted by the Apostles and that, with the cooperation of the unction of the Holy Spirit, they had taught and believed. And he warns them to remain in the faith and not to give their ears to false Prophets teaching the contrary. In this way, if some Catholic were to write to Catholics, who were besieged and perturbed by heretics, and say ‘You have no need that any Lutheran or Calvinist should teach you the doctrine of Christ, for you have altogether learnt what you ought to know, and you hold it from the preaching of the Church aided by the unction of the Holy Spirit’.

That this is the sense is taught by the preceding and the following words. In the preceding words he speaks thus, “I have not written to you as to those not knowing the truth but as to those knowing it. And may what you have heard from the beginning remain in you. I have written this about those who are seducing you, etc.” But in the following words he says, “Just as I taught, remain therein, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not be confounded at his coming.”

The thirteenth argument is from the Apostle in Ephesians ch.2, who writes, “You are citizens of the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.”

But if the understanding of the Scriptures depended on Pope and Councils, our foundation would be on the Pope and the Councils rather on the writings of the Apostles and Prophets.

I reply to this argument what Calvin often repeats and inculcates, that we do not deny, nay we defend against deniers, that the word of God ministered through Apostles and Prophets is the first foundation of our faith. For that is why we believe what we believe, because God revealed it through Apostles and Prophets; but we add that besides this first foundation there is required a secondary foundation, that is, the attestation of the Church. For we do not know with certainty what God has revealed save from the testimony of the Church, and for that reason we read that Christ is the foundation stone and the first foundation of the Church; thus do we read in Matthew ch.16 about Peter, “on this Peter I will build my Church.” Therefore our faith adheres to Christ, the first truth, who reveals the mysteries, as to the primary foundation; we also adhere to Peter, that is, to the Pontiff proposing and explaining these mysteries, to the secondary foundation.

The fourteenth argument. If the Pontiff judges of the Scriptures, it follows that the Pontiff or a Council is above the Scriptures; and if the sense of Scripture without the Pontiff or Council is not authentic, it follows that the word of God receives strength and firmness from the word of men, etc.

I reply that this argument, which is made a great deal of by heretics, turns entirely on an equivocation; for in two ways can the Church be understood to judge of the Scriptures. In one way that it judges whether what the Scriptures teach is true or false; in a second way that, having set down as a most certain foundation that the words of Scripture are most true, it judges what is their true interpretation. And indeed if in the first way the Church were to judge, it would truly be above the Scriptures; but this we do not say, although the heretics falsely say that we do, who are vociferous everywhere that we subject Scripture to the feet of the Pope. But for the Church or the Pope to judge of the Scriptures in the second way, as we affirm, is not for the Church to be above Scripture but above the judgments of private men.

For the Church does not judge of the truth of Scripture but of your understanding, and mine, and that of others. Nor does the word of God take hence any strength, but our understanding does. For Scripture is not truer or more certain because it is expounded thus 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 it depends on the word of men, therefore it rests on a very 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 reply that the word of the Church, that is, of a Council or the Pope teaching ex cathedra, is not altogether the word of man, that is, a word subject to error, but in some way the word of God, that is, pronounced with the assistance and governance of the Holy Spirit; nay I say that it is the heretics who truly rest on a reed stalk. For one must know that a proposition of faith can be proved by the following syllogism. Whatever God has revealed in the Scriptures is true; God has revealed this in the Scriptures; therefore this is true. Of the propositions of this syllogism the first is certain for all, and the second is also very firm for Catholics, for it rests on the testimony of the Church, of a Council or of the Pontiff, about which we have in the Scriptures open promises that they cannot err. Acts ch.15, “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” Luke ch.22, “I have asked for you, that your faith fail not.” But among the heretics it rests on mere conjectures, or the judgment of their own spirit, which for the most part seems good and is bad; and since the conclusion follows the weaker premise, it is necessary that the whole faith of heretics is conjectural and uncertain.

The sixteenth argument. Augustine and other Fathers, when they expound the Scriptures, do not usurp the praetorian power of judging, but allow their explanations to be judged by others.

I reply that it is one thing to interpret the law in the manner of a doctor and another in the manner of a judge; to explain in the manner of a doctor there is required learning; to explain in the manner of judge there is required authority. For a doctor does not propose his opinion as to be necessarily followed but only as far as reason persuades; but a judge proposes it as necessarily to be followed. We take in one way the glosses of Bartholus and Baldus, in another way the declaration of a prince. Augustine therefore and other Fathers were in their commentaries fulfilling the office of doctors; but the Councils and the Pontiffs are fulfilling the office of judge committed to them by God.

The seventeenth argument. “Augustine contends that one should not put the Church before Christ, because Christ always judges truly; but Ecclesiastical judges, as men, are often deceived.” These are the words of Calvin in the preface to his Institutes, from which he deduces that Prelates are not the judges of controversies.

I reply that to begin with the place is falsely cited by Calvin; for he puts in the margin that it is in Against Cresconius ch.2 But there are four books against Cresconius, and in no chapter 2 of these books are these words found, but they are contained in bk.2 ch.22, where Augustine is speaking of questions of fact, not of right, in which Ecclesiastical judges can be deceived. For he teaches that Ecclesiastical judges are often deceived in this, that they baptize those who come in pretended spirit to the sacrament, and yet they seem to come with a sincere will.

And since Calvin sees that this place does nothing for him, therefore perhaps he did not distinctly note the place. For he is wont otherwise to note books and chapters carefully, except when the places bring with them a very open solution.

The many other arguments that seem capable of pertaining to this matter we will solve when we treat of them, whether the Church or a Council or the Pope can err, and to whom it belongs to preside at Councils.

  Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME