Antithesis: First, of the Papists.
Antithesis: First, of the Papists.
§ 424. Antithesis. The perspicuity of Scripture: (I) Is denied by the Papists. They accuse us of error because we claim that Scripture is perspicuous. Eck, Enchirid., c. 4: “The Lutherans contend that the Holy Scriptures are clear; thus their laity and crazy old women treat them tyrannically.” Prateolus, Elench. haeretic., bk. 17, c. 20, writes: “It is a common article of all sects to declare that the Scriptures are easy of themselves and need no interpretation.” Sixtus Senensis, Bibliothec., bk. 6, annot. 151, attributes to us that “we claim that everything without exception in Scripture is perspicuous.” What judgment one must pass on this perversion of the state of the question, however, is clear from the statements in § 414. Because they censure and reject our opinion regarding the perspicuity of Scripture, we conclude from this that they deny the perspicuity of Scripture.
They also profess this with explicit words. Censur. Coloniens., p. 9: “Each and every matter included in the Scriptures is covered up with such obscurities that not even the most learned could gather definite knowledge from them unless they borrow this from another source.” They do not even make an exception from these obscurities for the account of the Lord’s Passion, though Costerus put it among the perspicuous parts. Canisius, Opus catech., p. 44: “In the matters that Holy Scripture contains and sets forth, it is like a wax nose. It offers no definite, stable knowledge but can be bent into any interpretation.” The Englishmen of Rheims, commentary on 2 Peter 3, claim: “All Scripture is difficult.” Bellarmine, De Rom. Pontif., bk. 3, c. 21: “The many versions and interpretations of Scripture, the many different sects, all cry out nothing else but that Scripture is ambiguous and obscure.” De verbo Dei, bk. 3, c. 1: “It is manifestly false that the Holy Scriptures are easy of themselves.” (In the same place he forms the state of the question in this way: “Are the Holy Scriptures easy and clear of themselves, or do they need interpretation?” However, from what has been said earlier, it is evident that the state of the controversy is covered up by Bellarmine. The state of the controversy consists in this: Is Scripture, in handing down the dogmas one must know for salvation, perspicuous in such a way that one can gather a definite and constant meaning from it and that there is no need to run for help to the Church, that is, to the judgment of the Roman pontiff?) Pistorius, Hodeg., c. 3: “The Church brings to Scripture a light, without which all Scripture is obscure and dark.”