Neither Scripture nor Tradition the Sole Rule of Faith. 145

2. If any such divine precept existed, it could not have been unknown to the early fathers. Now although these recommend the reading of the Scriptures to those who may profit by them, yet they expressly assert that there is no such universal obligation. "Thy faith hath saved thee," says Tertullian, "not the study of the Scriptures; faith is contained in the creed" (de praescript. c. 14). Nor does the same writer fail to censure in another place those who do not read the Scriptures in a proper spirit. St. Augustine (de doct. Christ. I. c. 39) is still more explicit on this matter: "Established on faith, hope, and charity, and holding to these immovably, man needs not the Scriptures, except as a means of instructing others. Hence many live by these three [virtues] in the desert without the Scriptures." What St. Augustine here says of hermits St. Irenæus (adv. haeres. III. c. 2) asserts of whole nations, who had received and preserved the faith by the oral teaching of the Church alone. And St. Jerome (ep. ad. Paulin.) severely rebukes the presumption of those who pretend to interpret the Scripture without authority.

The Catholic Church, therefore, in nowise infringed on the rights of its children when it imposed restrictions on the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. The attempts of heretics to undermine the faith of the unwary by falsely interpreting the Scriptures justified such precautions; and as the dangers vanished, these restrictions were gradually relaxed.

68. Neither Scripture nor tradition is the sole rule of faith.

The rule of faith is that norm which determines our faith. Inasmuch as our faith must conform with the contents of Scripture and tradition, these two sources of faith may be called rules of faith (59). A rule of faith, however, in the strict sense, is that by which our understanding of the Scriptures and tradition is determined. Not the Scriptures alone can be this ruling principle. The same applies also to tradition taken apart from the living teaching office of the Church.

We might here appeal to the existence of a living teaching authority in the Church, already proved; for if there is a supreme authority other than Scripture and tradition, the members of the Church must submit to it, and therefore accept its interpretation of Scripture and tradition. It will, however, not be unprofitable to prove this truth from the very attributes of Scripture; especially as

Protestants try to set up the Scriptures as the only rule or raith in the place of the living teaching authority of the Church.

1. In order to be the sole rule of faith, the Scripture should of itself be fit to secure in the Church the perpetual and unchangeable unity of the true faith, to solve with certainty the most important questions regarding our salvation (e.g., the necessity and lawfulness of the baptism of infants, the validity of baptism conferred by heretics). But under what conditions can the understanding of the Scriptures, and with it the truths of faith, remain unchanged, the unity of faith be maintained, and the more important questions pertaining to salvation be solved from the Scriptures? Only in the case that the meaning of Scripture, at least in its most important points, is so obvious that it may be understood by all in the same way. For, as we learn from daily experience, the opinions of men in all that does not compel assent by its evidence soon diverge. It is hardly necessary to prove that Scripture does not possess such evidence; it is, on the contrary, very obscure, even in most important points of doctrine. In fact, heretics in every age have sought to prove their conflicting opinions from Scripture. Hence it is impossible that Scripture alone should secure the perpetuity of the Christian religion, maintain unity of faith, and solve all the important problems of salvation, 'Therefore it is impossible that it should be the sole rule of aith.

The same applies to the tradition as contained in the monuments above referred to (65), and distinct from the living teaching body of the Church; for though we find many truths more clearly expressed in the monuments of tradition than in the Scriptures, yet they cannot of them selves give a satisfactory solution to all questions that may arise; consequently, they are not calculated to solve those difficulties which, if left unsolved, may undermine the truths of revelation, destroy the unity of the faith, and endanger the salvation of many.

2. But experience furnishes the most evident proof of the insufficiency of Scripture alone as a rule of faith. Since

Protestantism set up the Scriptures as the sole criterion in matters of faith we perceive an ever-growing disunion; the truths of faith have been abandoned one by one, while no means was left to check the evil-proof sufficient that unless we recognize some other rule of faith than Scripture alone, neither the preservation of the deposit of faith nor the unity of the faith itself nor the security of salvation is possible.

As Protestants exaggerated the value of the Scriptures, so did the Jansenists the value of tradition, or the historical monuments of Christian antiquity, particularly the writings of the fathers, to support their heretical opinions. Their study of the fathers and of ecclesiastical history, without the guidance of the living authority of the Church, led to the schism of Utrecht; as the Bible-reading of Protestants, without the Church's guidance, resulted in the denial of the divinity of Christ, which is the fundamental dogma of Christianity. Thus has experience shown that not even tradition alone is sufficient to preserve the truths of revelation and the unity of the Church's faith.

69. The necessary attributes of a rule of faith are to be found only in the teaching office of the Catholic Church.

I. From what we have said follows that there must be another rule of faith different from Scripture and tradition -an authority to direct us in the understanding of these sources of our faith. The attributes of a rule of faith must be determined by its object, which is chiefly the preservation of the deposit of faith and of the unity of the Church. The Church and the faith are in most intimate connection with the salvation of man; and, consequently, another object of the rule of faith is the securing of the salvation of the individual.

1. A rule of faith must be an outward, visible one. Its object is to remove the difficulties which endanger the true faith and the Church's unity. But this is possible only in case that, being consulted by doubting or contending parties, its voice may be heard. Besides, in every society, in addition to the written law, there is a living visible authority, which

applies the law in given cases and dispenses justice between litigant parties. Now, if the Church is a visible society, it must naturally have a visible authority to settle doubts and disputes in matters of faith.

2. A rule of faith must as the supreme authority be such as to compel submission to its decision, for it must be the means of maintaining unity. But this cannot be done unless its verdict decides all questions and removes all doubts. A final decision that renders further opposition unavailing can be given only by such supreme authority as commands the unqualified submission of all.

3. A rule of faith must be infallible. An infallible authority alone can in all cases decide in matters of faith in such a way as not to endanger the integrity of the deposit of faith; an infallible authority alone can maintain unity of faith; for the obligation to believe exists only when one is morally certain that what is proposed to his belief is really of divine revelation (9). But only an infallible authority can give this

assurance.

4. A rule of faith must be of divine institution. For in matters of religion we must consult, not man's pleasure, but God's ordination.

II. After what we have already said (55, 56), no further proof is required to show that the teaching authority of the Catholic Church possesses these attributes. Though in many cases it might remain uncertain what is the teaching of the Church dispersed throughout the universe-what the Church proposes as revealed truth in its ordinary preaching; yet there are more ways than one of interrogating this authority, and when the importance of the matter demands, the Church has diverse means of giving a public and final decision in all cases (57).

All other rules of faith established by Protestants are arbitrary. This applies to the supposed illumination of the Holy Ghost vouchsafed to those who read the Scriptures. Experience, moreover, plainly shows that with all their pretended illumination of the Spirit in interpreting the Scriptures, they surrender the doctrines of faith one by one, and forfeit all unity of belief. It is self evident that this much

vaunted illumination cannot claim infallibility, and cannot be regarded as a supreme authority. Moreover, if, as the conflicting opinions in Scripture interpretation show, this divine illumination is not given to all, by what means are we to know who is thus inspired, so that all not only may, but must, believe his interpretation? The fact that they have recourse to such arbitrary rules of faith is an acknowledgment of the insufficiency of human reason as the interpreter of the Scriptures. Experience and reason itself manifestly show the insufficiency of such a rule of faith. In those passages in which the apostles exhort the faithful to try and to prove before accepting (John iv. 1; 1 Thess. v. 20, 21), there is no question of revealed doctrine, but either of persons of doubtful mission or of miraculous gifts of the Spirit.

70. The Scriptures are to be interpreted according to the Catholic rule of faith.

1. Since in the Church there is a living teaching authority, constituting the rule of faith, and exercised in diverse ways (57), the reason is obvious why the Council of Trent (ib.) forbids the interpreting of Scripture in matters of faith and morals "contrary to the sense of the Church, or the unanimous consent of the fathers." The sense of the Church is manifested to us not only in its formal definitions, but also in its ordinary preaching; wherefore the council especially mentions the fathers as witnesses of the Church's faith in their own and in earlier times

It was not, however, the intention of the council in this decree that commentators should not supersede the exposition of the fathers in the interpretation of certain passages of the Scriptures, as may be seen by a glance at modern commentaries. What the council forbids is: (a) to draw conclusions from the Scriptures which are contrary to the doctrine of the Church or the unanimous teaching of the fathers; (b) to interpret certain passages differently from the interpretation of the Church, if the Church has given such, or differently from the unanimous interpretation of the fathers, who represent the whole teaching body of the Church. For as the Vatican Council (de fide c. 2), in accordance with the Council of Trent, declares, that interpretation of the Scriptures is to be considered the true one which our holy mother the Church holds and always has held."

66

2. Hence in the interpretation of Scripture one may (a) accord with the Church: either by explaining a text, the sense of which is defined by the Church, in the sense defined; or by interpreting a text, the meaning of which is not defi.ed, in