Their analogy: Scripture stands to the Church as a dogma stands to Scripture
To mark the difference between their sentence and ours, and where the hinge of the controversy sits, note how the Pontificii compare sacred Scripture with the Church's doctrine: as we compare a particular dogma of faith with sacred Scripture.
As an article of faith — for example that the dead will one day rise — has its truth and authority in itself from God alone, not from the Prophets' and Apostles' testimony as writers of Scripture, so they admit that sacred Scripture has its authority in itself from God alone, not from the Church's word.
And as the chief reason we embrace that dogma is not properly Peter's, Paul's, or Isaiah's authority, but the divine revelation brought to us by their pen — for the dogma was believed before Scripture, and can still be believed apart from it — so they confess that the Church's testimony is not the proper and chief reason of our faith about Scripture, but simply and absolutely divine revelation.
Yet again: as that dogma, or any like it, must not be publicly received in the Church or set forth for belief unless Scripture's testimonies prove it — since only from those can believers publicly know that something belongs to faith, so that any dogma's authority for us, and its public external certainty, hangs on sacred Scripture's testimony — so they want Scripture's authority for us to hang on the Church's testimony, and a book's divinity not to be publicly settled for believers except by the Church's approval and attestation.
Finally: even with that dependence of dogmas on Scripture, Christian dogmas can be proved and urged by many arguments besides Scripture's testimonies — motives that lead toward faith, not faith's reason and foundation. So the Pontificii also do not deny that sacred Scripture, besides the Church's testimony, has many notes and arguments of divinity by which it can be proved and urged — yet which cannot found public faith in the Church concerning Scripture's divinity.
Latin
XXV. Verum ut distinctius appareat discrimen Pontificiae sententiae, et nostrae, et qua in re positus sit controversiae cardo, sciendum est Pontificios ita Scripturam sacram cum Ecclesiae doctrina comparare, ut nos aliquod fidei particulare dogma cum Scriptura sacra comparamus. Sicut ergo aliquem fidei articulum, ut exemp. gr. mortuos olim resurrecturos esse, in se suam veritatem et authoritatem a solo Deo habet, non vero a testimonio Prophetarum et Apostolorum, qui Scripturae libros conscripserunt: ita Pontificii admittunt Scripturam sacram in se suam authoritatem a solo Deo habere, non ab Ecclesiae testimonio. Deinde quemadmodum praecipua ratio fidei, qua dogma illud amplectimur non est proprie Petri, Pauli, Esaiae, etc. authoritas, sed divina revelatio ad nos illorum calamo transmissa, quandoquidem ante Scripturam dogma illud creditum fuit, et adhuc citra Scripturam credi potest. Sic fatentur Pontificii, Ecclesiae testimonium non esse fidei nostrae de Scriptura rationem propriam atque praecipuam, sed simpliciter et absolute divinam revelationem. Rursus tamen, ut dogma illud, et aliud quodvis simile non debet publice in Ecclesia recipi, et credendum proponi, nisi quatenus Scripturae testimoniis probatur ex quibus solis publice constare potest fidelibus aliquid ad fidem pertinere, atque sic dogmatis cujusvis authoritas quoad nos, et certitudo publica et externa a Scripturae sacrae testimonio pendet: Ita volunt Pontificii Scripturae authoritatem quoad nos ab Ecclesiae testimonio pendere, neque de libri alicujus divinitate publice fidelibus constare, nisi ex Ecclesiae approbatione et testificatione. Denique, quemadmodum, non obstante illa dogmatum a Scriptura dependentia, religionis Christianae dogmata multis, praeter Scripturae testimonia, argumentis probari et suaderi possunt, quae tamen argumenta non sunt fidei nostrae ratio et fundamentum, sed tantum motiva quaedam ad fidem inducentia: Ita Pontificii quoque non diffitentur Scripturam sacram, praeter Ecclesiae testimonium, multa divinitatis argumenta et notas habere, quibus probari et suaderi possit, sed quae tamen non possunt publicam de Scripturae divinitate fidem in Ecclesia fundare.
About this text
Louis Le Blanc de Beaulieu - Sedan Theological Theses, newly rendered from the 1675 London Latin. Covers De Theologia through Angelorum & Hominum Sanctorum Cultu Romana I-LXXVII and Pars Secunda (Reformata) I-XL. Not the collected folio.
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.