Second, from a comparison with the civil commonwealth.
Second, from a comparison with the civil commonwealth.
§ 467. (II) From a comparison with the civil commonwealth. “In every well-constituted commonwealth, the law and the judge are distinct things. The law teaches what one must do; the judge interprets the law and directs people according to it. Therefore in the ecclesiastical commonwealth, too, there must be another judge besides Scripture.” We respond. (1) We concede that there is such a judge in the Church, for we have stated not only that the Holy Spirit is the supreme and authentic Judge but also that there is an inferior and ministerial judge, who should repeat the voice of that supreme Judge which is set forth in the Scriptures. He should teach from it what one must do, interpret it, and guide people to it. (2) We add, however, that that judge ought not pronounce sentence according to his own choice but according to the norm prescribed by the supreme Judge, namely, according to Holy Scripture, which we consequently call “the voice of the supreme Judge,” “the norm of the inferior judge,” and “the directive judge.” (3) Therefore we invert the argument. Just as an inferior judge in a well-constituted commonwealth is bound to the laws prescribed by a superior judge and is obligated to pronounce sentence according to them as his norm of judgment, so also the minister of the Church and anyone of the faithful in a judgment concerning controversies of faith is bound to the voice of the supreme Judge—that is, the Holy Spirit—which is set forth in the Scriptures. (4) Aristotle (Polit., bk. 5., c. 7) says that a judge is the “animate law,” and thereby Aristotle teaches that a judge ought not pass sentence according to his own choice and will but in accord with the prescription of the laws. If we require this in a case of civil judgment, how much more in the judgment of spiritual matters!