4 Something added to or connected with; an essential feature.
The arguments of the Papists by which they want to prove that the authority of Scripture depends on the Church.
§ 47. To establish their claim, besides the apostle’s statement that “the Church is the ground and pillar of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)—a detailed explanation of which we set forth in our treatise On the Church [Commonplace XXV], § 116—the Papists press certain arguments, the strength of which we shall examine briefly.
(1) From the antiquity of the Church. “Scripture is later than the Church with respect to the acceptance of those books with regard to us. You see, before the Scriptures were published, the Church was already then in existence. It accepted the sacred books, approved them, and commended them to posterity. Therefore the authority of Scripture depends on the Church.”
We respond. We must repeat the distinction between the material and form of Scripture. Those who received the sacred books from Moses, the prophets, evangelists, and apostles and who commended those books to posterity with their testimony were indeed previously in the assembly of the Church. Also, up to that time, the Church, considered formally, was earlier than Scripture as regards the work of writing. But those witnesses of Scripture were converted and became sons of the Church through the Word that Scripture contains. Therefore they were not earlier than Scripture, considered materially, that is, than the Word that is set forth in Scripture. God’s Word is that “incorruptible seed” through which human beings are reborn and become sons of God (James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23). The prophets and the apostles preached the same Word previously and later consigned it to writing. Therefore as incongruent as it is to claim that fruit comes before the seed, so absurd is it also to claim that the Church absolutely and simply precedes Scripture, considered materially and with respect to the Word that it contains.
§ 48. (2) From the fame [claritas] of the Church. “The Church is better known than Scripture. People know pastors before they know Scripture.”
We respond. We must distinguish between things that are better known by nature and better known with regard to us, also between a confused and a distinct knowing. Perhaps people know pastors before they know Scripture with a confused knowing, but not at all with a distinct knowing. You see, how can we know who are the true pastors to whom we can safely entrust our souls and what the true Church is to which we ought to gather ourselves, except from the instruction that they give? But now, we must pass judgment on their instruction according to the norm of the divine Word that is revealed in the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures (Acts 17:11).
If the Church is better known than Scripture simply, why does Bellarmine write: “Nothing is more certain, nothing is better known, than the Holy Scriptures, which are contained in the writings of the prophets and apostles” (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 2)? Why does he write: “At times Scripture is better known: when it has been accepted, when it speaks clearly, and when a question arises about the Church” (De eccles., bk. 4, c. 2)? (We discussed this entire matter in detail in our treatise On the Church [Commonplace XXV], § 142.)
§ 49. (3) From the dignity of the Church. “We do not hear the public judgment of the Holy Spirit about Scripture and its authority except in the Church. Therefore the authority of Scripture depends solely on the authority of the Church.”
We respond. [a] The judgment of the Church is finally to be considered the judgment of the Holy Spirit if it is in conformity with Holy Scripture. You see, whatever the Church declares is not immediately to be considered divine unless it is declared from the divine tables to which God Himself has bound the judgment of the Church (Isa. 8:20; John 8:31; Gal. 1:8).
[b] Therefore whatever one or several persons declare outside of and beyond Scripture is not the public testimony of the Holy Spirit but is a private testimony. On the other hand, whatever someone declares that is in conformity with Holy Scripture, that is the public testimony of the Holy Spirit, even if it is declared merely by one person.
[c] Through the internal criteria inherent in Scripture itself, the Holy Spirit bears witness about its divinity and authority, and this is the public judgment of the Holy Spirit regarding Scripture.
[d] It is frivolous for the Papists to consider all that the pope, cardinals, and bishops declare in their councils as the public judgment of the Holy Spirit, whether it is in harmony with the Scriptures or opposed to them, whether it is contained in them or not. Every devout person must pass judgment on those decrees of the popes and councils on the basis of Scripture itself.
[e] The witness by which the Holy Spirit convinces the devout about the certainty of Scripture and divine grace is internal and hidden. Consequently, it is not heard by external ears in the Church (Rom. 8:16; 2 Cor. 1:21; 1 John 2:20; 5:10).
§ 50. (4) From the condition and quality of Scripture. “The authority of Scripture cannot become manifest from the internal criteria nor from the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Not from the former, because secular people claim that even in secular books there is a majesty of both subject matter [rerum] and style. Thus the Turks in the Qur’an, the Jews in the Cabala, the heathen in the Tresmegistus will believe that they find no less majesty in words and things. Likewise, in the apocryphal books there is no less majesty of style and subject matter than in the canonical books.”—Pistorius, Hodeg., p. 4: “In the Book of Wisdom the style is of fuller majesty, the subject matter [res] weightier than in the Book of Ruth, though the Evangelicals receive the Book of Ruth into the canon and exclude the Book of Wisdom.”—”Nor from the latter, for those who make judgments on Holy Scripture in accord with the internal witness of the Holy Spirit vary with each other in their opinions. Therefore the authority of Scripture is known solely from the authority of the Church.”
We respond. [a] We must keep the internal criteria joined together and must not tear even one from the corpus and class of the rest. [b] In fact, we must also add the remaining two classes of arguments. [c] In other [nonscriptural] writings, such a majesty of subject matter [rerum] and such a property of style occur merely in the opinion of men but not in the thing itself [reipsa]. ** Lindanus, Interp., bk. 3, c. 8, p. 116: “Holy Scripture even has its own tongue, its own forms of saying, its own characteristic way of speaking about things. If any imprudent person ignores these and thinks that ‘Holy Writ’ should be understood as something from Cicero and Demosthenes, he must fall into serious errors.” ** [d] We do not set forth only the testimony of the Holy Spirit, but to it we connect the internal criteria and the testimony of the Church. Whoever takes up jointly those three classes of arguments about the canonical authority of Scripture will not at all be able to go wrong. [e] As the Papists confess, the Church herself has made dissimilar pronouncements about the canon. Therefore can it not be inferred that from her testimony no one can get a judgment of the canonical authority of a certain number of Scriptures? [f] The gifts of the Spirit are not the same in all people. Those who have been gifted with the Holy Spirit neither at all times nor in all ways follow the judgment and leadership of the Holy Spirit. Instead, sometimes they indulge their affections or allow themselves to be carried off to a contrary position by the prejudices of others.
“But,” you say, “it is only the Church that bears witness that this book is Matthew’s and that is Mark’s. Therefore she alone bears witness of the authority of Scripture.” We respond. Whether the Gospel of Matthew is Matthew’s and whether it is canonical are distinct questions. The first is a question of historical faith and depends on a historical witness that gives its assent to the title of a book. The latter is not only historical but also dogmatic. It does not depend solely on a historical testimony but also on inherent arguments and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.
§ 51. (5) From Augustine’s authority. Augustine, Contra Epist. Manichaei, c. 5: “I would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Church moved me.”
We respond. [a] Augustine is speaking about the kind of arguments that indeed at first can move someone to accept Scripture and to believe the Gospel. You see, he is speaking about himself as being still involved with Manichaeanism and about how he was led to accept the authority of Scripture. That, however, is the testimony of the Church. For who would not be moved by that constant witness of the Church about Scripture to accept it as sacred and divine? From this, however, it by no means follows that the Church’s testimony is either the sole or the chief testimony because of which we accept Scripture.
[b] Augustine teaches the opposite in the same place. He says, “When the Catholics preached it, I believed the Gospel itself.” And later: “You are giving me the Scripture that I had believed through those Catholics.” Therefore he is saying that he believes Scripture through the Church, or through the ministry and testimony of the Church, not because of the Church as the greater authority.
[c] This is the way the Samaritans believed in Christ: through the word of the woman who gave testimony about Christ. Yet afterward, those who hear Christ Himself say, “It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this indeed is the Savior of the world” (John 4:42). The testimony given to Holy Scripture by the Church, which was prefigured by the Samaritan woman, is of the same sort.
[d] Michael Medina, an otherwise Papist writer, in his book printed in Venice, acknowledges that Augustine’s statement cannot be opposed to our opinion. He says:
It is completely futile that they try to persuade that the Church’s authority is greater than that of Scripture from that statement of Augustine. For from the fact that the Church exhibits the Scriptures and exercises a power to discern them from false writings, one draws the weak conclusion that this authority is superior to the same Scriptures. Then he who points out to me the king among the crowded throngs of people would have to be considered as having greater authority than the king himself; or the Mosaic Law, which was a pointer to the state of Christ and of the Gospel (John 5:39, 47), would be of greater authority than Christ or the Gospel of Christ, which is utterly absurd. John the Baptist bore witness of Christ, for he was the man whom God sent to bear witness about the Light that all might believe through him; but he certainly was not greater than Christ nor equal to Him. Moses and Elijah bore witness along with the cloud and the voice from heaven that Christ was the Messiah and that all mortals must listen to Him as the Teacher from heaven, yet they certainly were not greater than Christ nor equal to Him. Finally, the star, shepherds, Wise Men, Anna, and Simeon, who all bore witness of Christ that He should be acknowledged by all as the Redeemer of the human race and true Messiah, are not superior to Christ Himself. I admit that the Church is our cause for believing that this or that book is divine. Yet the Church does not contend in authority with that same Scripture, just as the authority of those who bore witness of Christ is by no means to be compared with Christ. A notary or public secretary shows that this or that is the writing of the king; he shows this in such a way that we have as much confidence in him as human affairs demand. Yet who is so mad as to compare the authority of the notary with that of the writing of the king or emperor?
[e] In Declarat. verit. quae credendae sunt de necess. salut., vol. 1, no. 14, letter E, Gerson correctly warns that “Augustine is speaking about the testimony of the early Church.” He adds: “On the other hand, I would not believe that I can say this of the Church unless the authority of Scripture were to persuade me.” The Papists, however, are concerned only about their Roman Church today.
3 That is, as not having any relation to anything else, independently.
4 Something added to or connected with; an essential feature.
5 Read praeter instead of propter.