The Saumur Disputations, Vol. 1

From the Book

“DISPUTATION EIGHT

On the Testimony by which the Holy Spirit Seals the Divinity of the Scriptures in the Minds of Men, Part One

Presided over by Dr. Moïse Amyraut, with Peter Sylvius of Amsterdam in Holland responding.

I. Although in our disputation concerning the authority of Holy Scripture we have already discussed those points which are sufficient to undermine the position of the teachers of the Roman Church, and to settle every disagreement between them and us on that topic; and although some points have been disputed in our theses on the Canon, translations, perfection, and perspicuity of the Scriptures, and especially concerning the judge of controversies, which depend upon the authority ascribed to God’s Word, nevertheless, since human error has made this question extremely difficult and complex in our age, and given that there is a lot of heated debate on both sides about the testimony of the Spirit, it seems worthwhile for us to carefully investigate and precisely explain, as far as we are able, the Holy Spirit’s role in this matter.

II. Even the fairest and most accurate papal teachers concede to us that the Holy Scriptures are divine and that all the books comprised in their Canon equally have God as their author, [and concede that such knowledge] is based on a twofold testimony of the Holy Spirit: one is external and public, the other internal and private, regardless of what others may loudly object to or misrepresent about such an internal testimony of the Spirit. [Thomas] Stapleton, a most forceful and sharp debater on this topic, says in his book on the authority of the Word of God against [William] Whitaker (ch. 1): “This secret testimony is absolutely necessary for someone to believe the Church’s testimony and judgment about its approbation of the Scriptures. Without this internal testimony of the divine Spirit, even if the Church were to attest to, commend, promulgate, and endorse the Scriptures a thousand times, those hearing would neither believe, nor be persuaded.” But the entire dispute hinges on explaining the nature of each of these [two] testimonies.

III. Now, as far as public testimony is concerned, orthodox theologians believe that no external testimony is of greater or more unquestionable authority than that of the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture in such a way that it everywhere bears certain, undeniable marks of its heavenly origin. Unless people recognize these, they must be clearly blind. God could not speak without his voice having some [characteristics] to distinguish it from all other voices. Moreover, the arguments Scripture uses to demonstrate its own divinity can be called the testimony of the Spirit of God, because they produce such firmness of assent as would be produced by God’s own voice were he to testify from heaven about Holy Scripture like he once did about his most beloved Son. And rightly so. For, since people could and indeed should have concluded with absolute certainty by reasoning from the wonderful works which Christ performed on earth that he was the true and genuine Messiah promised by the prophets, therefore he says (John 10:25), “the works I do in my Father’s name testify about me.”

IV. Our opponents maintain that all Christians certainly acknowledge that Scripture is divine. But they claim that the only argument by which Christians are firmly convinced of this is that the Church confirms it by its testimony. Moreover, they say that the Church’s testimony is called the testimony of the Spirit because the Church speaks by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, who is perpetually present to it, so that it can never be deceived or deceive others in giving that testimony, or in anything else related to faith and religion. Therefore, [they maintain that] Christians do indeed regard Scripture as divine, for otherwise they would be doomed. Yet, [they say that] this truth is not clear and evident to them in any other way except that the Spirit, speaking as it were through the Church’s mouth, announces it to everyone.

V. In deciding this question, we do not want to be too wordy. For, in our theses on the authority of Scripture, along with certain other points, we established these two points especially along with what we consider necessary evidence and reasoning: [First,] that Scripture’s divine nature cannot be known with certainty and indubitably from any source other than Scripture itself, not even from the Church’s testimony; likewise, [secondly,] that Scripture itself can prove with absolute certainty that it was divinely given to humans. These points undoubtedly attacked the very citadel of their argument. There are, however, a few points relevant to our purpose which we think should be added to or repeated from the previous disputation.

VI. And, indeed, the first point is that even if it were true that the Church (whatever finally it may be) provides an indubitable testimony about [Scripture’s divinity], it still would not follow that Christians are convinced by this single argument alone that Scripture is divine. After all, there can be many equally certain reasons and undeniable arguments for one and the same thing. Sometimes geometric propositions are proven in several ways with the same level of evidence and necessity. There could not be any more certain testimony than when that heavenly voice says [Matt. 3:17], “This is my beloved Son….” For God himself is said to have spoken, and there is no doubt that this should have had the greatest impact on people’s minds in embracing Christ as God’s true Son. And yet, Christ often appeals to the Old Testament Scriptures, and says [John 5:39], “It is they that bear witness about me.” And Christ himself, by his incomparable holiness of life, the divinity of his doctrine, and finally the very miraculousness of the works which he performed, was able not only to draw people to faith, but actually did so. Therefore, if Scripture indubitably proves itself to be divine by clear arguments, why will it not obtain from us belief and assent on its own as much as by the Church’s testimony?”

From Disputation 8, sections I–VI (presided over by Moïse Amyraut)