Scripture is perfect.
Scripture is perfect.
§ 367. From the efficient cause and end of Holy Scripture result its perfection and perspicuity. Because God, the Creator of the mind and tongue, wanted to inform people in Scripture and through Scripture about His essence and will and, in its instruction about faith and behavior, to instruct them unto eternal salvation, therefore He also wanted Scripture to be perfect and perspicuous. For if it were not perfect and perspicuous, it could not have instructed us fully about the essence and will of God nor could it have made us wise unto eternal life. Our churches affirm that Scripture is perfect; and with that word “perfect” they mean that Scripture instructs us fully and perfectly about all things necessary for attaining salvation. The Papists, however, deny this perfection of Scripture, as will appear from the antithesis.
In order that the state of the question may be more clearly illustrated, one must note: (1) That we by no means call Scripture perfect in this sense: that all things one must know for faith and behavior are in Scripture according to the letter [secundum literam] and in as many words. Instead, there are some things according to the thing [secundum rem] and some according to the letter, or, to say the same thing, we say that some things are contained therein explicitly and some implicitly, in such a way that they can be deduced from them through a legitimate and unmoving consequence. As Nazianzen says, “Likewise, there are those things that are concluded from the Scriptures and those things that are written” (De theologia, bk. 5). Therefore Bellarmine makes fun of the word “expressly” in vain. He says: “We Papists claim that not all instruction about either faith or behavior is expressly contained in Scripture. The Evangelicals themselves teach that in Scripture are contained all things necessary for faith and behavior” (De verbo Dei, bk. 4, c. 3). But if he takes “expressly” to mean that everything is in Scripture according to the letter, he has incorrectly shaped the state of the controversy, since none of us makes this claim. The Jesuits played the same game at the Colloquy of Durlach [Colloquium Durlacense], where they claimed: “It is proved formally and in terms from Scripture that there is no purgatory and that works are not meritorious.”
(2) That this is not a question about ceremonies and rites introduced and observed by the Church freely but concerns articles of faith. That is, are there articles of faith that one must accept and believe that cannot be proved from the Scriptures? As far as ecclesiastical rites are concerned, though they do not appear in particular in the Scriptures, their genus is still taught in them, namely, that “all things should be done decently and according to order” (1 Cor. 14:40); “for edification” (1 Cor. 14:26); and “without offense to the Church” (1 Cor. 10:32). Therefore in Ritual., p. 11, Tympius in vain presses this argument: “If, without a commandment, one is allowed to substitute Sunday for the Sabbath, which was divinely commanded, it is not necessary to quote an express Word of God for each commandment.” You see, he is confusing those things that pertain to the worship of God and to the substance of religion and piety with rites and ordinances that are adiaphora. The observance of Sunday, as regards the determination of a certain day, is related to the latter class.
(3) That the perfection of Scripture is determined not by the number of books but by the sufficiency of dogmas that one must know for salvation. At any time of the Church, that which was written presented a perfect canon because divine revelation was set forth in those books perfectly with respect to that time. Thus when only the books of Moses were extant, Scripture was perfect, namely, with respect to that time of the Church when further revelations did not yet exist, revelations that God would later want to be put into writing. Concerning this, we can quote the apostolic statement of Phil. 3:15: “If in anything you are otherwise-minded, God will reveal that also to you.”