The authority of the canonical books.
The authority of the canonical books.
§ 385. Fourth: “It is necessary to know that some truly divine books do exist, a fact that we by no means can draw from Scripture. Even if Scripture were to say that the books of the prophets and apostles are divine, I still would not believe this as a certainty unless I first believed that the Scripture which says this is divine. In the Qur’an we read that the Qur’an was sent from heaven, yet we do not believe that.”
Fifth: “It is not enough to know that Scripture is divine. Rather, we must know which one it is, a fact that we certainly cannot determine from Scripture. After all, how do we conclude from Scripture that the Gospels of Mark and Luke are true and that the Gospels of Thomas and Bartholomew are false?”
Sixth: “We must know not only which books are the sacred books but also in particular that the books we have in hand are those sacred books. After all, it is not enough to believe that the Gospel of Mark is the true Gospel, but one must also believe that this Gospel that we now read under Mark’s name is that true and uncorrupted Gospel that Mark wrote. But we cannot determine that from Scripture.”
We respond. (1) Let Bellarmine recognize his own words from De ecclesia, bk. 3, c. 14: “To believe that the accounts of the Old Testament or that the Gospels of Mark, Luke, etc., are canonical writings—in fact, that there are any Holy Scriptures—is not absolutely necessary for salvation because many were saved without this belief before Scripture was written.” However, if knowing this is not necessary for salvation, how can the imperfection of Scripture be proved from this?
(2) Let him also recognize what he says in De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 2: “Nothing is better known, nothing is more certain than the Holy Scriptures, which are contained in the prophetic and apostolic writings. The witnesses that they are so well-known are the Christian world and the agreement of all nations among whom the Scriptures have held authority now for many centuries. The witnesses that they are utterly true and certain and that they contain not human inventions but the divine oracles are the truth of the prophecies and the incredible harmony of the authors who wrote them.” Yet if nothing is better known, nothing is more certain than the Holy Scriptures, how can one ask for their qualities of being well-known and certain from another principle?
(3) Both sides have conceded the principle that these books and not others are sacred and canonical. Therefore we must argue with the other party not about Scripture, but we must discuss controversial dogmas from Scripture, which both of us acknowledge is divine.
(4) The question “How do you know that Scripture is divine?” is either one of unbelief when the fanatics, who deny that Scripture is the Word of God, ask it; or one of perversity when the Papists, who make the authority of Scripture depend on the Church, ask it; or one of aptness to learn when one who is faithful and is established within the pale of the Church asks it.
(5) When it is to be demonstrated to those who have an aptness to learn that some books are truly divine and that these are set forth in the codex of the Bible, then an argument can be sought from the testimony of the Church. That testimony, however, is not outside of Scripture, because Scripture itself is bearing witness of itself, nor is it the only testimony, for the internal criteria and the testimony of the Holy Spirit are also added. Accordingly, in this question we use the witness of the Church as a guide, not that we may believe something beyond Scripture (because the sacred and canonical books are Holy Scripture itself) but that we may come to recognize Scripture, just as the Samaritans were brought to Christ by the guidance of their fellow citizen [John 4:28-29]. Yet they did not believe the more because of the woman’s speech but because they had learned from far less doubtful indications that this was the Savior of the world [John 4:42]. In the same way, we are led by the testimony of the Church to Scripture, but we do not believe the Scriptures because of the Church. Instead, we recognize their divine and canonical authority from the internal criteria and from the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
(6) The same Word of God that the prophets and apostles preached formerly is still set forth in their writings. Therefore by these arguments their hearers once were persuaded to accept the teaching set forth by the prophets and apostles as God’s Word; by the same arguments today we are persuaded to accept the Word that was written by the prophets and apostles as the Word of God. But now, the hearers were not moved by an external argument or by the testimony of the Church alone to believe the Word preached by the prophets and apostles, but by the inherent majesty, divinity, and efficacy of the Word they preached.
(7) One must distinguish between these questions: “Is the Gospel of Matthew canonical?” and “Was Matthew’s Gospel written by Matthew?” The former pertains to saving faith; the latter, to historical knowledge. The witness of the Church alone cannot persuade the former; it does prove the latter, however, but this does not belong to saving faith.
(8) Bellarmine urges: “If this tradition could have come down to us, why could others not have come down to us in the same way?” Also: “Either this tradition is God’s Word or it is not. If it is not, we do not have faith, for faith relies on the Word of God. If it is, why do they cry out that there is no Word of God except what is written?” We respond. The nature of this ecclesiastical tradition that conforms in all things to the Scriptures—read the canonical books and you will have that which the Church commends to us as God’s Word—is far different from the other traditions that the Papists foist upon us that are found nowhere in Scripture. The Church with its witness about the canon is not proposing to us a new article of faith outside of Scripture but, like a ministering cause, is witnessing about that which is extant in canonical Scripture and which has been received and preserved by the perpetual consent of the Church. Also, when the Church bears witness about the author of a book, it is bringing out that which the book’s inscription has. That testimony, therefore, is in conformity with Scripture, and the early Church saw the autographs of the sacred writers so that it could bear true witness about them. (See what we said earlier in c. 3, “On the Authority of Scripture.”)