-- E. The sufficiency of Scripture.
Philippi, Kirchl. Gl. I 217 f. Zöckler, Handbuch I 663 f. Luz, Hermeneutik 154-176. In connection with this, the church also had a vocation in regard to the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. By virtue of the potestas doctrinae, conferred on it by Christ, and the gift of interpretation, given to it by the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 14:3, 29 ; Rom.
12:6; Eph. 4:11 ff. the church has the duty not only to preserve the Scriptures, but also to interpret and defend them, to formulate the truth in its confession and to expose and oppose error. So also the church is judex controversiarum within her circle and on her terrain, and has to test and judge all opinions by the Scriptures. It does not have to be infallible to do so, because even the judge in the state is bound by the law, but is fallible in his judgments. And so it is also in the church. Scripture is norma, the church is ruler. But here too there is a booger appeal. Rome denies this and says that the judgment of the church is the last and highest. From her even an appeal to divine judgment is no longer possible. She binds in the conscience. But the Reformation claimed that a church, no matter how venerable, could still go wrong. Its interpretation is not magisterialis, but ministerialis. It can only be binding in the conscience in so far as someone recognizes it as divine and infallible.
Whether it is indeed in accordance with God's word, no earthly power can, but each one can determine for himself, Synopsis pur. theol. 5, 25 sq. The church can then expel someone as a heretic, but he stands and falls in the end his own lord. The simplest believer, with Scripture in hand, can and may oppose a whole church, as Luther did against Rome. Only in this way is the freedom of the Christian maintained, and at the same time the sovereignty of God.
There is no higher appeal from Scripture. She is the highest court. No power or judgment stands above it. It is they who decide in the last instance, for each man in his conscience. And therefore she is judex supremus controversiarum.
E. The sufficiency of Scripture.
17. Finally, the Reformation also confessed the perfectio or sufficientia S. Scripturae. The Roman Church believes that Scripture
is imperfect in partibus and must be completed by tradition. She declared at Trent, sess. 4, that she traditiones ipsas, turn ad fidem turn ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo vel a Sp.
S°. dictatas et continna successione in Ecclesia Catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu et reverentia suscipit et veneratur, and spoke at the Vatic, sess. 3 cap. 2, that supernatural revelation is contained in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus, quae ipsius
Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae, aut ab ipsis Apostolis Spiritu Sancto dictante quasi per manus traditae ad nos usque pervenerant.
The reasons Rome gives for this doctrine of tradition are diverse.
First, it points out that the church before Moses was entirely without Scripture, and that even after that time many believers live and die without ever reading or examining the Scriptures. The vast majority of God's children live by tradition and know little or nothing of Scripture. It would also be strange if this were different in the religious and church fields than in any other field. After all, in law and morality, in art and science, in family and society, tradition is the bearer and the nourisher of our lives. Through her we are linked to our ancestors, take over their treasures and also leave them to our children. Analogy already demands that there be a tradition in the Church too; but it must be so much more glorious and certain here than elsewhere, because Christ has given His Church the Holy Spirit and through him is infallibly guiding His Church in all truth (Mt
16:18, 28:20; John 14:16). To these are added many statements of Scripture, which recognize the rightness and value of tradition, John
16:12, 20:30, 21:25; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor. 11:2, 23; 2 Thess. 2:14; 1 Tim.
6:20; 2 John 12; 3 John 13, 14. Jesus taught his disciples many things orally and by his Spirit, which were not written by them but were passed down from mouth to mouth. Fathers of the Church, Councils,
Popes have also recognized such an apos-tolic tradition from the beginning. In fact, the Church still lives from and by this oral, living tradition. Scripture alone is insufficient. For not only has not everything been written down, but various writings of prophets and apostles have also been lost. The apostles were commanded to bear witness, but not to do so in writing. They only wrote because of the circumstances, necessitate quadam coacti; their writings are
therefore mostly occasional writings, and do not contain everything that is necessary for the teaching and life of the church. Thus we find in Scripture little or nothing of woman's baptism, Sunday observance, episcopacy, the seven sacraments, purgatory, the immaculate conception of Mary, the salvation of many Gentiles in the days of the O. T., the inspiration and canonicity of the various books of the Bible, etc.; yes, even dogmas such as those of the Trinity, the eternal generation, the exit of the Holy Ghost, infant baptism, etc., are not to be found literally and in so many words in Scripture. In a word: Scripture is useful, but tradition is necessary,
Bellarminus, de Verbo Dei, lib. IV. Melchior Canus, Loei theol. lib. 3.
Perrone, Praelect. Theol. IX 228sq. Klee, Dogm. I 277 f. Heinrich, Dogm. Theol. II S. 1 f. Jansen, Praelect. theol. dogm. I 788 sq.
Möhler, Symbolik § 38 f. Kleutgen, Theol. der Vorzeit 2e Aufl. I 72 f.
Dieringer, Dogm. § 126. Liebermann, Instit. theol. I p. 448 sq. For the Greek church, Kattenbusch, Confessionskunde I 292.
18. Against this Roman doctrine of tradition the Reformation placed that of the perfection and sufficiency of Holy Scripture. The rightness of this opposition to Rome has been brought into clear focus by the development of the concept of tradition itself. The first Christian congregations were founded by the preached word, just as congregations among the Gentiles are founded today. The teachings and practices which they had received from the apostles or their companions continued for a long time from mouth to mouth and from generation to generation. This understanding of tradition was clear; it indicated the teachings and customs received from the apostles and preserved and propagated in the churches. But as the distance between the churches and the apostolic era grew, it became more and more difficult to determine whether something was really of apostolic origin. The Arian Church therefore protested against the exaggerated value which was attached to this tradition, especially in the second half of the Gnostic era. Tertullianus, the virg. vel. c. 1 said,
Dominus noster veritatem se, non consuetudinem cognominavit.
Similarly, Cyprian, Epist. 74 opposed the tradition, on which the Bishop of Rome relied, to the texts Isa. 29 : 13; Mt. 15:9; I Tim. 6 : 3-
5 and said: consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est. Christ did not call Himself the habit but the truth. Gene must give way to this one. Therefore, it became necessary to define the tradition more precisely and to list its characteristics. Vincentius Lerinensis found in his Commonitorium cap. 2, the criteria of an apostolic tradition are that something is ubique, semper et ab omnibus creditum est.
Hoe est etenim vere proprieque catholicum. So at first the characteristic of tradition was that it was of apostolic origin. Now it is added that something may be considered to be of apostolic origin if it is truly universal and catholic. The apostolicitas becomes knowable by the universitas, antiquitas and consensio. The Tridentine, the Vatican, and also the theologians adhere to these criteria of Vincent in the determination of tradition. But there is a deviation; the consequence leads further. It could not be maintained that something was only apostolic when it was really believed always, everywhere, and by all. What doctrine or usage could prove such absolute catholicity? Thus the three criteria have been gradually weakened. The Church may not declare something new to be dogma and must adhere to tradition, but the preservation of that tradition is not to be thought of mechanically as a treasure in the field, but organically, as Mary preserved the words of the shepherds and considered them in her heart, Heinrich, II 12. Thus a truth may very well not have been believed, or not generally believed, in the past; yet it is infallible apostolic tradition, as long as it is generally believed now. The two criteria antiquitas and universitas are therefore not copulative but distributive characteristics of tradition; they are not both necessary together and at the same time; one of them is enough.
In fact, the anti-quitas has been sacrificed to the universitas. But the latter is also limited. The question arose as to who was the organ for preserving and recognizing tradition. This could not be the church in general. Möhler, Symbolik, 6th Aufl. 357, still identified the tradition with das fortwahrend in den Herzen der Glaubigen lebende Wort, but this answer was much more protestantsch than Romanesque in thought. The task of preserving and establishing doctrine could not and should not be entrusted to the church in general, i.e. to the laity.
In the Church there is a distinction between the ecclesia audiens and
docens. Both belong together and are imperishable, but the former possesses only an infallibilitas passiva, i. e. it is infallible only in its belief, because and as long as it remains connected to the ecclesia docens. But even the latter is not the actual body of doctrine.
Gallicanism, the Old Episcopal clergy and the Old Catholics have maintained this position and attribute infallibility to the joint bishops. But this position is untenable. When are these bishops infallible ? Outside or only in the council ? If the latter, are they infallible only when they are unanimous, or is only the majority infallible ? How large must this be ? Is one-vote majority sufficient ?
Is the council infallible without, and even in opposition to, or only in agreement with the pope? All questions with which Gallicanism was in serious difficulty. The papal system therefore went one step further and attributed infallibility to the pope. This primacy of the pope is the product of centuries of development, the consequence of a school of thought that was already present in the Church at a very early stage. Gradually the pope came to be regarded as the infallible organ of divine truth and thus of tradition. Bellarminus, de Verbo
Dei, lib. 4 c. 9 included among the characteristics of tradition this rule: id sine dubio credendum esse, ex apostolica traditione descendere, quod pro tali habetur in illis ecclesiis, ubi est integra et continuata successio ab Apostolis. Now, he goes on to say, in ancient times there were many such churches apart from Rome. Now, however, she is left only in Rome. And therefore ex testimonio hujus solius. ecclesiae sumi potest certum argumentum ad probandas
Apostolicas traditiones. The church of Rome determines and makes up, what apostolic tradition is. Later theologians, especially among the Jesuits, developed this further. And on July 18, 1870, at the fourth session of the Vatican Council, infallibility was openly proclaimed as a dogma. Now it is certain that in this infallibility the Pope is not separated from the Church, especially not from the ecclesia docens. Moreover, the symbols, decrees, liturgies, patres, doctores and the whole history of the Church are so many monuments of tradition to which the pope adheres and with which he must take account when establishing a dogma. Yet tradition is not formally identical with the content of all these monuments. Tradition
is infallible; but what is tradition is decided in the last instance only by the pope, with, without, or, if necessary, in opposition to the Church and the councils. The judgment as to whether and to what extent something is believed semper, ubique et ab omnibus, cannot be left to the Church, nor to the ecclesia audiens nor to the ecclesia docens, but is of itself left to the infallible Pope alone. When the pope promulgates a dogma, it is eo ipso apostolic tradition. The criterion of tradition is thus sought, successively, in apostolicity, in catholicity, in episcopal succession, in papal decision. With this the end has been reached. The infallible pope is the principium formale of Romanism.
Roma locuta, res tinita. Pope and Church, Pope and Christianity are one. Ubi Papa, ibi ecclesia, ibi religio Christiana, ibi Spiritus. From the Pope there is no higher appeal, not even to God. Through the pope God himself speaks to humanity, Perrone I 229 , IX 279.
Jansen I 804, 822 s. 829. Heinrich I 726 note, II 148 f. 537. Maistre, du Pape, Oevres Choisies de Joseph de Maistre III. Paris z. j. 71.
This result of the development of tradition shows the falsity of the principle that was active in it from the beginning. The infallibility of the Pope can only later be treated in detail in the teaching of the Church. But it is clear that the good and true element, which in the first centuries was the point of maintaining tradition, has been completely lost. At that time, the aim was to preserve that which was believed and customary in the congregations by virtue of the Apostolic institution. It was obvious that at that time great importance was attached to tradition and that the indispensability and necessity of the Apostolic Scriptures was not yet understood. But the characteristic of apostolicity, which then automatically characterized Tradition, had to disappear as people moved further away from the Apostolic Age. The relative independence of tradition from Scripture disappeared more and more. The streams of Scripture and tradition flowed into one another. And soon after the death of the apostles and their contemporaries, it became impossible to prove anything of apostolic origin except by an appeal to the apostolic writings. The apostolic origin of no dogma that the Roman church professes outside and without the Scriptures can be proven. The tra-
ditionary doctrine of Rome only serves to justify the deviations from Scripture and from the apostles. Devotion to Mary, the seven sacraments, papal infallibility, etc., these are the dogmas which tradition cannot do without. In bad taste, apostolic tradition has been identified with ecclesiastical customs and papal decisions.
Tradition is with Rome die gemeine Superstition, das Heidenthum, Harnack D. G. III 559 note.
19. In fact, by this doctrine of tradition Scripture is deprived of all its authority and power. The Roman Catholics praise the infallibility of both, Scripture and tradition (pope), but recognize that between the two there is a great difference. For Rome understands very well that the infallibility of tradition cannot be derived from the believers as such, from the power and spirit of Christianity that lives and works in the believers. For there are many errors in the Church and among the faithful that often prevail for a long time and carry many away.
The infallibility of the Pope is therefore explained, as well as that of Scripture, by an extraordinary working of the Holy Spirit on the basis of Mt. 16:18, 28:20; Jn. 14:16ff, 15:26, 16:12ff. Concil. Vatic, sess. 3.
But there is nevertheless a distinction. The activity of the Holy Spirit in the apostles consisted in revelation and inspiration; that in the pope consists in assistance. The Vatican cap. 4 says: neque enim
Petri suecessoribus Spiritus Sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente, traditam per
Apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent. Scripture is therefore the word of God in a real sense, inspired, at least according to many theologians, right down to the singula verba; the decisions of councils and popes are the words of the Church, purely expressing the truth of God. Scripture is the word of God; tradition contains the word of God. Scripture preserves the words of the Apostles in their original form; Tradition reproduces the teachings of the Apostles only as regards their substance. The books of the prophets and apostles are often written without research, only from revelation; but with the assistia divina, promised to the church, the persons are always themselves active, researching, considering, judging, deciding. With inspiration, the
activity of the Spirit was strictly speaking supranational, but with assistance it often consisted of a complex of providential concerns, by which the Church was protected from error. And finally, inspiration in Scripture extends to all matters, including history, chronology, etc., but through the assistance of the Holy G. the pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra, i. e. as Pastor and Doctor of Christendom, and when he is doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa ecclesia tenendam definit. Thus Scripture has with Rome still some praerogatives above tradition, Bellarminus, de Conciliis et Ecclesia, lib. 2 c. 12. Heinrich, I 726 f. II 220-245. Jansen, I 616.
But in fact tradition does great harm to Scripture. First, Trent decrees that Scripture and tradition are to be venerated pari pietatis affectu et reverentia. Next, the inspiration of Scripture is understood by most Roman theologians as an inspiratio realis, so that not the singula verba but the matters are inspired. Furthermore, the infallibility quoad formam and quoad substantiam are so closely connected that it is impossible to draw the line between them.
Furthermore, the pope is, strictly speaking, infallible only in matters of faith and life, but to be so, he must also be infallible in the judgment of the sources of faith and in interpretation, i. e. in the determination of what is Scripture and tradition, in the determination of the authority of the church fathers, the councils, etc.; in the judgment of errors and heresies and even of the facta dogmatica, in the banning of books, in matters of discipline, in approbation of orders, in canonization of saints, etc. Heinrich, II 557 f. And though the pope is not infallible in all else in a strict sense, yet his power and authority also extends over all things, quae ad disciplinam et regimen ecclesiae pertinent, and this potestas is plena and suprema and extends over all pastores and fideles, Cone.
Vatic, cap. 3. It is even demanded by many Roman Catholics, that the pope, in order to exercise this spiritual sovereignty, must be a temporal prince; and asserted that he, if not directly, yet indirectly possesses the summa potestas disponendi de rebus temporalibus omnium christianorum, Bellarm. de Romano Pontifice lib. 5. de
Maistre, du Pape, livre 2. Jansen. I 651 sq. The power and authority
of the pope far exceeds that of Scripture. He stands above it, judges its contents and its meaning, and auctoritate sua establishes the dogmata of doctrine and life. Scripture may be the principal means of demonstrating the conformity of contemporary doctrine and tradition to the teachings of the apostles; it may contain much that would otherwise not be so well known; it may be a divine instruction in doctrine which surpasses all others, Heinrich, I 732 f.; yet for Rome it is always only an aid, useful but not necessary. The Church existed before Scripture, and the Church contains not a part but the whole truth; Scripture, however, contains only a part of the teaching.
Scripture needs tradition, the confirmation of the Pope, but tradition does not need the Scriptures. Tradition is not an addition to Scripture, but Scripture is an addition to tradition. Scripture alone is insufficient, but tradition alone is sufficient. Scripture rests on the church, but the church rests in itself, Heinrich, I 730 f.
20. The development of tradition into papal infallibility and the consequent necessary degradation of Scripture, prove in itself the right of the Reformation to oppose tradition. But it did not stop at attacking, but opposed the doctrine of Rome with that of the perfectio or sufficientia Scripturae, Luther in Köstlin, Luther's Theol.
2nd Ausg. 1883 II 56 f. 246 f. Gerhard, Loci theol. loc. 1 c. 18. 19.
Schmid, Dogm. der ev. luth. K. § 9. Calv. Inst.
IV c. 10. Polanus, Synt. Theol. I c. 46. 47. Zanchius, Op. VIII col. 369 sq. Ursinus, Tract. Theol. 1584 p. 8 sq. 22 sq. Chamier, Panstratia
Cathol. Loc. 1 lib. 8 and 9. Amesius, Bellarminus enervatus, Lib. I c.
6. Turret., Theol. El. 10c. 2 qu. 16. Heppe, Dogm. der ev. ref. K. p. 11 f. Holtzmann, Kanon und Tradition, Ludwigsb. 1859. A. W.
Dieckhoff, Schrift und Tradition, Rostock 1870. J. L. Jacobi, Die kirchl. Lehre von der Tradition u. h. Schrift, 1 Abth. Berlin 1847. P.
Tschackert, Evang. Polemik gegen die röm. Kirche, Gotha 1885 § 23 f. Id. art. Tradition in Herzog2. Hase, Protest. Polemik, 5te Aufl.
Leipzig 1891 S. 77 f. Harnack, Dogm. Gesch. Ill 593 f. 623 f. Hodge, Syst. Theol. I 104 etc. This feature of Holy Scripture, too, must be properly understood. It is not claimed thereby, that all that was
spoken or written by the prophets, by Christ and the apostles, is included in the Scriptures ; for many prophetic and apostolic writings have been lost, Num. 21 : 14 ; Jos. 10 : 13 ; 1 Kings 4 : 33 ; 1
Chron. 29 : 29 ; 2 Chron. 9 : 29, 12 : 15 ; 1 Cor. 5:9 ; Col. 4:16 ; Phil.
3:1, and Jesus and the apostles certainly spoke many more words and did many more signs than are described, John 20:30; 1 Cor. 11:2,
14; 2 Thess. 2:5, 15, 3:6, 10 ; 2 John 12 ; 3 John 14 etc. Nor does this characteristic imply that Scripture contains all the usages, ceremonies, provisions and regulations necessary for the organization of the Church; but only that it contains the fidei articuli in full, the res necessariae ad salutem. Nor does this characteristic of Scripture imply that these fidei articuli are literally and word for word, αντολε'ξει and totidem verbis contained in it, but only that they are so contained in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly, that, without the aid of any other source, they can only be derived from it by comparative research and reflection. And finally, this perfectio S.
Scr. is not to be understood as if Scripture had always been the same quoad gradum. In the different ages of the Church the Scriptures were unequal in scope until their completion. But in every age the word of God, which existed unwritten or described, was sufficient for that age. The Reformation, too, distinguished between a verbum
"χραφον and έγγραφον, Ned. geloofsbel. art. 3. But Rome accepts both next to each other, and considers them species of one genus; the Reformation sees in this distinction only one and the same word of God, which first existed for a time without being written down, and then was written down. So the dispute between Rome and the Reformation is only about whether, after Scripture is finished, there is still another word of God in an unwritten form next to it, i.e. whether the written word of God explicitly or implicitly contains all that we need to know for our salvation, and is therefore regula totalis et adaequata fidei et morum, or whether in religion and theology another principle cognoscendi must be assumed. But so stated, this question seems to be susceptible to almost no other answer. Even the Roman Church recognizes that Scripture is complete, that it forms an organic whole, that the canon is closed. However much she esteems tradition, she still has not dared in theory to put the decisions of the
church on a par with Scripture. She still distinguishes between verbum Dei and verbum ecclesiae. But how can the inadequacy of Scripture ever be taught, as long as one takes the verbum Dei seriously? Fathers of the Church did not think of it and speak clearly of the perfect sufficiency of the Scriptures. Irenaeus, adv. haer. III praef. and cap. 1 says, that we know the truth through the apostles, per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos, quod quidem tune praeconaverunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum et columnam fidei nostrae futuram.
Tertullianus, adv. Hermog. c. 22, de carne Chr. c. 8 admires the plenitudo Scripturae, and rejects everything quod extra Scripturam is. Augustine, Sermo de Past. c. 11 testifies: quidquid inde andieritis, hoe vobis bene sapiat; quidquid extra est respuite. And similarly many others speak, cf. the places collected by Chamier, Panstratia
Cathol. Loc. I lib. 8 cap. Besides, they certainly recognize tradition, but they include in it an element which undermines their conviction of the sufficiency of Scripture and which ended in the later Roman doctrine of insufficientia S. Scr. and of sufficientia traditionis. Both,
Scripture and tradition, cannot be maintained side by side; what is withheld from the one is given to the other. Tradition can only rise if and as Scripture falls. It is therefore very strange that Rome, on the one hand, regards Scripture as completed and the canon as closed, yes, even acknowledges Scripture as the word of God, and yet regards that Scripture as insufficient and supplements it with tradition.
Many Roman theologians today rightly say that Scripture is not the necessary but at best the useful complement of tradition.
21. But this doctrine is in direct conflict with Scripture itself. Never in the Old Testament and the New Testament is the congregation referred to anything but the word of God, whether written or unwritten, which is always available. Only there can mankind live spiritually. In the ever present Scriptures the congregation finds all that it needs. The following Scriptures underlie the previous one, are connected to it and built upon it. The prophets and psalmists underlie the Torah. Isaiah calls cap. 8 : 20 all to the law and the testimony. The N. T. considers itself to be a fulfillment of the Old,
and points back to nothing but the existing Scriptures. Even more evident is the fact that everything that lies outside Scripture is excluded as much as possible. Traditions are rejected as man's statutes, Isa 29:13; Mt 15:4,9; 1 Cor 4:6. The tradition that arose in the days of the O. Test has led the Jews to reject Christ. Jesus repeats to them His I tell you, Mt. 5, and joins again the Pharisees and scholars of the law and the prophets. The Apostles refer only to the O. T. Scriptures and never refer the congregations to anything other than the word of God, which was preached by them. Insofar as the tradition in the early days was intended to be nothing more than a preservation of that which was personally taught and instituted by the Apostles, it did not yet have a dangerous character. But the Roman tradition has completely degenerated from that. It is unprovable that any doctrine or usage originated from the Apostles, except insofar as it can be proven from their writings. The tradition of Rome, from which the Mass, Mariolatry, papal infallibility, etc. arose, is nothing but the sanction of the actual state of the Roman
Church, the justification of the superstition which has penetrated it.
The sufficientia of the Holy Scriptures also derives from the nature of the N. T. dispensation. Christ became flesh and accomplished all the work. He is the last and highest revelation of God. He has explained the Father to us, John 1:18, 17:4, 6. He is the highest, the only prophet. Even the Vatic. Council cap. 4 recognizes, that the assistia divina, given to the pope, did not consist in revelation and in revelation of a new doctrine. And Rome still endeavors to argue its dogmata, however new, as far as possible from Scripture, and to present them as the development and explication of what is in seed in Scripture, Lombardus, Sent. III dist. 25. Thomas S. Theol. II 2 qu.
1 art. 7. qu. 174 art. 6. Schwane, Dogmengeschichte I 2nd Aufl. 1892
S. 7 f. Heinrich II 23 f. But it thereby wraps itself in no small difficulty. For either the dogmata are all, in the same sense as e.g.
Trinity, the two natures of Christ, etc., explications of moments which are contained in Scripture, in which case tradition is unnecessary and Scripture sufficient; or they are indeed new dogmata, which have no support in Scripture, in which case the
assistantia divina of the Pope is essentially a revelation and revelation of new doctrine. The latter may be denied theoretically, but in practice it is accepted. That is why Roman theologians after the Reformation are generally more generous than before in recognizing that some dogmas are only grounded in tradition. And that is why today arguments for tradition are brought forward, which were not used before, or at least not in that sense and to that extent.
Now the inadequacy of Scripture and the rightness of Tradition are shown by the fact that Prophetic and Apostolic writings have been lost, that Christ did not teach everything to His Apostles, that the Apostles also commanded the congregations orally, etc., but that some writings have been lost, and that the Apostles did not teach the congregations everything. But that writings have been lost, and whether they were inspired (Bellarm. de verbo Dei IV c. 4) or not (August, de civ. 18, 38), is immaterial. For the question is only whether the existing Scriptures contain all that is necessary for our salvation; and not whether they contain all that the prophets and apostles wrote, and Christ Himself spoke and did. Even if the writings of the prophets and apostles were found, they would no longer serve as Holy Writ. And so it is with the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. They have spoken and done more than has been described to us. Knowledge of this would be historically important; but is religiously unnecessary. We have enough Scripture for our salvation, and do not need any other scripture, even if it came from Jesus himself. That was the doctrine of the Reformation.
Quantitatively, revelation has been much richer and greater than Scripture has preserved for us, but qualitatively, substantially,
Scripture is completely sufficient for our salvation. Rome, therefore, can cite no dogmas other than those of Mariolatry, the infallibility of the pope, and the like, which have arisen from tradition outside
Scripture; but all those concerning God, man, Christ, salvation, etc., are, according to Rome, to be found in Scripture itself. What need have we then of witnesses. Roman tradition only serves to prove the specifically Roman dogmata, but the Christian, Catholic dogmata are, according to Rome itself, all founded in Scripture. This fact also shows that Scripture is sufficient, and that the nature of N. T.
dispensation brings and demands this sufficientia S. Scr. Christ revealed everything in full to the apostles, either personally and orally or by His Spirit. Through their word we believe in Christ and have fellowship with God, John 17:20 ; 1 John 1:3. The Holy Spirit no longer reveals new doctrine. He takes it all from Christ, John 16 :14.
In Christ the revelation of God is complete. And so the word of salvation is fully comprehended in Scripture. It forms one whole; it makes the impression of an organism that has reached maturity. It ends where it begins. It is a circle that returns within itself. It begins with the creation, it ends with the recreation of heaven and earth.
The canon of O. and N. T. was not closed until all the new Ansatze of salvation history were present, Hofmann, Weissagung u. Erfüllung I 47. The Holy Spirit has no other task in this dispensation than to apply the work of Christ and likewise to explain the word of Christ.
He adds nothing new to either. The work of Christ need not be supplemented by the good works of the faithful; the word of Christ need not be supplemented by the tradition of the Church; Christ himself need not be succeeded and replaced by the Pope. The Roman doctrine of tradition is the denial of the perfect incarnation of God in Christ, of the sufficiency of His sacrifice, and of the perfection of His word. The history of the Roman Church shows us the slowly proceeding process, how a false principle penetrates and first of all places itself under Christ and his word, then places itself next to it, later raises itself above it, to end in a complete replacement of Scripture by tradition, of Christ by the Pope, of the church by the institution. The development is certainly not yet at an end. It seems an anomaly that the pope, who gradually elevated himself above scripture, church, council and tradition, is appointed by fallible men, even if they are cardinals. Who better than he who is infallible can appoint his successor? Thus it is quite possible that in the future the papal sovereignty will prove to be incompatible with the power of the cardinals. In any case, Rome has not yet completed the deification of mankind.
22. Yet all this does not negate the good and true that lies locked up in the doctrine of tradition. The word tradition has a wider meaning
than that given to it by Rome. Rome understands it to mean a teaching handed down by the Apostles, preserved by the Bishops, especially by the Pope, and established and promulgated by him; but this view has proved untenable. Tradition, however, can also be understood to mean all that religious life, thinking, feeling, acting, which is found in every religious community and finds its expression in all kinds of forms, manners, customs, habits, religious language and literature, confession and liturgy, etc. In this sense there is tradition in oak religion. The concept can even be extended further to all those rich and manifold ties that bind the following generations to the preceding ones. In this sense no family, no sex, no society, no people, no art, no science, etc. can exist without tradition. Tradition is the means by which all the treasures and goods of the past are transferred to the present and the future. Against the individualism and atomism of the earlier century, de Bonald, Lamennais et al. and Bilderdijk have once again placed the significance of community, authority, language, tradition, etc. in the brightest light. Such a tradition most certainly also exists in religion and in the church. Its very generality indicates that we are not dealing with an accidental phenomenon. We find such a tradition not only in the Roman
Church, but also among the Jews, the Mohammedans, the Buddhists, etc. In the higher religions there is a tradition of the Holy Spirit. In the higher religions there is another reason for the necessity of tradition. They are all bound to a holy scripture, which was created at a certain time and in that sense becomes more and more distant from the present generation. The Bible, too, is a book written in centuries gone by and under all kinds of historical circumstances.
The various books of the Bible bear the character of the time in which they were written. However clear the Scriptures may be in the doctrine of salvation and however much they are and remain the viva vox Dei, cf. above p. 305, they often require all kinds of historical, archaeological and geographical knowledge to be understood. Times have changed, and with the times the people, their lives and thoughts and feelings. Therefore a tradition is needed to preserve the coherence between the Scriptures and the religious life of our time.
Tradition in the proper sense is the interpretation and application of
the eternal truth in the speech and life of the present generation.
Scripture without such tradition is impossible. Many sects in earlier and later times have tried this. They wanted to know nothing but the words and letters of Scripture; rejected all dogmatic terminology not used in Scripture; disapproved of all theological training and science, and sometimes came to demand the literal application of the civil laws of Israel and the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount. But all these tendencies condemned themselves by this to an erasing ruin or at least to a fading life. They placed themselves outside society and lost all influence over its people and its century. Scripture is not there to be learned and imitated from outside, but to shape, lead and bring about independent activity in every field of human life. The Reformation therefore placed itself on a different standpoint. It did not reject all tradition as such; it was a reformation, not a revolution.
She did not try to create everything new, but to cleanse everything from error and abuse according to the rule of God's Word. That is why she stood on the broad Christian basis of the apostolic symbol and the first councils. That is why she was in favor of a theological science that reflected the truth of Scripture in the language of the present. The difference in the understanding of tradition between Rome and the Reformation is this: Rome wants a tradition that runs independently alongside Scripture, a traditio juxta Scripturam or rather a Scriptura juxta traditionem. The Reformation recognizes only such a tradition, which is founded on and results from Scripture, traditio e Scriptura fluens, Moor, Comm. in Marckii Comp.
I 351. Scripture was, according to the Reformation, an organic principle, from which the whole tradition, living on in preaching, confession, liturgy, cult, theology, religious literature, etc., rises and is nourished; a pure source of living water, from which all streams and channels of religious life are fed and maintained. Such a tradition is grounded in Scripture itself. When Jesus has finished his work, he sends the Holy Spirit, who, although he adds nothing new to the revelation, nevertheless leads the congregation into the truth,
John 16:12-15, until she comes through all varieties into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, Eph. 3:18, 19, 4:13. In this sense there is a good, true, glorious tradition. It is the way by