persuasion of the truth itself; then certainly neither shall we believe the church's testimony, unless the same testimony of the Holy Spirit be, in the same manner, added. The same Augustine says also, in his book Contra Epist. Fund. c. 14, that, “in order that we may obtain an understanding of what we believe, it is requisite that our minds should be inwardly confirmed and illuminated by the Deity himself." And in his book De Vera Religione, c. 31, he writes thus, as we have just heard: "It is lawful for pure minds to understand the eternal law [of God], but to judge it is unlawful3." Where then are those who arrogate to themselves this judicial power, which they would exercise upon the scriptures, whose authority is supreme? Basil, upon Ps. 115, writes of faith thus beautifully and truly: "Faith," says he, "is that which draws the soul to assent by a force transcending the methods of logic faith is that produced, not by the necessary demonstrations of geometry, but by the energy of the Holy Spirit." Thus we believe not till the Holy Ghost-not the church-hath inspired us with faith. Hereto appertains also what Ambrose says, De Fide ad Gratian. Lib. I. c. 5: "Do not," says he, "O Arian, estimate divine things by our (sayings, or writings, or authorities, or words); but believe them divine, when you find that they are not human5." Divine things, therefore, are proved by themselves, are believed on their own account. Salvian, the bishop, De Providentia, Lib. II., writes thus: "All human sayings need arguments and witnesses, but the word of God is its own witness; because it must needs be, that whatever incorruptible truth speaks, should be the incorruptible testimony of truth"." . We have besides the testimonies of papists themselves. For the chief popish writers may be cited in this cause. Gabriel Biel, in Sentent. Lib. III. Dist. 25, in Dub. 3, speaks thus: "Catholic verities, without any approbation of the church, are by their own nature immutable, and immutably true, and so are to be considered [2 Ut... quod credimus intelligere mereamur, non jam hominibus, sed ipso Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram firmante atque illuminante. T. x. p. 192.] [3 Vide supra, p. 354.] [4 ἡ ὑπὲρ τὰς λογικὰς μεθόδους τὴν ψυχὴν εἰς συγκατάθεσιν ἕλκουσα, κ.τ.λ. T. I. p. 313, B. Whitaker, in making this citation, writes incorrectly σvyκατάβασιν for συγκατάθεσιν.] [5 Noli, Arriane, ex nostris æstimare divina, sed divina crede ubi humana non invenis.-Opp. T. IV. p. 122. Par. 1603.] [6 Humana omnia dicta argumentis et testibus egent, Dei autem sermo ipse sibi testis est: quia necesse est quicquid incorrupta veritas loquitur, incorruptum sit testimonium veritatis.-Salv. Opp. Par. 1684, p. 43.] immutably catholic1." But this is a catholic verity about which we inquire it is, therefore, immutable in its nature, and immutably to be considered catholic, and that, without the approbation of the church. Hosius in his Confessio Petrocoviensis, cap. 16, says that we believe the gospel on no other score, but on account of the voice of God speaking within and teaching us2. This he affirms more than once in that book, although afterwards he tries in some degree to correct and excuse himself. Melchior Canus, Loc. Commun. Lib. II. c. 8, disputes upon this question at great length, and, though differing from us in words, agrees with us in substance. For he says, that, without infused faith we can believe nothing necessarily, nor be persuaded of any thing certainly. But that faith which springs from the church's judgment is acquired; whereas infused faith proceeds from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, even by the confession of the papists themselves, the scripture is to us what it is, that is, the scripture, on account of the authority of God; and in order that we should certainly believe what we receive in scripture, we have need of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Canisius, in his Catechism, in the chapter upon the precepts of the church, sect. 16, says that we "believe, adhere, and attribute the greatest authority to scripture on account of the testimony of the divine Spirit which speaks in it3." Hence two things are collected : first, that the Holy Spirit speaks in scripture; secondly, that the Holy Spirit, speaking in scripture, persuades us to believe scripture and assign to it the greatest authority. So Stapleton in the last chapter of his first book: "It is not derogatory to the sacred scripture that it receives witness from the church, although it have greater testimony from the Spirit of God, who is its author." If this be true, why hath Stapleton afterwards disputed so keenly against this testimony of the Spirit, which he had himself confessed to be greater than the testimony of the church? And Bellarmine himself, in his MS. lectures upon Thomas' Secunda Secundæ, Quæst. 1, Art. 1, Dub. 1, teaches that we believe, not on account of the church, but on account of the revelation of God; and refutes the contrary opinions of certain others. Thus we conclude that our opinion is true not only in itself, but even in the judgment of our adversaries themselves. And so much upon the third question. [1 Sicut veritates catholicæ absque omni approbatione ecclesiæ ex natura rei sunt immutabiles, et immutabiliter veræ, ita sunt immutabiliter catholicæ reputandæ. p. 253. Brixiæ, 1574.] [2.. propter Dei vocem intus loquentis.-p. 21. Opp. Lugd. 1564.] [3 Scripturæ propter testimonium divini Spiritus in illa loquentis credimus, &c.-Opus Catech. p. 157. Colon. 1577.] THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. QUESTION IV. CONCERNING THE PERSPICUITY OF SCRIPTURE. CHAPTER I. OF THE STATE OF THE QUESTION. IN commencing to speak of this question, we must return to that foundation which was laid at the beginning. In John v. 39, Christ says, "Search the scriptures," épevvâte Tas ypapás. The precept of Christ, therefore, is plain, declaring that the scriptures should be searched: whence the question arises, whether those sacred scriptures, which we are commanded to search, are so full of obscurity and difficulty as to be unintelligible to us; or whether there be not rather a light and clearness and perspicuity in scripture, so as to make it no useless task for the people to be engaged and occupied in their perusal. Here, therefore, we have to dispute concerning the nature of scripture. But, before coming to the argument, we must see what is the opinion of our adversaries upon this matter, and what is our own. As to our own opinion, the papists certainly either do not understand it; or, if they do, treat us unfairly and slander us in an impudent manner. For we never said that every thing in scripture is easy, perspicuous, and plain; that there is nothing obscure, nothing difficult to be understood; but we confess openly that there are many obscure and difficult passages of scripture: and yet these men object to us this, and affirm that we maintain the scriptures to be perfectly easy. The council of Trent hath defined or expressly determined nothing upon this matter. We must, therefore, investigate the opinion of our adversaries by the help of other writings of papists, so as to be enabled to discover the true state of the controversy. Eckius, the most insolent of popish writers, in his Enchiridion, Loc. IV., writing of the scripture, objects to us this opinion, that the scripture is so easy, that even the ignorant people may and ought to read it. His words are these: "The Lutherans contend that the sacred scriptures are clear; and accordingly laymen and doting old women treat of them in a style of authority." Whence we understand that their mind and opinion is, that the people are to be kept from reading the scriptures, because they are so obscure as that they cannot be understood by laics, women, and the vulgar. We hold the contrary, that the scriptures are not so difficult but that they may be read with advantage, and ought to be read, by the people. Hosius also, in his third book of the authority of the church against Brentius, is copious in proving and establishing the exceeding great obscurity of the sacred writings. So the Censors of Cologne, against Monhemius, write to precisely the same effect: for they say in their preface, that the difficulty of scripture "may be argument enough that all are not to be indiscriminately admitted to the reading of it." Hence they conclude that the unlearned are to be prohibited reading scripture, even the history of Christ's passion; in which they say that there are so many doubtful points, that even the learned can hardly reconcile them. Thus they permit no part of scripture to the people, not even that most sweet and easy narrative, altogether worthy of our perusal and meditation, which contains the history of the death of Christ. Andradius, Orthodox. Explic. Lib. I., disputes largely upon the obscurity of scripture. Lindanus, in his Panoplia, Lib. III. c. 6, affirms of all scripture that which Peter said only of certain subjects handled in Paul's Epistles: for he says that there are, throughout the whole body of scripture, many things "hard to be understood," and that such is the unanimous opinion of divines. Stapleton, Lib. x. c. 2, says that the church ought to interpret scripture on account of the difficulties which present themselves generally and in most places. The Rhemists, in their annotations upon 2 Pet. iii. 16, say that the whole scripture is difficult, but especially the Epistles of Paul; whereas Peter, as shall appear hereafter, affirms neither all that Peter observes is, that there are some things in Paul's Epistles "hard to be understood, which the unlearned wrest, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction." What they subjoin out of Augustine, that of all things which Paul taught, nothing is more. difficult than what he writes concerning the righteousness of faith, can by no means be conceded. For if Paul ever said any thing plainly, he hath declared his mind upon this subject in a perspi [1 Lutherani contendunt scripturas sacras esse claras ; ideo laici et deliræ anus eas tractant imperiose.] cuous discourse. The same Rhemists, in their marginal annotation upon Luke vi. 1, attribute to us this opinion, "that all things are very easy." The Jesuit Bellarmine affirms that there are many obscurities in scripture; which we also concede: but when he determines the state of the question to be this, whether scripture be so plain of itself, as to suffice without any interpretation for deciding and putting an end to all controversies of faith of its own self, he fights without an adversary: at least he hath no adversaries in us upon this point. Prateolus, in his Elenchus Hæreticorum, Lib. xvII. c. 20, says that it is the common article of all sectaries to affirm that the scriptures are clear of themselves, and need no interpretation. Sixtus Senensis, in his Bibliotheca, Lib. vi. Annot. 151, objects to us this error,—that we say that the whole scriptures are so clear and perspicuous of their own nature as to be capable of being understood by any one, however illiterate, unless some external obstacle be interposed. Costerus the Jesuit, in his Enchiridion of Controversies lately published, confesses that many things in scripture are plain; but adds that many things are not of such a nature as to be intelligible to every body without any trouble. But they do us injustice, and openly preach falsehood concerning us, when they affirm us to say that all things in scripture are so plain that they may be understood by any unlearned person, and need no exposition or interpretation. Hence we see, both what they think, namely, that the scriptures are so obscure that they ought not to be read by the unlearned; and what they say, but falsely say, that we think, that all things are plain in the scriptures, and that they suffice without any interpretation to determine all controversies. Let us now see what our opinion really is. Luther, in his assertion of the articles condemned by Leo X., in the preface, says that the scripture is its own most plain, easy, and certain interpreter, proving, judging, and illustrating all things. This is said by him most truly, if it be candidly understood. The same author, in his book of the Slavery of the Will against the Diatribe of Erasmus, writes almost in the beginning, that in the scriptures there is nothing abstruse, nothing obscure, but that all things are plain. And because this may seem a paradox, he afterwards explains himself thus: he confesses that many places of scripture are obscure, that there are many words and sentences shrouded in difficulty, but he affirms nevertheless that no dogma is obscure; as, for instance, that God is one and three, that Christ hath suffered, and will reign for ever, and so forth. All |