Adversaries: without the Church Scripture is doubtful and uncertain
The Roman doctors next try to prove that Scripture's authority for us hangs on the Church's.
Without the Church's authority and witness, they say, Scripture is doubtful and uncertain for us, and must be confirmed by that authority and witness.
They argue that without it we cannot know for certain which books are holy and divine: heretics and idle men have forged many writings under the Prophets' and Apostles' names; not everything Prophets and Apostles wrote earned divine authority (Solomon and others wrote things never numbered among the sacred letters); and scarcely any biblical book has escaped doubt or outright denial from professing Christians.
The Manichaeans rejected the Old Testament; the Ptolemaeans Moses; the Marcionites the Gospels except Luke alone — and so on. We still contest Rome over certain books they force into the Old Testament canon as Apocrypha. Even among the orthodox there was once doubt about many New Testament books, and there is still doubt among those who have left Rome in these later centuries — Jude, James, and some letters of John and Peter.
Add corruption, depravation, and interpolation by heretics, with additions and omissions; some still suspect the first part of John 8 and the story of the adulterous woman.
In so great a clash of opinions about the sacred books and their parts, they ask, how can truth be found without the Church's authority and judgment? How do you know those books are truly the Prophets' and Apostles'? And even if they are, how do you know they were written by divine inspiration rather than human care, and have reached us whole rather than variously corrupted?
They conclude that for faith about Scripture to rest on a firm base we must turn to the Church, which by a certain and infallible judgment tells divine books from Apocrypha and forgeries — a judgment the faithful may safely trust.
Latin
XV. Praeterea Scripturae authoritatem quoad nos ab authoritate Ecclesiae pendere Pontificii sic probare contendunt. Absque authoritate & testimonio Ecclesiae, Scriptura nobis est dubia & incerta, & illam per Ecclesiae authoritatem & testimonium confirmari necesse est. Scripturam autem esse dubiam & incertam, nisi Ecclesiae authoritas & testimonium accedat, inde probant, quod absque authoritate illa certo sciri non potest, qui sint libri sacri & divini, qui minus. Et hoc quia plurima scripta, ab haereticis & vanis hominibus conficta, Prophetis & Apostolis afficta & supposita sunt. Nec etiam quaecunque scripserunt Prophetae & Apostoli divinam authoritatem habere meruerunt. Etenim multa leguntur scripsisse Salomo, & alii Prophetae, quae in sacrarum literarum numero habita non sunt. Tum quoque vix est ullus Scripturae sacrae liber cujus authoritas non sit in dubium vocata, aut in totum negata, ab iis qui se Christianos profitebantur. Exempli causa, Manichaei Veteris Testamenti authoritatem negabant, Ptolomaïtae librorum Mosis, Marcionitae Evangeliorum, excepto solius Lucae Evangelio, & ita de caeteris. Et adhuc hodie inter nos & Pontificios de quorundam librorum divinorum authoritate certatur. Siquidem plures libros, quos Apocryphos censemus, ad Canonem Veteris Testamenti pertinere volunt. Atque etiam de multis Novi Testamenti libris inter ipsos orthodoxos olim dubitatum est, & hodie quoque dubitatur inter eos qui ab Ecclesia Romana postremis hisce saeculis secesserunt. Ut ex. gr. de Epistola Judae & Jacobi, & quibusdam Joannis & Petri Epistolis. Adde quod libri sacri ab haereticis corrupti, depravati & interpolati sunt, iisque multa addita vel detracta. Et quibusdam adhuc suspecta est prima pars capitis octavi Evangelii secundum Joannem, ubi habetur historia de muliere adultera. In tanta ergo, inquiunt, sententiarum varietate & confusione de libris sacris & eorum partibus, qua certa ratione verum poterit inveniri absque authoritate & judicio Ecclesiae? Unde scitis libros eos qui Prophetis & Apostolis tribuuntur revera eorum esse: Et posito quod libri isti revera quosdam ex Prophetis & Apostolis habeant authores, unde certo scietis illos non fuisse scriptos humana diligentia, sed divina inspiratione, & ad nos usque integros pervenisse, non vero variis modis ab haereticis corruptos. Atque inde concludunt, ut fides nostra de Scriptura firmum fundamentum habeat, necessario recurrendum esse ad authoritatem Ecclesiae, quae scilicet, suo judicio certo & infallibili libros divinos discernit ab Apocryphis & supposititiis, & quo judicio licet fidelibus secure niti.
About this text
Louis Le Blanc de Beaulieu, Sedan Theses, newly rendered from Latin: from theology proper through the Roman theses I–77 and the Reformed theses of Part Two. The theses only — not the collected works.
English follows locked Pitt Latin through Imaginum CLOSED + Sanctorum Cultu Romana CLOSED + Pars Secunda Reformata I-XL. 1675 PDF ~384-390 (book ~370-376); Vision OCR + pdftotext + tess. No modern English. This slice densifies Sanctorum Pars Secunda I-XL. Next: Pars Secunda XLI–fin (~CI). Claim stays claimed (book densify not done).
Catalogue & scope
ESTC R17887; Wing L802. IA bub_gb_eOkHAW4G0-wC (+ EEBO 1675 for gap leaves). Densify through Sanctorum Cultu Romana I-LXXVII + Pars Secunda Reformata I-XL (Pars Secunda not closed; not whole folio).
Witnesses
- Copy-text Locked Latin, De Theologia I-XLIII (Pitt 1675) (Latin)
- Checked print Internet Archive PDF of the 1675 Pitt folio (Latin)
- Checked print pdftotext of De Theologia pages (Latin)
- Checked print Internet Archive DjVu OCR of the 1675 Pitt folio (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, De Fide I-XXII (Pitt 1675) (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, De Authoritate Scripturae Pars I I-XLVII + Pars II I-XXXV + Pars III I-VIII (Pitt 1675) (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, De Scripturae plenitudine densify (Pitt 1675) (Latin)
This is an AI-assisted study translation. Source fidelity and completeness have not been independently certified. Open Latin on each section (or the Latin source witness link) for the source text. This is not a complete critical edition.