Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

The principles of Protestantism are repugnant to the proof of the canon of the Scriptures which the Reformers retained.

« For the Protestants, concerning this divine testimony, and consequently concerning their entire canon of the Scriptures, as is fitting for the foundation of the doctrine of faith, nothing can be established even from Tradition itself, so long as they admit it only in that sense which they themselves call historical tradition, and which in its entirety is to be judged and measured by Scripture as the sole rule of faith. »

In their symbolic books the so-called orthodox Protestants profess these three principles: 1°. that the books which they have in their canon, all and alone, are to be believed to be the written word of God and divinely inspired; 2°. that no divine attestation has been preserved or could have been preserved by Tradition alone in such a way that from it anything can be established concerning any dogma, and that it constitute an object of faith; 3°. that Tradition concerning dogmas and concerning the understanding of the word of God can be admitted only as historical in this sense, that from Tradition as from a historical testimony is learned how the word of God was understood by Christians in different ages — which Tradition indeed is of itself of no authority, but is to be measured and judged by individuals according to the sole norm, which is Scripture.

Nevertheless these same Protestants, at least for the most part, disputing with the antichrists whom they have in their communion, when the reason is demanded by which they hold all these books in their canon as inspired, appeal to Tradition, because they see that no other way of demonstration lies open. We now say that this demonstration cannot be instituted unless, with the principles laid down as fundamental by the Protestants rejected, the Catholic principle of Tradition is admitted; and thus from the principles of Protestantism no way lies open for demonstrating the inspiration of at least most of the books of the New Testament, which books nevertheless they hold as the inspired word of God, that is, as the sole rule of faith.

Tradition, indeed, on their principles, only reports the opinion of the ancient Christians, and can teach only this one thing: that all these books were held by the ancient Church as belonging to sacred Scripture and as inspired. But whether this opinion of the ancients is true or false is to be judged by individuals according to the sole norm of the word of God consigned in the Scriptures. Now if they understood this sole norm of judgment only negatively — that nothing can be admitted in Tradition which is repugnant to the written word of God — this would indeed be most true, but it contributes nothing to the demonstration in question. For that the Tradition of the ancient Church concerning the inspiration of the books of the New Testament which they have in their canon is not repugnant to the written word they will indeed easily prove; but neither is the Tradition concerning other books, which the Protestants have nevertheless repudiated, any more repugnant; and in general, from mere non-repugnance with the written word they cannot conclude the truth of the testimony contained in Tradition concerning the inspiration of their books — but this truth of the testimony must be drawn from the authority of Tradition itself. Then, however, Scripture is no longer the sole norm according to which all dogmas are to be judged; nor is it any longer true that there can be or is no dogma handed down by Tradition alone — but, with the principle of Protestantism abandoned, the Catholic principle of Tradition must be admitted, and from it, together with the other dogmas, the entire canon of the Scriptures must also be adopted according to the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But if — what in reality the principle of Protestantism holds — Scripture is the sole rule of faith, and if Tradition and the opinion of the ancient Church in general, and consequently also the Tradition concerning the inspiration of the books of the New Testament, is to be judged according to the norm of Scripture in such a way that a positive testimony of Scripture is demanded for proving a dogma contained in Tradition and in the opinion of the ancient Church, and thus the silence of Scripture suffices for repudiating Tradition and for judging the opinion of the ancient Church false or at least doubtful, then assuredly they cannot prove the inspiration of these books from Tradition either. For Scripture is altogether silent concerning the number and canon of the books of the New Testament which the Protestants have adopted. Therefore, if the silence of Scripture is the reason for judging Tradition false or doubtful, then for them that historical Tradition of theirs can be of no value for proving the inspiration of the books of the New Testament.

Moreover, from this very thing which we demonstrated in the preceding thesis — that the testimony concerning the inspiration of all the books of the canon, even as admitted by the Protestants, has been preserved to us by Tradition alone — you will easily see the evident contradiction in the three principles of the Deformers which we recalled at the outset. For in the first principle there is implicitly contained the affirmation of that which in the second principle is explicitly denied: namely, that there is some dogma handed down by Tradition alone. Likewise in the third principle there is laid down a norm for judging Tradition by which the value of that same Tradition is explicitly denied which in the first principle is implicitly affirmed. See on Tradition, th. XX. n. III.