Book Three: On the Interpretation of the Word of God
Chapter Three: A Question is Posed about the Judge of Controversies, and Discussion is given at the same time about the Senses of the Scriptures
Since it has been established that Scripture is obscure and needs an interpreter, another question follows: whether the interpretation of Scripture must be sought from some single, visible, and common judge or left to each one’s decision. Which is surely a very serious question, and on it depend almost all controversies. Many have written on this question, but especially John Driedo on Ecclesiastical Dogmas bk.1 ch.3, John Cochlaeus on the Authority of Scripture and the Church, Cardinal Warmiensis Against the Prolegomena of Brentius bks.2-‐3, Peter de Soto in Defense of his Confession, against the same Prolegomena of Brentius pp.2-‐3, and Michael Medina on Right Faith in God bk.7, and Melchior Cano on Theological Places bk.2 chs.6-‐8.
To begin with then, in order to understand what is being sought for, certain things must be noted in advance. And first about the sense of Scripture. For it is proper to the divine Scripture that it has God for author and very often contains two senses, the literal or historical and the spiritual or mystical. The literal sense is what the words immediately present; the spiritual sense is how there is reference to something other than what the words immediately signify; and this division is collected from the Apostle on I Corinthians ch.19 where he says that everything happened to the Jews in figure for our correction. And what is literally said about the departure of the Jews from Egypt – the crossing of the sea, the manna that rained down in the desert, the water that flowed from the rock – he accommodates to Christians. That these two senses are also signified by the book written within and without, which is dealt with in Apocalypse ch.5 and Ezekiel ch.2, is taught by Jerome on Ezekiel ch.2.
Philo in his book on the Life of Theorica and Nazianzen to Nemesius compare the literal sense to the body and the spiritual to the soul; and just as the begotten Word of God has an invisible divine nature and a visible human nature, so the written word of God has an exterior sense and an interior sense. Now, that this is proper to divine Scripture alone is taught by Blessed Gregory Morals bk.21 ch.1.
Further, the literal sense is double; one is simple, which consists in the propriety of the words, the other is figurative, whereby the words are transferred from their natural signification to a foreign one. And there are as many kinds of this as there are kinds of figures. When the Lord in John ch.10 says, “I have other sheep that are not of this flock, etc.,” the sense is literal but figurative, that he has other men besides the Jews to gather into the Church. Which is said properly in John ch.21, that he would gather the sons of God, who were scattered about, into one. See on these figurative locutions Augustine Christian Doctrine bk.3.
Now, the spiritual sense is distinguished by more recent Theologians into three, the allegorical, the tropological, and the anagogical. They call it allegorical when the words of Scripture signify, besides the literal sense, something in the New Testament that pertains to Christ or the Church, in the way that Abraham, who literally in fact had two wives, one free and one slave, and two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, signified God as author of two Testaments and as Father of two peoples, as the Apostle explains in Galatians ch.4. They call it tropological when the words or facts are referred to signifying what pertains to morals, in the way that “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads the corn,” Deuteronomy ch.25, which is literally understood of real oxen, spiritually signifies that homilists should not be prevented from receiving sustenance from the people, as the Apostle explains in I Corinthians ch.9. They call it anagogical when the words or facts are referred to signifying eternal life, in the way that the verse of Psalm 94, “To whom I swore in my wrath, if they will enter into my rest,” which is understood literally of the land of promise, is also referred spiritually to eternal life, as the Apostle explains in Hebrews ch.4.
This distinction of spiritual senses was not always observed by the ancients. For although, as far as the thing itself is concerned, they recognize all these senses, yet sometimes they call them allegorical, as Basil does at the beginning of Homil.9 Exam., and Augustine on the Utility of Believing ch.3. Further, Jerome in his epistle to Hedibias, which is numbered 12, includes under the name of the tropological also the allegorical sense, and conversely on Amos ch.4 he includes under the name of the allegorical the tropological.
Of these senses the literal is found in every sentence, both of the Old and of the New Testament. Nor is it improbable that several literal senses are found in the same sentence, as Blessed Augustine teaches in many places, and especially Confessions bk.12 ch.26, City of God bk.11 ch.19, Christian Doctrine bk.3 ch.27. Now every spiritual sense is found in both Testaments. For about the Old Testament no one doubts but that it has the allegorical, the tropological, and the anagogical sense, and very many rightly think the same about the New Testament. For Augustine tract.122 on John allegorically expounds the catch of fish, when the net was torn, Luke ch.5. But he expounds it anagogically when the net was not torn, John ch.21.
And likewise in tract.124 on John he allegorically expounds that was said to Peter, “Follow me,” and anagogically what was said about John, “if I will that he remain,” John ch.21. But the Lord himself, John ch.13, expounds anagogically the humility wherewith he washed the disciples feet.
But although things are so, yet the spiritual sense is not found in every sentence of Scripture, either in the Old Testament or in the New. For the verse, “Love the Lord thy God with all they heart,” Deuteronomy ch.6 and Matthew ch.12, and the like precepts have only one sense, that is, the literal sense, as is rightly taught by Cassian, Collat.8 ch.3. Having thus established these things, we and our adversaries agree that efficacious arguments must be fetched from the literal sense; for that sense, which is collected immediately from the words, is certainly the sense of the Holy Spirit. But the mystical and spiritual senses are various, and although they edify when they are not against faith or good morals, yet it is not always clear whether they are intended by the Holy Spirit. Wherefore Blessed Augustine in epist.48 to Vincentius rightly mocks the Donatists who, from a mystical explanation of the words, “Show me where you feed, where you rest at midday,” collected that the Church of Christ remained only in Africa. Jerome too in his commentary on Matthew ch.13 teaches that dogmas of faith cannot efficaciously be confirmed from mystical senses.
Now about the literal sense doubts sometimes arise for two reasons. The first is ambiguity of words, as is seen in Matthew ch.26, “Drink ye of this all.” The ‘all’ is ambiguous; for it is not known whether it signifies all men absolutely, or only all the faithful, or all the Apostles. The second reason is more serious, the propriety of the words. For since the literal sense is (as we said) now simple and now figurative, there is in many places doubt whether the true sense is the simple or the figurative. For the verse of Matthew ch.26, “this is my body,” is maintained by Catholics to be taken simply according to the propriety of the words, but by the Zwinglians in the figure of Metonomy. And for this cause some have sometimes fallen into very grave errors. Let Origen serve for example, who erred for this reason, that what was to be taken simply he took figuratively, as Jerome teaches in his epistle to Pammachus about the errors of John of Jerusalem, where he says that Origen thus allegorized the earthly paradise so as to take away the truth of the story, since he understood Angels for the trees, heavenly virtues for the rivers; and the clothes of skin for Adam and Eve he interpreted to be human bodies, as if before sin they lived without bodies.
Others on the contrary fell because they took simply and properly what was to be taken figuratively, as Papias and those who followed him, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, and some others, who reckoned that what is said in Apocalypse ch.20, about the new Jerusalem and the 1,000 years in which the saints will reign with Christ, was to be fulfilled here on earth. Their error was censured by Jerome in the preface to his book 18 on Isaiah, and on Ezekiel ch.6, and by Augustine City of God bk.20 ch.7.
There is also agreement between us and our adversaries that the Scriptures should be understood by the spirit by which they were made, that is, by the Holy Spirit. This is taught by the Apostle Peter in II Peter ch.1 when he says, “Understanding this first, that every prophecy of Scripture is not of private interpretation. For prophecy was not ever given by human will, but holy men of God spoke inspired by the Holy Spirit.” Here Blessed peter proves that the Scriptures should not be expounded by one’s own genius, because they were not written by human genius, but by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The whole question, then, is located in this, where the Holy Spirit is. For we reckon that this Spirit, although he is often conceded to private men, yet is found certainly in the Church, that is, in the Council of Bishops confirmed by the supreme Pastor of the whole Church, or in the supreme Pastor along with the Council of the other pastors. For we are not in this place disputing about the supreme Pontiff and Councils, whether the Pontiff alone can define a thing and whether a Council alone can, for we will deal with this in its own place. But here we are saying in general that the judge of the true sense of Scripture and of all controversies is the Church, that is, the Pontiff with the Council, wherein all Catholics gather; and it is contained expressly in the Council of Trent sess.4.
But all the heretics of this time teach that the Holy Spirit, interpreter of Scripture, is not bound to the Bishops or to any class of men, and therefore each one should be judge, either by following his own spirit, if he has the gift of interpretation, or by adhering to another whom he sees to be endowed with this gift. Luther in the preface to his assertion of his articles openly sends us back to the spirit that each one has when he diligently reads the Scriptures. And in art.115 from the 500 that Cochlaeus collects from the books of Luther, he says, “Take this Gospel, which is committed neither to the Pope nor to Councils nor to any man so as to establish and prove what the faith is. Therefore I should say, Pope, you have proved it in the Councils, now I have the judgment whether I can accept it or not. Why? Because you will not stand for me, you will not reply for me when I must die. And no one can judge a false doctrine save a spiritual man. Therefore the thing is insane, that Councils want to prove and establish what should be believed; since often there is no man there who has a trace of even a modicum of the divine Spirit.”
Philip in the places in the chapter on the Church seems indeed to attribute something to the Church; but in fact he leaves the whole judgment to each private man; “Who,” he says, “will be judge when disagreement about a sentence of Scripture arises, since then there is need of a voice to stop the controversy? I reply, the word of God itself is judge, and added to it is the confession of the true Church.” Thus Philip. Yet later, when he teaches that by the true Church are not understood the prelates of the Church, nor the greater part of the faithful, but those few who agree with the word of God, he involves everything in darkness and makes each one judge. For neither can I judge which is the true Church unless I first judge what opinion agrees with the word of God; “There is,” he says, “a difference between the judgments of the Church and political judgments. For in politics or in monarchy one man alone pronounces by his own authority, or the opinion of the greater part prevails in the senate; but in the Church the sentence prevails that agrees with the word of God, and the confession of the pious, whether they are more or fewer than the impious.” See more things in the place on the notes of the Church.
Brentius teaches similarly in the Wittemberg Confession, in the chapter on sacred Scripture, and more fully in his Prolegomena against Peter a Soto, where he says two things. First, “It is not licit,” he says, “in a cause of eternal salvation so to adhere to a foreign opinion as to embrace it without our own judgment.” Second, he adds, “It pertains to each private man to judge of doctrine of religion, and to distinguish the true from the false. But there is this difference between a private man and a prince, that as a private man has private power of judging and deciding about doctrine of religion so a prince has public power of doing so.” And in almost the whole book he tries to prove these two things, that a secular prince is held to compel his subjects, even by punishment of death, to the faith that he himself judges to be true. And at the same time that subjects are obliged to follow their own judgment, not a foreign one, whosever it is; nor does Brentius notice how absurd and conflicting these things are, that the prince is held to command and the subjects are held not to obey. Nor does he notice, that if his opinion is true, Caesar and other Catholic princes will act rightly if they compel all Lutherans, even by punishment of death, to the Catholic faith.
John Calvin Institutes bk.4 ch.9 sects.8, 12-‐13, bids the definitions of the Councils, even the most general, to be examined according to the rule of the Scriptures; therefore he makes private men judges in a cause of faith, not only of the Fathers, but even of the Councils, and he leaves altogether no common judgment to the Church. Lastly Martin Chemnitz in his Exam. of the Council of Trent sess.4, and all the rest of the heretics of this time, draw the authority of interpreting the Scriptures away from the Councils of Bishops to the spirit of private men.
Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME