Chapter III: The authority of Scripture arises from and depends on the principal efficient cause (God), § 33.
CHAPTER III: ON THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
§ 33. The divine authority of Scripture rises from and depends on the principal efficient cause of Holy Scripture, which is God. Because Holy Scripture has God as its author, by whose immediate inspiration the prophets, evangelists, and apostles wrote, therefore it has divine authority. Because it is God-breathed, published, and promulgated by divine inspiration, therefore it is credible in itself, having credibility from itself. It is highly important that the divine authority of Scripture be a well-built structure, for as Augustine rightly warns us: “Faith will stagger if the authority of the Sacred Scriptures wavers” (De doctr. Christ., bk. 1, c. 37). We must not consider of lesser import the related question: From where does Scripture get its authority among us?
§ 34. We can ask about the authority of Scripture in two ways. (1) Absolutely: From where does Scripture, considered in and through itself, have its divine authority? (2) Relatively: [a] With respect to us. From where does the authority of Scripture become known to us so that we consider it divine and canonical? [b] With respect to the Church or comparatively. Does Scripture or the Church have greater authority?
§ 35. When we ask absolutely3 about the authority of Scripture, we neither can nor should respond in any other way than that the divine authority of Scripture is from and depends on God alone because its dignity and excellent effect draw their origin only from the dignity of their cause. Nemesius, De opif. homin., c. 2: “The teaching of the divine utterances has credibility of itself because it is inspired.” To this we must also refer the fine statements of Raimundus de Sebunda and Baptista Mantuanus, the first of whom we cited in vol. 1 of our Loci [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 1, On Holy Scripture], § 26; the latter, in § 32.
§ 36. Up to this point the Papists want to appear to be in agreement with us; but if it is asked from where that divine authority of Scripture becomes known to us, then we are split into diverse opinions. This is our opinion: With regard to its object—that is, with regard to those among whom Scripture has or ought to have divine authority—there must be a distinction between those who are in the Church and those who are outside her.
Those who are in the Church freely acknowledge the divine authority of Scripture and claim that it is credible in itself and trustworthy. After all, how will the children of the Church be able to doubt the truthfulness of the foundation upon which the Church relies? How can those who feel the powerful efficacy of the Word in their own hearts and who through the Word know that they have been reborn for eternal life, I say, how can such people question the authority of the divine Word contained in the Scriptures?
Those who are outside the Church are of two different kinds, for they either reject the Scriptures or are ignorant of their authority. Of the first there are two classes. Some, like the heathen, reject all of Scripture; some reject only part of Scripture, like the Jews, who accept the Old Testament but reject the New. Those who reject Scripture only in part can be convinced of their error from that part which they accept and can be persuaded to accept the authority of all of Scripture. Some of those who reject all of Scripture are curable—people who bring a moderate mind and a desire to learn. Some, however, are incurable. They have stubborn, obstinate minds and insistently resist the truth (Acts 13:46; 19:9). The incurable, as desperately ill people, must be left to their fate (Titus 3:10).
There are three kinds of testimonies that can convince the curable of Scripture’s authority. The first is the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, which is He who renders testimony to the spirit of those who believe that they are the children of God (Rom. 8:16). Thus it effectually convinces them also that the Scriptures contain the voice of the heavenly Father and that God alone is the fitting and authentic witness. To this testimony there belongs that living feeling of the devout in daily prayer and exercises of repentance and faith, the power to comfort and strengthen the mind against adversities, temptations, and persecutions of every kind, etc., a power that the devout develop daily in their reading of Scripture and meditation on it.
The second testimony contains the internal criteria inherent in Scripture itself, some of which are taken from causes, some from effects, some from its subject, some from its adjuncts.4 Such criteria are its antiquity, the majesty of the things [rerum] it treats, the uniqueness of its speech, its perpetual conformity, the dignity of its prophecy of future things, the truth of the fulfillment thereof, the divinity of the miracles by which that instruction is strengthened, the fierceness of the devil’s anger against it, the efficacy of Scripture in persuading and convincing, etc.
The third testimony contains external testimonies of every sort, among which the witness of the Church is eminent, to which the sealing of the martyrs is added, for with their own blood they confirmed the instruction given in the Scriptures. There are also the punishments of blasphemers and persecutors who stubbornly attack that teaching. Especially related to this are the autographs of the evangelists and apostles that were still extant in the primitive Church, and their immediate successors could give testimony of them.
§ 37. The Papists, on the other hand, claim that all authority of Scripture with respect to us depends uniquely and completely on the Church. Cusanus, Epistle 2 ad Bohem.: “The approval of the Church has established the authority of the Scriptures.” Eck, Enchirid., c. De auctor. eccles., resp. ad 3. object. haeret.: “Scripture is not authentic except by the authority of the Church.” Some Gaul, according to Sleidanus, Comm. rer. gest. ann. 1533, “attributed no more to the Epistles of Paul than to Aesop’s fables without the authority of the Church.” The Carmelite Ioannes Maria Verratus writes: “Scripture has no firmness except from the tradition of the Church.” Pighius, Hierarch. eccles., bk. 1, c. 2: “All the authority that the Scriptures now have among us necessarily depends on the authority of the Church.” Andrada, Defens. Conc. Trident., bk. 2, p. 157: “There is no divinity in Scripture that would bind us by some religious ordinance to believe what is contained therein, but such power and greatness belong to the Church.” Thomas Bozius, De sign. eccles., bk. 16, c. 10: “Whatever divine authority Scripture has, all of that was and is from the Church, for each of its books was produced by sons of the Church.” Bellarmine, De verbo Dei, bk. 4, c. 4: “We have [knowledge] from nowhere else that Scripture is divine and which are the holy books than from an unwritten tradition.” Bellarmine, De sacram., bk. 2, c. 25: “The firmness of all dogmas depends on the authority of the present Church.” Stapleton, Relect. princip. doctrin., contr. 4, p. 495: “The Church has determined the Scriptures.” Also: “The Church causes us to believe that what the Scriptures contain is true.” In his Triplic. adv. Witak.: “We believe Holy Scripture because of the authority of the Church alone.” Pistorius, Hodoget., p. 2, 8: “The only cause that we should and can acknowledge the books of the Bible as God’s Word is the testimony and command of the Church—not Scripture, not a property, not the Spirit Himself … but only the Catholic, eternal, and whole Church of Christ.” Vitus Miletus, Discurs. 600 error. Hesshusii, p. 21:
We say that Holy Scripture, without the authority of the Church, will not indeed be so valid, since Aesop’s fables are valid. For it is evident by certain tradition that these are Aesop’s fables, and they are not so incongruous with the behavior of men. But if you take away the Church’s authority and tradition, from where, I ask you, will the followers of Olearius know that the Scriptures are canonical and immediately inspired by God, written and transmitted to us faithfully and without corruption?
§ 38. Before we bring out our arguments against this papistic error, we must note three points. (1) It is one thing for the Church to witness of Scripture and its authority 
, ministerially, and another for her to confer authority on Scripture 
, judicially. By the ministry and testifying of the Church we are drawn to acknowledge the authority of Scripture. From this, however, one cannot infer that the authority of Scripture, either in itself or as regards us, depends solely on the authority of the Church. When we have already learned that Scripture is divine and contains the Word of God, we no longer believe Scripture because of the Church but because of itself, namely, because it is God’s voice, which is truth itself and hence credible of itself, which we know must be believed of itself, because of itself, and immediately.
(2) It is one thing for us to learn of the authority of Scripture from the testimony of the Church but another that every authority of Scripture with regard to us depends only on the Church’s testimony alone. We concede the former but deny the latter because, in addition to the testimony of the Church, there are two other classes of testimonies that show the authority of Scripture, and in that class which contains the Church’s testimony, other external testimonies—namely, of every kind of people—also can be brought out. Meanwhile, we do not deny that the Church’s witness is to be set ahead of the other external testimonies in this class.
(3) It is one thing to speak about the witness of the primitive Church, which received the autographs of the sacred books from the apostles and which handed down to posterity its faithful witness of them, but another to speak of the authority of the present Church. When the Papists speak about the authority of the Church with regard to Scripture, they understand the present Roman Church, that is, as the final analysis shows, the Roman pontiff, as has been demonstrated in greater detail elsewhere. Here let it suffice to quote a passage from the Jus canonicum, dist. 19, c. Si Romanorum:
If the Old and New Testaments are to be received because it is seen that the judgment of Pope St. Innocent was given concerning receiving them, it remains that the decretal letters of the Roman pontiffs are to be received, since it is evident that one chapter of blessed Pope Leo is mixed among those canons, by which thus all the decretals established by the apostolic see are commanded to be kept, so that if anyone commits anything against them, he would know that pardon will be denied him.
§ 39. Now that we have made our introductory remarks, we conclude as follows against the Papists’ hypothesis: (1) From the principal efficient cause. An authority that depends on God alone does not depend on the authority of the Church. The authority of holy and canonical Scripture depends on God alone. Therefore. The minor premise is proved: [a] Because an effect gains its dignity and excellence from its cause. But now, it is not the Church but God who is the author of Scripture. [b] The authority and majesty of Scripture is divinely innate in itself, is internal in itself, and is inherent immediately and of itself. Consequently, it does not depend on another source, on an external principle, nor does the change of an external principle change it. Rather, it always is in the same mode.
They make the exception: [They say] that one must distinguish between the authority of Scripture in itself and with regard to us, and they concede that the former depends on God, but [they say] the latter [depends on] on the Church. Bellarmine, De verbo Dei, bk. 3, c. 10: “Christ did not need the testimony of men for Himself (John 5), but He nevertheless did use the testimonies of men for the sake of others (John 1 and 15). So also Scripture does not need the testimony of men for itself, but it does need the testimony of the Church for our sakes because we are not certain which books are canonical.” We respond. There is not a double but a single authority of Scripture, and it is divine. It does not depend on the Church’s authority but on God alone. The authority of Scripture with regard to us is nothing else than the manifestation and knowledge of that one divine and supreme authority, which to Scripture is internal and inherent. Therefore the Church does not confer a new authority upon Scripture with regard to us but leads us to acknowledge that truth by her witness.
We concede that the Church is first, witness; second, guard; third, defender; fourth, herald; and, fifth, interpreter of Holy Scripture. We deny, however, that because of this the authority of Scripture, either simply or as concerns us or even uniquely, depends on the Church. Just as the authority of the letters of kings and great men does not depend on the testimony of the secretary who brings them and testifies of them, and as the excellence of gold and gems does not depend on the testimony of the jeweler, in the same way, the authority of Scripture does not depend on the authority of the Church who testifies of it. Rather, the authority of Holy Scripture, about which the Church bears witness, is internal, inherent, and divine. Hence the Church does not confer any authority upon the Scriptures, nor is it the sole and only cause, nor the highest and principal cause because of which we believe the Scriptures. Instead, the first and highest cause for us to acknowledge that Scripture is divine and for us to consider it as divine is the Holy Spirit speaking and bearing witness in Scripture, because “the Spirit is truth” (1 John 5:6). In the second place we must put the internal criteria; in the third, external testimonies that are sought from all kinds of people. In fact, as far as order is concerned, the witness of the Church that invites us to read the Scriptures can be the first testimony, but not by dignity or efficacy of persuading. Here I quote the words of Bellarmine, De justif., bk. 3, c. 3, § At inquit: “The approval of the Church causes all to know that God has revealed that object, and for this reason that object is certain and without doubt. This, however, does not contribute a firmness to the Word of God, who is revealing something.”
§ 40. (2) From the formal cause. Whatever has authority before the judgment and witness of the Church, its authority does not depend on the judgment and witness of the Church. But Scripture has authority before the Church. Therefore.
They make this exception: “Scripture with regard to us does not have authority before the testimony and judgment of the Church is added.” We respond. The Scriptures, in and of themselves, are authentic, credible in themselves, and trustworthy before the external witness of the Church because they are God-breathed. But that is authentic, credible in itself, trustworthy, and worthy of faith which has credibility [fides] and authority of itself without anything else being added to it from outside; hence to be authentic and to have credibility and authority are related things, being posited reciprocally. The Scriptures are authentic before the testimony of the Church. Therefore they are worthy of trust before the testimony of the Church. When Paul’s Epistle to the Romans was handed over to them by the minister Phoebe, it immediately was and also should have been authentic before the testimony of the Church was added. Therefore surely the authentic authority of that Epistle, even with regard to human beings, does not depend on the testimony of the Church. The nature [ratio] of the other parts of Scripture is the same because they are all of the same genus and have a divine and inherent authority.
We ask the Papists: What do they finally mean with the word “church” when they claim that the authority of Scripture depends on the authority of the Church? If they mean the present Church, the authority of Scripture will depend on the judgment of the Roman pontiff, for they establish him as the head of the Church and understand him when they use the honorific word “church.” Bellarmine, De pontif., bk. 4, c. 1: “Final judgment belongs to the supreme pontiff”; De pontif., c. 2: “Infallibility itself does not lie in an assembly of counselors nor in a council of bishops but in the pope alone.” Gregorius de Valentia, Commentar. in Thom., vol. 3, p. 24: “We take the word ‘church’ to mean its head, the Roman pontiff.” But it is absurd to claim that the authority of Scripture with regard to us depends solely on the testimony of the Roman pontiff, since Scripture has divine authority among myriads of Christians who have never heard of the Roman pontiff or who do not think his judgment is worth a nickel.
If they mean the early Church, they will send us back to the testimonies of the fathers and of councils. Yet Scripture is older than all of these and has had divine authority among the children of the Church since before their testimony. Were this not true, this absurdity would follow: that, preceding the times of the fathers and councils, Scripture was not considered divine.
They should also answer us as to whether it is more certainly evident that the books that contain testimonies about the authority of Scripture are the books of the fathers whose names they bear than that the books about which they witness are sacred and divine and set the Word of God before us. Concerning the former, because of the many 
(spurious and corrupted writings), there is frequent doubt without any detriment to true faith. But concerning the latter, it is certainly evident to all the devout from the internal criteria of Scripture and the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. With regard to this I quote a remarkable passage from Bellarmine, whom the splendor of truth forced to write (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 1):
Nothing is better known, nothing is more certain, than the Holy Scriptures, which the prophetic and apostolic writings contain. He, then, must be utterly foolish who denies that one must have confidence in them. The entire Christian world and the consensus of every nation are witnesses that they are well-known. Among these, the Scriptures have held the greatest authority for centuries. The following witness that these are utterly certain and true and that they contain not human inventions but divine oracles: (1) The truth of the prophecies. (2) An incredible and certainly divine unanimity and harmony of so many men who wrote the sacred volumes in various places, times, languages, and occasions. (3) God Himself, who at times defends this Scripture of His from human profanation with heavenly punishment.
See the response of Demetrius Phalaraeus given to Ptolemy in Josephus (Antiq., bk. 12, c. 2) and Eusebius (Praepar. Evang., bk. 8, c. 1).
(4) Scripture itself, for if its prophecies of future things have been true, as their outcome later proved, why are not its testimonies of present events true? (5) The infinite number of miracles.
The assertion that the authority of Scripture depends solely on the authority of the Church will never be able to be reconciled with this deduction.
§ 41. (3) From the proper adjunct of scripture. Whatever is the supreme, immediate, and necessary principle [principium], whatever is the unique cause and rule for believing, its authority does not depend on the Church. Scripture is the supreme, immediate, and necessary principle and the unique cause and rule for believing. In human fields of knowledge, some principles are considered certain and indemonstrable. These principles do not depend on others, but others depend on them. In divine matters, such a principle is Holy Scripture, whose author is the Holy Spirit, who is “the Spirit of truth” (John 15:26). Therefore the authority of Scripture does not depend on the Church. The minor premise is evident from all the statements of Scripture that call us back uniquely to the canon of Scripture (which we shall list later in their own place). The same thing is gathered from the practice of Christ, the apostles, and the ancient doctors of the Church, for they called and sent their hearers only to the Scriptures in matters of faith. In fact, the experience of any devout person testifies of this. Therefore we cherish this or that doctrine in firm faith because we know that it has been divinely revealed in the Holy Scriptures, not because the Church sets it forth. A first principle does not have anything before it; a foundation is not built upon another foundation. Scripture or, what is the same thing, God’s voice speaking in Scripture is the teaching of the prophets and apostles. The divine revelation, manifested to men through the prophets and apostles, first orally and then in writing, is the first principle of believing. It is the foundation of faith and of the Church, upon which we are built (Eph. 2:20). Therefore it has nothing before it nor does it rest upon some other foundation, namely, the authority of the Church. If the authority of Scripture with regard to us were to depend on the Church, then our faith by which we believe the articles set forth in Scripture would be reduced ultimately to the judgment of the Church, as to the first and chief principle of believing. But we cannot concede the latter. Therefore we also cannot concede the former.
Bellarmine (De verbo Dei, bk. 3, c. 10), Stapleton (Princ. fid., bk. 9, c. 3), and other Papists make these exceptions. They say: [a] “We must distinguish between the primary and secondary foundation. God’s Word is indeed the first foundation of our faith, for we believe whatever we believe because God has revealed it through His angels and prophets. Aside from this first foundation, however, we require another, secondary foundation, namely, the witness of the Church.” We respond. If “the firmness of all dogmas depends on the Church,” as Bellarmine writes in De eccles., bk. 3, c. 10, and if “the Church simply is better known than Scripture,” as he writes in De eccles., bk. 4, c. 2, then the Church will surely be the primary foundation of our faith. But let us grant hypothetically that there is a secondary foundation; surely a secondary foundation shall not prove authority primarily, and certainly not solely. According to Bellarmine’s hypothesis, the testimony of the Church is the secondary foundation. Therefore it does not prove authority primarily, and certainly not solely. We use the testimony of the Church to recognize the canonical and divine authority that Scripture has in itself; but it should not, for that reason, be called either the primary or secondary foundation. In what sense and respect the Church is called “the pillar and ground of the truth” [1 Tim. 3:15] has been explained in detail in our treatise On the Church [Commonplace XXV], § 116.
[b] They say, “The principles of the disciplines are in themselves indemonstrable as to what they are [in eo quod quid est]; yet with respect to us, they are demonstrated through demonstration as to how they are [qua quid est].” We respond. We concede that the Scriptures are recognized a posteriori as divine from certain arguments and testimonies, among which the testimony of the Church also holds a place. From that, however, one cannot infer that “the authority of Scripture is recognized solely on the basis of the Church’s testimony,” much less that “the authority of Scripture depends on the Church a priori.” In the disciplines, principles have their authority and certainty in and of themselves. As soon as one proposes them, they are considered worthy of approval, and in this respect they are also called axioms; yet by no means does one acquire some authority for them from some other source. Thus because Scripture is considered the prime principle, it has an internal and immovable authority in the Church, an authority that is conferred upon it from no other source (namely, from the authority of the Church). If the Church’s testimony alone and of itself were effectual for acquiring the authority of Scripture with regard to us, then all to whom the Church’s judgment may come would immediately accept the authority of Scripture. Practice, however, bears a contrary witness. Christ says, “If you do not believe the writings of Moses, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:47). Theophylact on this passage: “If you do not believe the written words, how will you believe My unwritten words?” Cornelius Jansenius says that this is an argument from the greater because “just as [Scripture] is more firm because it is put into writing, so it is more culpable and greater not to believe writings than it is not to believe words.” Therefore we draw this conclusion: Those who do not believe the Scriptures of Moses and the prophets will not believe the testimony of even Christ Himself. But now, the testimony of Christ is far more sublime, worthy, and effectual than the testimony of the Church. Therefore those who do not believe the Scriptures, or God’s Word speaking in the Scriptures, also do not believe the Church.
[c] They say, “In this questioning and proving, the voice of the Church is prior to Scripture itself.” We respond. One must distinguish between the order and the efficacy of proving. With respect to order, in the case of a heathen who is being converted, the witness of the Church can be prior to the authority of Scripture, which he does not yet know. Yet the witness of the Church is not enough nor sufficiently effectual to acquire credibility for the Scriptures. Rather, he recognizes the authority of Scripture from its internal criteria, and that authority is sealed by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Then, finally, he can pass judgment on the witness of the Church from Scripture itself a priori. The true voice of the Church ought in every respect to be congruent and in conformity with Scripture; consequently, one cannot know a priori what the true voice of the Church is except from Scripture. Whatever the Church teaches correctly and salutarily, it must take that from Scripture. By nature, then, the voice of Scripture is earlier and worthier than the Church’s voice. The true Church is the assembly of the truly faithful. “Faith is from hearing the Word” (Rom. 10:17), and the Word is set forth only in Scripture. Therefore Scripture is the rule of the Church, not vice versa. We believe the Church as a witness. We believe Scripture as the first and supreme principle of believing, from which alone we must seek that which we are to believe about the other articles of faith, as well as about the Church itself.
[d] They say, “By ‘the foundation of the prophets and apostles’ (Eph. 2:20) we must not understand their Scripture but their preaching.” We respond. There is no real distinction between the preached and written teaching of the prophets and apostles; therefore the writings of the prophets and apostles are also understood in this passage. Whatever the apostles taught, they took it all from Moses and the prophets (Acts 17:11; 26:22). But the teaching of Moses and the prophets could be heard at that time only in their writings (Luke 16:29). From this, Irenaeus (bk. 3, c. 1), Ambrose, and Lyra (commentary on this passage) correctly relate the apostle’s statement to the books of the prophets and apostles. We can also note this: In the apostle’s statement, he mentions only the prophets and apostles, not the other doctors of the Church who edified the Church with their oral preaching, because it was the office not of others but only of the prophets in the Old Testament and the apostles in the New to lay the foundation of the Church (1 Cor. 3:10; Rev. 21:14), that is, the teaching about Christ in such writings as are canonical and upon which the structure of the Church is built. In fact, Stapleton takes “the prophets” in this passage to mean the prophets of the New Testament, and this also pleases Socinus and his followers. That meaning, however, is quite unusual in Scripture because almost everywhere the word “prophets” means the writings of the prophets of he Old Testament (Luke 16:29; 24:27; Rom. 1:2; 2 Pet. 1:19; Heb. 1:1). The circumstances of the passage also show that the same meaning must be acknowledged here too. The Church is set forth as a spiritual house. Her cornerstone is Christ; the prophets and apostles are her foundation with regard to their teaching about Christ (1 Pet. 2:5). Therefore, to show that the faithful of the Old Testament also belong to this spiritual house, the word “prophets” will have to be taken for the teachers of the Old Testament. Thomas, lect. 6 on Ephesians 2: “The apostle names both [prophets and apostles] because the instruction of both is necessary for salvation. For what the prophets foretold, the apostles preached as fulfilled.” In this passage, then, we shall have to take “prophets” to mean the prophets of the Old Testament who built an eternal foundation in the Church not only with their oral preaching but also and most especially with the writing of their canonical books. The preaching of the prophets and apostles endured for a short time; here, however, the apostle is speaking about the perpetual foundation of the entire Church, a foundation lasting to the end of the world, because he says that “the entire spiritual structure is built on Him” (Eph. 2:21). Therefore he is speaking most especially about the prophets’ and apostles’ writings, to which all the children of the Church and, therefore, their successors in the ministry are bound, so that they teach according to the norm set forth in them and complete the building of the Church. Stapleton distinguishes between pastors and hearers and takes this apostolic passage to refer to hearers alone. Yet all the faithful without exception must be built upon this foundation of the prophets and apostles since pastors themselves have also been bound to the teaching of the prophets and apostles.
[e] They say, “The Church’s judgment is not purely human but is in some way divine, with the result that the faithful mind can rest safely on it.” Bellarmine writes (loc. cit.): “The word of the Church, that is, the word of a council or of the pope speaking ex cathedra, is not altogether man’s word but is in some way the Word of God; that is, it is a word brought forth by the assistance and governance of the Holy Spirit.” We respond. The expression “assistance and governance of the Holy Spirit” means either the immediate assistance and governance of the Holy Spirit, such as He gave the prophets and apostles, or the mediate assistance and governance that does not happen except by the mediate teaching of the prophets and apostles as this is set forth in the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. If the former is meant, the pope and bishops are made equal to the prophets and apostles, and the decrees of the pope and councils are made equal to the prophetic and apostolic writings. If the latter is meant, the pope and bishops acknowledge that they, as equally as the rest of the teachers of the Church, are bound to the norm of the prophetic and apostolic books, and one neither can nor should consider their decrees as God’s Word except to the extent that they agree accurately with the writings of the prophets and apostles.
Let us take what they admit, that “the Church’s judgment is not purely and absolutely but only somehow divine.” From this we infer as follows: First, no effect is more excellent than its cause. Therefore if the Church’s testimony is not purely but only somehow divine, the consequence will be that the books of the Bible, accepted solely on the basis of the Church’s testimony, will be accepted by Christians merely as divine in some way. Second, a testimony that ought to cause a full, unchanging, and unfailing faith ought to be purely divine because faith comes from the Word (Rom. 10:17). But the external and human witness about the Word is not like this; instead, the voice and witness of the Holy Spirit Himself speaking in Scripture is like this. Third, a purely divine witness is more excellent than a witness that is only in some way divine. But the testimony by which the Holy Spirit bears witness in our heart through the internal criteria of Scripture about the authority of Scripture is purely divine. Therefore it must be preferred to the Church’s testimony, which is divine only in some way. Fourth, the Church’s testimony outside of Scripture is neither purely nor in some way divine but is purely human. It is finally divine when it declares what is in harmony with the Scriptures. Therefore we cannot know whether and when the testimony of the Church is divine except from Scripture itself. The ultimate resolution of our faith, then, ought to be to the Scriptures, not to the authority of the Church. We believe those things that God speaks to us through the Church because of the authority of God Himself, who is speaking, but not because of the authority of the Church through which He speaks. Thus we say that the testimony of the Church about the authority of Scripture is divine and most worthy of faith because the oracles of Scripture attest to it and because it receives its strength from Scripture, not because of a more worthy or superior authority of the Church. The Church does not make Scripture authentic to us; otherwise we must consider everything taught in the Church as authentic without further proof. Instead, it is the testimony of the Church that leads us to know the canonical Scripture, which is the most certain witness of its own self.
§ 42. (4) From the proper effect of Scripture. If Holy Scripture has its authority among us from internal criteria—especially from a certain internal force that effectively moves the minds of people and draws them to itself, and hence from the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit—surely its authority, even with regard to us, will not depend solely on the Church. But the former is true. Therefore the conclusion also is true. The minor premise is proved because the prophets, Christ, and the apostles with their teaching thoroughly moved men’s minds to consider the things they were proposing as divine and to embrace them with faith, even without the testimony of the Church being added. But now, the same things that the prophets in the Old Testament and the apostles in the New Testament preached have been consigned by God’s will to the Scriptures. Therefore they still have the same force. Preaching and writing are merely the external accidents that have no efficacy in changing the internal nature, power, and efficacy of the Word. Rom. 1:16: “The Gospel is the power of God,” etc. Heb. 4:12: “The Word of God is living and active,” etc. The Word of God is compared to “a seed” (Luke 8:11; 1 Pet. 1:23), but a seed has in itself an internal power to bear fruit (Mark 4:28). It is compared to “a fire” (Jer. 23:29), but fire has an internal power to burn. So also the Word of God, preached or written, has a power of the same kind to change and kindle hearts spiritually. Consequently, the disciples confess that “their hearts burned” when Christ was interpreting Scripture to them (Luke 24:32). Note in this passage that the written Word of God declared and explained by Christ gave forth that power. The apostles’ word was taken without any witness or mandate of the Church “as the Word of God Himself” (1 Thess. 2:13).
What has been said about the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is manifest from the statements of Scripture (1 John 5:6; John 8:47; 18:37; Rom. 8:16), as well as from the experience of the devout. All these things can be declared by the account of the Samaritans (John 4:42), the words of Christ (John 5:34), and the statement of Augustine: “Let us follow those who first invite us to believe; what we cannot yet look into—so that we might become stronger in the faith—that is, what we believe, let us merit to understand as God Himself, rather than men now, inwardly strengthens and illumines our minds” (Contra epist. Manich., c. 5).
§ 43. (5) From the adjunct of the Church. The authority of the Church both depends on and is approved by the authority of Scripture. Therefore the authority of Scripture does not depend on the Church’s authority; otherwise we would be going in circles. The antecedent is clear not only from the matter itself [ex re ipsa], which is treated elsewhere in greater detail (namely, what one must learn solely from Scripture, what the true Church is, how great an authority belongs to it), but also from the very practice of the adversaries who, when they are about to demonstrate the authority of the Church, flee to Scripture, for they produce the statements in Matt. 16:[18]; 18:17; etc. They say that the Church cannot err because the Holy Spirit rules it (John 16:13; Matt. 28:20). Surely, therefore, Scripture by nature must be better known and more certain if it is to convince people of the Church’s authority. (Cf. our treatise On the Church [Commonplace XXV], c. “On the Marks [of the Church in General],” § 142.)
§ 44. (6) From a deduction to the absurd. If the authority of Scripture with regard to us depends solely on the authority of the Church, this will be the consequence: [a] That no other criteria and testimonies are given to convince us of the authority of Scripture other than the testimony of the Church. [b] That the ultimate resolution of our faith is placed on a human witness. [c] That Scripture is not the prime and indemonstrable principle of the Christian faith and religion; in fact, there is some other thing prior and superior to Scripture because of which we have faith in Scripture. [d] That the Christian religion lies on a slippery and doubtful foundation, because the Church has made dissimilar claims about the canon of Scripture. [e] That we do not have to believe God when He speaks to us in and through Scripture unless the Church orders this. All this, however, is absurd and not solid. Therefore so is the prior statement from which such conclusions proceed.
§ 45. The following statements from the fathers can be referred to this. Tertullian, Apolog., c. 5: “Among you, divinity is being pondered from human judgment. If God does not please man, God will not exist. Man now will have to be merciful to God.” (Tertullian is speaking about the apotheosis of the heathen, but the same thing can be applied to the Papists, who argue that Scripture—that is, God’s voice—has its authority on the basis of the Church’s authority.)
Augustine, Confess., bk. 6, c. 5: “You have persuaded me, O God, that it is not those who believe Your books (which You have established with authority among almost all nations) but rather those who do not believe them who are to be blamed, nor should they be heard who may say to me, ‘How do you know that those are the books of the one, true, and most truthful God, that the Spirit ministered them to the human race?’ For this is most especially what was to be believed.” Therefore the first principle of faith is that these books are sacred and divine; one must seek nothing before it or superior to this principle. Augustine again (Confess., bk. 11, c. 3):
Let me hear and understand, O God, how You made heaven and earth. Moses wrote this, but he wrote it and left. He crossed over from here to You, for he is not now before me. If he were, I would catch him, beg him, beseech him in Your name to reveal those things to me, and I would give the ears of my body to the sounds coming forth from his mouth. But if he were to speak in Hebrew, he would knock at the door of my understanding in vain, and he would touch nothing of my mind thereby. If he were to speak in Latin, I would know what he was saying, but how would I know if he were speaking the truth? Even if I knew this, would I know it from him? Certainly, within me, within the house of my thought, no Hebrew, no Greek, no Latin, no foreign truth would tell me without the organs of mouth and tongue, without the sound of syllables, saying, “He speaks the truth.” I, immediately certain, would say confidently to that man of Yours: “You speak the truth.” Therefore because I cannot ask him, I ask You, O Truth, with whom he was filled as he spoke the truth, etc.
(Therefore Scripture—or, what is the same, God speaking in Scripture—is the only self-credible witness of itself because it is truth itself.)
Eusebius tells that the ancient Church rejected the pseudepigrapha and spurious writings on the basis of three marks: “(1) If no mention of them was discovered in the writings of those who succeeded the apostles; (2) if a style was discovered that is different from the apostles’ style and custom of speaking; (3) if the teaching was in disagreement with the catholic faith” (Hist. eccles., bk. 3, c. 25).
Salvianus, De provid., bk. 3: “All human statements need arguments and witnesses, but God’s discourse is its own witness to itself, for it is necessary that whatever the incorrupt Truth says be the incorrupt testimony of the truth.”
§ 46. We can bring out some things in favor of our position also from our adversaries. [Jus canonicum,] dist. 9, c. Quis nesciat: “Who would not know that the holy and canonical Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments is contained within its own definite limits and that it is set forth by all the letters of later bishops in such a way that one can have no doubt at all about it nor make any judgment as to whether whatever has been written therein is true or correct?”
Biel, Sent., bk. 3, dist. 25, dub. 3: “Catholic truths without any approval of the Church are, by the nature of the thing, immutable and immutably true. Thus they are to be considered immutably catholic.”
The author of Onus eccles., c. 1, § 1: “All prophecies in the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments are authentic of themselves, so that they do not need the support of anything else.”
Steuchus, at the beginning of his Cosmop., claims: “The authority of the sacred books is scarcely held fast by the faith alone of the readers, but it brings with it some divine and most powerful arguments that draw the judgments of great minds to them.”
Cajetan, Opusc., vol. 2, tract. 1, c. 1: “The certainty of the Christian faith ought to have an infallible testimony, the sort of testimony that no man, but only God, can provide. Thus the apostle Peter uses the proper testimony of the heavenly voice that he heard at Christ’s transfiguration and adds: ‘We have a more firm, prophetic word.’”
Hosius, Confess. Petricov., c. 16: “We freely concede that the Gospels must be accepted as the Word of God, who teaches and reveals within, and that they are not to be believed except because of the voice of God speaking within.”
Andreas Fricius: “It is God who protects His Word, who gives it authority, who avenges for its dignity, who through His Holy Spirit seals it in the hearts of men. Indeed, as the Church has been breathed on by the Spirit of God, it can give testimony both to the Word and the doctrine (namely, that which it had received from the apostles as though from their hands) and [can testify] that nothing else was recorded by God. No one can give it authority, however, except5 God Himself, who is its author, illustrator, defender, and champion.”
Canisius, Catech., c. De praecept. eccles., sect. 16: “We believe Scripture, adhere to it, and assign it the greatest authority because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit, who speaks in it.”
Gregorius de Valentia, Anal., p. 268: “The testimony of Christ and the apostles with which they commended the authority of these books is, of itself, more than enough for us in this matter (of the certainty of the Scripture of the Old Testament).”
We cited Bellarmine’s quotation pertaining to this point in § 40.