Taken from his ‘SUM OF THEOLOGY REHEARSED OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES; (Geneva, 1665)’
Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669), a luminary of Reformed scholasticism and sacred philology, stood as a towering figure in the theological firmament of the seventeenth century, distinguishing himself by his resolute commitment to the covenantal structure of divine revelation. Born in Bremen, he ascended to academic prominence in the Dutch Republic, occupying the professorial chairs of Hebrew and theology at the University of Franeker and later at Leiden. A fervent advocate of federal theology, Cocceius propounded that the entire Scripture must be understood through the successive unfolding of the divine covenants, from the Covenant of Works with Adam to the Covenant of Grace in Christ, thereby advancing a historical-redemptive hermeneutic that profoundly influenced Reformed exegetical method. His works, suffused with a holy zeal for the sovereign majesty of God and the economy of salvation, were often set in contrast to the more rigid systematic orthodoxy of his contemporaries, most notably Gisbertus Voetius, with whom he engaged in rigorous disputation. Ever laboring to sanctify the intellect in service of the Most High, Cocceius departed this temporal realm in 1669, his theological corpus enduring as a testament to his devout scholarship and his unwavering fealty to the divine oracles.
<aside>
</aside>
Table of Contents:
We have shewed that it was needful, for weighty causes, that in later times the Church should possess a revelation set forth in writing, and in such wise made manifest unto all; and that in such manner, the truth of the latter divine utterance should be made evident through the former oracles, which the Jews neglected to hear. Next it is, seeing that we hold in our hands books, whereof some are said to be read by the Israelites, and acknowledged by the Jews, whilst others are reputed to contain the sayings, deeds, and sufferings of Jesus of Nazareth, and the preaching of the Gospel, and the demonstration thereof; that we should examine whether those books, which are received without contradiction among Christians in this age, do possess true tokens of divinity, or by what right and with what clear evidences they are held by the Church as divine. Thus, therefore, we declare.
The authority of Scripture is most certain, and, as Augustine doth say, most eminent. This is established by most evident and unassailable arguments, that it is from God; so that it holdeth the chief authority in the Church.
The Pontiffs do otherwise, when they loudly proclaim that they deny not the divine authority of Scripture in itself, but only seek how it obtaineth authority with respect to us, that is, among us; or, how it is known unto us that it is divine, or, as they say in the Greek, how we may be persuaded that it is divinely inspired. As the Apostle speaketh in 2 Timothy 3:14, 16, “Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned… All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” For when the question is of the authority of Scripture, it is not asked, Is it from God? but, Whence know we that it is from God? They reduce Scripture to the rank of those things spoken by men, so that it may be doubted whether God hath spoken therein or not; even as the words of those prophets, of whom God saith they must be awaited until their words come to pass (Deuteronomy 18:22). This is a notable injury done to Scripture, as though there were no radiance of divinity therein. Whence also they dare to compare Scripture with Livy, with the Quran, with the fables of Aesop; yea, they assert that there is naught of divinity in Scripture that should bind us, by any religion, to believe the things contained therein. They would have the whole Bible removed from the midst, and the authority of living judges set in its place. Such things have we shewed afore in our treatise On the Power of Scripture, pages 37, 43, 44.
Moreover, many of them, while they all deny that Scripture of itself sheweth its divinity, do shamelessly prepare from it, as though it had the chief authority, even among us, to prove their Church. Yet it is impossible that the same thing should have, with respect to us, the chief authority to prove the Church, and yet, as having no chief authority with respect to us, receive from the Church, as though it had such, the faith and estimation of divinity. This is a vain circle. For, as Aristotle rightly saith in Posterior Analytics 1.3, “It is impossible that the same things should be at once prior and posterior to the same things in the same manner, whether simply or with respect to us.” Yet the knowledge of the divinity of Scripture is, with respect to us, prior to the knowledge of the infallibility of the Church and its head; and the knowledge of the infallibility of the Church and its head, the Pope, is, with respect to them, prior to the knowledge of the divinity of Scripture. Wherefore some confess this circle, as Henry Holden in On the Resolution of Faith 1.9, page 180, who ascribeth to those who, when asked whence they know the unanimous assertion of the Catholic Church to be infallible, dare not ground divine faith in the certainty of natural evidence, that they inevitably fall into a circle, and, dancing shamefully in a round, render the faith, which the first reason formeth and effecteth, void of reason.
They turn aside and shew themselves self-condemned, who dare not reject the arguments of our side, whereby the divinity of Scripture is proved, yet deny that by these it is sufficiently demonstrated unto faith. There are those who willingly pass over considering whether Scripture be a witness to itself through the wisdom that surpasseth all human understanding; for, whatever be the truth of this matter, few are they who can discern it. Verily, he is malignant and ill-disposed toward Scripture who will not consider whether it doth not shed abroad on every side the light of divinity, and that in such wise that any man may perceive it if he attend thereto; yea, every faithful man, according to his measure, doth perceive it. But they go further, declaring that those who believe the Scriptures, even if they believe all the articles of faith, neither more nor fewer, if they yield assent thereto by their own strength and private reasoning, because they deem all those revealed truths to be either expressly contained in the sacred page or at least implicitly included, so that they think they can deduce them all thence; yet if they would not cleave to them nor believe unless they judged they could prove them from the holy Scriptures, such men ought not to be accounted truly Catholic nor members of the Catholic Church. And what is their reason? For, since the means whereby these believers apply to themselves the revealed truths is none other than their own private reasoning, they have not properly faith, but opinion. So saith Henry Holden in Resolution of Faith, Book 1, Chapter 6, page 82.
That they deny those arguments to be sufficient without the authority of the Church is a splendid cavil. For the authority of Scripture is such that it can shew forth the Church of God. Do we believe the Church, to which we give credence, to be the Church, and this multitude to be the Church, save by the Word of God? Do we believe the Church to be the Church itself? Or rather, do we not believe the Church, but know it to be so, and that by what is self-evident, so that it is no longer a mystery needing revelation, that Christ purchased a Church unto Himself? Since the Church hath all its authority from Scripture, and by this very fact the authority of Scripture is made known unto us, because it is the sceptre of God to gather His Church, and to bear witness to the conscience that it is the Church of God; how are our arguments for proving the divinity of Scripture not sufficient, unless they would say that from Scripture it cannot be proved what the Church is, or that the Christian people is the Church of the living God?