18. § 18. The Ground of Faith.
§ 18. The Ground of Faith.
. As soon as Christian theology began seriously to reflect on the ultimate and deepest ground of faith, it came to the recognition that no intellectual or historical proof, adduced for the truth of revelation, could in the end be valid for it. The apologists of the 2nd century attached great value to those proofs, above p. 423, and, over against pagan naturalism, laid emphasis on the fact that faith was a rational, free act of man, Just. M. Dial. c. 88. 102. 131. Theophilus, ad Autol. II 27. Irenaeus, adv. haer. IV 37, 5, etc. But nevertheless we already find in them the [485] awareness that all those proofs are powerless to actually move anyone to faith. For that, something else and more is still needed, namely, divine grace, Just. M. Dial. c. 119. Apol. 1, 10. 2, 10. Iren. adv. haer. IV 39, 2. Orig. de princ. I 10, 14,
19. Irenaeus compares it to the dew and the rain, which makes the field fruitful, ib. III 17, 2, 3. But Augustine was the first who clearly saw and confessed the necessity of the gratia interna. Elsewhere he ascribes great value to the church as a motive of faith; but his doctrine of the gratia interna proves that for him this was not the ultimate and deepest cause of his faith.
That was God alone. Operatur Deus fidem nostram miro modo agens in cordibus nostris, ut credamus, de praed. sanct. 2, 6. For, to believe is always voluntary, nemo credit nisi volens. And God therefore, by his grace, bends the will and makes us believe with the understanding, Conf. 13, 1. de div. quaest. 1 qu. 2 n. 21, de praed. sanct. 19, de dono persev. 16, etc. The later theologians too have ascribed great force to the praeambula fidei and the motiva credibilitatis; and among these the church took an ever more prominent place. But all concede that those motiva make revelation non evidenter veram but only evidenter credibilem. They exclude reasonable doubt, and show that it is not unreasonable to believe and indeed unreasonable to assume the contrary, Thomas S. Theol. II 2 qu. 1 art. 5 ad.
2. S. c. Gent. I c. 9. But conclusive they are not. Yes, Thomas expressly says on the occasion when he deals with the philosophical proofs for the trinity: qui autem probare nititur trinitatem personarum naturali ratione, fidei derogat, S. Theol. I qu. 32 art. 1. Over against opponents proofs avail little, quia ipsa rationum insufficientia eos magis in suo errore confirmaret, dum aestimarent nos propter tam debiles rationes veritati fidei consentire, S. c.
Gent. I c. 9. However credible revelation may be made by the proofs, it nevertheless is and remains a truth of faith, Bellarm. de Conc. et Eccl. IV 3.
At Rome it must remain that also for this reason, because otherwise the voluntariness and thereby the meritoriousness of faith would be lost,
Thomas S. Theol. II 2. qu. 2 art. 9 and 10. Faith thus accepts the truth not on the ground of its own insight, but of divine authority. Non [486] enim fides assentit alicui, nisi quia est a Deo revelatum, Thomas, S. Theol. II 2 qu. 1 art. 1. S. c. Gent. I c. 9. Becanus, II 2. p. 3-17. Billuart, II 2. Tom. 1 de fide p. 1 sq. Dens, II 280 sq. Jansen I 701-711. And in order to recognize that authority of God, a change of the will must precede in man. Believing
is indeed an act of the understanding, Thomas S. Theol. II 2. qu. 4 art. 2, but it presupposes a bending of the will by grace. The understanding must be determined to faith by the will, S. Theol. II 2 qu. 2 art. 1 ad. 3. The assensus fidei is therefore only a Deo, interius movente per gratiam, ib. I qu. 62 art. 2 ad 3. II 1 qu. 109 art. 6. qu. 112 art. 2. II 2 qu. 6 art. 1. Gregory XVI condemned in the breve of 26 September 1835 the opinion of Hermes, that the motiva credibilitatis were the actual ground of faith in revelation. And the Vatican Council determined in sess. 3, Const. dogm. de fide cap. 3, that the motives could indeed make divine revelation credibilis, nemo tamen evangelicae praedicationi consentire potest, sicut oportet ad salutem consequendam absque illuminatione et inspiratione Spiritus Sancti.
2. In fact, Rome thereby adopts the same subjective standpoint as the churches of the Reformation. The motives, however strong, cannot in actual fact move to faith. It is God's Spirit alone who can inwardly and firmly and certainly convince someone of the truth of divine revelation. The deepest ground for faith is, also at Rome, not Scripture or the church, but the lumen interius. Various theologians have also acknowledged this. For the sake of clarity, the act of faith may for a moment be analyzed in a syllogism. The major then runs: God is truthful; if He reveals Himself, His revelation must be accepted in faith; the minor is called: these facts, e.g. the church, the Scripture, are revelations of God; and then the conclusion follows: therefore these too must be believed. About the major there is no difference. This stands firm by virtue of the idea of God and is acknowledged by all. No one denies that, if God reveals Himself, He also, as the truthful one, deserves faith. All the more everything depends on the minor. The difference runs precisely over this, whether and where God has revealed Himself. The believing [487] Christian says: in Scripture or also in the church. But how
and why are these recognized as revelation of God? If on the ground of proofs, of the motiva credibilitatis; then that ground is human, fallible, and the faith not purely religious and certain. The revelation of God can, in a religious sense, be believed only on the ground of God's authority. But that authority of God lets itself be heard only, either outside me, in Scripture or the church, whose ultimate ground of faith I am precisely investigating; or within me, in the grace that moves me to faith, in the lumen interius, the testimonium Sp. S. Whoever wishes to maintain the authority of God as the ultimate ground of faith and thus faith in its religious nature, must adopt one of these two standpoints. Now Canus said without hesitation that the ultimate ground lay in the grace that inwardly moved him to faith. I believe, he said, that God is triune, because God has revealed it; huic autem: Deus revelavit, immediate credo, a Deo motus per instinctum specialem, Loc.
Theol. l. 2 c. 8 ad 4. With Canus, therefore, the ultimate ground for his faith lay objectively in the testimony of God; but that he recognized this testimony as divine was due to the grace that moved his will and understanding to believe. This opinion of Canus was indeed adopted by some other Roman Catholic theologians, such as Arragon, Gonet, etc.; Prof.
Hayd, Philos. Jahrbuch von Gutberlet III 1890 S. 27 even spoke of an immediate testimony of God in us, which assures us of the divinity of Jesus' person and doctrine. But many nevertheless raised this objection against it, that Canus actually gives no answer to the question on what ground he accepts the testimony of God in Scripture and the church as divine. He only says that God inwardly by His grace gives him to believe it thus, but gives no further account of it. Moreover, this opinion of Canus also did not commend itself for the reason that it, as Suarez already remarked, had so much resemblance to and could so easily lead to Calvin's
doctrine of the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. Therefore the Roman Catholic theologians were intent on seeking the ultimate ground of faith elsewhere than in the lumen interius. Suarez was of the opinion that not only the object, but also the ground of faith itself is again a matter of faith. We believe not only that Scripture is true, because God [488] has revealed
Himself in it; but also the fact that God has revealed Himself in it, we believe because God Himself testifies to it in Scripture. Revelation is at the same time the quo and the quod creditur. Unus enim et idem actus credit
Deum et Deo. Just as the eye perceives the colors and at the same time the light by which those colors become visible; just as reason knows the derived truths and at the same time the principia by which they are knowable; so too faith knows both the revealed truths and the testimony on which they rest, as divine. Very many theologians, also in more recent times, have expressed their agreement with this opinion of Suarez, but it did not satisfy all. The circular reasoning was nevertheless clear: Scripture is believed because it is revealed, and that it is revealed is in turn believed because Scripture testifies to it. It also leads to a progressus in infinitum: I believe a revelation because another revelation testifies to it, etc. Suarez indeed answers this objection that revelation must be believed for its own sake; that God, revealing Himself, also therein at the same time reveals that it is He who reveals Himself. But the question nevertheless always remains open, why we believe the testimony by which God declares that it is He who has revealed Himself. Lugo therefore taught that accepting the fact that God has revealed Himself in Scripture was indeed supernatural, but that it nevertheless could not be called faith in the proper sense. For believing is always accepting something as true on the ground of a testimony. If now accepting the fact that God has revealed Himself were a believing in the
proper sense, then this would again presuppose a divine testimony, and so in infinitum. Lugo therefore assumed that recognizing the fact of revelation did not rest on the testimony of God, but on this, that the believer immediately and directly saw the revelation itself with its miracles, prophecies, etc. as revelation, just as reason immediately recognizes the truth of the principia. Revelation announces itself by its content as divine, just as, according to the image of Thomas, S. Theol. III qu. 43 art. 1, an envoy verifies himself by the content of his message, e.g. by secrets that only his principal can know. But this representation in turn runs up against the objection that this recognition of revelation is either really immediate, in which case it becomes a [489] new revelation in the subject, an intuition of the divine, which we here on earth, as walking in faith, do not partake of; or that it is in fact mediate, but then also flows from the indicia and criteria of revelation, and thus again comes to rest on the proofs for revelation, on the motiva credibilitatis. This solution too is therefore unsatisfactory. Therefore still others have said: the testimony of God is the ultimate ground of faith.
To the question: why do you believe? the Christian answers: because God has spoken. Deus dixit. Another, deeper ground he cannot indicate in this. If he is further asked: but why do you believe that God has spoken, e.g. in Scripture? then he can only still answer that God inwardly so works in him that he recognizes that Scripture as God's word. But with that he has also said everything. The testimony of God is the ground, but grace, the will, is the cause of faith. The proofs may be motiva credibilitatis, the will is in the end the motivum credendi. This standpoint too is not raised above criticism.
For it can be asked, and it has also actually been asked, what ground the understanding has to accept Scripture as the word of God. The answer that the will or grace moves the understanding thereto is insufficient. For the
will cannot move the understanding to accept something as true without a ground, of which it itself does not see the credible character. The understanding must itself recognize that something is divine and therefore deserves faith. Otherwise faith is unreasonable and the believer, with a sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas, gets rid of the difficulty. The Roman Catholic theologians have therefore also not been able to give an answer to the question of the deepest ground of faith that satisfies all. Very many simply refrain from a decision and leave the choice between the various above-mentioned opinions free. Enough, to show that Rome too, with its infallible church and its infallible pope, has no advantage over the churches of the Reformation. The deepest ground of faith lies also at Rome, just as much as in Protestantism, in the subject. Cf. Denzinger, Vier Bücher von der rel. Erk. II 486-500. Kleutgen, Theol. der Vorzeit, 2e Aufl. IV 473532. Von Schäzler, Neue Untersuchungen über das Dogma von der Gnade und das Wesen des [490] Glaubens, Mainz 1867 S. 513-537. Al. Schmid,
Untersuchungen über den letzten Gewissheitsgrund des Offenbarungsglaubens, München, 1879. Jansen, Praelect. Theol. I 711-724.
3. The Reformation deliberately and freely took its standpoint in the religious subject, in the faith of the Christian, in the testimony of the H.
Spirit. It is true that in Luther, Zwingli and Melanchthon only a few statements occur about the testimonium Spiritus Sancti, Köstlin, Luthers
Theol. I 279, II 254 f. Scholten, L. H. K. I 186 v. But Calvin has developed this doctrine at length and has connected it not only with the content but also with the form and the authority of Scripture. That Scripture is God's word, says Calvin, is not established by the church, but was established before its decision, for the church is founded on the foundation of apostles and prophets. Scripture brings its own authority with it, it rests in itself, it is
αὐτοπιστος. Just as light is distinguished from darkness, white from the black color, sweet from bitter, so Scripture is recognized by its own truth.
But certainty with us receives that Scripture as God's word only through the testimony of the H. Spirit. Proofs and reasonings are indeed of much value, but this testimony far surpasses them all in value, it is omni ratione praestantius. As God alone can bear witness of himself in his word, so his word finds no earlier faith in the heart of men than after it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, who spoke through the mouth of the prophets, must work in our hearts and convince us that they have faithfully delivered what was commanded them by God. The H. Spirit is therefore seal and confirmation of the faith of the pious. If we have that testimony in us, we do not rest in any human judgment, but establish beyond doubt, as if we beheld God himself in it, that Scripture has proceeded from God's mouth through the service of men. We subject ourselves to it ut rei extra aestimandi aleam positae. But that must not be understood as if we subjected ourselves blindly to a matter that is unknown to us. No, we are conscious that we possess in that Scripture the invincible truth and feel non dubiam vim numinis illic, vigere ac spirare, by which we, willingly and [491] knowingly and yet vividly and powerfully, are driven to obedience, Inst. I c. 7. Comm. in 2 Tim. 3:16. Calvin knew in this doctrine of the testimonium Sp. S. not to describe a private revelation, but the experience of all believers, Inst. I, 7, 5. This testimony of the H. S. was with him also not isolated from, but stood in the closest connection with the whole activity of the H. S. in the heart of believers; through it alone the whole church arises and exists; the whole application of salvation is a work of the H. Spirit; and the witnessing concerning Scripture is only one of the many activities of the H. S. in the congregation of believers. The
testimonium Sp. S. also gives no new revelations, but makes the believer firm with respect to the truth of God, which is fully contained in Scripture; it makes it so that faith is a cognitio certa and excludes all doubt. And it finally finds its analogy in the testimony that our conscience gives to the law of God, and in the certainty that we have concerning God's existence.
Cf. Klaiber, Die Lehre der altprot. Dogm. von dem test. Sp. S., Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1857 S. 1-54. Aug. Benezeh, Théorie de Calvin sur l'Ecriture Sainte, Paris 1890. Jacq. Pannier, Le témoignage du Saint-Esprit,
Paris 1893. This doctrine of the testim. Sp. S. was taken up in the French, Nederl. and Westminster confession of faith and developed in Calvin's spirit by Ursinus, Tract. Theol. p. 12, 13. Zanchius, Op. VIII col. 332 sq. Polanus,
Synt. Theol. I cap. 16. Trigland, Antapologia p. 42 sq. Maccovius, Loci Comm. p. 28. Alsted, Theol. schol. didact. 1618 p. 10 sq. 29 sq. Maresius,
Syst. Theol. I § 33 e. a. Also outside Reformed theology it found acceptance among the Lutherans, not yet with Chemniz, Heerbrand etc. but indeed with Hutter, Hunnius, Gerhard, Loc. Theol. loc. 1 cap. 3 § 39. Quenstedt, Hollaz, cf. Hase, Hutterus Rediv. § 37, 45. Schmid, Dogm. der ev. luth. K. 6e Aufl.
S. 31. Klaiber, Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1857 S. 1-54. Dorner, Gesch. der Prot.
Theol. S. 539-549.
But this doctrine found opposition on the part of Socinianism, Fock, der Socinianismus 336 f.; of Remonstrantism, Episcopius, Instit. Theol. Lib. 4
Sect. 1 cap. 5 § 2. Limborch, Theol. Christ. I c. 4 § 17, and of Romanism, Bellarminus, de verbo Dei IV 4; cf. Pannier, Le témoignage du S. Esprit p.
140 s. Gradually the testimonium internum [492] also began in Reformed theology to lose its place of honour. In Turretinus, Theol. El. II qu. 6 § 11 sq. and Decas disput. miscell. p. 30-70, Amyraldus, Syntagma thesium theol. in acad. Salmur. 1665 p. 117-143, Molinaeus, Juge des controverses,
chap. 16, 17 e. a. it is already weakened, and identified with such illumination of the H. Spirit, by which the understanding is enabled to notice the notae and criteria of the divinity of Holy Scripture. Faith no longer attaches itself to Scripture directly and immediately, but flows from the insight into the veritatis et divinitatis notae. Between Scripture and faith the marks of the truth of Scripture are inserted. At first still in that sense, that the noticing and discerning of those criteria is ascribed to an illumination of the understanding by the H. Spirit. But rationalism soon also considered this unnecessary, entrusted the investigation of the truth of revelation to reason, and grounded the authority of Scripture on historical proofs. Even orthodox theologians scarcely dared any longer to speak of the testimonium internum, Brakel, Red. godsd. 2:7. Marck, Merch der Godg.
2:6. If the testimony of the H. G. is still brought up for the confirmation of the authority of Scripture, it comes entirely at the end, and is changed into an experiential proof, Reinhard, Dogm. 5te Aufl. S. 69. Bretschneider,
Dogm. 1838 I 283 and the litt. cited there. Hase, Hutterus Rediv. § 37, note 4. Vinke, Theol. Christ. dogm. Comp. p. 21, 22 etc. Michaelis, Dogm. 2e
Aufl. Gött. 1784 S. 92, declared that he had never perceived such a testimony of the H. G. in his heart and also did not find it in Scripture. And Strauss, Gl. I 136, asserted that the testimonium Sp. S. led to fanaticism or to rationalism and was the Achilles' heel of the Protestant system.
Various causes, however, have contributed to restoring this doctrine of the testimonium internum once again to some extent to its honor. The critique of rationalism by Kant; the bewijs des Geistes und der Kraft, to which Lessing appealed; the romanticism of Jacobi and Schleiermacher, and the unfruitfulness of apologetics have given birth to the conviction that the justification of the Christian religion must proceed from the faith of the
congregation. Religious truth must be proved in another way than a proposition from the [493] mathesis. To the revelation which is the principium externum of religion, a corresponding organ in man himself must respond. To be sure, all this still differs very much from the testimonium Sp. S., as it was developed by Calvin. Often this testimony is deprived by the more recent theologians of all its supernatural character.
Usually it is brought into connection not with the form, but only with the content, and sometimes only with the religious-ethical content of Scripture.
But just as the Roman, so also the Protestant theologians must acknowledge that the last and deepest ground of faith cannot lie outside us in proofs and reasonings, in church and tradition, but can only be found in man himself, in the religious subject. And that conviction benefits the doctrine of the testimonium Sp. S.. One person may still take up the cause of the historical proofs and combat the testimonium Sp. S., as König, Der Glaubensakt des
Christen 1891 S. 92-99. Id. Die letzte Instanz des bibl. Glaubens 1892 S. 23 f. Most theologians take it up again in dogmatics, and allot to it a greater or smaller place in it, Oosterzee, Jaarb. v. wet. Theol. 1845. Dogm. I 242.
Scholten L. H. K. I 115-233. Twesten I 433-7. Klaiber, Jahrb. f. d. Theol.
1857. Lange I § 84. Kahnis, Luth. Dogm. I 291. Philippi, Kirchl. Dogm. 3e Aufl. I 135 f. Cremer in Herzog2 6, 746. Frank, Syst. der chr. Gewissheit I 139. Id. Dogm. Studiën 38-57. Thomasius, Christi Person u. Werk 3e Aufl.
II 268 f. Dorner, Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin 1883 S. 131 f. Lipsius, Jahrb. f. prot. Theol. 1885 S. 614. Hodge, Syst. Theol. III 69. Pannier, Le témoignage du S. Esprit p. 193 s. Kuyper, Encycl. II 501-511. John de Witt,
The testimony of the Holy Spirit to the Bible, Presb. and Ref. Rev. Jan.
1895 p. 69-85.
4. Both Roman and Protestant theology, in the investigation into the deepest ground of faith, has arrived at the religious subject and must take its position in the faith of the congregation. Every other path, entered upon for the proof of religious truth, has proved to be an impasse. In appearance this is a disappointment; and thus it is also felt by everyone who fails to recognize the proper essence of revelation and religion and changes them into a doctrine provable by the intellect. But in fact [494] this outcome is a gain for theology. For it proves that theology has come to insight into the specific character of religion and that it is in the same condition as all other sciences. The subjective point of departure is, after all, absolutely not peculiar to theology alone. All that is objective can be approached only from out of the subject; the Ding an sich is unknowable and does not exist for us. The world of sounds has reality only for the one who hears, the world of thoughts only for the thinking spirit. It is futile effort to wish to prove to the blind the objective existence of colors. All life and knowing rests on a correspondence of subject and object. And man is therefore so rich, because he is connected to the objective world by the most diverse and the most manifold relations. He is akin to the whole world; physically, vegetatively, sensitively, intellectually, ethically, religiously he stands in harmony with that world; he is a microcosm. Now Scripture goes before us, to conceive all these relations of man to the world religiously and to explain them theistically. Man has not placed himself in this relation to the cosmos.
He is from the outset constituted for that world, and this, reciprocally, for him. Because he is the image of God, he is also lord of the earth. And not only is it God who once laid these bonds between man and world; He is also the one who continually, from moment to moment, maintains them and causes them to operate. It is one and the same Logos, by whom all things in
and outside man have been made. He is before all things and these still always exist together through Him, Joh. 1:3; Col. 1:15. Still more closely
Scripture makes known to us the Spirit of God as principle and author of all life in man and world, Gen. 1:2; Ps. 33:6, 104:30, 139:7; Job 26:13, 33:4, specifically also of the intellectual, ethical, and religious life, Job 32:8; Jes.
11:2. Naturally the operation of that Spirit is different, in accordance with the relations in which man stands to the world. Physically it now consists only in the impulse that makes man and animal seek their food from God,
Ps. 104:20-30. It is then still like the instinct that unconsciously guides the action. But a higher form does this operation of God's Spirit assume in the intellectual, ethical, and religious life of the [495] man. It then becomes ratio, conscientia, sensus divinitatis, which are not resting faculties but susceptibilities, which, through the influence of kindred phenomena from the outer world, pass over into action. And this action can now bear the name of testimony, given by the human spirit to the corresponding phenomena outside it. Our spirit does nothing else than always to give testimony to the truth that comes to us from without. It does not bring forth that truth out of itself by thinking and reasoning; it does not produce and create it, it only reproduces and reflects upon it. The truth exists before and independently of the human spirit; it rests in itself, in the Logos, in whom everything has its subsistence. On man's side only this is necessary, that he see the truth and take it up into himself; that he give his testimony to it and seal it by thinking and knowing. Thus Jesus testified what he had seen and heard, Joh. 3:32; He bore witness to the truth, Joh. 18:37; and thus the apostles were witnesses of the word of life, which they had beheld and touched in Christ, Joh. 15:27; 1 Joh. 1:3. To give such a testimony to the truth is for the human spirit rest, joy, blessedness. The distance between us
and the truth has then fallen away; it has found us, we have found it. There is immediate contact. It makes us, by itself, into its witnesses. All truth makes of him who knows it a witness, a proclaimer, a prophet. Entering into our spirit, it brings along its own testimony; it itself brings that forth in us.
Religiously conceived, it is the Logos itself, which through our spirit bears witness to the Logos in the world. It is one and the same Spirit, who spreads out the truth objectively before us and elevates it subjectively in our spirit to certainty. It is his testimony, which in our consciousness is given to the thoughts which God has embodied in the creatures. Above all in religion this testimony of the H. Spirit to the truth is clear. God does not leave himself without witness. He reveals his δυναμις and θειοτης in the creatures, and himself gives testimony thereto in our νους through his
Spirit. All knowing of the truth is essentially a testimony that the spirit of man renders concerning it, and in the deepest ground a testimony of the Spirit of God to the Word by which all things have been made. [496]
5. This testimony of the spirit of man to the truth is presupposition and foundation, and at the same time also analogy of the testimonium Spiritus
Sancti. Calvin and others already pointed to this agreement, Instit. II 8, 1.
Maresius, Syst. theol. I § 33. Alsted, Theol. schol. did. p. 31. But analogy is not identity. The Christian religion has as principium externum not the general revelation of God in nature, but a special revelation of God in Christ. With that the principium internum must correspond. The νους of the psychical man is insufficient, to distinguish the things of the Spirit of God.
God can only be known by God. Ὁ ὠν ἐκ του θεου τα ρηματα του θεου ἀκουει, Joh. 8:47, 3:21, 7:17, 10:3 v., 18:37. No one can speak about God, except he who speaks from and through Him. Therefore also only that same
Spirit, who has spoken through prophets and apostles, can in our hearts give
testimony to the truth and thereby raise it above all doubt and bring it to absolute certainty. Such a testimony of the H. Spirit in the hearts of believers is taught very clearly in Scripture. In the objective revelation, i.e. in the person of Christ and in Scripture as his word, everything is included, which man has need of for the knowledge and service of God. The revelation of God is completed in Christ and described in Scripture in a perfectly sufficient manner. But this revelation in Christ and in his word is means, not end. The end is the creation of a new humanity, which fully unfolds the image of God. Therefore the whole revelation must be transferred from Christ into the church, from Scripture into consciousness;
God seeks a dwelling in man. This great, divine work of the application of salvation, of the guidance into all truth, is entrusted to the Holy Spirit.
Already in the days of the O. Covenant He was the author of all religiousethical knowledge and life, Ps. 51:13, 143:10; Jes. 63:10. But Israel was in a state of minority and was placed under the care of the law, Gal. 4:1 v. The H. Spirit was not yet, inasmuch as Christ was not yet glorified, Joh. 7:39.
Therefore the prophets looked with longing toward the days of the N.
Covenant, in which all would be taught by the Lord and all would be led by the H. Spirit, Jer. 31:34; Ezech. 36:25 v.; Joel 2:28 v. According to the promise this [497] Spirit is poured out on the day of Pentecost. His whole activity is called by Jesus a bearing witness, a glorifying of Himself, Joh.
15:26, 16:14. The H. Spirit is the true and the almighty Witness for Christ.
The whole world stands hostile over against Christ, no one takes up his cause. But the H. Spirit steps in with that world as the paraclete, as the defender of Christ. He does that first of all in Scripture; this is the testimony, the plea of the H. Spirit for Christ, which He utters and maintains through all the centuries. This testimonium Spiritus Sancti in S.
Scriptura precedes and lies at the foundation of the testimony, which the H.
Spirit bears in the hearts of believers. Just as the thoughts of God are objectively embodied in the world and are derived from it by the human spirit, so also the word of revelation is first completely described in the H.
Scripture, in order thereafter to be sealed in our hearts by the testimony of the H. Spirit. Here too the activity of the spirit of man consists in nothing else than to give testimony to the truth, and to think through what God has thought beforehand. The testimonium Sp. S. in the believers here already proves not to be a new revelation or communication of unknown truths. It is essentially distinct from prophecy and inspiration; it only makes the truth, which exists outside of and independently of us, to be understood as truth and thus assures and seals it in human consciousness. The relation of the testimony of the H. Spirit in the hearts of believers to the truth of revelation in the H. Scripture is m. m. no other than that of the human spirit to the object of its knowledge. The subject does not create the truth; it only acknowledges and affirms it.
But the analogy extends still further. The objects of human knowledge are all αὐτοπιστα, they rest in themselves, their existence can be acknowledged but not proved. Proofs in the strict sense are possible only with respect to derived propositions, and then consist in this, that these are reduced to general propositions. To prove is: to lead back the unknown to the known, the particular to the general, the uncertain to the established. Perhaps it is even more correct to say that proving consists in reducing uncertain and doubted propositions to such as are now once for all generally accepted as [498] established. For the prima principia, on which all proofs ultimately rest, are themselves not susceptible of any proof; they stand firm only by and for faith. Proofs are therefore of force only for him who agrees with us
in these principia. Contra principia negantem non est disputandum. Thus in morals theft can be proved to be impermissible to him who acknowledges the authority of the moral law, but every proof is powerless over against him who denies this authority. The moral law itself is αὐτοπιστος, it rests in itself, it is like the sun which is seen only by its own rays; it depends on no proof and reasoning; it is mighty because it is there, posits and maintains itself; its power consists in its authority, in the divine majesty with which it makes its: thou shalt, be heard in our conscience. The moral law would weaken itself if it were to reason with us and submit itself to our judgment.
It appears categorically, and will know nothing of any exceptions, of any excuses. To the question: why do you submit to the moral law? only one answer is possible: because it reveals to me God's will. But if it is then further asked: why do you believe that that moral law is God's will? no conclusive answer can be given any more. Whoever nevertheless wishes to answer, takes a by-path and appeals to all manner of notae and criteria, in which that divinity of the moral law makes itself known to him. But conclusive proofs are not these. And so it stands with all principia. They rest in themselves and stand firm only for faith. In the same way it is related in theology. Proofs are possible here only with respect to the derived propositions. The Godhead of Christ can be proved to him who acknowledges the authority of Scripture. But the authority of Scripture rests in itself and is not susceptible of any proof. Holy Scripture is αὐτοπιστος and therefore the final ground of faith. A deeper ground is not to be adduced. To the question: why do you believe Scripture? the only answer is, because it is God's word. But if it is then further asked: why do you believe that Holy Scripture is God's word? the Christian must remain owing the answer. To be sure, he will then appeal to the notae and criteria of Scripture,
to the majesty of its style, the sublimity of its content, the depth of its thoughts, the blessedness of its fruits, etc.; but these are nevertheless not the grounds [499] of his faith, they are only properties and marks, which are later discovered in Scripture by believing thought, just as the proofs for God's existence do not precede faith and support it, but proceed from it and are thought out by it. All proofs for faith in Scripture, derived from its notae and criteria, show most clearly that no deeper ground can be indicated. The Deus dixit is the primum principium, to which all dogmata, also that concerning Scripture, can be reduced. The bond of the soul to Scripture as the word of God lies behind consciousness, and beneath the proofs; it is mystical in nature, just like faith in the principia in the various sciences.
6. Against this representation, however, the objection is raised from various sides, that in this way believing becomes wholly arbitrary. Instead of giving reasons why Scripture is believed as the word of God, one answers that God causes it to be believed thus. With that the Mohammedan can prove his faith in the Koran, and every superstitious person his superstition. The sic volo, sic jubeo takes the place of reason and proof. Cf. e.g. Scholten against Saussaye, Leer der Herv. Kerk, 3e druk, voorrede.
Against this, however, it should in the first place be remarked, that the believer indeed cannot indicate any deeper ground for revelation than its divine authority, which he acknowledges by faith. But for that reason he still has something to bring forward over against the opponent of that revelation. It is so, conclusive proofs he does not have, he cannot move the opponent to faith, but for defence he has at least as much to say as the other has for attack. Unbelief too in the end does not rest on proofs and reasonings but is rooted in the heart. Believers and unbelievers stand in this respect completely equal; the conviction of both coheres with their whole
personality and is only supported aposteriori by proof and reasoning. And if now both wage battle against each other with these aposterioric proofs and reasonings, the believers are in no more unfavourable condition than those who do not believe. God is knowable enough for those who seek Him, and again hidden enough for those who flee from Him. Il y a assez de lumière pour ceux, qui ne désirent [500] que de voir, et assez d'obscurité pour ceux, qui ont une disposition contraire. Il y a assez de clarté pour éclairer les élus, et assez d'obscurité pour les humilier. Il y a assez d'obscurité pour aveugler les réprouvés, et assez de clarté, pour les condamner et les rendre inexcusables, Pascal, Oeuvres, Paris, Hachette 1869 I 345. With religion, theism, revelation and Scripture it is not yet so hopeless as science has for years long wanted to make us believe. Theodor von Lerber recently wrote of science not entirely without reason: ich habe als Dilettant zu oft neben ihr gesessen und ihr in die Karten und auf die Finger geschaut, um noch übermässigen Respekt vor der Dame zu haben. Sie wird mir auf meinen
Grabstein schreiben müssen: er dachte klein von mir und starb, bij A. Zahn, Socialdemokratie und Theologie, Gütersloh 1895 S. 34. Historical and rational proofs will convert no one, but are nevertheless for the defence of faith just as powerful as the arguments of the opposing party for the justification of its unbelief. Further, the testimony that is given by believers to the Christian revelation, to Scripture, is indeed not generally human, but is nevertheless generally Christian. The whole of Christendom is unanimous in this confession. The testimonium Spiritus Sancti is not the testimony of a spiritus privatus, but of the one and the same Spirit, who dwells in all believers. Calvin declared, discussing this testimony, to describe nothing other than what was the experience of all believers, Inst. I 7, 6. It is a mighty testimony, which is given by the church of all ages to Scripture as
the word of God. Over no dogma does there reign so great unanimity. It is a fact, which may not be placed on one line with hallucination or arbitrariness, and which in any case requires explanation. Next, the believer can certainly indicate no deeper ground for his faith than the divine authority of Holy Scripture. But he can give further explanation concerning the manner in which he has come to this faith. It is so, as a rule someone is born and brought up in that faith; later he himself discovers that with his whole soul he lies bound to Scripture, and then tries to think about it and to give himself an account of this mystical bond. But more than once it happens that someone at a later age comes to conversion and to faith in Scripture. And also those who from youth onward have lived out of that faith, [501] are often shaken and tossed to and fro by criticism; only gradually do they come to the firm assurance of faith. What now is the experience by which faith in revelation is first awakened or later restored and strengthened? It is of course different in the different believers; but it is nevertheless always of a religious-ethical, of a spiritual nature. What really makes us believe is not the insight of our understanding nor a decision of our will; but it is a power that stands above us, that bends our will, that illumines our understanding, that without compulsion and yet efficaciously leads our thoughts and deliberations captive to the obedience of Christ. That Augustine confessed, when he ascribed faith to the gratia interna. That Thomas acknowledged, when he said that the assensus fidei was a Deo, interius movente per gratiam. That the Vatican council expressed, when it testified that faith did not come into being absque illuminatione et inspiratione Spiritus Sancti. And that was the conviction of the whole
Reformation: faith is a gift of God, an operation of the Holy Spirit.
Believing is an act of the understanding, is an immediate, not mediated by
proofs, attachment of consciousness to revelation. But that faith presupposes a change in the relation of the whole human being to God, it presupposes regeneration, the conversion of the will. Nemo credit nisi volens. Knowing compels; no one can deny a mathematical proposition.
But believing is free, it is the act of the highest freedom, because the act of the deepest self-denial. If God connects salvation not to knowing but to believing, then that is a proof that He does not compel and does not wish to compel. The letter to Diognetus, cap. 7 says so beautifully: βια γαρ οὐ προσεστι τῳ θεῳ. Precisely because faith is not a fruit of scientific proofs, it does not come into being apart from the heart and the will of the human being. That is the truth that lies in the doctrine of Kant and the NeoKantians concerning moral faith. Faith is not a conclusion of a syllogism.
Yet on the other side it is also no act of will, no postulate. The prodigal son does not postulate, when he returns to the father's house. Faith is also no imperium voluntatis. One cannot believe if one wants. The will cannot command consciousness to accept something as truth, [502] if it itself in no way at all sees the truth of it. Believing is no arbitrariness, but it is also not blind. It presupposes a change of will, operari sequitur esse; but it is a free, spontaneous recognition of the understanding of the word of God. As the eye, seeing the sun, is at once convinced of its reality, so the regenerate beholds the truth of God's revelation. For the regenerate, faith in revelation is as natural as for the moral human being the recognition of the moral law.
It is implanted in the nature of spiritual life; it is rooted in the mysterious depths of the regenerate heart. The believer can relinquish this faith as little as himself. Yes, himself he can deny, his life he can sacrifice, but his faith he cannot let go. Faith in revelation is in the Christian one with faith in himself, Hoekstra, Wijsg. Godsd. I 222. Kuyper, Encycl. II 77. The
Christian would have to relinquish faith in himself, in his sonship, in the forgiveness of his sins, in the truthfulness and the faithfulness of God, in order not to see in revelation the word of God. Faith in revelation is one with the best that is in him; in his best moments he stands most strongly in that faith. Whatever may rise up against it, he cannot do otherwise and may not do otherwise. Finally, much rises up against this his faith. Not only from without, but much more from within. However much the will is bent and the understanding is illumined, there remains in the believer still much that rises up against this obedience of faith. Faith is, because it is a proof of things that one does not see, a continual struggle. Sins of the heart and errors of the head oppose faith; and they often have the appearance on their side. There remains a dualism in the believer, as long as he is on earth; a dualism not of head and heart, but of σαρξ and πνευμα, of the παλαιος and the καινος ἀνθρωπος. Faith retains more or less a supranatural character, insofar as it goes beyond the nature of the psychical human being. It is not yet fully natural; as soon as it becomes that, it itself ceases and passes over into beholding. Faith is precisely faith, because it sees something that the psychical human being does not perceive. But this dualism, however painful also, nevertheless on the other side serves for confirmation of faith.
For if faith does not arise out of the natural dispositions of the human being, and is neither a conclusion of a syllogism nor a decision of the will; then its presence is at the same time a proof for its truth. Our own spirit does not by nature drive us to call God our Father and to count ourselves among His children. There is an essential and also easily knowable difference between the testimony of the Holy Spirit, when He says to our soul: I am your salvation, and the temptation of Satan when he speaks: Peace, peace and no danger. Potestne quis a diabolo impelli, ut Deum in fide Abba, Patrem
vocet? Heidegger, Corpus Theol. loc. 24 § 78. The Christian faith refers back to the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. Whether Theology revile and Philosophy mock, God himself is the final ground of my faith in God
(Beets).
7. This testimonium Spiritus Sancti has been all too one-sidedly related by Calvin and the Reformed theologians to the authority of Holy Scripture. It seemed that it had no other content than the subjective assurance of Scripture as the word of God. As a result this testimonium came to stand on its own; it was detached from the life of faith and seemed to indicate an extraordinary revelation, of which Michaelis was honest enough to acknowledge that he had never experienced it. Scripture, however, teaches quite differently. In general the Holy Spirit is promised by Jesus as the Comforter, as the Spirit of truth, who in the first place leads the apostles, but then through their word also all believers, into the truth, bears witness among them of Christ and glorifies Him, Joh. 14:17, 15:26, 16:14. To that end He convinces of sin, Joh. 16:8-11, regenerates, Joh. 3:3, and brings to the confession of Christ as Lord, 1 Cor. 12:3. And furthermore He assures of the sonship and of the heavenly inheritance, Rom. 8:14 v.; 2 Cor. 1:22,
5:5; Ef. 1:13, 4:30, makes known all things that have been bestowed by God upon the believer, 1 Cor. 2:12; 1 Joh. 2:20, 3:24, 4:6-13, and in the church is the author of all Christian virtues and of all spiritual gifts, Gal.
5:22; 1 Cor. 12:8-11. Clearly it appears from all these passages, that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is of a religious-ethical nature and is most closely connected with one's own life of faith. It does not proceed apart from faith, it is no voice from heaven, no dream or vision; it is a testimony,
[504] which the Holy Spirit bears in, with, through our own spirit in faith. It is not bestowed upon unbelievers but is the portion only of the children of
God. Episcopius, Instit. Theol. IV sect. 1 c. 5 § 2, therefore raised the objection, that the testimonium Sp. S. cannot be a ground of faith, because it follows only after it, Joh. 7:38, 14:17; Hd. 5:32; Gal. 3:2, 4:6. But faith itself from the very first beginning is a work of the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 12:3 and receives in the Spirit of the υἱοθεσια its seal and confirmation.
Believing itself is a testimony of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and through our spirit. There is only insofar a distinction between the Spirit of God and our spirit in this testimony, as our spirit again and again still resists it and must continually be led to obedience. Therefore the testimony of the Holy
Spirit gives no assurance of the objective truths of salvation outside connection with the state of the religious subject. It assures those truths, because they stand in inseparable connection with regeneration and conversion, forgiveness and sonship of the believer. The testimonium
Spiritus Sancti is first of all an assurance, that we are children of God. That is the central truth, the core and the midpoint of this testimony. But in connection therewith it also seals the objective truths of salvation, the transcendent and transeunt truths, as Frank called them. Yet with this further determination, that the testimonium Sp. S. reveals none of these truths to us, nor also puts us in a position to derive them by reflection from the nature of our spiritual life. The illumination of the Holy Spirit is no source of knowledge of Christian truth; it makes known to us no material truths that are hidden from the natural man; it only makes us understand and apprehend the same things differently, more deeply, spiritually. Paul says expressly, that the Spirit makes us know the things that have been objectively bestowed upon us by God in Christ, 1 Cor. 2, cf. Hoekstra,
Grondslag, wezen en openbaring van het godsd. geloof 1861 bl. 165 v. 184.
The Spirit, whom believers receive, is the Spirit of Christ, who takes
everything from Christ and is received from the preaching of the gospel, Joh. 14:17; Gal. 3:2, 4:6; 1 Joh. 2:20, 24, 27. But the truths themselves are known to us from elsewhere out of Scripture; they are only subjectively sealed by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. [505]
From this it follows that the proper object to which the Holy Spirit bears witness in the hearts of believers is nothing other than the divinitas of the truth bestowed upon us in Christ. Historical, chronological, geographical data are never, as such, in themselves, the object of the witness of the Holy
Spirit. Even the facts of salvation are not, as nuda facta, the content of that witness. No believer is, by the witness of the Holy Spirit, assured in a scientific sense of the supernatural conception and the resurrection of Christ. The only thing to which the witness of the Holy Spirit relates is the divinitas. But then also the divinitas of all those truths which have been revealed in Scripture and have been bestowed upon us by God in Christ. It is incorrect to let the testimonium Sp. S. bear only upon that which in a narrower sense is only religious-ethical. Indeed, the divinitas is the only direct object of that witness, but this divinitas is not only a property of some religious and moral statements, but equally of facts and deeds. Christ himself is a historical person, redemption has been brought about by historical deeds, and the testimonium Sp. S. also impresses upon this history the mark of divinitas. Therefore this testimonium Sp. S. has also rightly been brought by Calvin into connection with Scripture as the word of God. For not only does this Scripture, omnium consensu, have a rich religious-ethical significance for the Christian life, but it also contains a doctrine about itself. The Holy Spirit reveals to the believer not a single truth, no more concerning the person of Christ than concerning Holy
Scripture. The believer can only confess what God has bestowed upon him
in Christ. But Scripture also contains a doctrine about itself just as well as about Christ. And the testimonium Sp. S. with respect to Holy Scripture consists in this, not that the believer receives an immediate, heavenly intuition of the divinity of Scripture; nor also that he mediately concludes to its divinity from the notae and criteria; nor that he ascends to its divinity from the experience of the power that proceeds from it; but in this, that he freely and spontaneously acknowledges the authority with which Holy
Scripture everywhere appears and which it itself repeatedly expressly vindicates for itself. Not the authenticity, nor the canonicity, nor even the inspiration, but the divinitas [506] of Scripture, its divine authority, is hereby the proper object of the witness of the Holy Spirit. It causes the believer to submit to Scripture and binds him in the same measure and power to it as to the person of Christ himself. It assures him that in need and death, in life and dying, he can rely upon that word of God and with it even appear without fear before the Judge of heaven and earth. Historical criticism of Scripture therefore encounters resistance within the congregation only insofar as it detracts from this divinitas of Holy Scripture and thereby undermines the witness of the sonship of God, the hope of glory, the certainty of salvation. In a certain sense there is a circular reasoning hidden in this testimonium Sp. S. The divinitas of Scripture is proved from this witness, and the divinitas of this witness in turn from Scripture. Only, the testimonium Spiritus Sancti occurs here in a twofold respect. The believer first feels himself bound in his soul to the word of God and then later learns from Holy Scripture to understand that that faith in Scripture has been worked in his heart by the Holy Spirit. Strictly speaking, the witness of the Holy Spirit is also not the final ground of his faith, for Scripture is αὐτοπιστος; but it is the means by which he
recognizes the divinity of Scripture. Scripture and the witness of the Holy Spirit relate to one another as objective truth and subjective assurance, as the prima principia and their evidence, as the light and the eye. Once recognized in its divinity, Scripture stands for the faith of the congregation immovably fixed as the word of God, so that it is principium and norma of faith and of life.
8. This testimony of the Holy Spirit is not nullified by the fact that it is apparently so different in believers. Bellarmine already objected to it, that Luther and Calvin, despite this testimonium Sp. S., passed a very divergent judgment on the Epistle of James. But the Holy Spirit testifies in the heart of believers not only concerning Holy Scripture but likewise in relation to all other truths of salvation. There is no church which, in this sense, does not accept a testimony, an illumination of the Holy Spirit. And yet thereby difference in the confession of the distinct truths is not excluded. We believe one holy catholic Christian church, a communion [507] of saints; all believers confess one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and are saturated into one Spirit; and yet there is division and strife between the churches among themselves and in the principal articles of faith. The unity of the Christian church with respect to Scripture is much greater than in any other dogma; not even that of the Trinity and the Godhead of Christ excepted. Yet all that difference does not make us doubt the unity of faith and of knowledge, the catholicity of the church, the guidance of the Spirit into all truth; for difference will remain, as long as the church is imperfect, the heart corrupt, insight limited, faith small and weak. In the individual believer the testimonium Spiritus Sancti is not always equally strong and loud; because it is most closely connected with faith and the life of faith, it rises and falls and is subject to doubt and opposition. When in the believer sin gains the
upper hand, the consciousness of his forgiveness is darkened and the testimony of the Holy Spirit loses in power. Our faith in Scripture decreases from time to time with our trust in Christ. The confession of the testimonium Spiritus Sancti is so high and ideal, that the reality of the Christian life often remains far beneath it.
In addition to this, Scripture is most certainly a book also for the individual believer, but nevertheless in connection with the church of all ages. Scripture has been bestowed upon the whole church, upon the believers of all times and places. The individual believer always nourishes himself with a small portion of Scripture. There are entire sections of Scripture which, for individual believers, yes, for entire churches and times, remain a closed book. But the confession of Scripture as God's word is a confession of the whole church, with which the individual believer agrees, and which he also, for his person and according to the measure of his faith, supports and maintains, Hofmann, Weiss. und Erf. I 45 f. The testimonium
Spiritus Sancti is not a private opinion, but the testimony of the church of all ages, of the whole of Christendom, of the whole reborn humanity. That church also once stood in all its members, like the world, hostile over against the word of God. But the H. Spirit has received it in and with her as the truth of Christ. He has broken her hostility, enlightened her understanding, bent her will; and preserves her with the [508] truth from age to age and from day to day. The whole confession of the congregation is a testimonium Spiritus Sancti. It is the yes and amen that the congregation pronounces upon the truth of God. It is the: Abba Father, your word is the truth, that rises up from the hearts of all believers. So little is the testimonium Spiritus Sancti the Achilles' heel of Protestantism, that it rather deserves to be called the cornerstone of the Christian confession, the crown
and the seal of all Christian truth, the triumph of the H. Spirit in the world.
Take away the testimony of the H. Spirit, not only in relation to Scripture but to all truths of salvation, and there is no church any more. For the testimony that the H. Spirit gives to Scripture as the word of God is only a single tone in the song that He lays upon the lips of the congregation; it is only a small part of that great, divine work that has been entrusted to the H.
Spirit, namely, to cause the fullness of Christ to dwell in his congregation.
But thus considered, this testimony of the H. Spirit is also, over against opponents, not devoid of all value. When it is detached from its whole environment and is cut off from the life of faith in which it is rooted, from the communion of the saints in which it blossoms, from the whole of Christian truth with which it is connected; most certainly, then it loses, over against assailants, all its power, and the yes of the one is not stronger than the no of the other. But understood as testimony, borne by the H. Spirit in the hearts of all children of God concerning the truth which is there in Christ the Lord, it does not fail to make an impression upon the mind, even of the most stubborn assailant. Even then it still does not come to stand on one line with a logical reasoning or a mathematical proof. It retains a power of its own. But unhappy would science be, if it were allowed to reckon only with what is demonstrable. Has conscience no power, because the immoral man at every moment goes against its testimony? Do the principia of science deserve no faith, because the skeptic refuses to acknowledge them?
Is Holy Scripture powerless, because its truth cannot be demonstrated to the psychical man? The power of all these moral magnitudes lies precisely in this, that they do not demonstrate themselves, but in high majesty place themselves before everyone's consciousness. They are mighty through the authority [509] with which they appear. A father does not prove his
authority to his children but maintains it with droit divin. And so does Holy Scripture. It has maintained its authority in the congregation of Christ up to this day; it has made all believers, and among them the greatest minds and the noblest souls, bow before its authority. What power in the world is to be compared with that of Scripture? The testimonium Spiritus Sancti is the victory of the foolishness of the cross over the wisdom of the world, the triumph of the thoughts of God over the deliberations of man. In this sense the testimony of the H. Spirit possesses an excellent apologetic value. For this is the victory that overcomes the world, namely our faith.