THE INTERIOR TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT PART III CRITIQUE oF THE CALVINIST DocTRINE SEcTION 1: Calvin's Negative Arguments T HE OBJECT of this concluding critique is the doctrine of the Interior Testimony and its foundation. One part will deal with the doctrine expressed by Calvin and his immediate followers; another with the doctrine of Karl Barth and his attempt to return to the fonts of the Reformation in a modern way. Finally, the fact that, aside from the manifest distinction in their expressions of the doctrine, they are both susceptible of one common critique will be shown. If the theological system of John Calvin is viewed as an edifice and the place where the doctrine of the Interior Testimony finds entree is sought, beyond doubt, the portal will be found in his position concerning the single font of revelation. En bloc it is precisely in this respect that the two structures, Calvinism (and servatis servandis the Protestant schools that adhere to his general principles) and Catholicism differ. At this point it is just to ask, what was the basis for this modification of the Catholic system. The answer is evident in the fourth book of the Institutes which deals with the constitution and power of the Church (and in a subsidiary fashion of the state also, insofar as Calvin considered it as an adjunct of the Church) , and in the ninth chapter in which Calvin discusses the ecumenical council. This is the occasion of returning to the theme we have seen proposed in the beginning of the Institutes, but in a way that reveals another aspect of Calvin's thought. To subject the oracles of God to the authority of men, so as to make their validity dependent on human approbation, is a blasphe420 THE INTERIOR TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 4~1 my unworthy of being mentioned. . . . If the authority of the Scripture be founded on the approbation of the Church, what decree of any council can be alleged to this point? I believe none at all. . . . They alledge an ancient catalogue, which is called the Canon of Scripture, and which they say proceeded from the decision of the Church. I ask them again, in what council that canon was composed. To this they can make no reply. Yet I wish to be further informed, what kind of canon they suppose it to be. For I see that ancient writers were not fully agreed respecting it. And if any weight be attached to the testimony of Jerome, the two books of Maccabees, the history of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and other books will be considered as apocryphal; to which our opponents will by no means consent,l This passage can be made the occasion, first, of general remarks with regard to Calvin's attitude toward Tradition, and, second, of a more detailed reply to the questions he asks regarding the tradition of the Canon of Scripture. In general, then, it seems evident from Calvin's use of the term "decree of the Church," here and elsewhere/ that he did not grasp sufficiently well the distinction between Tradition, strictly socalled , and the ecclesiastical magisterium. It is to be wondered, therefore, if even today this same misunderstanding is not propagated to some extent among Protestants who follow Calvin's footsteps. This is not a denial that the "decree of the Church," of which Calvin speaks, if conditioned by those things which are required of an infallible pronouncement, possesses a quality which is a guarantee for the faithful that it is free from error. Nevertheless, we do maintain that there is a real distinction between a font of revelation, which from a positive point of view contains the word of God; and a proposition of the truth contained therein, which proposition is negatively protected from a false presentation of the divine revelation . The former characterizes Tradition; the latter, the "decree of the Church." Granted, therefore, that Calvin did make this unwarranted composition, it becomes somewhat easier to perceive the root 1 Inst., IV, 9, 14; op. cit., vol. II, p. 447 (CR, XXX, 867). • E. g., lnst., IV, 8, 16; ibid., p. 432 (CR, XXX, 857-858). MAURICE B. SCHEPERS of his...