Reply: the self-witness objection is a sophism — even a complete written word would face the same charge
Answer: however showy, the argument is a mere sophism.
Rome admits God could have put His whole word in writing and ordered the Apostles to write all the Church must know — and then our thesis would be true.
Yet the same objection would still run: that this complete Scripture is inspired and these are its books is itself a faith-matter Scripture cannot prove, since nothing proves itself.
That would again demand an unwritten witness — a conclusion false under the hypothesis — so the argument that yields it is sophistic.
Latin
XXIX. Respondeo argumentum istud, utut speciosum sit, merum esse sophisma, quod facile ostendi potest. Quamvis enim Pontificii negent totum Dei verbum Scriptura sacra contineri, negare tamen non possunt quin Deus saltem potuerit integrum suum verbum scripto tradere, & Apostolis praecipere ut scriptis mandarent omnia quae ipsis revelata erant, & quae Ecclesiam scire opus erat: Et quin, hoc casu posito, vera esset nostra thesis, nempe, Scripturam sacram esse sufficientem & perfectam fidei regulam; & nihil posse tanquam ad fidem & salutem necessarium urgeri, quod ipsa non contineretur. Et tamen, hac hypothesi facta, liceret eodem modo argumentari, & probare omnia ad fidem pertinentia non posse sufficienter haberi ex Scriptura sacra: nam hoc ipsum, quod talis Scriptura divinitus inspirata esset, & constaret his atque illis libris, res esset maxime pertinens ad fidem: Et tamen non posset istud ex Scriptura probari: quoniam, scilicet, nihil probat seipsum, nec potest aliquis credere testimonio alicujus Scripturae se divinam asserentis, quin prius persuasus sit illam esse divinam. Unde concluderetur necessarium esse verbum quoddam non scriptum praeter illam Scripturam, quod testimonium illi perhiberet, & quo nostra fides de Scriptura istiusmodi niteretur. Quae tamen conclusio, ex hypothesi facta, manifesto falsa esset, adeoque necesse est argumentum allatum falsum & sophisticum esse, quandoquidem ex eo falsum concludi potest.
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.