§ 1. Certain persons cause harm by loving too much; hypocrites do so much more by an excessive pretense of love. For our ministers, by daily shouting “the pure word of God” and “the pure sources of the Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek language,” have now come to this point: if the things which they say against us are true, they must be altogether without the Bible. My reasoning is this.
Whoever until now have read or heard no authentic Bible in their churches have not, according to their own judgment, possessed the word of God. For it belongs to the rationale or essence of the divine word to be τὸ αὐθεντικὸν; indeed, in order also to profit souls, it must be known and loved as authentic and as the word of most immutable truth. But until now no one in the evangelical churches has possessed an authentic Bible which, according to their doctrine, they could believe as authentic. Therefore they have not possessed the Bible; indeed, while their opinion remains, they cannot possess it.
The major proposition is granted by consensus; I prove the minor.
First, they possess neither the Hebrew, the Greek, the Latin, nor any version in another language; therefore they have never possessed any Scripture which they can acknowledge as authentic. They do not possess the Hebrew, because they have not seen the first original exemplar published by Moses and the other writers; they have received only copies transmitted to us through a long succession. They cannot know certainly that these were copied by a faithful hand and an unerring pen. For they cannot establish this certainly from Scripture itself, since this is τὸ κρινόμενον, the very thing judged and drawn into controversy: whether Scripture, which calls itself divine, is truly such, and whether this exemplar was written correctly. Accordingly, they must do the same with the law of God as is done with a prince’s diploma.
Zwingli and others, to be sure, denied that the Apocalypse was divine. Those who repudiated the Apocalypse judged those words with which the prophecy begins—“The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, which God gave him”—false and imposturous. Now they admit it, not because those words are placed at the head of the book, for they did not move the Calvinists and Luther, but for other causes—namely, so that they may speak evil of the Roman pontiff. But I am now speaking of the trustworthiness of notaries and copyists, and I ask by what argument they were led to persuade themselves that it was correctly copied. Not from Scripture, for nowhere does it testify that through two or three thousand years, amid the deceits and boastings of so many heresies, it came down to us unharmed and uncontaminated.
§ 2. Nor can this be known from a private impulse of the Spirit for the edification of the Church. The reason is manifest: although God can illuminate the mind and reveal his mysteries, nevertheless certainty concerning another person’s mind is not sealed by a hidden impulse. For why should I believe those who thrust their enthusiasms and impulses upon me? I seek the word of God.
Nor does the attestation of the primitive Church pertain to the matter, because it is human and fallacious testimony, as they maintain, and it could not judge concerning the copyists who followed.
But if they have cut off from themselves every path by which they could reach certainty concerning the original Scripture, much less are they certain about any version; and indeed they themselves confess this. Above I cited Luther’s words: Ich kan weder Griechisch noch Hebräisch. “I know neither Greek nor Hebrew.” If he speaks truly, he taught without the word of God, for his disciples and the Calvinists say that only the Hebrew Scripture and the Greek are authentic. Thus Sharp in controversy 2 concerning Scripture, and Cameron in his little book against James Suárez, page 12, professes that he is unwilling to stand by any version of the Bible, but only by the native languages—Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New. Rightly, however, do they trust no version, for there is none which they do not possess in a most defective form. Thus the king of England at the Hampton Court Conference declared “that some uniform translation of the Bible must altogether be published, because he had hitherto seen no good English one and judged the Genevan the worst of all; and he considered its notes added in the margin partial, false, seditious, and too strongly redolent of the contrivances of a dangerous and most perverse mind. It was to be published in such a way that, after the labor of the two universities and after the review of the bishops and the more learned clerics, it should be offered to the Privy Council, finally receive authority from the king, and the whole English Church be compelled to embrace that one version.”
§ 3. Since, therefore, they can stand by no version as authentic, mutually object to one another that their versions are erroneous, and cannot all have recourse to the source, they are destitute of every aid. For how few are so skilled in Hebrew that they draw from the pure source with certain knowledge? The remaining crowd is given drink from muddy streams poisoned by various heresies.
I do not grant this to those who confess that they have translated the Bible from the Hebrew, a thing which Beza in the preface to the New Testament denies to be the work of one man. For although they seem learned to themselves, since they are not Hebrews by birth and use glosses, lexicons, and the interpretations of the Rabbis, unless they think that they cannot err in memory and judgment they are the vainest of all human beings. After nearly twenty years Luther confessed that Sanctes, Münster, and he himself had frequently erred because they had trusted too much in the glosses of the Rabbis. Münster says that very many verses were omitted in Sanctes, just as in
Luther’s revision. Luther revised his version several times; the Zurich theologians received it with mockery; and in the Mansfeld Confession the Osiandrians say that passages of Scripture were interpreted by Luther with great falsehood and deceit.
They are not certain concerning their own version—that it is a version of Scripture—unless with the most insane arrogance they resolve their faith ultimately into their most exact knowledge of four languages: Hebrew, Chaldean, Greek, and Latin.
Second, we can validly turn and retort upon the heretics the arguments which are invalid against the old edition. Let us therefore suppose someone from any religion who is in great part ignorant of the languages I have named, but desirous of salvation and zealous for truth. Let us offer him a German Bible so that he may learn truth from the word of God. If it is Luther’s or the Zurich theologians’, Sharp will say, in controversy 2 concerning sacred Scripture, calumny 7: “If this version is authentic, it is so either because of the translator Luther, because of the Church’s approval, or because it agrees with the Hebrew text. Not for the first reason, because not even Luther thought it authentic. Nor because of the Church’s approval, because approval cannot make a noncanonical thing canonical. Much less because it agrees with the Greek or Hebrew, because that man cannot judge this but must believe some Lutheran minister who perhaps is himself neither a Hebrew nor a Greek.” But what if he believes Matthesius, who disciplines Luther’s version with rods in a departing sermon and says, “Learn better”?
§ 4. Consequently, until now we have possessed no Bible except the Hebrew and Greek alone. Therefore, according to the sectarians, there has been no Lutheran or Zwinglian church. For let them show me one person who understood the Hebrew and Greek Bible and belonged to their religion. What, then, will you do with this man? Will you send him away to the grammar schools of the Greeks, Latins, and Hebrews? This would certainly be in vain. Nevertheless, there is no authentic Scripture if the Greek version of the Seventy and the Latin version are rejected, for the Hebrew was understood by almost no Christians except a very few. But our adversaries judge that Scripture alone—the Hebrew alone for the Old Testament and the Greek for the New—is to be used. Although it is authentic, this nevertheless cannot be established for those who have never seen Hebrew codices. “It is false,” says Sharp. “The Greek Church possessed the Old Testament authentically in the Greek language.” Next he says: “The true Church ought to possess, and still possesses, men who understand these languages, although perhaps the Roman Church has none or few.” I shall see to the Roman Church elsewhere; now I examine those words.
§ 5. Ought the true Church to possess persons skilled in the Greek and Hebrew language? If it does not possess them, will it be a true Church? If you affirm that it will not, what will become of so many of your churches over which square preachers, tailors, and others whom the Arminians so often name in Belgium preside? If you concede that there will be a Church without preachers skilled in Greek and Hebrew, you must also establish that it will exist without Scripture. Since Scripture alone is the word of God, it will be a Church of God without the word of God, which is most absurd. But let it possess the German or British word. This does nothing for your imaginations. No German or British Scripture is authentic; every word of God is authentic; therefore no German or British Scripture is the word of God.
They therefore necessarily take away all faith from the unlearned, who are compelled to believe so many things of which they cannot be certain: first, that the books were written by prophets; 2. that they were copied correctly; 3. that they were translated well; 4. that these things are taught clearly from Scripture; 5. that they possess such an impulse as does not deceive. Each of these contains very many things: namely, that the translators were most learned in languages and most diligent, that their copyists were most faithful, and that, although many erred, their own men nevertheless did not err in their version. By translating the Bible, therefore, they overturn it, and bring it about that nothing is believed sincerely and that curiosity and contention exist in place of faith.
Beza noted this on Acts 10, in the digression: “For the matter has now come to such a point that not only do those who devise something from their own talent recoil from the customary and familiar words of Scripture as though they were obscure, tasteless, and obsolete, but now those who translate Scripture from Greek into Latin or some other language think that anything whatsoever is permitted to them in interpreting. If you reprove them, you immediately hear that the office of a translator is discharged not by one who translates word for word but by one who expresses the meaning. Thus it happens that, while each person prefers freely to follow his own judgment rather than religiously to act as translator of the Holy Spirit, he does not so much translate as pervert very many things. Unless this lust and audacity are opposed, assuredly either I am greatly mistaken or within a few years we shall gradually be driven even from possession of the things themselves.”
That lust is not opposed; rather, it is inflamed by glory, rewards, and infidelity. Therefore they have now been driven from possession of the things themselves.
From these things it is most manifest both that we possess a Church constituted by divine law and that they do not possess one.
Next, our state is most excellently constituted, since in it the supreme legislator is adored, his law is preserved, expounded, understood, and observed. These things concern the written law of God, from which comes the soundness and sanctity of all laws in the state.
§ 6. I have shown in various ways that the sectarians cannot defend the authority of the written divine law; now let us see what they wrote repeatedly in the year 1617. Sharp, column 6, enumerates four offices of the Church concerning Scripture. 1. It is a witness, guardian, and like a notary. 2. It is an avenger, because it discerns false writings from true, as a goldsmith discerns gold from copper, since it possesses the Spirit of God for this purpose. 3. It is a herald of Scripture. 4. It is an interpreter, but so that it interprets Scripture from Scripture, mixing in nothing of its own.
§ 7. He likewise gives four means of knowing Scripture. The first is the testimony of Scripture itself, or of God speaking in Scripture. The second is private impulse. The third is the substance of the doctrine, its quality, the form of teaching, events, miracles, Satan’s fury against it, and the punishment of enemies. The fourth is the testimony of the Church. He says that this pertains to those who are outside the Church, but the former testimonies by no means do; the faithful know the authority of Scripture more certainly from the former testimonies, but principally from the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
I settle the matter concerning the offices with one syllogism. According to Sharp, the Church is a fallacious guardian, witness, avenger, and herald; therefore it does not possess the Spirit of God for judging genuine and authentic books from false and supposititious ones, just as the first Calvinist church did not judge rightly concerning the Apocalypse when it denied that it was the voice of Christ the bridegroom. Those offices, therefore, have not been established rightly. Consequently, the Church affords nothing certain from these things.
The means which are proposed utterly overturn belief in the Scriptures among them. He says that the first is the testimony of Scripture itself—that is, of God speaking in the Scriptures—through which the first motions are excited in hearts. This testimony is not distinct from the second,
that is, the testimony of the Spirit; or if it is distinct, it effects nothing.
For if it excites a motion of believing, it must necessarily effect this by testifying. I shall speak afterward concerning this testimony; because it contains more, I shall defer it to the last place. There is nothing certain in the third means. For first, “the substance of the doctrine,” Sharp says, “contained in the Scriptures surpasses every earthly capacity,” 1 Corinthians 2:14. Therefore the authority of Scripture cannot be proved from the substance, because it is not yet understood by catechumens; next, many parts of it are not understood by the very learned; third, certain things are unknown even to the most learned. Therefore the authority of Scripture cannot be known certainly from the things contained in Scripture unless all the things in it are understood accurately. For although certain truths are perspicuous, many hidden ones nevertheless remain which cannot prove it while they are unknown.
That manner, therefore, is most difficult, requires the longest time, and, as I certainly judge, is τὸ ἀδύνατον, impossible, at this time. For how will anyone so resolve the whole of Scripture—that is, all its ἐναντιοφανῆ, apparent contradictions—amid so many thousands of conflicting interpreters that he remains stuck in no matter? Yet this must be done if the authority of Scripture depends upon the things contained in it. For if someone says concerning the book of Heraclitus or of other σκοτεινῶν, obscure writers, “The things which I have understood are excellent; I think that those which I have not understood are excellent also,” I readily permit it. But those who gather the authority of sacred Scripture from their perfect understanding of it cannot speak thus concerning sacred Scripture.
§ 8. Sharp adds a proof “from purity, because it contains nothing defective.” I believe most truly that it contains nothing defective; but in order that I may establish its authority from this, it is necessary that I possess not only a most thorough understanding of all its parts and members but also compare all things with the Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek exemplars—and indeed with diverse exemplars. For, to say nothing of this major premise, “Every book which contains nothing defective is divine,” no one will persuade himself of this minor premise without immense knowledge: “This book contains nothing defective.” For it must be proved by induction: neither this part nor that part contains defect. It must be proved from the things contained in it, but in this manner no one will be able to prove it except one who labors over it with supreme talent, the longest life, the most tranquil leisure, and adamantine labor.
I demonstrate this by the example which Sharp supplies to me. The Church proves and judges the Scriptures as a goldsmith does gold. But if a goldsmith must explore and test one hundred thousand gold coins contained in one vessel, from the very things contained in the vessel, without employing another’s testimony, he must surely rub each one upon a Lydian stone. For he will not know that no gold coin is adulterated until he has perceived the δοκίμια, assays, of each.
This, I say, is necessary if it must be known from the things contained in the vessel that no gold coin is defective. Accordingly, those who preach these things lead even the most learned human beings to despair; they themselves believe nothing in the Scriptures and permit others to believe nothing. I am not ignorant that, from the fact that nothing defective is shown in Scripture, it becomes credible that it is divine. But most persons, led by the testimony of the Church, judge that “nothing of this kind is shown” to be so; they do not place the foundation of faith in experience.
But Scripture carries one into admiration. So it does; but certain other things also carry one away when they are spoken gravely, simply, well, and truly.
He also affirms that the consonance of the things which are in the Scriptures is a means, but no one knows that consonance from his own experience unless he compares all things with all. Miracles, punishments, and the wrath of enemies against Scripture make it credible; they cannot make the sectarians most certain, because many Scriptures lack miracles and were not sanctioned by punishments of enemies.
But, these things at last being omitted, in which not even they place much protection, let us attack the citadel of all heresies and their hiding place. It is each person’s private impulse, which brings it about that each knows which Scripture is canonical and which is not, just as if you received or annulled the law of a prince by your own spirit.
But when this is established as the chief point of the matter, despair is cast into miserable souls and Scripture is overturned. For first, how does an unlearned person learn by his own impulse that this Scripture was well translated from Hebrew into French, when he has never seen Hebrew? Next, if that impulse suffices, what need is there of other criteria and arguments? Third, those who employ those impulses cannot even teach, for that impulse lies hidden in the inmost breast and does not come to the knowledge of others. Fourth, it differs: Castellio rejects the Song of Songs, others reject other books, each according as enthusiasm has granted. Fifth, impulse contains a circle: “Why do you believe Scripture? Because the Spirit testifies that it is true. How do you know that this is a true testimony? Because Scripture asserts it thus.” Sixth, it is blasphemy to prove the authority of the divine word from one’s own impulse in such a way that one ultimately resolves all things into one’s own judgment. For this reasoning supplied an opportunity and pretext to all heresies. Sharp also acknowledges that not all churches which possess the Spirit of God agree concerning Scripture.
Finally, by disputing they at last unwillingly slip down into our opinion and understand under the name of Scripture even unwritten doctrine. For Sharp, lest he be compelled to acknowledge that the Church is older than Scripture, since it is manifestly established that the first Church was content with tradition alone, writes thus in column 63: “In the prosyllogism there is a deception of homonymy in the name ‘Scripture.’ For the name ‘Scripture’ is sometimes taken for the substance of Scripture and the thing written—that is, the word of God—and then it is nothing other than doctrina ἄγραφος, unwritten doctrine; at another time it is taken for the accident of this doctrine, namely its writing and inscription in books. In the first sense Scripture is older than the Church, and thus the proposition is false. For Scripture, or the word of God, is the foundation of the Church, Ephesians 2:20. But a foundation is older than the building. Thus Scripture is the seed of the Church, Matthew 13:1; 1 Peter 1:23. But seed is older than that offspring of which it is the seed. Finally, this same word which is now written was then unwritten.”
Here he openly calls the unwritten word of God “Scripture.” When it was afterward written, it was not at once written in its entirety; nevertheless, it could have been retained unwritten by many. But there will be mention of this matter when traditions are treated.