Antithesis: First, of the Papists.
Antithesis: First, of the Papists.
§ 448. Antithesis. (I) The Papists, because they deny the perfection and perspicuity of Scripture, thereby also deny that it is the only norm of faith, worship, life, dogmas, and controversies in the Church. Tannerus explains what great importance lies in this question: “Because this (namely, whether Scripture is the only norm and judge of all controversies) in some way is the origin and root of all other controversies, one must settle this before settling all others. But if this is not settled, people must try in vain for a consensus regarding others. It is completely foreign to logic to want to debate about other controversies while omitting this one” (Relat. de colloq. Ratisbon., p. 2). Later he adds: “What else is it to ask Catholics to admit that Holy Scripture is the only judge and unique norm for all controversies and to exclude the infallible authority of the Church than to ask them to yield their case voluntarily and unnecessarily before every conflict?”
Furthermore, the Papists go off in two directions regarding this controversy. Some fully deny that Scripture is the norm; others concede that it is a norm but deny that it is the only, unique, perfect, and total norm. To the former group belong those who compare Scripture to a wax nose and to a Lesbic rule:77 Cens. Colon. cont. Monheim., p. 117; Canisius (Opus catech., f. 44); etc. But if Scripture in its every part is flexible like a wax nose and a Lesbic rule, it surely will not be able to be the norm and rule of dogmas in the Church, because it is characteristic of a norm that it be certain, infallible, invariable, etc.
Bellarmine does not go far away from those when he claims: “Scripture’s proper and chief end was not to be the rule of faith but to be a useful reminder for the preservation and fostering of the doctrine received from preaching” (De verbo Dei, bk. 4, c. 12). However: (1) Bellarmine is contradicting the express statements of Scripture and of the fathers in which they call Scripture the “canon” and “rule”; he is contradicting the most common term for the Scriptures in the Church—”canonical”; and he is even contradicting himself, because he confirms with many arguments that “the prophetic and apostolic books are the sure and stable rule of faith” (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 1 and 21). (2) If Scripture were merely a “reminder,” why would it have been necessary for the prophets and apostles to write so many books? Why would it have been necessary for them to have been raised to the seat of canonical authority and to be held in higher regard than all others?
§ 449. How does Bellarmine prove his claim? He produces five arguments, but they are of extremely meager weight. (1) “If Scripture is the rule of faith, then it should contain all those things, and only those things, that of themselves pertain to faith, just as we see has happened in the case of the Creed, which is truly said and is arranged to be a brief rule of faith. In Scripture, however, there are many things that of themselves do not pertain to faith. That is, these matters were not written because one must necessarily believe them; rather, one believes them necessarily because they have been written, as we see from all the historical accounts in the Old Testament and also from many accounts in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles.” We respond. [a] We have shown in our treatise On the interpretation of Scripture [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 2], §§ 76-77, that both Scripture and the Apostles’ Creed are called “the rule of faith” by the fathers. Therefore the two are not opposed to each other. [b] It is false to say that no historical accounts in the Old Testament are necessary for faith, because the accounts of the creation of the world, of the fall of our first parents, of the publishing of the protevangelium, of the gathering and protection of the Church, etc., certainly pertain to faith. [c] Although more things are handed down in Scripture than those that absolutely all must know for salvation, yet one cannot infer from this that Scripture was not published for the purpose of being the rule of faith, for those things that are added for the sake of richer explanation and confirmation do not at all remove Scripture’s proper and chief end. [d] The very term “canon” that the Holy Spirit has given to the written Word of God shows that the purpose for publishing Scripture by holy men of God is not to be a mere reminder but to be the perpetual rule of dogmas in the Church.
(2) “We must believe many things that are not in Scripture.” We respond. Earlier we demonstrated the opposite. Scripture and our faith are of equal extent. Faith ought to embrace no more and no less than has been revealed in Scripture.
(3) “Scripture is not one continuous corpus such as a rule of faith ought to be. Instead, it contains various works: histories, sermons, prophecies, songs, letters, etc.” We respond. All those things establish one continuous corpus of Scripture as a system of things we must believe, do, and hope for, since they have all come from one Spirit; also, they all point to one and the same end, which is the instruction of humans for salvation.
(4) Rom. 15:4: “Whatever was written … was written for our teaching.” We respond. How all things were written for our teaching is explained specifically and more clearly in 2 Tim. 3:15-17. From this passage it is evident that a perfect norm and rule of doctrine are presented in Scripture.
(5) “In 2 Pet. 1:12 and 3:1, he says that it was necessary for him to ‘remind’ those to whom he was writing.” We respond. We concede that the goal and function of Scripture also consists in reminding. From this, however, one cannot infer that it consists only in reminding and that its principal and proper end is not to teach the things necessary for salvation and to set forth the rule of faith. After all, what is accessory and secondary does not remove what is principal. It was in this way that the Holy Spirit “was bringing all things to remembrance” for the apostles (John 14:26). Yet He was also their teacher, “guiding them into all truth” (John 16:13). Therefore Scripture has a twofold purpose with regard to its different objects. It informs and instructs perfectly those who are ignorant of the mysteries of faith, but it also reminds those who are already aware of the mysteries of faith from the preaching of the Word.
§ 450. Bellarmine likewise goes off into the direction of the second group, namely, of those who concede that Scripture is a norm and rule of faith but not the only, unique, and perfect norm. He says: “I say, second, that, though Scripture was not made especially to be a rule of faith, nevertheless it is a rule of faith, not complete but partial. You see, the total rule of faith is God’s Word or God’s revelation that has been made to the Church. This is divided into two partial rules: Scripture and tradition.”
We respond. (1) It is correct to say that the Word of God is the unique and total rule of faith. Bellarmine should prove, however, that, after the canon of Scripture was published, this Word was presented partly in the Scriptures and partly in traditions outside of the Scriptures. But because he cannot prove this, he should hold on to what is certain and abandon what is uncertain. That is, he should embrace with us the written Word of God as the unique rule of faith and repudiate doubtful and uncertain traditions.
(2) Scripture is either the total rule of faith or it is not the rule of faith at all. For if our faith is broader than Scripture, Scripture will not be able to be the rule of faith because there must be equal breadth between the rule and that which is ruled. Varinus defines “canon” as that which is “a nondeceiving measure that admits absolutely no addition or subtraction.” Basil, Contra Eunom., bk. 1: “So long as a canon and rule lack nothing to be a canon and rule, they accept no addition to make them more accurate, for addition occurs because of a defect. Where there is a defect, however, they should no longer be called ‘rule’ and ‘canon.’ “Theophylact, on Philippians 3: “A rule and straightedge have neither increase nor decrease.”
(3) The fathers agree that Scripture is a rule that is not partial but total, for they absolutely and simply call it 
, “a complete, certain, and perfect rule.”
(4) Scripture and traditions are not of the same class and nature. Therefore it is impossible for them to concur at the same time to establish the canon of faith. That one is divine; these, human. That is certain; these, doubtful. That is immutable; these, changing. That offers the firm foundation of faith; these do not.
§ 451. Bellarmine and many other Papists along with him stress this argument: “One cannot understand Scripture except by the Holy Spirit. Yet the Holy Spirit is not found except in the Church, with which He abides forever (John 14:16). Therefore only in the Church is there a true understanding of Scripture, and, consequently, it is the Church, not Scripture, that is the norm of judgment in questions of faith.” We respond. (1) We concede that the true understanding of Scripture is in the Church alone. We also concede that the Holy Spirit has been promised to the Church. However, what that true Church is and where it is to be sought can be asked and learned only from Scripture. You see, that Scripture (taken materially as the Word of God) is prior to the Church and is her principle and cause. It instructs us that only that assembly which follows the norm and leadership of the Word is to be considered the true Church (John 8:31; 10:27; 14:23; etc.).
(2) The gracious presence of the Holy Spirit and the true understanding of the Scriptures are promised to that assembly not absolutely and simply but insofar as it rests upon the simplicity of the Word and keeps the deposit of heavenly doctrine pure and uncorrupted.
(3) If the understanding of Scripture were to depend absolutely and simply on the Church, in whatever way it may be constituted, then the Papists ought to treat the doctrine of the Church before the doctrine of Scripture or the Word of God, according to the rules of methodology. Bellarmine, Costerus, Pistorius, etc., however, proceed in the opposite order and discuss Scripture before the Church. Eck and Torrensis saw this and treated the Church immediately at the outset.
(4) When the Romans speak of “the Church,” they mean their pope. Our latest analysis of this assertion leads us to this conclusion. Bellarmine, De pontif., bk. 4, c. 2: “That infallibility does not lie in the assembly of his advisors nor in the council of bishops but in the pope alone.” Yet it cannot be demonstrated from Holy Writ that the eternal assistance of the Holy Spirit and the true understanding of Scripture were promised to the pope.
(5) The argument is foreign to the question. You see, we are asking here not where we must look for Scripture and the true understanding of Scripture, which no Christian denies he must seek in the Church. Instead, we are asking what the norm is for passing judgment on controversies in the Church. That this norm is Holy Scripture shines clearly from the arguments we have adduced in favor of our position.