Book Three: On the Interpretation of the Word of God

Chapter Four: Testimonies are Adduced from the Old Testament for the Opinion of Catholics

The opinion of Catholics is now proved, first from testimonies of the Old Testament. The first testimony is contained in Exodus ch.18, for there we read that when the people of God began to be reduced to some form of Ecclesiastical Republic, Moses sat as prince and chief of the Church, and he responded to all doubts that arose about the law of the Lord, and he did not send men to some spirit giving revelation. In the same place, although he had established, according to the counsel of his father in law, minor magistrates to rule the people, yet he always reserved doubts about religion to himself, surely so that we would understand that there should be one common tribunal from which all should seek interpretation of the divine law, and in which all would simply acquiesce.

This argument is wont to be eluded by some in that they say Moses was a political prince, not a Pontiff or a priest, since Aaron was the supreme Pontiff. And therefore one cannot from this place conclude that judgment about matters of faith pertains to Pontiffs, but that it in some way pertains to Kings. I reply that Moses was Pontiff, and indeed supreme Pontiff and greater than Aaron, not indeed the ordinary one to whom there would be succession, for that could only be one and he was Aaron, but an extraordinary one especially set up by God. Just as in the New Testament all the Apostles were not indeed greater, nor altogether on a par, but yet in some way equal with Peter in Ecclesiastical power, as Cyprian teaches in his tract on the Simplicity of Prelates; but with this difference, that Peter was ordinary Pastor of the whole Church, to whom alone there was succession, and the rest were extraordinary, to whom there was not to be succession in that power. But that Moses was priest is testified to by David when he says in Psalm 98, “Moses and Aaron among the priests, and Samuel with them, who invoke the name of the Lord.”

But, they say, Moses was called priest because he was the principal man, in the way that in II Kings ch.8 we read that the sons of David were priests. On the contrary, however, because if in this place the principal men were called priests, Samuel too, who was principal man, would have been called a priest. But this was not done by David, who knew that Samuel was not priest but only judge; for he did not descend from the family of Aaron but of Core, his cousin, I Chronicles ch.6. But Moses was truly and properly priest, as is plain from Exodus chs.28-­‐29, where Moses exercises all the sacerdotal functions. For he sacrifices, teaches, consecrates vestments, and, what is greater, anoints and initiates priests. Wherefore Moses was properly priest, as almost all the ancients teach, Philo on the Life of Moses bk.3 at the end, Dionysius Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ch.5, Gregory Nazianzen in the homily he gave in the presence of Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine on Psalm 98, Jerome Against Jovinian bk.1, where he also shows that Samuel was not priest.

The second testimony is contained in Deuteronomy ch.17, where a general law is passed, “If you perceive that a judgment is difficult and ambiguous for you, between cause and cause, leper and non-­‐leper, and you see that the words of the judges within your gates is various, arise and go to the place which the Lord your God has chosen, and you shall come to the priest of the family of Levi and to the judge who will be at that time, and you will ask of them, and they will shown the truth of judgment to you. And you shall do whatever they say who preside over the place that the Lord chooses, and they will teach you according to his law, and you will follow their sentence, nor will you decline to the right or to the left. But he who is proud, not willing to obey the command of the priest who at that time ministers to the Lord your God, he will die by decree of the judge.” Here too very clearly they do not send doubters back to their own spirit, but to a living judge, that is, to the High Priest.

But Brentius objects that this precept is conditional, because there is added, “You shall do whatever they say who preside over the place and they will teach you according to his law.” For it seems from this place that one should not stand by the judgment of the High Priest unless he puts forward the testimony of the divine law. I reply that the ‘and they will teach you, etc.’ is only in the Vulgate edition, which Lutherans do not accept, nor does it indicate a condition but an assertion or a promise; for it does not mean to say, ‘Stand by the judgment of the priest if he teaches you according to the law’, for then men would have been more doubtful and perplexed than before; nor would there have been need to go to a priest if they could themselves have per se judged their cause from the law of the Lord. Nay, the priest would not then have been judge but they themselves, as being those who were to judge of the sentence of the priest. It is not therefore a condition but a promise. For the Lord wants to make secure the people who acquiesce in the judgment of the priest, which he does when he affirms that the priests will judge according to his law.

Second Brentius objects that in this place those who doubt are sent not only to a priest but also to a judge; but a judge was a political prince. I reply that by name of judge can here be understood the Prince of the priests; for in Hebrew it says, “Go up to the priests and the judge,” as if to say, to the Council of Priests and their Prince, the Chief Priest. I say second that if by the name of judge we understand a political prince, there are here distinct offices. For to the priest was given the definitive sentence, but to the judge the execution of it against the stubborn, “But he who is proud, not willing to obey the command of the priest who at that time ministers to the Lord your God, he will die by decree of the judge.”

They object, third, that what is being dealt with here is not doubts of religion but political doubts. I reply that this is false; for the law is general about all doubts that were arising from the law. Besides the occasion for this law was because of those who serve alien gods, as is plain from the beginning of the chapter. But to serve alien gods is against religion.

The third testimony is from Ecclesiastes ch.12, “The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails deeply fixed, which are given by the counsel of the masters from the one pastor. Do not, my son, seek further into these.” In this place Solomon teaches that one should not further inquire but acquiesce wholly when a sentence has been given by the supreme Pastor, especially when the counsel of the wise is added to it. But if these things are said about a priest of the Old Testament, how much more can they be said about a priest of the New Testament, who has received much greater promises from God?

The fourth testimony is from Haggai ch.2, “These things says the Lord God of hosts, ask the priests the law.” Malachi ch.2, “The lips of the priest will guard knowledge, and they will ask the law from his mouth, because he is the Angel of the Lord of hosts.” From which words we understand that to judge of the sentence of the law of the Lord does not belong to private men but to the priest, to whom, since he is an Angel, that is, a messenger of God, pertains by office the explication of the sentence of God.

Add finally the verse from 2 Chronicles ch.19, the very good King Josaphat speaks to the priests, “Every cause that comes to you from your brothers who inhabit your cities, between relative and relative, whenever there is a question about the law, the command, the ceremonies, the justifications, show it to them, so that they sin not against the Lord. But Amarias the priest and your Pontiff will preside in matters that pertain to God; further Zabadiah, son of Ismahel, who is leader in the house of Judah, will be above the works that pertain to the office of the King.” Do you see here how clearly he distinguishes the office of Pontiff from the office of King, and attributes only to the Pontiff judgment about doubts of law?

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