The arguments of the Papists: First, from the imperfection of Scripture.
The arguments of the Papists: First, from the imperfection of Scripture.
§ 466. (I) From the imperfection of Scripture. They say, “Scripture takes on various meanings, and it itself cannot say which is the correct meaning.” Also: “Sometimes a question arises about the interpretation of Scripture, but Scripture cannot interpret itself. Therefore Scripture cannot be the judge of controversies.” We respond. (1) If Scripture cannot say what its true meaning is nor can it interpret itself, then the purpose of Scripture, which is “to make men wise to salvation,” is destroyed. (2) If the pope in his decrees and decretals, in his bulls and briefs can present his own meaning so clearly that whoever reads the decrees of the pope boasts that he grasps the meaning of the pope, will not the Holy Spirit be able to speak in the Scriptures so clearly that one can gather the certain and genuine meaning from them? (3) If Scripture cannot say what its true meaning is, then neither the prophets nor the apostles could speak in such a way that one could gather the certain and genuine meaning of their statements. The reason is that the prophets and apostles put into the Scriptures the same thing that they preached and nothing else. (4) If Scripture cannot say what its true meaning is, why does Chrysostom write (homily 13 on Genesis): “When Holy Scripture wants to teach us any such thing, it explains itself and does not permit its hearer to err”? Why does Irenaeus claim (Adv. haeres., bk. 2, c. 46): “Those things that God subjected to our knowledge have been placed clearly and without ambiguity in Scripture in those very words”? (5) From the letter of a friend written clearly, we can learn his ideas. Therefore why can we not learn the true meaning from Scripture, which is the letter of God Almighty written to us? Augustine claims in his commentary on Psalm 96 that we can learn “the heart of God” from it. (6) The power of the truth forces Costerus to write: “The chief parts of faith that all Christians must know are included in the apostolic books with sufficient clarity” (Enchirid., c. 1). Therefore one can draw from Scripture something definite about those dogmas he must know. (7) Bellarmine concedes that “firm arguments can be taken from the literal sense of Scripture” (De verbo Dei, bk. 3, c. 3). Therefore instead of being able to seek a firm argument from the Scriptures, much rather where the certain meaning cannot be gathered from the literal sense, no other argument could be sought from the Scriptures elsewhere. (8) It is according to accident that heretics twist Scripture into various meanings, and the one, proper, and perspicuous sense of Scripture that the Holy Spirit intended does not cease because of that. Pelbartus, Rosarium, vol. 3, c. De fide: “Although Scripture can be explained otherwise in some way, at least to escape without an obvious contradiction, yet simply speaking one cannot explain it rationally in another way without the explanation of the Catholic faith always seeming more rational.” (9) The pope, councils, and fathers either draw from the Scriptures what they hand down concerning the dogmas of faith (and thus Scripture will be able to say what the true meaning is) or they teach that something must be accepted in faith outside of Scripture (and thus the sword of God cuts that down, Gal. 1:8).