Infallible didactic interpretation only when Scripture-bound; no new revelations
For the papists want interpretation to be infallible and binding on all Christians whenever the Pontiff either decides something with a general council or, without one, teaches from the chair — that is, whenever as Pontiff he defines what is to be believed by all, whether a reason from the Scriptures appears or not. We grant that interpretation is infallible and binding whenever a council, or even any single bishop and doctor of the Church, offers an interpretation that rests on evident equivalence, or on catholic and among Christians undoubted consequence, or on extraordinary or prophetic authority sufficiently demonstrated — as we taught in Aphorisms 23 and 24.
But since extraordinary interpretation is not given in the Church today — for she is not ruled by new revelations but remains in what was once delivered, as Bellarmine himself confesses — therefore one must look to the first two, and because this interpretation is properly didactic, in the ordinary way it is to be followed only so far as reason persuades. So if an interpretation of Scripture is brought without catholic consent, or the Church's consent without the Scriptures, that opinion may indeed be probable; yet not such as ought to be proposed to the church and pressed as catholic and necessarily to be believed.
Latin
Nam Pontificii volunt infallibilem esse interpretationem & obligantem omnes Christianos quotiescunque vel cum generali concilio aliquid statuit, vel sine illo docet de cathedra, h.e. qua Pontifex definit credendum ab omnibus, sive ratio ex Scripturis appareat, sive non. Nos vero infallibilem & obligantem esse concedimus, quoties vel concilium, vel quivis etiam episcopus & doctor Ecclesiae singularis profert interpretationem quae vel aequipollentia evidente, vel consequentia catholica & apud Christianos indubitata, vel extraordinaria seu prophetica auctoritate sufficienter demonstrata nititur, ut Aphorismo 23. & 24. docuimus. Cum autem extraordinaria interpretatio in Ecclesia hodie non detur, quippe quae non regitur novis revelationibus, sed in traditis semel permanet, ut fatetur ipse Bellarminus: idcirco ad priora duo respiciendum est, &, quia haec interpretatio proprie didascalica est, modo ordinario sequenda tantum erit, quatenus videlicet ratio suadet. Si igitur Scripturae interpretatio afferatur sine consensu catholico, vel consensus Ecclesiae sine Scripturis, probabilis quidem illa sententia esse poterit; non tamen talis, quae ut catholica & necessario credenda, ecclesiae proponi & animose urgeri debeat.