Fathers

Theological Theses · §111

Stapleton's Baptist mutual-testimony fails; dependence cannot run both ways

Click or tap any sentence to jump there. The side buttons skip a paragraph.

Their reply to this argument is strange. Stapleton, who seems to have handled the controversy with the most care, grants that the Church's authority for us hangs on Scripture's. He denies that Scripture's authority therefore fails to hang in turn on the Church's — and he tries to prove it by instances.

Christ's authority for us, he says, hung on John the Baptist's, for John was sent to witness to Christ so that all might believe through him; yet the Baptist's authority in turn hung on Christ's witness, for Christ attested John and confirmed his calling. The instance — and others like it — does not reach the point. Mutual testimony can prove two things to each other. It does not show that the first's authority hangs on the second's, and the second's on the first's, for the same people at once.

The Baptist did point men to Christ. Those who came to Christ that way did not believe in Christ chiefly on the Baptist's word, nor was John greater or surer for them than Christ. We grant that John's authority hung on Christ's; we deny outright that Christ's hung on John's. Two authorities cannot each hang on the other for the same persons at the same time. Whatever hangs on another is less certain and less known to us than that on which it hangs. If the Church's authority depends on Scripture's, Scripture is more certain and better known for us. If Scripture's hangs on the Church's, Scripture is less certain and less known. Then Scripture would be at once more and less certain, better and less known, than the Church — a contradiction.

The question here is not merely whether Scripture can be proved by the Church and the Church by Scripture. It is whether Scripture's authority, properly speaking, hangs on the Church's as on a principle of faith more certain and better known for us.

Latin

XXXIV. Ad hoc Argumentum mirum est quomodo respondeant Pontificii. Etenim Stapletonus, qui omnium accuratissime hanc controversiam tractasse videtur, concedit authoritatem Ecclesiae quoad nos ab authoritate Scripturae pendere. At negat inde sequi authoritatem Scripturae non pendere vicissim ab Ecclesiae authoritate. Idque probare conatur quibusdam instantiis in negationis suae rationem adductis. Nam, inquit, authoritas Christi quoad nos ab authoritate Johannis Baptistae pendebat. Johannes enim missus erat ut Christo testimonium perhiberet, et ut omnes per illum in Christum crederent. Et tamen vicissim Baptistae authoritas quoad nos a Christi testimonio pendebat. Christus enim Baptistae testimonium perhibuit, et vocationem illius confirmavit. Verum haec Instantia, et similes quas affert, nihil faciunt ad rem. Nam per hoc tantum ostenditur, duo quaedam sibi posse testimonium mutuo perhibere, et sese invicem probare. At non duo ita esse comparata, ut authoritas primi ab authoritate secundi pendeat, et vicissim authoritas secundi ab authoritate primi, saltem eorundem respectu. Etenim verum est quidem Baptistam testimonium perhibuisse Christo, et Christum indicasse, atque homines ad Christum adduxisse. At tamen Christi authoritas ab authoritate Baptistae non pendebat, neque qui ad Christum adducti fuerant et Christum agnoverant Baptista indicante, in Christum credebant propter Baptistae testimonium, tanquam praecipuum fidei suae fundamentum. Neque major et certior quoad illos erat Johannis Baptistae, quam Christi authoritas. Itaque damus quidem authoritatem Johannis Baptistae ab authoritate Christi pependisse, at pernegamus Christi authoritatem vicissim pependisse ab authoritate Johannis Baptistae. Et certe impossibile est duo ita esse comparata, ut unius authoritas ab alterius authoritate pendeat, et vicissim, saltem quoad eosdem, et eodem tempore. Nam id cujus authoritas ab alio pendet, quoad nos minus certum et notum est eo unde dependet. Ita si Ecclesiae authoritas quoad nos ab authoritate Scripturae dependet, tum certior et notior est quoad nos Scripturae authoritas. Si vero vicissim Scripturae authoritas ab authoritate Ecclesiae pendet, tum Scriptura quoad nos minus certa erit et nota. Et sic Scripturae authoritas simul erit quoad nos certior et minus certa, notior et minus nota quam Ecclesiae authoritas, quod implicat contradictionem. Jam vero hic non quaeritur simpliciter, an Scriptura possit per Ecclesiam probari, et Ecclesia vicissim per Scripturam. Sed an Scripturae authoritas proprie loquendo pendeat ab Ecclesiae authoritate, tanquam ab aliquo fidei principio quod sit certius et notius quoad nos.

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

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.