Methodus Sacrae Scripturae in publicis tum praelectionibus tum concionibus utiliter atque intelligenter tractandae

So that it seems to exist for the sake of explaining one certain argument and theological topic, rather than as a common and general explanation of all parts of Sacred Scripture. Therefore you insist, and no excuse or response has been able to be brought forward by me that would free me from such a—I will not say labor, but—burden, and such—I will not say recklessness, but—envy. For how full of recklessness and envy do you think it is, if any one man wishes to define, according to his own sense, what this just and methodical way of elucidating individual verses of Scripture is? What is this if not μεγαλοφρονεῖν to think too highly of oneself, and to be wise about oneself more than one ought? That is, to rashly constitute and pronounce oneself as a judge of all the most learned and best theologians? But if that most learned Julius Scaliger, who was without controversy endowed with the highest judgment in every part of ἐγκυκλοπαιδείας encyclopedic knowledge, did not avoid the great envy of mortals—in a matter far lighter, nonetheless—because he recalled the writings of all poets to the examination of his own rule (which he fashioned for himself, and not without great reasons), what do you think will become of him who, to the calculation of his own single opinion, subjects the judgment of other men in a matter of such great moment, and a matter which so many excellent and outstanding Doctors...