De Moor II:32: The Proximate End of Scripture: the Rule of Faith and Manners

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

With our AUTHOR the Proximate and Subordinate End of the Scripture is to be considered, which, says he, from all these ways in which Scripture contains true Religion, is evident:  namely, that it was given so that it might be a fixed Canon and Rule of faith and manners.  Thus it is often called by the Ancients:  The Rule of Truth by IRENÆUS, book IV contra Hæreses, chapter LXIX, or XXXV, “But we follow the one and only true God as teacher, and hold His words as the Rule of Truth, etc.;” by CHRYSOSTOM, ἀπάντων ἀκριβὴς ζυγὸς καὶ γνώμων καὶ κανὼν, the precise balance, rule, and Canon of all things, homily XIII on 2 Corinthians, opera, tome 10, page 537; by AUGUSTINE, the Rule of doctrine, de Bono Viduitate, chapter I, opera, tome 6, column 271, For the Holy Scripture sets down the Rule of our doctrine.  By the same AUGUSTINE, Scales, de Baptismo contra Donatistas, book II, chapter VI, opera, tome 9, column 68, “Let us not employ deceitful scales, when we would weigh what we maintain, and how we maintain it; speaking according to our own judgment, This is weighty, this is light:  but let us employ the divine scales from the Holy Scriptures, as from the Lord’s treasury, and let us weight on that which is the weightier; nay, let us not weigh, but rather acknowledge the things as weighed by the Lord.”  What we have asserted concerning the End of written Scripture the Enthusiasts overturn, who think little of the written Word of God, and subordinate it to particular Revelations as a more certain Rule.  Sebastian Franck[1] in the preface to his Paradoxorum CCLXXX writes:  “The letter of Scripture is the sword of Antichrist, and kills Christ:  the Scripture, without the light, life, and interpretation of the Spirit, is a darkened lamp and killing letter:  heresies and sects are from the letter of Scripture:  Scripture is a book shut up with seven seals, and a sealed enigma:  the sheeth is not the sword of the Spirit, the Silenus of Alcibiades.”  Which words certainly disparage the Canonical use of Scripture.  Add what CROCIUS cites out of Weigel concerning the Scripture as double-dealing, with a subjoined refutation in Anti-Weigelio, chapter I, question III, pages 68-71.  Now, what comparison might obtain between the Scripture and the Silenus of Alcibiades, you may learn from ERASMUS’ Adagiis,[2] pages 653-657.  The Papists speak with equal irreverence concerning the written Word, calling Scripture a Delphic sword,[3] that is, that to which a various Sense is able to be accommodated, and which is able to be taken up both by the heretics and by the orthodox in defense of their respective causes; just as the Delphic sword was forged in the same manner, that by the same they might at the same time slaughter sacred victims, and afflict the guilty with punishment, see ERASMUS’ Adagia, pages 54, 55:  likewise a wax nose, which is able to be twisted and molded into whatever form:  a rule leaden, Lesbian,[4] in a proverb, mention of which is found in ARISTOTLE, book V of his Ethics, chapter XIV, page m. 91, opera, tome 2, Τοῦ γὰρ ἀορίστου ἀόριστος καὶ ὁ κανὼν, ὥσπερ καὶ τῆς λεσβίας οἰκοδομῆς ὁ μολύβδινος κανὼν, πρὸς γὰρ τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ λίθου μετακινεῖται καὶ οὐ μένει ὁ κανὼν, that is, for the rule of what is indefinite is also indefinite, like the leaden rule used in Lesbian architecture; for the rule changes to fit the shape of the stone and does not remain a rule.  Now, an ἀόριστος/indefinite rule of this sort, and which does not remain like unto itself, is not a rule.  The adage is used when reason is preposterously accommodated to fact, rather than fact to reason:  and when Law is accommodated to behavior, behavior is not emended according to Law, see see ERASMUS’ Adagia, pages 431.  Abuses of this sort against Scripture erupt from the Papists:  Martin Kromer,[5] in his libello de falsa Lutheri Religione, page 48, says, “It is an old proverb, that Sacred Scripture has a wax nose, which everyone is able to bend at his will:  in such a way that not only diverse, but even contrary, doctrines by it are wont to be established and defended by contentious men and heretics.  It is not what you contend.”  Likewise, Scripture is called a wax nose by Quintinus Heduus,[6] with Pamelius[7] approving in his annotations on Tertullian’s Præscriptione 237; and by the Jesuits of Cologne in Censura Catechismi Monhemii,[8] page 117; by Albert Pighius[9] in his Hierarchiæ Ecclesiasticæ, in the Index of Arguments, book I, chapter IV.  The same Pighius called the Scripture a leaden rule, Hierarchiæ Ecclesiasticæ, book I, chapter II, “The Scriptures are, as it were, a certain leaden rule of Lesbian architecture, which suffer themselves easily to be accommodated to whatever sense one may have presumed within himself beforehand.”  “The Scriptures,” says Coster[10] in his Enchiridio, page 44, “which the Apostles left for us on parchments, are dead letters, written with ink on parchment and papyrus, which, if one wishes to mutilate, twist, or pervert by perverse expositions, it feels nothing.  They are like a sheath, which admits any sword, not only steel, but also lead, wood, and brass; for they suffer themselves to be drawn along by whatever interpretation.”  As all these things are not able to be reconciled with the normative Use of Scripture, so Bellarmine, book IV de Verbo Dei, chapter XII, Controversiis, tome I, column 254, 255, contends, “The proper and principal end of the Scripture was not that it might be a rule of faith, but that it might be a sort of useful reminder, to preserve and foster the doctrine received by preaching.”  He then adds, “The Scripture, even if it was not principally made so that it might be the rule of faith, is nevertheless a rule of faith, not total, but partial.  For the total rule of faith is the Word of God, or the revelation of God delivered to the Church, which is divided into two partial rules, Scripture and Tradition.”

The Scope/Goal of asserters of this sort is easily demonstrated, namely, to defend extraordinary Revelations of the Spirit and ἀγράφοις/unwritten Traditions, and to recall us to the tribunal of the Church as unto an infallible Interpreter of Scripture and supreme Judge of Controversies.

Our thesis, that Scripture was written unto this end, that it might be the Canon of faith and manners, not that it might only be a useful Reminder, we prove from this, α.  that, not only is it called a Canon, for example, in Galatians 6:16,[11] but it also has all things requisite for a Canon, 1.  namely, Infallible Truth, according to § 22, whence the עֵד֥וּת יְהוָ֥ה, testimony of the Lord, is called נֶאֱמָנָה/sure, Psalm 19:7, upon which the conscience is able safely to lean, without any danger of seduction or deception;מִֽשְׁפְּטֵי־יְהוָ֥ה אֱמֶ֑ת , the judgments of the Lord are true, Psalm 19:9:  2.  Complete Harmony, of which we spoke on § 23:  3.  Sufficient Perspicuity, which we saw proved in § 24-26:  4.  and necessary Perfection, which we evinced in § 27-31.  So the Scripture was not only produced as suited for this, that it might be a Canon, but, β.  God also continuously commends the Scripture, and the Scripture alone, for this use.  But, what not only has all things requisite for a Canon, but was also divinely inspired for this, that it might direct our faith and life, and to which accordingly we are continually and uniquely sent as a norm of faith and manners, indeed, to which we are bound under threat of anathema; that is to be called, not so much a Reminder, as a Norm and Canon of faith and life.  But in this manner the matter is compared with the Sacred Scripture.  That the Scriptures were written for Canonical use, you read in John 20:31; Romans 15:4.  That unto this Canon we are sent and are bound under threat of anathema, see in Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29; 2 Peter 1:19; Galatians 1:8.  γ.  Moreover, the example of the faithful is commended and set forth to us as worthy of imitation, as much under the Old as under the New Testament, who made use of the Scripture, and that alone, as the rule of faith and life, Psalm 119:105; Acts 17:11.  And, δ.  either the Sacred Scripture is the Rule of faith and manners, or no such thing is given; whence the uncertainty of all Religion would follow, which is absurd.  Bellarmine, therefore, although he denies that Scripture was written unto this end, acknowledges that it is a rule, albeit partial, on account of the hypothesis concerning Traditions, which we exploded above with the other concerning extraordinary Revelations.  Becanus, in his Analogia Veteris et Novi Testamenti, chapter I, question I, rightly says, “Canon signifies two things, 1.  A Norm or Rule that we follow.  2.  A Catalogue or number of particular things.  The books of Scripture are called Canonical in both senses.  Indeed, the former, because they contain the norm or rule that we ought to follow in faith and manners.  The latter, because they have been recorded in the catalogue of divine books.”

The Papists certainly quibble, when They Object that, α.  Paul calls the Scripture Useful for doctrine, etc., 2 Timothy 3:16.  Since a Canon certainly furnishes these Uses:  and not only are the Uses mentioned by Paul able to be drawn from Sacred Scripture, but at the same time each one is bound to apply the Scripture as a Canon to these doctrinal and practical Uses; so that whatever Scripture teaches he might receive, whatever Scripture refutes he might reject, whatever Scripture commends he might turn into practice, whatever Scripture punishes he might avoid.  These advantages are subordinated to the ruling principle of Canon, which the Scripture has.  The Scripture is able to be compared to Scales, evaluating the magnitude of weights, and by this very thing bestowing great advantage.

β.  Chance Writing without a Command, which they similarly use as a pretext, and which we have already confuted in § 4.

γ.  It is also mere quibbling that the Scripture was not written systematically.  The argument is obviously structured in this way:

Those that professedly deliver the norm of religion ought to write Catechism or System:

The Apostles did not write Catechism or System; but they wrote either history or Epistles, in which disputations concerning dogmas are delivered only tangentially:  Therefore.  See Bellarmine, book IV de Verbo Dei, chapter IV, column 212.

Responses:  1.  The method of writing was founded in the will of God.  2.  Not without good reason did He choose such, which is especially able to furnish occasion for the exercise of industry.  3.  Apart from the fact that the Holy Men are to be said to have also delivered professedly a System of religion, both with greater abundance, as in the Epistle to the Romans, and more concisely, in surveys of the great heads of religion, Hebrews 6:1, 2; Mark 1:15; etc.  Indeed, in the histories and Epistles disputations concerning dogmas are not delivered by the way, but professedly, for example, in the Gospel of John, in the Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews.  In like manner, the Naturalists, caviling at the authority of the Sacred Codex, are refuted by STAPFER, in his Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter X, § 477-481, pages 1173-1175.

δ.  Finally, they do not gain much by this argument:

A rule of faith ought to be adequate for the thing ruled, that is, to contain all and only those things that pertain to faith.  But Sacred Scripture does not contain all things necessary to be believed, nor those alone, as it appears from the many histories of both Testaments, and also from the salutations of Paul.

Responses:  The Minor, 1.  with respect to the former member is altogether denied, from the Perfection of Scripture demonstrated in § 27 and following.  2.  If with respect to the latter member we concede that some things occur in Sacred Scripture, even without which its Perfection as a Canon of faith and manners could appear to stand firm, in this the divine goodness, providing more abundantly for us, is to be acknowledged.  At the same time it is to be said that nothing in Sacred Scripture superabounds as completely superfluous, since whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, Romans 15:4, and all Scripture is profitable πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, for doctrine, etc., 2 Timothy 3:16.  Therefore, the histories, salutations, and whatever other things could appear to be of lesser moment, are comprehended in the circle of this Canon and Rule; as each thing to the little measure of human capacity in a variety of ways in Scripture is set forth, absolutely and with limitation, in thesis and hypothesis, in the theory of precepts and praxis of examples.

[1] Although initially a Roman priest, Sebastian Franck (1499-c. 1543) joined the Reformation in 1525.  However, he came to see the teachings of Scripture as paradoxical and inadequate for the instruction of the Christian, looking instead to immediate communication from the Holy Spirit.

[2] In Plato’s Symposium, Alcibiades (fifth century BC Athenian general and statesman) compares Socrates to the statue of Silenus (in Greek mythology, a companion of Dionysus), ugly and hollow, but full of golden statuettes of the gods on the inside.  The general idea:  Something ugly on the outside may contain something beautiful and valuable on the inside.

[3] That is, double-edged.  Aristotle’s Politics, book I.

[4] A Lesbian rule was a flexible mason’s rule, used to measure and/or reproduce curves, made of pliable lead from the island of Lesbos.

[5] Martin Kromer (1512-1589) was a Roman Catholic churchman, and Polish historian, statesman, and diplomat.

[6] Jean Quintin (1500-1561) was a member of the Order of Malta, and Professor of Canon Law in Paris.

[7] Jacobus Pamelius (1536-1587) was a Flemish theologian.  He produced edited works of Cyprian, Tertullian, and Rabanus Maurus.

[8] Johann Monheim (1509-1564) was rector of the cathedral school at Dusseldorf.  He was a Roman Catholic of Erasmian sentiments.  Toward the end of his life, he published a catechism that was clearly influenced by the Reformation, which created a firestorm of controversy that continued after his death.

[9] Albert Pighius (1490-1542) was a Dutch Roman Catholic theologian.  He was heavily involved in the defense of the Roman hierarchy against the Reformers and the Eastern Orthodox.

[10] Franciscus Coster (1532-1619) was a Brabantian Jesuit theologian.  He was heavily involved in the Counter-Reformation.

[11] Galatians 6:16:  “And as many as walk according to this rule (τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ), peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”