De locis theologicis

CONTAINS THE ARGUMENTS OF THOSE WHO TRY TO PERSUADE US THAT SACRED SCRIPTURE DOES NOT NEED THE CHURCH'S APPROVAL

As for the first part, the Lutherans once asserted that Scripture does not need the approval of the Church or anyone else, but that judgment about Scripture must be made from Scripture itself—or rather, that everything else must be judged by Scripture, while Scripture itself is manifest to everyone who has the light of the Holy Spirit and faith. If you ask them, “Who will assure us that these books came from God? Who will confirm that they reached our own time safe and intact? Who will persuade us that this book should be received with reverence and that one removed from the list?” they say it is just as if someone asked how we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, or sweet from bitter. Scripture, they say, does not present the sense of its truth more obscurely than white and black things present their colors, or sweet and bitter things their tastes. The same is true among philosophers: everything else is proved through the common conceptions of the mind (as they call them), even though these conceptions themselves need no proof. Thus the Lutherans think that knowledge of the divine word—which is a common principle of Catholic teaching—is so readily available that no human approval is necessary. And this same most pernicious error once prevailed among

This same error prevailed long ago among the Wycliffites, as Thomas Waldensis attests in book 2 of The Antiquity of the Catholic Faith, ch. 19, so that no one should think this heresy first arose from Luther. First argument. At the outset they try to persuade us from what the Lord says in John 5: “I do not accept testimony from a human being.” But whether it is the Supreme Pontiff, a Council, or even the whole Church, they are all human beings; therefore the Gospel of Christ and the other parts of Scripture do not receive testimony from them. Second argument. They confirm the same point from what the Apostle John says in 1 John: “You do not need anyone to teach you; but as his anointing teaches you about all things, and is true.” Third argument. In the third place they argue from the Lord's words: “If anyone wishes to do his will, he will know from the teaching whether it is from God”; similar are the words, “My sheep hear my voice, but they do not follow a stranger.” Luther boasts of this testimony as if the case were settled and, before any contest has even taken place, exults like a fierce victor. For, as he says, the Gospel clearly testifies that the sheep themselves have the ability to discern Scripture. Fourth argument. They assert the fourth argument from these words of John: “If you accept the testimony of human beings, the testimony of God is greater: Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony of God within himself.” In all matters, then, that pertain to faith, we should not turn to external testimony from human beings, but to the testimony God gives within us. Fifth argument. They also add this passage from Deuteronomy: “Whoever will not hear the words of the prophet who speaks in my name, I will be his avenger; but the prophet who presumes to speak in my name what I did not command him to say shall be put to death.” If you answer silently in your mind, “How can I understand a word that the Lord has not spoken?” you will have this sign: “If the prophet foretells something in the name of the Lord and it does not happen, the Lord has not spoken it,” and so on. See how the faithful people are not referred to a pontiff or priest, nor to a council of human beings, to discern God's words from human words; rather, they are instructed to discern them from the evidence of things themselves. Sixth argument. The following passage of John belongs to the same point: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this the Spirit of God is known,” and so on. Seventh argument. They further confirm the same point from the Apostle's testimony: “The natural person does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God, but the spiritual person judges all things.” Again, they cite: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge”; and a little later: “If anyone seems to be spiritual, let him recognize that what I write to you are the Lord's commandments.” Therefore anyone in whom the Spirit of God is present can rightly know and discern the Lord's words. They also bring forward other testimonies, which need not be set forth here because they point to the same thing and are refuted in the same way. Instead, we should add the arguments they also use to confirm their error. First argument. “If the Church,” they say, “were to judge the divine Scriptures, then an inferior would usurp authority over the law of a superior.” That is plainly absurd. For, as Augustine says, “It is not permitted to judge laws by a judge's own judgment, but according to the laws,” dist. 4, ch. “In istis.”

Second argument. Further, they say, what security would we have for eternal life if all the promises about it in Sacred Scripture rested on human judgment alone? And how much suspicion would fall on our faith among human beings if it were believed to have authority only through human favor, like a loan that must be returned? Since the Apostle asserts that the foundation of the Church is Catholic and apostolic teaching, the certainty of that teaching must be established before the Church begins to exist. For if the Christian Church was founded on the writings of the prophets and the preaching of the apostles, wherever that teaching is found, its approval certainly preceded the Church, without which the Church itself would never have existed. It is therefore a most empty fiction, Calvin says in book 1 of the Institutes, that the Church has the power to judge Scripture, as if the certainty of Scripture depended on the Church's nod. Third argument. Further, if the truth of Sacred Scripture depended on human testimony and were proved by it, the final resolution of faith would then rest on the authority of the Church. For we believe that Christ was the son of David because God revealed this to the prophets and apostles. If we held that God revealed it on the authority of the Church, our faith would ultimately be referred not to God but to human beings. Therefore the formal ground of faith would be not divine but human truth. Fourth argument. Finally, as Aristotle taught in Posterior Analytics, book 1, ch. 2: “That on account of which each thing is such is itself more so.” If canonical Scripture were therefore confirmed by the authority of the Church, we would believe human beings more than God. Yet it is established that no authority is greater than the divine authority with which Sacred Scripture is endowed. Sacred Scripture, then, will not be confirmed by the Church or depend on its approval. Heretics can use these and other arguments to advocate their error, but cannot persuade us of it. They are gravely mistaken when they try to undermine the authority of the Church in affirming Scripture. We shall now dispute briefly and solely on this question of the canonical books, because many Catholic men have already argued very carefully against heretics about the Church's authority, and we too must later assert and confirm it in general.