San Roberto Belarmino. De la Palabra de Dios. Libros tres y cuatro.

 BOOK THREE

On the interpretation and true meaning of Scripture

Indice:

 Sobre la interpretación y el verdadero sentido de la Escritura.

I. La Escritura no es tan clara por sí misma que, sin alguna explicación, baste para poner fin a las controversias sobre la fe.

II. Se responde a las objeciones de los adversarios.

HI. Se plantea una cuestión sobre el juez de las controversias, y al mismo tiempo se examina el sentido de la Escritura.

IV. Se citan testimonios del Antiguo Testamento para la opinión de los católicos.

V. Se prueba el mismo punto a partir del Nuevo Testamento.

VI. Se prueba el mismo punto a partir de la práctica habitual de la Iglesia.

VII. Se prueba el mismo punto a partir de los testimonios de los Pontífices y Emperadores.

VIII. Se prueba el mismo punto a partir de los testimonios de los Padres.

IX. Se prueba el mismo punto a partir de la razón.

X. Se responde a las objeciones.

CHAPTER I

Scripture is not so clear by itself that, without some explanation,

IT SUFFICES TO END CONTROVERSIES ABOUT THE FAITH

For the Scriptures in this third book on the interpretation of the divine letters I decided

to begin with this question: Are the divine Scriptures by themselves easily and clearly

understood, or do they need some interpretation? Indeed, Martin Luther says in the

preface to the letter condemned by Pope Leo: It is necessary, according to the judgment

of Scripture, to draw this conclusion4that it cannot happen, unless we give to Scripture

the first place in all things which often is given to the Fathers, that is, that Scripture by

itself is most certain, easy, open for the interpretation of itself, proving, judging and

illuminating all things, etc. In the same place he contends that Scripture is clearer than

the Commentaries of all the Fathers. He teaches similar things in his book on free will

and elsewhere.

But since Luther saw that one could immediately raise the objection: Why are there so

many controversies, if Scripture is so clear? He invented two escapes from this. One, that

Scripture, although it is obscure in some places, still those points are clarified elsewhere.

The second, that Scripture, although by itself is very clear, still for proud persons and

infidels it is obscure because of their blindness and hardness of heart.

Brentius in his Prologue against Peter a Soto adds a third escape, namely, that

sometimes it is obscure because of phrases in a foreign language, that is, Hebrew and

Greek, but its meaning is clear. This opinion is manifestly false, for Scripture itself bears

witness to its own obscurity and difficulty in Ps. 119: Give me understanding, that I may

keep thy law (v. 34). In the same place: Open my eyes, that I may behold the wondrous

things out of thy law (v. 18). And in the same place: Make thy face shine upon thy servant,

and teach me thy statutes (v. 135). And certainly David knew all the Scripture, which

existed at the time, and he knew the expressions of the Hebrew language, nor was he

proud or unbelieving. Therefore rightly St. Jerome in his letter to Paulinus, while treating

these words, says this: If such a great prophet professes the darkness of ignorance, do

you not realize that we little ones, who have just been weaned, are surrounded by a night

of ignorance?

Moreover, in Luke 24 the Lord interpreted the Scriptures for his disciples, who

certainly knew the Hebrew expressions, since they were Hebrews, and they were not

proud or unbelieving. In Acts 8:28 the Eunuch of the Queen of the Ethiopians was

reading the Scriptures, and he was reading them diligently; he was also holy, pious and

Controversies of the Christian Faith 175

humble, as Jerome says in his letter to Paulinus on the Study of Scripture, and still when

he was asked by Philip: Do you understand what you are reading? He answered: How

can I, unless someone guides me?

Finally, in 2 Pet. 3:15-16 Peter says that in the letters of Paul there are some things

hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction. There

it should be noted that the Apostle Peter did not say that there are some things difficult for

the unlearned and the unstable, as the heretics explain it, but difficult absolutely. For, St.

Augustine, who certainly was not unlearned or unstable, in his book of Faith and Works,

chapters 15 and 16, admits that it was very difficult for him to understand the text in 1

Cor. 3:12, Now ifanyone builds on the foundation, etc., and he says that this is one of the

places concerning which St. Peter warned that it is difficult to understand.

Then besides the testimony of Scripture, the same point can be shown from the

common consent of the ancient Fathers. Irenaeus in book 2, chapter 47, after he said that

in created and natural things much is hidden from us, adds this: Therefore if in created

things, some of them are known by God, but others are known by us: what harm is there,

if of those things that are contained in the Scriptures, since many spiritual things are

present in all the Scriptures, we understand some of them according to the grace of God,

but others we commend to God, and not only in this world but also in the future world,

so that indeed God is always teaching, but man is always learning the things pertaining

to God?

Origen in book 7 against Celsus said: Also some wise men, by searching the Scriptures,

have been able to understand it, although really it is obscure in many places. Also,

in homily 5 on Leviticus he says something similar, citing the similitude of sacrificed

victims, a part of which was eaten by the Priests, and a part was burned for God. Likewise

in his homily 12 on Exodus he said: It is necessary to pray day and night that the lamb of

the tribe of Judah will come, and that he will deign to open the sealed book. Ruffinus in

book 2, chapter 9 of his History wrote the following about Basil and Gregory Nazianzen:

Both of noble birth, both educated in Athens, both colleagues, they set aside all their

books written by the pagan Greeks and dedicated themselves to study only the books of

the divine Scriptures. They sought to understand them not from their own self assurance,

but from the writings and authority of their predecessors, when it was established that

they had received the rule of understanding them from the apostolic succession.

Now Chrysostom, whom the heretics often cite as opposed to us, had this to say in his

tenth homily on John: You search the Scriptures (5:39). Christ seriously recommended to

the Jews that they embrace not a simple and plain reading of the Scriptures, but a careful

investigation. For he did not say <Read the Scriptures, = but <Search them. = For divine

things require the greatest diligence. For he spoke to most of them in an obscure way,

and therefore he orders us to dig more deeply, so that we can find the lofty things that

are hidden. For we do not dig for something on the surface and out in the open, but a

treasure that is deeply hidden. Therefore the one who seeks something of this kind, unless

he uses the greatest diligence and effort, will never find what he is seeking. Likewise, the

Author of the unfinished homily 44 on Matthew offers two reasons why the Scriptures

are obscure. First, because God wants some to be teachers and other to be disciples.

176 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God

Second, lest if it were totally clear, it would not be as useful as it would be contemptible.

Ambrose said in letter 44 to Constantius: The divine Scripture is an ocean, having

in itself a profound meaning, the depth ofprophetic enigmas, etc, Jerome in his letter to

Paulinus on the Study of Scripture clearly teaches that the Scriptures cannot be learned

without a teacher, and running briefly through the names of the individual books, he

shows that there are many great difficulties in all of them. And in the preface of his

Commentary on the letter to the Ephesians he said: From my adolescence I did not cease

either to read or to ask leaned men about things I did not know, and I had only myself as a

teacher. Finally, recently because of this very important reason, I traveled to Alexandria

in order to consult with Didymus, and to seek from him in all the Scriptures answers to

my doubts. And in his letter to Algasias, in question 8, he said: The entire letter to the

Romans is wrapped up in too many obscurities.

Augustine in book 2, chapter 6 of his Christian Doctrine said: Those who reaa

casually are deceived by very many obscurities and ambiguities4thinking one thing foi

something else; but in some places they do not find anything to interpret erroneously, sc

obscurely are certain sayings covered over with a most dense mist. I do not doubt tha

all of this has been provided by God to conquer pride by work and to combat disdain it

our minds, to which those things that are easily discovered seem frequently to becomt

worthless. Similarly, in book 12, chapter 14 in his Confessions he said: Marvelous is

the profundity of your sayings. Their surface lies before us, flattering us as we flatta

children. But wonderful is their profundity, O God, wonderful is their profundity. To gazi

into it is a shuddering, the shudder of awe, the shudder of love. And in letter 3 which i9

now 137: So great is the profundity of the Christian writings, that I would make progress

in them every day, if I tried to study only them from the beginning of my childhood unit

my decrepit old age constantly, with great effort and with all my ability. And in letter IE

which is now 55 he says in chapter 21 : In the Holy Scriptures themselves there are man)

more things Ido not know than Ido know.

Gregory in homily 6, book 1 on Ezekiel said: The obscurity itself of the sayings q

God is of great utility, because it exercises the mind, so that it is enlarged by fatigue, am

with such exercise it grasps what it could not grasp in leisure. It has still something more

because the understanding ofsacred Scripture, if it were easyfor all, would be worthless

In certain more obscure places when the meaning is found it refreshes the mind will

a greater sweetness, according as what is sought with great effort wearies the mind

Certainly those Fathers knew the expressions, and they were not proud or unfaithful, ant

still they frankly admit that the Scriptures are difficult. Accordingly, the temerity ant

vanity of Luther and Brentius, in my opinion, are sufficiently and clearly demonstrated.

In order to prove this point, besides the authorities, there is also the confirmation o

reason. For, in the Scriptures two things can be considered4the things that are said, ant

the way in which they are said. If you consider the things, it is necessary to admit that thi

Scriptures are very obscure, since they speak about the greatest mysteries4the divim

Trinity, the Incarnation of the Word, the heavenly Sacraments, the nature of the angels

the operation of God on the minds of men, eternal predestination and reprobation, and al

kinds of arcane and supernatural things, which are investigated not without a lot of stud]

Controversies of the Christian Faith 177

and hard work, and not without the danger of falling into grave errors. Certainly, if the

science of Metaphysics is more difficult and obscure than all other natural disciplines,

because it considers the first causes, why will not sacred Scripture be obscure, which

is treating things much more lofty? This is evident, because a great part of Scripture

contains prophecies about future things, and prophecies written as songs, than which

certainly nothing is more difficult, nothing more obscure.

Then if we consider the way of speaking, we will find innumerable causes of difficulty.

First, in Scripture there are many things, which at first sight seem to be contradictory, as

the following in Exod. 20:5,1 the Lord your God am a Jealous God, visiting the iniquity

of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation. And then in Ezek.

18:20, The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, but the soul that sins shall

die. Second, there are ambiguous words and prayers, as in John 8:25 to the Jews who

asked, Who are you? And Christ answered them: the beginning (principium), who is

also speaking to you. In an amazing way all the commentators anguish over this text,

and even now it is not known what this means: the beginning, who: and in the Greek it is

even more obscure where the word Beginning is in the accusative case, ǯ¿ ³Ãǯ¿. Third,

there are incomplete sentences, as in Rom. 5:12, Therefore as sin came into the world

through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men

sinned, and what follows; here in the whole periodic sentence there is no principal verb.

Fourth, there are distorted sentences, like Gen. 10:32, These are the families ofthe sons of

Shem, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations. For, immediately

following is the beginning of chapter 11, Now the whole earth had one language and few

words. Fifth, there are expressions proper to the Hebrews, as in Ps. 89:29, his throne as

the days of heaven. Likewise in Ps. 119:109, my soul is in my hands continually, and there

are many more like these. Sixth, there are many figurative statements, tropes, metaphors,

allegories, hyperboles, ironies, and others of the same kind without number.

Finally there is the testimony of the adversaries, which willy-nilly forces them to

admit this truth. For, if Scripture were so clear, as they say, why did Luther and the

Lutherans write so many commentaries? Why have they published such different versions

of Scripture? Why do they explain Scripture in such different ways? Certainly Osiander

in his refutation of a writing, which Philippus had published against him, says that there

are twenty different opinions about justification according to the Scriptures just among

the Confessionists. And Luther himself in book 1 against Zwingli and Oecolampadius

wrote this: If the world were to last longer, it would again be necessary, because of the

different interpretations of Scripture which exist now, in order to preserve the unity of

faith, for us to accept the decrees of the Councils, and to have recourse to them. And, I

ask, where do so many interpretations of Scripture come from, if Scripture is so easy and

clear? Why do they fight with each other so intensely over this matter?

Luther in one of his articles said that Scripture of itself is intelligible and clear; and

in his book on free choice he said that there are no difficulties in the sacred Writings, and

that no text could be proposed to him that he could not easily interpret. We find the same

idea in his preface to the Psalms, where he said: Ido not wish that it should be presumed

about me by anyone, which no one hitherto has been able to do concerning the holy and

178 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God

learned Psalms, that I cannot understand and teach their true meaning. It is sufficient to

have understood some of them and those partially. The Spirit has reserved many things to

himself, so that he might always keep us as disciples; many things he only shows in order

to attract, many things he hands on in order to move us. And after that: I know that it is

a mark of impudent temerity for anyone to dare to say that he has understood one book

of Scripture in all of its parts. And in his book on the Council (page 12) he said: Twenty

years ago I was forced to think little of the commentaries of the Fathers, since Scripture

had to be read in the Schools, and we had to search with great effort for their true and

genuine meaning.

Brentius in the prolegomena against Peter a Soto said: They talk nonsense when they

say that Scripture is obscure, and therefore needs an interpretation. And further on he

says: It is only for the impious and the unbelieving that the Scripture is obscure, but it is

not for pious believers. But he himself in the Confession of Wittenberg, in the chapter on

sacred Scripture, says this: It is not obscure that the gift of interpreting Scripture is nota

matter of human prudence, but a gift ofthe Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is totally free, and

he is not obligated to a certain kind of men, but he distributes his gifts to men according

to his own good pleasure.

But why, Brentius, I ask, is the gift of interpretation necessary, if, as you yourself just

said, Scripture does not need any interpretation?

Now Martin Kemnitius in his Examination of session 4 of the Council of Trent said:

God wanted the gift of interpretation to be in the Church, which like the gift of healings,

miracles and languages is not common to all. And after that he said: Gratefully and

reverently we use the works of the Fathers, who have usefully illuminated many passages

of Scripture with their commentaries. Your parent Luther was indeed very grateful to

the works of the Fathers, since in his book on the Council (page 52) he wrote that the

commentaries of the Fathers are pieces of coal instead of gold. The Centuriatorians are

no less opposed to Luther, even though they are rigid Lutherans (see Centuries 1, book 2,

chapter 4, col. 52), since they write the following: The Apostles knew that the Scriptures

cannot be understood without the Holy Spirit and an interpreter. Now we will consider

the arguments of Luther and Brentius.

CHAPTER II The objections of the adversaries are answered They take theirfirst objection from these words ofDeut. 30:11: This commandmentwhich 1 commandyou this day is not too hardforyou, neither is itfar off It is not in heaven... neither is it beyond the sea, etc. In these words the great facility of Scripture is shown: So that it is not necessary, Brentius said, to conquer mountains and to go to Romeforthe interpretation ofthe Scriptures. I respond that thistext is usually understood in two ways. Several Fathers understand this text to be not about the facility ofunderstanding the Scriptures, but about the facility of fulfilling the precepts of the Decalogue, because there is the assistance of grace. This is contrary to all Lutherans, who teach that the precepts of God are impossible to observe. In this way Tertullian explains it in book 4 against Marcion, Origen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others in their comments on Rom. 10:8-9, and Augustine in his book on perfectjustice (see the next to last response). Others, however, among whom is Abulensis in comments on this text, understand these words to be about the facility of knowing, not indeed the Holy Scriptures, which perhaps at that time did not yet exist, but only the precepts ofthe Decalogue, which, since they are natural can be easily understood; and those Jews especially could understand them easily, who heard Moses explaining them, and confessed that they understood everything, and promised that they would observe them. Therefore he adds: The word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, that is, in your heart, since you have already understood what must be done; and it is in your mouth, because you have confessed that you understand it. And there is no contradiction to this explanation in what David said in the quote given above, namely, that it was difficult for him to understand the Law ofthe Lord. For David, under the name ofthe Law, does not understand only the ten precepts, but all the divine Scriptures. The Lord also uses the same idea in the Gospel, when he says: It is tofulfill the word that is written in their law, "they hated me without cawe” (John 15:25). The second argument is based on Ps. 19:9, The ordinances ofthe Lord are true, enlightening the eyes, and Ps. 118:105, Thyword is a lamp to myfeet. And, The unfolding ofthy words, etc. (v. 130). And Proverbs 6:23, The commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light. I respond first: the author in this place is not dealing with all Scripture, but only with the precepts ofthe Lord, which are said to be enlightening, a lamp and a light. Not that they are easily understood, although this also is true; for, what is easier than You shall love your neighbor? But since they are understood and known they direct man in his actions. Secondly, it can be said that he is indeed talking about all the Scriptures, but that the Scriptures are said to be enlightening, a light and a lamp, not because they are easily understood, but because when they have been understood they enlighten the mind. For, the Prophet in Ps. 19 had spoken about the knowledge ofthe Philosophers, which they acquired from creatures, when he says: The heavens are telling the glory ofGod, etc. 180 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God Further on, in order to show that they did not arrive at that light which was obtained by those whom God deigns to instruct, and to whom he gave the written law, he adds: the law ofthe Lord is perfect, reviving the soul, etc. (v. 7). Similarly, in Ps. 119 he wants to demonstrate that the knowledge which is had from the revealed word of God is greater than that derived from creatures; and because ofthis he compared the word of God to a lamp, which in order to dissipate the darkness ofthe night is much more useful for us than the light of all the stars. The third argument is Matt. 5:14: You are the light ofthe world. But ifthe Apostles are the light ofthe world, why is it that the preaching and Scriptures ofthe Apostles are not clear? I respond: the Lord is speaking about the light ofgood example, probity and morals. For, he wanted the Apostles to be examples of holiness proposed to the whole world for imitation. Therefore, he adds immediately: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your goodworks. For this, ifthe Lord were speaking about the light ofdoctrine it would not make sense that the Scriptures ofthe Apostles are very easy to understand but it does that having been understood they enlighten the mind, they instruct about lofty things and escape the darkness of all errors. The fourth argument is from 2 Pet. 1:19: We have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a darkplace. I respond: in this place also the words ofthe Prophets are called a lamp, not because they are easily understood, but because, having been understood, they enlighten, and show the way to Christ, who is the true Sun ofjustice. The fifth argument is from 2 Cor. 4:3: And even ifour gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god ofthis world has blinded the eyes of the unbelieving, to keep themfrom seeing the light ofgospel ofthe glory ofChrist, who is the image ofGod. Therefore Scripture is open and easy for all the faithful. I respond: The Apostles is not speaking about the understanding ofthe Scriptures, but the knowledge and faith in Christ, which the Apostles were preaching. For, he had said in the previous chapter that there is a difference between the Old Testament and the New, namely, that in the Old men did not see the mysteries of Christ, the Incarnation, the passion, etc., except through the veil of figures and shadows. That is what the veil signified, with which Moses covered his face, when he spoke to the people; but in the New Testament, now that the figures have all been fulfilled, with an uncovered face we behold the gloiy ofChrist, and there is no old woman, nor Christian boy, who does not know the God incarnate, who suffered, etc. Therefore, someone can ask, ifthat is the case, why is it that after the preaching of the gospel still so many do not believe, and, especially the Jews, see nothing but shadows and figures? For this reason the Apostle sais that the gospel is veiled to certain persons because their internal eyes have been blinded by perverse affections, about which the Lord said in John 5:44, How can you believe, who receive gloryfrom one another? Moreover, the God ofthis world is understood as a God who is the creator ofmaterial things distinct from the true God, as the Marcionists and Manicheans interpret it, as Chrysostom says here, but he also says that the phrase “ofthis world” should bejoined, not with “God” but Controversies of the Christian Faith 181 with “unbelievers,” as Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others say regarding this passage, and Augustine also in book 21, chapter 2 of his treatise against Faustus. Certainly the Devil is called the God ofthis world, not because he is God in the absolute sense, but because he is the God ofthe infidels, as it is said in Ps. 96, The Gods ofthe nations are demons. Augustine says this in book 21, chapter 9 against Faustus and Cyril against Oecumenius. The sixth argument. St. Augustine says in book 2, chapter 6 ofhis books on Christian Doctrine: Thus the Holy Spirit has magnificently and -wholesomely modulated the Holy Scriptures so that the more open places present themselves to hunger and the more obscure places may deter a disdainful attitude. Hardly anything may befound in these obscureplaces -which is notfoundplainly said elsewhere. I respond that St. Augustine did not add that “hardly” in vain. For, some very obscure things are found, which are never explained in the total Scripture, like a great part ofthe book ofRevelation, the beginning and the end ofEzekiel, etc. Then this is very difficult, namely, to find something that is said very obscurely in one place, to be said clearly elsewhere. Otherwise, how could the same Augustine say in letter 119, chapter 21, that there is more that he does not know in the sacred Scriptures than what he knows? What about the situation concerning some texts, which seem very clear to us, and perhaps seem obscure to someone else? Therefore, Scripture alone does not suffice to eliminate controversies. Certainly the words in Matt. 26:26, This is my body, seem to us to be so clear that the Evangelist could not have spoken more clearly. But to the Zwinglians they seem obscure and figurative. And the words in the same place, Drink ofit, all ofyou, seem clear to us, and to Lutherans; they are explained in very different ways. For when we read Mark 14:23, And they all drank ofit, which is understood to be about the twelve disciples, interpreting Scripture through Scripture we say that the Lord said to his twelve disciples: All ofyou drink ofthis. But Brentius in his prolegomena says clearly that here the command is not just for the Apostles, but also for all others that they should drink from the cup. And when we ask whether also the Turks, and the Jews, and infants should drink it? Then they add a gloss to the text: All, that is, all believing adults. The seventh argument. The summary of all Scripture, which consists in the precepts of the Decalogue, the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Sacraments, has very clear testimonies in the Scriptures; therefore all Scripture is very clear. I respond: The consequence and the antecedent are denied. I deny the consequence because, although everything in some way can be reduced to them, nevertheless in themselves they are obscure, as is clear from the prophecies of the prophets, from the Canticle of Canticles, from the letter to the Romans, from the book of Revelation, etc. But it is absolutely certain that the antecedent is false; for ifthe testimonies were so clear concerning all the articles ofthe Creed, and all the Sacraments, all controversies would have ended. But since there are very serious controversies about each article ofthe Creed, and each one ofthe Sacraments, not only do Catholics disagree with heretics over these matters, but also the heretics disagree among themselves. The eighth argument. John Chrysostom in homily 3 on Lazarus, where he shows that the philosophers have spoken obscurely, goes on to say this: But on the contrary the 182 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God Apostles and Prophets made everything manifest, and the clear things they handed on they explained to all, like common teachers ofthe world, so that each person by himselj could learn the things that were saidjust by reading them. Also in homily 3 on 2 Thess. he said: Why is there any needfor a preacher? All things are clear and open from the divine Scriptures; but because you are delicate hearers, lookingfor pleasure in your hearing, on this account you seekpreachers. I respond: Chrysostom, in order to counter the inactivity ofmany who could, ifthey so wished, read the Scriptures with greatfruit, was accustomed to use those exaggerations. For, in general in those places he says that the Scriptures are difficult. In homily 3 on Lazarus, before the words cited above, he says: What advantage is there, ifwe do not understand the things contained in the books? Infact there is very much, and even ifyou do not understandsome profound things there, nevertheless such readingproduces great virtue. And further on he admits that, when he says the Scriptures are easy, he is speaking only about the histories, and similar things. He also says that even these things are not clear and easy for all. Take the book, he said, into your hands, read all the history, and whatyou understand commit to memory; things that are obscure and less evidentreview again and again. But ifyou are not able, after assiduous reading, to understand what is being said, then go to someone wiser, go to a teacher. And in that homily 3 on 2 Thess., after the quoted words, he adds: Can you tell me what the obscurity is? Are they not histories? Is it not because you know what is clear, so thatyou can investigate the things that are obscure? There are a thousand histories in the Scriptures, tell me one ofthem; but ifyou do not, they are only words and a pretext. Likewise, in homily 10 on John he warns his listeners that, before they come to the lecture, they should read the text, and write down anything obscure, so they may get an explanation from the lecturer. Finally, in homily 44 on John he teaches very clearly that the Scriptures are obscure, as was said above. The ninth argument. This isthe difference between the Old and theNewTestaments— that the Old Testament was a sealed book, as is said in Isa. 29, while the New Testament is an open book, as is said in Rev. 5, for the slain Lamb opens the book. Forthe argument in this matter, at the death ofthe Lord the curtain ofthe temple was tom as recorded in Matt. 27:51; and it is confirmed by Jerome in chapter 44 ofEzekiel, where he explains those passages ofScripture on the difficulty and ease of Scripture itself. I respond that the difference between the Old Testament and the New consists in this, that then not only the thoughts of the Scriptures, but also the mysteries of Christ were not understood, because everything was covered over with figures, and for this reason in Isa. 29:11 it is said to be a sealed book, both for those who know how to read and for those who do not. But in the New Testament, because Christ fulfilled the figures and the prophecies, although many do not understand the thoughts ofthe Scriptures, still even peasants and women understand the mysteries ofredemption. But that neither the Scriptures nor Jerome speak about the thought of Scripture is clear both from Origen in homily 12 on Exodus, where he says that it is still necessary that the Lamb ofthe tribe of Judah open for us the sealed books; and from Jerome himself, who in his letter to Paulinus on the monastic life says that still today the veil remains, not only on the face of Controversies of the Christian Faith 183 Moses, but also on the face ofthe Evangelists and Apostles, ifwe consider the difficulty ofthe Scriptures, and therefore that we should pray with the Prophet: Open my eyes, and Iwill consider the wonders ofyour law (Ps. 119:18). The tenth argument is proper to Luther. The Fathers prove their own ideas from Scripture; but what is more known is not to be proved by what is less known. Therefore the Scriptures are clearer than the commentaries ofthe Fathers. I respond: it is amazing why Luther, who so often rebukes the sophists, now does not hesitate to engage in sophistry. For, since the philosophers say that what is less known should be proved by what is more known, they are not talking about the knowledge of words, which consists in the clarity of thought, as we say that it is an idea, that is, an easier and clearer idea than a figurative one; but about the idea ofthe truth ofthe thing, which consists in this, that someone understands that what is said is true. Examples of this are motion and life. For, if you look at the words, it is equally easy to understand this sentence “a man lives” and “a man is moved.” But with regard to what concerns the knowledge ofthe truth ofthe matter, it is easierto know that a man is moved, than to know that he lives. Therefore, in this way the Fathers confirm their ideas with the testimony ofthe Scriptures, because it is more known that what is contained in Scripture is true, than what is had in the Fathers. Nevertheless the same Fathers explain the Scriptures with their own Commentaries, because the words ofScripture are more obscure than the words ofthe Fathers. The eleventh argument. The Fathers ofthe first Church read the Scriptures without commentaries. And later all the other ancient Fathers did the same. So to what purpose do we follow this new way ofthe commentaries? I respond: the contrary is true, and Luther offers no example, but we can cite many such examples. I say, therefore, that the first Fathers, who lived immediately after the Apostles, did not read commentaries, because none existed; but they could approach living commentaries, that is, the Apostles and their disciples, and they did not want to understand the Scriptures on the basis of their own ingenuity. Thus Papias gives testimony about himselfin the last chapter ofbook 3 ofEusebius’s History, and Clement ofAlexandria in book 1 of his Stromata, when he mentions his teachers as disciples of the Apostles, and among them especially Panthenus. Then Justin, and Irenaeus, and others began to write commentaries on the divine books, as Jerome says in his book on illustrious men in the chapter on John; similarly the ancient Fathers after that began to write, as Ruffinus says about Basil and Gregory in book 2, chapter 9 of his History, and Jerome about himself in the preface to his commentary on Ephesians. The same thing could be shown about all the others, ifit were necessary.

CHAPTER III A QUESTION IS PROPOSED ABOUT THE JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES, AND AT THE SAME TIME THERE IS AN EXAMINATION OF THE SENSES. OF THE SCRIPTURES Since it has already been established that Scripture is obscure and needs an interpreter, that fact gives rise to another question: Whether the interpretation of Scripture should be sought from one visible and common judge, or should it be left to the choice of each individual? Surely this is a very grave question, and on it all the controversies depend in some way. Many have written about this question, but especially John Driedo in book 2, chapter 3 on ecclesiastical dogmas, John Cochlaeus in his book on the authority of Scripture and the Church; Cardinal Warmiensis in books 2 and 3 against the Prolegomena ofBrentius, and Peter a Soto in the defense of his Confession against the same Prolegomena of Brentius (par. 2 and 3), and also Martin Peresius in his book on Tradition (assertions 2,3,4 and 5); Michael Medina in book 7 on the right Faith in God, and Melchior Cano in book 2, chapters 6, 7 and 8, in his book on Theological Places. Therefore, in order to understand what this question is all about, it is necessary to clarify a few points; the first one has to do with the meanings of Scripture. For it is something proper to the divine Scriptures, because they have God as their author, that often they contain two senses—the literal or historical, and the spiritual or mystical. The literal sense is that which the words immediately express; the spiritual isthat which refers to something other than what the words express immediately; this distinction is deduced from the Apostle in 1 Cor. 10:11 where he says that everything happened to the Jews as a warning for our instruction. And the things said literally about the exodus ofthe Jews from Egypt, on passing through the sea, on the manna which came down in the desert, on the water that flowed from the rock—these things he accommodates spiritually to Christians. Jerome teaches in his comments on Rev. and on Ezek. 2 that these two senses are signified by the book written on the inside and the outside. Philo in his book on the theoretical life ofsuppliants, and Nazianzen in his letterto Nemesius compares the literal sense to the body and the spiritual sense to the soul. And just as the generated Word of God has an invisible divine nature and a visible human nature, so also the written word ofGod has an external and an internal sense. St. Gregory in book 21, chapter 1 in his Magna Moralia teaches that this is proper to the divine Scriptures alone. Further, the literal sense is twofold: one simple, which consists in the property ofthe words, the otherfigurative, whereby the words are transferred from their natural meaning to something else. And there are as many kinds of this as there are different kinds of figures. Since the Lord says in John 10:16:1 have other sheep that are not ofthisfold, etc., that is the literal sense, but the figurative is that other persons besides the Jews must be brought into the Church. This is said directly in John 11:52 that he would gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. On these figures ofspeech see what Augustine says in book 3 on Christian Doctrine. But the sense ofScripture is distinguished in three ways by more recent theologians: Controversies of the Christian Faith 185 allegorical, tropological and anagogical. They call the meaning allegorical, when the words ofScripture, besides the literal meaning, signify something in the New Testament, which pertains to Christ or to the Church, like Abraham who really and literally had two wives, one free and one a servant, and two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. It signified that God is the author oftwo Testaments, and the Father oftwo peoples, as the Apostle explains in Gal. 4. They call the meaning tropological, when the words or facts are used to signify something which pertains to morals. For example, Deut. 25:4 says, You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain, which is understood literally to concern real oxen, but spiritually it means that preachers should not be prevented from receiving support from the people, as the Apostle explains in 1 Cor. 9:9-12. They call the meaning anagogical, when the words or facts are used to signify eternal life. For example, Ps. 95:11 says: Therefore Iswore in my anger that they should not enter my rest. Literally this refers to the Promised Land, but spiritually it also refers to eternal life, as theApostle explains in Heb. 4:3-11. This distinction of the spiritual senses was not always observed by the ancient authors. For although they recognize, in what pertainsto the reality, all ofthese meanings, nevertheless sometimes they call all of them allegories, like Basil at the beginning of homily 9 on Examination, andAugustine in chapter 3 in his work on the Creed. Moreover, Jerome, in his letter to Hedibias (question 12), by the word “tropological” understands also the allegorical, and then in his comments on Amos 4 by the word “allegorical” he understands what is tropological. Among these meanings, the literal is found in eveiy sentence, both ofthe Old and of the New Testament. And it is not improbable that sometimes several meanings are found in the same sentence, as St. Augustine teaches in many places, and especially in book 12, chapter 26 if his Confessions, in book 11, chapter 19 of The City ofGod, and in book 3, chapter 27 on Christian Doctrine. But the spiritual meaning is found in both Testaments. For, no one doubts that the Old Testament has the allegorical, tropological and anagogical senses. Many think the same thing about the New Testament and rightly so. For Augustine explains in an allegorical way, in his treatise 122 on John, the capture ofthe fish, when the net was tom (Luke 5:6), but in an anagogical way when the net was not tom (John 21:6). And similarly in treatise 124 on John, he explains allegorically what was said to Peter, Follow me (John 21:19), and anagogically what was said about John, Ifit is my will that he remain, etc. (John 21:22). But the Lord explains tropologically his own humility, because ofwhich he washed his disciples’ feet (John 13:14f.). Although these cases do occur, still a spiritual sense is not found in every sense of Scripture, neither in the Old Testament nor in the New. For, the expression, You shall love the Lordyour Godwith allyour heart, in Deut. 6:5 and Matt. 22:37, and similar precepts, have only one meaning, that is, a literal one, as Cassian rightly teaches in Collation 8, chapter 3. That being the case, there is agreement among us and our adversaries that effective arguments should be sought only from the literal sense. For it is certain that the sense which is derived immediately from the words is the sense ofthe Holy Spirit. But the mystical and spiritual senses are various, and although they edify when they are not against Faith and good morals, nevertheless it is not always certain that they are intended 186 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, St. Augustine in letter 48 to Vincent rightly ridicules the Donatists, who give a mystical explanation of these words: Tell me where you pasture yourflock, where you make it lie down at noon (Cantic. 1:6), because they conclude from this that the Church ofChrist has survived only inAfrica. Also Jerome in his commentary on Matt. 13 says that the dogmas of the Faith cannot be effectively proved from the mystical meanings of Scripture. But with regard to the literal sense, sometimes there can be doubts for two reasons. The first is the ambiguity ofthe words, such as is seen in Matt. 26:27, Drink ofit, all of you. That phrase “all of you” is ambiguous, if only those words are considered. For, it is not known whether it signifies absolutely all men, or only all the faithful, or all the Apostles. The second and more serious doubt concerns the property of the words. For since the literal sense sometimes is (as we have said) simple, and sometimes figurative, it is doubtful in many places whether the true sense is simple or figurative. For regarding the words in Matt. 26:26, This is my body, Catholics want them to be understood simply according to the property of the words, but the Zwinglians take them as the figure of metonymy. And for this reason at times some people fall into very grave errors. Origen is an example of this, who erred because what should be taken simply, he understood figuratively, as Jerome says in his letter to Pammachius on the errors of John of Jerusalem, where he says that Origen so allegorized the earthly Paradise that he removed its historical truth, since he understands angels for the trees, and the heavenly Virtues for the rivers; and he interprets the skin clothing ofAdam and Eve as their human bodies, as ifbefore their sin they were living without a body. On the other hand, others have fallen into error, because they have taken something simply which should be understood figuratively, like Papias, and those who followed him—Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius and some others; they thought that what is said in Rev. 20 about the New Jerusalem, and the thousand years during which the saints will reign with Christ, will be fulfilled here on earth. Jerome refutes their error in the preface to his book on Isaiah 18, and on Ezekiel 36; Augustine does the same in book 20, chapter 7 of The City ofGod. There is also agreement between us and our adversaries that the Scriptures must be understood in the same spirit in which they were made, that is, in the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Peterteachesthis when he says in 2 Pet. 1:20-21 : First ofallyou must understand this, that no prophecy ofScripture is a matter ofone ’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse ofman, but men moved by the Holy Spiritspokefrom God. St. Peter proves there that the Scriptures should not be explained from one’s own cleverness, but according to the direction ofthe Holy Spirit, because the Scriptures do not come from human genius, but from the inspiration ofthe Holy Spirit. Therefore this whole question comes down to where the Spirit is. For, we think that this Spirit, although he is often conferred on many individual persons, nevertheless is certainly found in the Church, that is, in a Council of the Bishops confirmed by the Sovereign Pontiffofthe whole Church, or in the Sovereign Pontifftogether with a council ofthe other Pastors. For, we do not want to debate in this place concerning the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils, whether the Pontiff alone can define something, and whether a Controversies of the Christian Faith 187 Council alone can do it; we will treat this matter in its proper place. But here we wish to say in general that the judge ofthe true sense of Scripture and of all controversies is the Church, that is, the Pontiffwith a Council, and about this all Catholics are in agreement; and it is stated expressly in session 4 ofthe Council ofTrent. But all the heretics of this time teach that the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of Scripture, and that he is not tied to the Bishops, or to any group of men, and therefore that each person should be the judge, either by following his own spirit ifhe has the gift ofinterpreting, or by following someone else whom he sees is endowed with this same gift. In the preface to his article on this matter, Luther clearly refers us to the spirit, which each person has, while he is carefully reading the Scriptures. And in article 115 which Cochlaeus gathered together from the works of Luther, he says the following: This is a keypoint ofthe Gospels, since it has not been granted either to Councils or to any group ofmen to establish and to conclude what the Faith is; therefore Imust say, Father, you havefinishedwith the Councils, so nowIhave to make thejudgmentwhetherIcan accept them or not. Why is that? Because you will notstand upfor me andrespondfor me when Imust die. And no one canjudgefalse doctrine except the spiritual man. Therefore this matter is insane, that the Councils want to deduce and decree what must be believed, since often there is no man who can detect the divine Spirit even in a small way. He repeats the same idea in his assertions, articles 27, 28 and 29. Philippus, in his chapter on the Church, seems indeed to attribute something to the Church; but really he leaves the wholejudgmentto each private person. Who, he said, will be thejudge, when dissent arises overthe meaning ofScripture, since then it is necessary to have a voice toput an end to the controversy? Irespond—the word ofGod itselfis the judge, and the confession ofthe true Church is added to it. That is what he says there. But further on, when he teaches that by the true Church he does not mean the Prelates of the Church, nor the major part ofthe faithful, but those few men who are familiar with the word ofGod; he covers everything with obscurity and he makes each person his own judge. For I cannotjudge which is the true Church, unless I first judge which opinion is in agreement with the word ofGod: There is, he said, a difference between thejudges of the Church andpoliticaljudges. For, in politics, either the Monarch alone pronounces something by his authority, or in a Senate the opinion ofthe majorityprevails; but in the Church whatprevails is the opinion agreeingwith the word ofGod, and the confession of thepious, whether they are more orfewerthan the impious. See more on this in the place on the notes ofthe Church. Brentius teaches something similar in the Confession of Wittenberg, in the chapter on sacred Scripture and more extensively in the Prolegomena against Peter a Soto, where he says two things. First: It is not allowed, he said, in the matter ofeternalsalvation to so adhere to the opinion ofanother thatwe embrace itwithout our ownjudgment. Secondly he adds: Itpertains to each privateperson tojudge about the doctrine ofreligion, and to distinguish what is truefrom what isfalse. But there is this difference between a private person and a Prince, thatjust as a private person has the private power ofjudging and deciding, so the Prince has the public power ofjudging about the doctrine ofreligion. And he tries to prove these two points in almost the whole book, namely, that the secular 188 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God Prince should force his subjects, even with the punishment ofdeath, to embrace the Faith which he judges to be true. And at the same time he says that the subjects should follow their own judgment, not that of another, whomsoever he may be. And Brentius does not recognize how absurd and conflicting these view are, namely, that the Prince must command, and that the subjects must not obey. Nor has he realized that, ifthis opinion is true, Caesar would be acting rightly, and the other Catholic Princes of Germany, ifthey also force all Lutherans, with the threat ofthe punishment ofdeath, to adopt the Catholic Faith. John Calvin in book 4, chapter 9 § 8, 12 and 13 in his Institutes orders that the definitions of the Councils, even the General ones, are to be examined exactly in the light ofthe Scriptures. Therefore he makes individual men the judges in matters offaith, not only ofthe Fathers, but also ofthe Councils, and he does not allow for any common judgment ofthe Church. Finally, Martin Kemnitius, in his examination ofsession 4 of the Council of Trent, and all the other contemporary heretics, remove the authority of interpreting Scripture from the Councils ofBishops and confer it on the spirit of private individuals.

CHAPTER IV Testimonies from the Old Testament are cited for the opinion of Catholics Now the thought of Catholics is proved; first, by testimonies from the Old Testament. The first testimony is found in Exod. 18:13f., for there we read that, when the people began to be established as a kind ofecclesiastical Republic, Moses presided as the leader and head ofthat assembly, and he would respond to all doubts that arose concerning the law ofthe Lord, nor did he refer men to some revealing spirit. In the same place: when, according to the counsel of his father-in-law, he had constituted minor magistrates who would judge the people, he always reserved to himself doubts about religion. Actually, he did this so that we might understand that there should be one common tribunal from which all seek the interpretation ofthe divine law, and with which all simply agree. This argument is wont to be evaded by certain authors who say: Moses was a political leader, not a Pontiff or Priest, since Aaron was the High Priest. And therefore from this passage it cannot be concluded thatjudgment about the matters offaith pertains to priests, but rather in a certain way it pertains to Kings. I respond: Moses was a priest, in fact a High Priest, and greater than Aaron, but he was not a priest in the ordinary sense with successors, for there could be only one like that and that was Aaron; but Moses was an extraordinary priest who had been constituted specially by God. Just as in the New Testament all the Apostles were not indeed greater than Peter, nor completely equal to him, but still in some sense they were equal to Peter in ecclesiastical power, as Cyprian says in his treatise on the simplicity ofPrelates. However, there is this difference—that Peter was the ordinary Pastor ofthe whole Church, who alone was to have successors; the others were extraordinary Pastors who were not to have successors in their special powers. David bears witness to the fact that Moses was a priest, since he says in Ps. 99:6, Moses andAaron were among hispriests, Samuel also was among those who called upon his name. But, they say: Moses is said to be a priest, because he was a distinguished man, as we read in 2 Sam. 8:18 that the sons ofDavid were priests. The contrary is true: because ifin this place distinguished men were called priests, Samuel also, who was a distinguished man, would have been called a priest. But David did not do that, because he knew that Samuel was not a priest, but only a judge; for he did not descend from the family of Aaron, since Kohath was his cousin (1 Chron. 6:3). But it is clear from Exod. 28 and 29, where Moses exercises all the sacerdotal offices, that Moses really and truly was a Priest. That is so because he offers sacrifice, teaches, consecrates clothing, and what is even more important, he anoints and initiates Pontiffs and Priests. Therefore almost all the Fathers teach that Moses was a priest in the proper sense. The same point is made by Philo in book 3 on the life ofMoses, Dionysius in chapter 5 ofthe Church hierarchy, Gregoiy Nazianzen in his sermon in the presence ofGregory ofNyssa, Augustine on Ps. 99, Jerome in his book ofJovinian, where he also shows that Samuel was not a priest. The second testimony is found in Deut. 17:8-12, where a general law is proclaimed: Ifany case arises requiring decision between one kind ofhomicide and another, one 190 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God kind oflegal right and another, or one kind ofassault and another, any case withinyour towns which is too difficultfor you, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God will choose, and coming to the Levitical priests, and to the judge who is in office in those days, you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. Then you shall do according to what they declare to youfrom thatplace which the Lord shall choose; andyou shall be careful to do according to all that they directyou; according to the instructions which they give you, and according to the decision which theypronounce to you, you shall do; you shall not turn asidefrom the verdict which they declare to you, either to the right or to the left. The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lordyour God, or thejudge, that man shall die. Here also it is very clear that those in doubt are not referred to their own spirit, but to a living judge, that is, the High Priest. But Brentius will object: that precept is conditional, because he adds: You shall do according to what they declare to youfrom that place... andyou shall be careful to do all that they direct you according to his Law. For it seems to be concluded from this place that one must not abide by the judgment ofthe High Priest, unless he provides the testimony ofthe divine Law. I respond: that phrase, all that they directyou, etc., is found only in the Vulgate edition, which Lutherans do not accept, and it is not a condition, but an assertion or promise: for he did not want to say, Abide by thejudgment ofthe priest, if he directsyou according to the Law; forthen men would be more doubtful and perplexed than they were before; and it would not have been necessary to go to the priest, ifthey could judge their own case by themselves on the basis ofthe Law. Indeed, then the priest would not have been the judge, but they themselves, since they would be the ones to judge the decision ofthe priest. Therefore it is not a condition, but a promise, forthe Lord wants to make the people secure, when they accept the judgment ofthe priest; and this is what he does, since he affirms that they will be judged according to his Law. Brentius objects a second time: he says in this place that those who have doubts are sent not only to the priest, but also to the judge who was a political leader. I respond that the word “judge” here can be understood as the High Priest. For in Hebrew it is, You shall go to the priests and to thejudge, as if he were to say, to the council of priests and their chief, the High Priest. In the second place I say: ifwe understand by the word “judge” a political leader, then here there would be distinct offices. For, the definitive decision belongs to the priest, but the execution belongs to the judge in the case ofthe obstinate. The man who acts presumptuously, he said, by not obeying the priest and the decree of thejudge shall die. There is a third objection: here it is not a matter ofreligious doubts, but political. 1 respond: that is false. For the general law is about all the doubts, which arise because of the Law. Moreover, the occasion ofthis law was because ofthose who worship foreign gods, as is clear from the beginning of chapter 17 that it is contrary to religion to be serving foreign gods. The third testimony is in Eccles. 12:11: The sayings ofthe wise are like goads, and like nailsfirmlyfixedare the collectedsayings which are given by one Shepherd. My son, beware ofanything beyond these. In this place Solomon is teaching that there should be Controversies of the Christian Faith 191 no further inquiiy, but only complete agreement, when a decision has been given by the supreme Shepherd, especially when the counsel ofthe wise is added to it. But ifthis is said about the priest ofthe Old Testament, how much more can it be said about the priest ofthe New Testament, who has received much greater promises from God? The fourth testimony is in Haggai 2:11 : Thus says the Lord ofhosts: Ask the priests about the law. And Malachi 2:7: The lips ofa priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger ofthe Lord ofhosts. From these words we understand that it does not belong to individual men to judge about the decree ofthe Law ofthe Lord, but to the priest, who, since he is an angel, that is, a messenger ofGod, has the right officially to explain the law ofGod. Finally, in 2 Chron. 19:10-11, the good King Jehoshaphat speaks thus to the Priests: Whenever a case comes to youfrom your brethren who live in their cities, concerning bloodshed, law or commandment, statutes or ordinances, then you shall instruct them, that they may not incur guilt before the Lord and wrath may not come upon you and your brethren. Thus you shall do, andyou will not incur guilt. And behold, Amariah the chiefpriest is over you in all matters ofthe Lord; and Zebadiah the son ofIshmael, the governor ofthe house ofJudah, in all the king's matters. You can see here how clearly the King distinguishes the office ofPriest from the office ofKing, and he attributes to the Priest alone judgment about doubts ofthe Law.

CHAPTER V The same point is proved from the New Testament Now from the New Testament. The first testimony is Matt. 16:19:1 will give you the keys to the kingdom ofheaven, etc. For, by those keys is understood not only the power offorgiving sins, but also to free men from all other chains and impediments, which, if they are not removed, one cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Since the promise is general, and it is not said, whomever you loose, but whatever you loose, so that we may understand that all difficulties can be solved by Peter and his successors, either by dispensing from the laws, or by forgiving sins and punishments, or by explaining dogmas and resolving controversies. We will say more about this in book 1 ofour treatise on the Sovereign Pontiff. Another testimony can be found in Matt. 18:17: Ifhe refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. But in this place it should be noted that the Lord is talking about the injuries which one man suffers from another; but even more it is to be understood about the injuries which are inflicted on the whole Church, and on God, such as heresy. For, he orders that the adulterer should be subjected to the judgment ofthe Church, and even more so the heretic. But it cannot happen that they be brought before the assembly of all the faithful; therefore the word “Church” here should be understood to mean the Prelate, as Chrysostom explains it, or (as others prefer) the assembly ofPrelates. For, just as a man does not speak or hear, except by his head, but still the whole man is said to speak and to hear, so also the Church through her Prelates hears and speaks. Therefore, ifsomeone does not listen to the Church, that is, the Pastors ofthe Church, he should be like a Gentile or a tax collector; it followsthat the final judgment belongs to the Pastors. The third testimony is in Matt. 23:2: The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses'seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do. Please note three things here. First, that in that whole chapter the Lord is rebuking the vices ofthe scribes and Pharisees, and that the weak could conclude therefrom that it is not necessary to believe Prelates who live an evil life. Therefore, at the beginning ofthe chapter he wants to teach clearly that, notwithstanding the evil life ofsome Prelates, theirteaching must be followed. Secondly, observe with Cyprian in book 4, letter 9, that neitherthe Lord northe Apostles, in all of Scripture, ever rebuke the Pontiffs and Priests ofthe Jews, by calling them Pontiffs and Priests, but only under the title ofscribes and Pharisees; they do this lest they seem to blame the chair and the priesthood, and so that we may understand that honor is always due to the priesthood and pontificate, even ifperhaps some person, who occupies the chair, is less worthy. From this we understand that contemporaiy heretics, who passim are found among Bishops and Priests, and especially in the highest place io the Church, have nothing in common with the mores ofthe Lord and the Apostles. Thirdly, note that what the Lord says about the chair of Moses is to be understood a fortiori of the chair of Peter. For thus the ancients understood it, and especially Augustine in letter 165. In the order ofBishops, he said, which has existedfrom Pd& Controversies of the Christian Faith 193 until Anastasins, who now occupies the same chair, even ifa traitor during that time had crept in, that would be no prejudice against the Church, and innocent Christians, to whom the provident Lord says about evil commanders: Do what they say, but do not do what they do. The fourth testimony is in John 21:16: Simon Peter, feed my sheep. Here also three points should be noted. First, what is said to Peter is said also to his successors: for Christ did not want to provide for his Church for 25 years only, but for as long as the world exists. Second, that word “feed” is to be understood especially about doctrine; for in this way rational sheep are fed. On this see Jer. 3:15:1will give you shepherds after my own heart, who willfeed you with knowledge and understanding. Third, the word “sheep” signifies all Christians, for anyone who does not want to be fed by Peter, is not one of Christ’s sheep. From this we conclude that it has been committed to Peter and his successorsto teach all Christians. But this cannot be understood in a better way than this—that Peter and his successors have been commissioned to teach all what must be held regarding the doctrine ofthe faith. For, ifwe understand it to be only about sermons, this precept will never be fulfilled, for the Pontiffcannot preach to all men, nor is it necessary, since there are men in each Church who do the preaching. Also, ifwe understand this to be about commentaries on the sacred Writings, so that, whom the Pontiff cannot teach with words, he teaches by written commentaries, then we are reprehending several very holy Pontiffs, who did not do that. Therefore, the Lord is speaking about the special office ofteaching the whole Church, by establishing what must be believed by all. But it is in this way that this text was understood by St. Jerome in his letter to Damasus on the word “Hypostasis,” because he was seeking an explanation ofa certain controversy concerning the Son: From the Shepherd, he said, Iask earnestly fortheprotection ofa sheep. The fifth testimony is in Luke 22:31: I have prayedfor you that yourfaith may notfail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. From this text St. Bernard in letter 90 to Innocent deduced that the Roman Pontiff, teaching ex cathedra, cannot err; and before him the same was said by Lucius I in letter 1 to the Bishops of Spain and France, Felix I in a letter to Benignus, Mark in a letter to Athanasius, Leo I in sermon 3 on his acceptance ofthe Pontificate, Leo IX in a letter to Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, Agatho in a letter to the Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Synod whichnd was approved by the whole Council, Paschal II at the Roman Council, which is found in the Chronicle of the Abbot Urspergensis; to these I add, whether the heretics agree or not, Innocent III in the chapter Majores on Baptism and its effect. Therefore, ifthe Roman Pontiff cannot err when he is teaching ex cathedra, certainly hisjudgment must be followed, and he must be the supreme Judge. The sixth testimony is in Acts 15:6ff. For we read there, when a serious question about the Faith had arisen, namely, whether the Law ofMoses must be observed by the Gentile converts, that each person was not referred to his own spirit, but to the Council held in Jerusalem, over which Peter presided. We read that Peter, the first of all, spoke at the Council and then that James confirmed the thinking of Peter, and so the question 194 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God was resolved with these words: It has seemedgood to the Holy Spirit and to us, etc. With these words they show that the decision ofthe Council, over which Peter presided, is the decision ofthe Holy Spirit. And in the same chapter we read that Paul, wherever he went, was wont to preach that the decree ofthat Council should be observed, that is, that they should accept it and not wish to passjudgment on the decree ofthe Council. The seventh testimony is in the letter to the Galatians 2:lff.: Iwent up again, said Paul, with Barnabas... and Ilaid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which Ipreach among the Gentiles, lestsomehow Ishould be running or had run in vain. But who those men were with whom he consulted, he explains later, saying that it was Peter, James and John. In their explanation ofthis passage Tertullian in book 4 against Marcion, St. Jerome in letter 89 to Augustine, which is 11 among the letters of Augustine, and Augustine himself in book 28, chapter 4 against Faustus say clearly that the Church would not give credence to Paul unless his gospel was confirmed by Peter. Therefore it was Peter then, and so his successors now, who passjudgment on the doctrine ofthe Faith. The eighth testimony is in 1 Cor. 12:8-10: To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge, to another the interpretation oftongues, to another prophecy, etc. Here it is said clearly that the spirit ofinterpreting the Scriptures is not given to all the faithful. Also, it is certain from 2 Pet. 1:20, no prophecy ofScripture is a matter of one fs own interpretation, that Scripture cannot be explained well without the spirit of interpretation. Therefore it is evidently deduced that no private person is the judge of the true meaning of Scripture. So what does the person do who does not have this spirit? In fact, who will be certain that he has this spirit, since we know that it is not given to all, and we do not know to whom it is given? Therefore, the conclusion is that we acknowledge the Church alone as the judge, about which there cannot be any doubt that she does have the Spirit ofGod, and thatshe teaches her children without error, since she is the pillar and foundation oftruth. This is something that even Luther confesses in his book on the power ofthe Pope with these words: (in spite ofwhat he wrote elsewhere, since is an amazing way he was changeable and unstable) Ofnoprivate man do we have certitude whether or not he has the revelation ofthe Father; but the Church is the one about whom it is notpermitted to doubt. But the Church does not speak otherwise than through the mouth ofher Pastors and doctors, and especially in a general Council ofBishops. Such a Council will have eitherthe Sovereign Pontiff present and presiding, or his confirmation, and it must obtain his approbation. But, they say, that man is certain that he has the spirit who asks for it. For it is written: How much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him (Luke 11:13); and also James 1:5: Ifany ofyou lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives to all men generously. I respond that here and in similar places the Lord is not talking about the spirit ofinterpretation, which is a certain freely given grace, but about the spirit of Faith, Hope and Charity, and the Wisdom necessary for salvation. For, as St. Augustine teaches in tracts 73, 81 and 103 on John, prayer does not obtain infallibly except what is necessary or useful for salvation for the person who prays. Moreover, the gift of interpreting, like the gift oftongues and miracles, and the other gifts mentioned Controversies of the Christian Faith 195 there, are not always helpful for the one who has them. Therefore, just as we cannot always obtain the Spirit of speaking in tongues, or performing miracles, even though it is written: the Holy Spirit will give good things to those who ask him, so also neither the spirit of interpretation. For otherwise it would come about that the whole body ofthe Church would be one member, that is, all would be eyes, all hands, etc., which is opposed to what the Apostle says in Rom. 12:4 and 1 Cor. 12:14f. Furthermore, even ifthe Lord in those texts were speaking about the gift of interpreting, still it would not be certain that whoever asks for it receives it, because it is not certain whether or not he asks well. For it is written: You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly (James 4:3). Otherwise when Lutherans ask for that spirit, Anabaptists ask for it, Zwinglians ask for it, why is it that they receive spirits that are very different and fighting with each other, ifthat one and true Holy Spirit is given to all who ask for it? The ninth testimony is in 1 John 4:1: Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are ofGod;for manyfalseprophets have gone out into the world. The spirit of private men should be tested, whether it is of God; for, many boast about having the Holy Spirit, who are moved by a spirit of giddiness and lies, as is said in 1 Kings 22,2 Chron. 18, and Isaiah 19 and 29. Therefore a private spirit cannot be the judge. For, how can he be a judge, since judgment must still be pass on him? Therefore, ifsomeone explains the words, This is my body, by saying it means, This signifies my body, because in this sense the spirit is revealing it to him, the matter is still not finished. For John warns us that we should test that spirit whether it is of God, lest perhaps is may be a spirit ofgiddiness. But this cannot be proved from Scripture, as they claim, because in this place we can doubt about the meaning of Scripture itself. Therefore it must be proved from its conformity with the spirit ofthose concerning whom it is certain that they have the true spirit; but such persons are the Prelates lawfully assembled together in a Council. For, we read in Acts 15:28, It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us. Now such is the Pontiffteaching ex cathedra, whom we have shown is always guided by the Holy Spirit, so that he cannot err. Such also were the Apostles and the first faithful, concerning whom it is certain that they had the Holy Spirit. Calvin cannot deny this, because he argues in the same way in his Institutes 1, chapter 9 § 1 against Swenexfeldius, who wanted the spirit alone to be the judge, while repudiating the Scriptures. Ifthat spirit were good, it would be the same as the spirit of the Apostles, and ofthe first faithful; but their spirit did not want to be the judge, while contemning the Scriptures. But in this way also we can argue against Calvin and other heretics: Iftheir spirit were good, it would be the same as the spirit ofthe Apostles and the first faithful; but the spirit ofthe latter did not want to be judge, but it appealed to Peter and the Council, and it accepted their decision, as we showed above from Acts 15. Therefore their spirit, which establishes itself asjudge, is not a good spirit.

CHAPTER VI The same point is proved from the usual practice of the Church In the third place, it is proved from the praxis ofthe Church. For, in every century nev doubts have arisen in the Church, and they have always been decided in the same way that is, by the judgment ofthe Roman Pontiff and ofthe Bishops ofthat time. Therefore it is not right to say or write that, what the universal Church always did and does, i: arrogant madness, as St. Augustine says in letter 118. And please note that we are saying not only that all cases were judged by the Romai Pontiff and the Bishops, but by the Pontiff and Bishops living at that time. For, a new Pope and new Bishops were never created in order to judge some doubtful matter. We say that because ofthe Confessionists (= Protestants), who in the confession ofAugsburç (article 28) say that it pertains to the Bishops to discern the true doctrine from the false But when we ask, therefore why do you not agree with the Council ofTrent?, they say that those who are living now are not true Bishops but are enemies ofthe Gospel. Bui this same thing was said by the Arians and the other heretics about the Bishops during their time; but in spite ofthis, already for 1500 years religious doubts have always been resolved by the Bishops, who according to the ordinary succession were active in the Churches, when those doubts were raised; and those who did not agree with them are considered heretics. Therefore in the first century of the Church, which covers the period to the year 100 after the birth ofChrist, the question about the ceremonies ofthe old Law arosewhetherthey should be observed by the Gentiles converted to Christ. And as that was the first question to surface in the Church, so the first Council was held, underthe presidency ofPeter, and all accepted the decree ofthis Council (see Acts 15). In the second century, that is, up to the year 200, the question was raised about the celebration of Easter, since some wanted to celebrate Easter with the Jews on the fourteenth day ofthe month, whether it was a Sunday or not, but others wanted it only on Sunday. On account ofthis, it is certain that many Councils ofBishops were convened, and finally the question was settled in such a way by Victor, the Roman Pontiff, that all the Churches ofAsia were excommunicated by him, which persisted in error. Eusebius in book 5, chapter 23 of his History writes up this whole history. Afterwards, those not only were considered excommunicated but also heretical, who did not obey the decree ofthe Pontiff. Hence we find that in Epiphanius’s book on heresies (50), in Augustine on the heretics (29), and in Tertullian on prescription (at the end), the Quartodecimani are numbered among the heretics. In the third centuiy, that is, after the year 200, the heresy ofthe Novatians appeared; they denied that the Church can absolve from their sins those who had fallen after their Baptism. But the truth was explained by the Roman Council, over which Pope Cornelius presided, as Eusebius reports in the version of Ruffinus in book 6, chapter 33 of his History, and after that the Novatians were always held to be heretics. In the same centuiy the question arose about re-baptism; and since there were different opinions about this, Controversies of the Christian Faith 197 Cornelius, having assembled a Council in Rome, decreed that those who had been baptized by heretics were not to be re-baptized, as Eusebius recounts in book 7, chapter 2 ofhis History; after that, Pope Stephen also wrote and ordered that those are not to be rebaptized, who had been baptized by heretics according to the rite ofthe Church. Cyprian mentions this decree in his letter to Pompey, and St. Augustine in book 5, chapter 23 of his treatise on Baptism, and Vincent ofLérins in his Commentary. In the fourth century after the year 300 the heresy of the Arians occurred, which was condemned by the general Council ofNicaea. 318 Bishops were present, and only they were the judges together with the Legates ofthe Roman See, Vitone and Vincent Preshyteris, who together with Hosius, the Bishop ofCordova, presided over the Council in the name of Sylvester, the Pope; afterwards the whole Council by a letter sought confirmation by Sylvester. The Emperor was indeed present, but he did not function as a judge in any way. All ofthese points are evident both in Tome 1 ofthe Council, and from the historians Eusebius in book 3 on the life of Constantine, Ruffinus, Socrates, Sozomenus and Theodoretus in book 1 ofthe Ecclesiastical History. In the same century the heresy ofMacedonius against the Holy Spirit wasjudged and condemned by the Council ofConstantinople I, which Photius in his book on the seven Synods says was condemned by Damasus; this book is usually included at the beginning ofthe first Tome on the Councils. In the fifth century the heresy ofNestorius was condemned by theCouncil ofEphesus, presided over by Cyril in the name of Pope Celestine, as Evagrius says in chapter 4 of his book. And shortly thereafter the heresy of Eutyches in the Council of Chalcedon, where the Legates of Pope Leo presided, as Evagrius reports in book 2, chapter 4. And confirmation of this Council was also sought from the Roman Pontiff, and neither in this Council nor in the previous one do we read that there was any endorsement ofthe Emperor or of any lay persons, but only ofEcclesiastics. On this, see Tomes 1 and 2 on the Councils, and the Breviarium Liberati. In the same century the heresy ofthe Pelagians was condemned, which Lutherans seem to have hated more than others, but it was condemned by the Roman Pontiffs. Thus St. Augustine says this in book 2, chapter 50 of his Retractions: The Pelagian heresy with its authors was reviled and condemned by the Bishops ofthe Roman Church, first by Innocent and then by Zozimus, with the cooperation ofthe writings ofthe African Councils. And in the Chronicle Prosper said in 420: At the Council held in Carthage more than 217 Bishops sent their synodal decrees to Pope Zozimus; after his approval the Pelagian heresy was condemned throughout the whole world. In the sixth century many heresies were condemned by the fifth Council, in which only Bishops were present asjudges. In the seventh century the Monothelites were condemned by the sixth general Council, over which the Roman Legates presided; the Emperor ofcourse was present and endorsed it, but only after all the Bishops, and not by judging or defining, as the Bishops had signed it, but only by consenting to it. In the eighth century the Iconoclasts were condemned at the seventh Council, over which the Legates ofthe Roman Pontiff presided, and at it no signing of lay persons is 198 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God recorded. On these Councils read the Tomes ofthe Councils, and the book ofPhotius on the seven Synods. In the ninth century certain ecclesiastical controversies were defined by the eighth Council, which was presided over by the Legates ofthe Roman Pontiff. The Emperor was present, and he did sign it after the Pontifical Legates and the Patriarchs, but in the same place he said clearly that it did not pertain to him to passjudgment on divine things, but only to subscribe as a sign ofhis agreement, etc. Later on we will make a reference to his words. In the tenth century, which is the most obscure ofall, no heresy surfaced, and because ofthat we do not read about the holding of any Council; however, the schism, and the error ofthe Greeks, which began at this time, grew strong especially in this century, and we will soon say something about its condemnation. In the eleventh century Leo IX condemned the heresy ofBerengarius at the Council of Vercellae, and Nicholas II afterwards at the Roman Council, as Lantfrancus and Guitmundus recount in book 1 against Berengarius. In the twelfth century the heresy of Peter Abelard was condemned by Innocent II, as is recorded in letter 194 of St. Bernard. Also, the error of Gilbert Porretanus was condemned by Eugene III at the Council ofRheims, according to St. Bernard in sermon 80 on the Song of Songs. In the thirteenth century the error ofthe Abbot Joachim was condemned by Innocent III at the general Lateran Council. And afterwards the error ofthe Greeks by Gregory X at the general Council ofLyons. From that we have the chapter Fideli on the holy Trinity and the Catholic faith (6). In the fourteenth century the errors ofthe Beghards were condemned at the Council of Vienne by Clement V. From that we have the chapter Ad nostrum in Clement’s work on the heretics. In the fifteenth century the errors ofJohn Wycliffe and John Hus were condemned by the Council ofConstance; Martin V presided. And again the errors ofthe Greeks at the Council ofFlorence under Eugene IV. Finally, in our sixteenth century the errors ofthe Lutherans were condemned by the Council of Trent and confirmed by Pius IV. Now let them find just one example from antiquity, by which they can prove that some new error arose in the Church as a true error and still was not condemned by the Pontiff, but by the Emperor or by some secular Prince. Or let them say, ifthey can, who ever dared to reject a decision ofthe Councils approved by the Roman Présider and was not immediately condemned as a heretic by the Catholic Church. Controversies of the Christian Faith 199 CHAPTER VII The same point is proved from the testimonies of Pontiffs and Emperors In the fourth place there are the testimonies ofthe ancient Pontiffs and Emperors, that is, the authors of both Legal Systems. Damasus in letter 3 to Stephen, Innocent I in his letters to the Councils of Carthage and Mileum, which are found as 91 and 93 among Augustine’s letters, Leo I in letter 84 to Anastasius and 59 to the Bishops ofthe province of Vienne, Gelasius in a letter to the Bishop of Dardania, Gregory in book 4, letter 52 to the Bishops of Gaul teach that the more serious cases, especially in matters offaith, pertain to the judgment ofthe Apostolic See; and to prove this Julius cites in letter 2 the decree ofthe Council ofNicaea. The Emperors were ofthe same mind. At the time ofthe Emperor Aurelian, when there was a question between Catholics and the heretic Paul of Samosata, about the possession ofa Church, the Emperor, although a Gentile, responded and ordered that the Church be given to the one whom the Italian Bishops and the Bishop of Rome would designate; thus, he had learned on his own that the Roman Bishop is the supreme judge ofChristian affairs. This is what Eusebius writes in book 7, chapter 26 of his History. Constantine, according to Eusebius in book 3, chapter 12 ofhis life ofConstantine, at the Council ofNicaea did not sit in the first place, which the Bishops had said he should take. In this way he indicated sufficiently that he was not presiding over the Council. Then, when the Council was concluded he wrote a letter to all the Churches, which Eusebius preserves totally in the same place, and at the end ofit he says: Since that is the way things are, with afree mindyou should embrace this decree ofthe Council as a gift ofGod, and a command really comingfrom heaven. For whatever is decreed in the holy Councils ofBishops, all ofitmust be attributed to the divine will. On this same matter St. Ambrose says in letter 32: Constantine did not proclaim any laws before the Council, but he gave free judgment to the priests. About this St. Augustine also says in letter 162, chapter 7, that since the Donatists wanted their cause to bejudged by him, he referred them to their own properjudge, that is, Pope Miltiades, and when they appealed from the judgment ofthe Pontiffto the Emperor himself: He gave, Augustine said, anotherArelatianjudgment (that is, ofthe other Bishops), not because it was now necessary, but acceding to theirperversities. For the Christian Emperor did not want to give in to their turbulent and fallacious complaints so that he would be passing judgment on the decision ofthe Bishops who reside in Rome. The Emperor Gratian says this in his letter to the Bishop of Aquileia, which was read at the Council of Aquileia: Doubtful controversies cannot be examined more correctly (and perhaps resolved) than by constituting the Priests as the interpreters ofthe present dispute, namely, thatfrom whom the established doctrines come, by the same the disagreement over conflicting positions should be resolved. Ambrose interpreted these words to the Council in this way: Behold, he said, what a Christian Emperor decrees. He did not want to injure the Priests, so he established the Bishops themselves as the interpreters. 200 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God Theodosius II in a letter to the Council of Ephesus, which Nicholas I also cites in his letter to Emperor Michael, said: Candidianus, a distinguished member of active domestics, has been deputed to travel to your holy Synod, but in no way to get involved in things that must be done concerning religious dogmas. For it is not allowed that someone, who does not belong to the order ofholy Bishops, should immerse himselfin ecclesiastical affairs. The Emperor Martianus on the holy Trinity and the Catholic Faith said: He does injury to the MostReverendSynod, who, having already beenjudged, tries to dispute and reverse the decision. Valentinian the Elder, as Sozomenus recounts in book 6, chapter 7 of his History, having been asked to permit a Synod to be held in order to clarify some dogmas of the faith, responded thus: It is not allowedfor me, since I am a member ofthe people, to search into such things inquisitively; the Priests, to whom these things have been entrusted, may gather together in assembly wherever they wish. The Emperor Basil at the eighth Council (acts 10) said this: But concerning us lay people, both those who have dignities andthose who have absolutepower, what more can Isay than that in no way are you allowed to speak out on ecclesiastical matters; andyou cannotresist internally the integrity ofthe Church and oppose a universal Synod. Forto examine and question such things pertains to the Patriarchs, Pontiffs and Priests who have received the office ofgoverning, who sanctify, who have the power ofbinding and loosing, who have received the ecclesiastical keys; it does notpertain to us who must be fed, who must be made holy, who must be bound, or need to be releasedfrom a bond. In the same place the same Emperorsays that other Emperors, who were his predecessors— Constantine, Theodosius, Martianus, and others—never undersigned the document ofthe Councils, except after all the Bishops. Finally, concerning Theodoric, King ofthe Goths, even though he was an Arian, at the fourth Roman Synod under Pope Symmachus, we read the following: To these things the Most Serene King, at the urging ofGod, responds in this way: that it belongs to the choice of the Synodtoprescribe what must be done in such an important matter, andthat nothing else belongs to himselfbut to show reverenceforthe ecclesiastical decisions.

CHAPTER VIII The same point is proved from the testimonies of the Fathers In the fifth place, it is proved from the testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers. Irenaeus in book 3 teaches that controversies cannot be resolved by Scripture alone, because they are explained differently by the heretics, and then in chapter 3 he says that controversies must be resolved by the doctrine ofthe Roman Church. With this Church, because ofits morepowerful origin, it is necessary that every Church agree, that is those who arefaithful everywhere; in this Church ispreserved by those who are everywhere the tradition which isfrom theApostles. Athanasius in a letter on leading a solitary life, while speaking about the Emperor Constantius, an Arian, who usurped for himself some decision in the Councils, said the following: When has such a thing ever been heard? When did the judgment ofthe Church receive its authority from the Emperor? Or when was this ever recognizedfor ajudgment? Formerly there were several Synods: many decisions ofthe Church were made. But the Fathers did not try to persuade the Prince to do such a thing, nor did the Prince involve himselfin ecclesiasticalmatters. And further on he said: Who, seeing him make himselfthe Prince ofBishops in making decrees andpresiding over ecclesiastical judgments, would not rightly say that this is the very abomination ofdesolation, which waspredicted byDaniel? Basil in letter 52 to Athanas says: that itseems good to him that when the Synod there could not be concluded, they should write to the Roman Pontiffso that he, on his own authority, might send some men to the East in order to make void the acts ofthe Council ofAriminum. Gregory Nazianzen in an Oration, in which he excuses himself because he had absented himselffor a long time from his ecclesiastical function, said the following: You sheep do notfeed the Shepherds, nor are you raised above their limits;for, it is enough foryou, ifyou are rightly nourished. Do notjudge thejudges anddo not make lawsforthe legislators, etc. But how is it that he does notjudge thejudges, and pasture the shepherds, who presumes to judge the decision of a Council or ofthe Sovereign Pontiff? And lest you think the Presiders have been exempted by Gregoiy, he in his Oration to his citizens struck with fear, and to the irate Présider said: When the Présider speaks, do you accept hisfree voice?And that the law ofChristsubjectedyou to mypower and to my tribunal? For, we also command; and Iadd, with a greater and more perfect command; therefore accept afreer voice,forIknow thatyou are the sheep ofmyflock, etc. Chrysostom in his homily on John 21 says that Peter was established by Christ as the teacher ofthe whole world. Cyril says in the Thesaurus, as St. Thomas quotes it in his Opusculum 1 against the error ofthe Greeks: We must cling to our head, the Roman Pontiff,for it is necessary to acceptfrom him what we must believe and hold. See also Damascene in his sermons 1 and 2 in favor ofimages. Of the Latin authors, Tertullian in The Prescription against Heretics deduces beautifully what we want. First ofall, he teachesthat we should dispute with hereticsfrom the Scriptures, because, since the possession and true understanding of the Scriptures 202 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God belongs to the Catholic Church, first it must be established what the true doctrine of the Church is, and then from that the Scriptures must be understood. But what the true doctrine ofthe Church is, cannot be more safely sought than in the Apostolic Churches, of which the principal one is the Roman. For, God gave the doctrine oftruth to Christ, Christ to the Apostles, the Apostles to their successors. This is a summary of what he says. Cyprian says in book 1, letter 3: For heresies have appearedfrom no othersource, or schisms been born, exceptfrom the fact that there was no obedience to the priest of God. For, before a definition ofthe Pontiffs, it is permitted to take either side in doubtful matters without falling into heresy; but after a definition, those who do not obey become heretics. Ambrose in letter 32 to the Emperor Valentinianus, who, having been corrupted by the Arians, wanted to passjudgment on matters ofFaith, said: But certainly ifwe consider either the list ofthe divine Scriptures, or the old times, who will deny in the cause of the Faith, Isay in the cause ofthe Faith, that the Bishops are wont to judge Christian Emperors, and that Emperors do notjudge Bishops? You will be, with the help ofGod, also more advanced in the maturity ofold age, and then you will think about this, what kind ofBishop he is who makes the rights ofpriests subject to lay people. Your Father, a man ofmature age, used to say: It is not in mypower tojudge between Bishops: now your Clemency says, Imustjudge. And after that he said: Ifthere must be a consultation about the Faith, that discussion must be done bypriests, as was done under Constantine, the Prince of happy memory, who did not pass any laws on his own, but he left the freejudgment to the priests. This also tookplace under Constantius, Emperor ofhappy memory, the heir ofpaternal dignity. But what began well, ended in a different way. For, the Bishopsfirst had written down the genuine Faith, but since some individuals inside the palace want to passjudgment on the Faith, they did it, in order that with their own qualifications the decisions ofthe Bishops might be changed. The reader should note these last words: the lay persons in the house ofthe Prince, since they want to judge the decision ofthe Bishops, deserve to fall into error. Jerome in a letter to Damasus on the word “hypostasis” said: Decide, ifyouplease, I beseech you; lam not afraid to affirm three hypostases, ifyou so order. And after that he said: Iimplore your beatitude through the crucified one, the salvation ofthe worid, through the όμοουσιον ofthe Trinity, that through your letters the authority be given to me either ofbeing silent about or speaking about the hypostases. He asks for the same thing in the following letter. And please note that Jerome was by far more learned than Damasus, as is clear from the many questions about the Scriptures that Jerome explained for Damasus; but when the concern was about ajudgment ofFaith, thatsomething should be defined, Jerome leaves the whole judgment to Pope Damasus. Sulpicius in book 2 of his History recounts that St. Martin at one time said to the Emperor Maximus: It is anew and unheard ofsin that a secularjudge should passjudgment on a cause ofthe Church. Augustine in book 1, chapter 33 against Crescon said: Whoeverfears to be mistaken by the obscurity ofthis question, on this matterlet him consult the Church, which the holy Scripture demonstrates without any ambiguity. And in his letter 106 to Paulinus, while speaking about the letters ofInnocent in which it is clearly stated that thejudgment about Controversies of the Christian Faith 203 matters ofFaith pertains to the Apostolic See, he says this: He answered us in all things, in the right way and as is necessaryfor the occupant ofthe Apostolic See. And in his book against the Fundamental Principle, in chapter 5 he said: For mypart, Ishould not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority ofthe Catholic Church. Calvin says that Augustine is speaking about a private conviction of the faithful, whereby some are converted to the faith, so that the meaning is: Iwould not believe the Gospel, that is, Iwould not now be a Christian, unless Christians had moved me with theirpersuasions. But this answer is offthe mark; for, first of all, Augustine is speaking about the present when he says: Unless the authority ofthe Church were moving me. Then shortly thereafter he said: It was at the command ofCatholics that I believed the Gospel, and in obedience to them Iwill not believe you at all. There he attributes to the Church not persuasion, but command. And after that, while speaking about the Acts of the Apostles, he said: It is necessaryfor me to believe in this book, ifI believe in the Gospel, since Catholic authority commends both Scriptures alike to me. The same author in the preface of his book on Christian Doctrine, as if he saw in advance that private spirit, which refused to have a teacher, said: We should beware ofmostproud and most dangerous temptations ofthis kindand think rather ofthe centurion Cornelius', although an angel announced to him that his prayers had been heard and his alms recognized, he was sent to Peterfor instruction. And certainly theApostle did notsend the eunuch who did not understand what he read in the prophet Isaiah to an angel, nor was what he did not understand either explained to him by an angel or revealed to him divinely in his mindwithout human ministration, etc. Prosper in his book against the Collations (at the end) proves that the Pelagians were truly heretics because they had been condemned by the Roman Bishops, Innocent, Zosimus, Boniface, Celestine. St. Vincent of Lérins in chapter 2 of his Commonitory said: But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon ofScripture is complete, and sufficient ofitselffor everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority ofthe Church’s interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth ofHoly Scripture they do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable ofas many interpretations as there are interpreters... Therefore, it is very necessary, on account ofso great intricacies ofsuch various error, that the rule for the right understanding ofthe prophets and Apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard ofEcclesiastical and Catholic interpretation. In the same place he clearly shows that the decrees ofthe Councils, the consent ofthe Fathers, and similar points are the norm for the Catholic meaning. Gregoiy in book 6, letter 25 said the following: It is known to us that ourpious lords love discipline, observe orders, venerate the canons, and refrainfrom mixing themselves up in the causes ofpriests. Anselm, in chapter 1 of his book on the Incarnation ofthe Word, addresses the Roman PontiffUrban in the following way: Since divineprovidence has chosen Your Holiness, and has committed to you the office ofprotecting Christian life andFaith and ofruling his Church, then one does not rightly refer to anyone else, if something contrary to the Catholic Faith arises in the Church so that it may be corrected 204 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God by his authority. Bernard wrote in letter 190 to Pope Innocent II: It is necessary that all dangers and scandals occurring in the kingdom ofGod be referred to yourApostolate, and especially things that concern the Faith. For, Ithink it isfitting that the injuries to the Faith should be corrected there especially where the Faith cannot sense any defect. And after that he said: It is time, beloved Father, foryou to acknowledge your dominion, prove yourzeal, honor your ministry. In it clearly you are fulfilling the role ofPeter, whose chair you occupy, ifyou strengthen with your admonition hearts that are wavering in the Faith, if with your authority you suppress corrupters ofthe Faith. And in letter 189 he wrote: As Iwas saying, his writings are enough to accuse him, and that is not my responsibility but that ofthe Bishops, whose ministry it is topassjudgment on dogmatic matters.

CHAPTER IX The same point if proved from reason It is proved finally by reason. God was not ignorant of the fact that many difficulties would arise in the Church concerning the Faith. Therefore he had to provide a judge for the Church. But thatjudge cannot be Scripture, nor a private revealing spirit, nor a secular prince; therefore it had to be an ecclesiastical official, either alone or certainly with a council and the consent of his fellow Bishops. And it is not, nor could it be imagined anything else, to which it seems thisjudgment could pertain. And first of all, it is clear that Scripture is not the judge, because it is subject to various meanings, nor can it say which interpretation is true. Moreover, in every well-founded and ordered Republic, the law and the judges are distinct things. For, the law says what must be done, and thejudge interprets the law, and he directs men according to it. Finally, there is a question about the interpretation of Scripture, since it cannot interpret itself. But, they say, from a comparison of the various places the true meaning can be derived by anyone skilled in languages. But what is to be done, if many are skilled in languages, and they confer on the same texts among themselves, and nevertheless they are still not able to agree. Who then will be the judge? Certainly many Lutherans and many Zwinglians were skilled in languages, and they studied the Scriptures together with great effort, and nevertheless in the explanation of the sentence, This is my Body, they were never able to agree. But the Zwinglians, a Lutheran will say, are blind, and therefore it is not surprising that they do not understand the very clear words ofthe Lord. But what happens, if a Zwinglian says that the Lutherans are blind—who will be the judge? It is easily demonstrated that a revealing spirit cannot be the judge for each private individual. Since the spirit, which is in you, is neitherseen nor heard by me, then ajudge should be seen and heard by both litigating parties; for the contending parties are ofsuch a nature, that is, both are bodily men. For, ifwe were spirits, perhaps the judgment of a spirit would suffice. Furthermore, in a temporal Republic all have a true natural light of reason, according to which the law is established, and that suffices to explain it, and still, the private interpretation ofthe law is never handed over to the private judgment ofeach person. For, ifthat were permitted, the Republic could not exist for very long. Therefore how much less should the interpretation of Scripture be turned over to the judgment of each person, since all do not have that true supernatural light, by which Scripture was formed and which is necessary in order to understand it correctly. Moreover, a judge must have effective authority, otherwise hisjudgment will mean nothing; but private individuals do not have such authority. Also many are so crude and ignorant, as they themselves admit, that they could in no way passjudgment on questions offaith, but still they also can be saved; therefore it is not necessary for all to judge. Finally, ifthe private revealing spirit were judge, the way to convert heretics would be precluded, and no controversies could ever be brought to an end. For, there is no heretic who does not claim to have the spirit, and who does not place his spirit before the spirit ofothers. And as in 2 Chron. 18, when Micaiah, a prophet ofthe Lord, said that he 206 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God was speaking in the name ofthe Lord, but the false prophets were moved by a lying spirit, the false prophet Zedekiah said to him: Which way did the Spirit ofthe Lord gofrom me to speak to you? (v. 23). So if a Catholic would say “the Spirit has revealed this to me,” the heretic would respond, “Which way did the Spirit, etc. “ It will now be proved that a secular Prince is not the judge. For nothing can act beyond the power ofits own causes. But the causes involved in secular ruling are human and natural. For, the efficient cause is the choice of the people, while the end is the peace and temporal tranquility of the Republic; therefore the Prince as such does not have power or authority, except what is human; the people can give this to him and it is required in order to keep the peace. A sign of this is the fact that even without the Church there are true Kings, and temporal Princes; and without them there can be the true Church, as in the city ofRome during the first three centuries. There is not obstacle to this in what is said in Rom. 13:1-2: There is not authority exceptfrom God... and he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed. For, the Apostle does not want to say that kingly power is from God immediately, but in a mediated way, because God placed the natural instinct in men to constitute a King for themselves. In the same way, human laws can be said to be from God, because they are the result of natural reason, which God implanted in the human mind when he created him. But the ecclesiastical governing power has divine and supernatural causes; for, the efficient cause immediately is God, since the Pontiffdoes not have his authority from the Church, but from Christ, who said to him: Feed my sheep (John 21:17). And also: Iwill give you the keys ofthe kingdom ofheaven (Matt. 16:19). But the final cause is eternal beatitude. Therefore outside the Church a true Pontiffis not found, nor true Priests, nor without them can there be a Church. Hence Nazianzen in his sermon to the citizens struck with fear, Chrysostom in homily 4 on Isaiah, and Ambrose in chapter 2 of his book on the dignity ofthe priesthood say that a Bishop is as much greater than a king, as the spirit is to flesh, as the sky to the earth, as gold to lead. And for this reason also the pontificate and the priesthood pertain per se to the Church; but temporal rule pertains to her only accidentally. Therefore, since to define matters of Faith, and to interpret the divine Scriptures is an ecclesiastical and spiritual activity, for certain it does not pertain to the temporal Prince, but to the spiritual and ecclesiastical order.

CHAPTER X The objections are answered First, they raise an objection from Isa. 54:13: Allyoursons shall be taught by the Lord. I respond: Isaiah is not talking about a private spirit ofrevelation, but either he is speaking about the teaching ofthe Gospel, which God himself, that is, Christ preached and taught, as Cyril says in explaining this text, so that the meaning is: Iwill not teach the Christian people throughprophets, but by myself, according to what is said in Heb. 1, In many and various ways God spoke, etc. Or (which is a more subtle and fuller explanation) he is speaking about the grace ofthe Holy Spirit, whereby man is moved interiorly by God, and is moved gently to believe and to love, as St. Augustine explains it in his book on the grace ofChrist, chapters 12, 13 and 14. Therefore, the meaning is not that all Christians will understand, by a divine revelation, all the secrets ofthe Scriptures, but will be in the future ofsuch a nature that they not only hear the teacher exteriorly explaining the word ofGod, but also hear interiorly God teaching them and urging them to do what they hear. When there is a sermon, all hear it and understand what is said, but one person believes and another does not believe; one is converted from sin to repentance, another is not converted; the former are said to be taught by God, while the latter are not. In this sense the Lord presents testimony from this text in what he said in John 6:45: It is written in the prophets:Andthey shall all be taught by God. Every one who has heardand learnedfrom the Father comes to me. And theApostle in 1 Thess. 4:9: Concerning love ofthe brethren you have no need to have anyone write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another. The second argument is in Jer. 31:33-34:1 will put my law within them, and Iwill write it upon their hearts... and no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and teach his brother saying: Know the Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least ofthem to the greatest. I respond with St. Augustine in chapter 33 in his book On Spirit and the Letter that with those words, Iwillput my law, etc., the grace ofthe New Testament is meant here, that is, Faith operating through charity, which God pours into our hearts, so that we not only know, but also carry out the divine commands; but with the words, No longer shall each man teach, etc., the reward ofFaith is meant, that is, beatitude, in which all the elect shall see God face to face. If, however, someone contends that also those last words are to be understood about the present time, the response can be made: here the prophet is not talking about mysteries hidden in the Scriptures, but about the knowledge ofthe one God. For, since during the time ofthe Old Testament not only the Gentiles adored false gods, but also often the people of God were converted to idols and to foreign gods. Jeremiah foretold the future—that in the time ofthe New Testament all men will know the one God, which certainly now we see fulfilled. For, the Gentiles have been converted to the Faith, and also the Jews and Turks, although they are impious, still they worship the one God. The third argument is Matt. 23:8: But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have 208 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God one teacher. Therefore we should be content with an internal teacher alone. I respond: the Lord does not forbid the name and office ofteacher, but the ambition and affectation of that honor. For, in 2 Tim. the Apostle calls himselfthe doctor and teacher ofthe Gentiles. Moreover, in that chapter 23 the Lord reprehends the scribes and Pharisees, because they love the first places, and to be greeted by men with the salutation of “Rabbi.” And in the same place he says: And call no man yourfather on earth, but it is certain that the name or function offather is not being forbidden, but too much affection towards parents. The fourth argument is in John 5:34: The testimony which Ireceive is notfrom man, and therefore the word ofGod does not receive testimony from the word ofman. But the Pontiff and a Council are men. Therefore the Scriptures do not need their testimony, but ofthemselves are sufficient to resolve all controversies. 1 respond: Christ does not need for himself the testimony of men, because he has greater testimonies, but he does use the testimonies ofmen for the sake of others. John 1:7, He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light. And John 15:27, You also are witnesses, because you have been with mefrom the beginning. Acts 1:8, You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea. Finally, why are the martyrs called “martyrs,” unless it is because they were witnesses to Christ? Therefore, since the Lord said: You sent to John, and he has bom witness to the truth (John 5:33); not that the testimony which Ireceive isfrom man, but Isay this that you may be saved: so the meaning here is this: I am giving you the testimony ofJohn, which you have askedfor, not because I need itfor myself, but because it is usefulfor you so that you may believe more easily. In the same way, Scripture does not need the testimony of men for itself; for, whether it is understood or not understood, in itselfit is true. However, for our sake it needs the testimony of the Church, because otherwise we are not certain which books truly are sacred and divine, and what their true and genuine meaning is. The fifth argument is John 7:17: Ifany man's will is to do his will, that is, ofthe one who sent me, he shall know whetherthe teaching isfrom God. Therefore, beside the spirit ofthe love ofGod no other teaching is required in order to understand the Scriptures. I respond: the Lord does not say that in order to show that all good men per se can understand all the passages ofthe Scriptures, but in order to teach that some men lack certain impediments, because ofwhich some neither by themselves nor with the help of others can understand the truth of the Faith. For, the passionate longing for glory, and money and such things blinds the eyes. Hence John 5:44 says: How canyou believe, who receive glory from one another? And Luke 16:14: The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they scoffed at him. The sixth argument is in John 10:27: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and theyfollow me. Therefore they do not need any other teacher. I respond: the Lord is speaking about the predestined, as Augustine explains this, who before their death completely hearthe call ofGod, and they follow it perseveringly until death; and he is not speaking here about the difficulties ofthe Scriptures. But even ifhe were speaking about the understanding ofthe Scriptures, we would say that Christ speaks to his sheep in many ways—through Scripture, through internal inspiration, and openly through the mouth of his Vicars, about whom he said in Luke 10:16: He who hearsyou hears me. For when the Controversies of the Christian Faith 209 Lord says, My sheep hear my voice, he is not excluding his Vicars, but his enemies. Thus he says in the same place: A stranger they will notfollow (John 10:5); and, They do not know the voice ofstrangers. The seventh argument is in Acts 17:1 Off. The Beroeans examined the Scriptures to see whether they agreed with what Paul preached. For ifit was permitted for those men, who were doubtless lay persons, to scrutinize the words ofPaul, why is it not permitted for us to examine the words ofthe Pope and of the Councils? I respond: even though Paul was an Apostle, and could not preach false doctrine, nevertheless in the beginning the Beroeans were not certain and they were bound to believe immediately, unless they first saw miracles or other probable reasons for believing. Therefore, when Paul proved to them that Christ was the fulfillment ofthe oracles of the Prophets, rightly did they search the Scriptures to see whether that was true. But Christians, who are certain that the Church cannot err in explaining the doctrine ofthe Faith, are bound to receive it and not to have doubts about whether or not it is true. I add also that, although a heretic sins by doubting the authority of the Church, in which he was re-bom through Baptism, the condition of the heretic, who at one time professed the Faith, is not the same as that ofthe Jew or pagan who never was a Christian; nevertheless, given this doubt and this sin, he does not act badly by searching and examining to see whether the places of Scripture and ofthe Fathers quoted by the Council of Trent really are convincing, provided that he does it with the intention of finding the truth, and not of making false accusations. Indeed, he ought to accept the teaching ofthe Church without testing it; however, it is better that by examining it he i being prepared for the truth, than by neglecting it he remain in his darkness. The eighth argument is in Rom. 12:6f.: Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: ifprophecy, inproportion to ourfaith; ifservice, in our serving, etc. Here the Apostle is teaching that the gift of prophecy, that is, interpretation ofthe Scriptures, is had according to reason, in Greek it is the άναλογία ofFaith, that is, according to the measure and proportion ofFaith; therefore the interpretation ofScripture should not be sought from the Pope or a Council, but from the one who abounds more in Faith, whoever he may be. I respond: in the first place, the consequence could be denied; for, the Pope and a Council abound in faith more than any private person, since the Pope when he teaches ex cathedra, and a Council cannot err in Faith, but every private person can err. Secondly, it could be said that prophecy in this text is not taken for the interpretation ofScripture, but really for the gift of foretelling the future, as it is explained by Ambrose, Theodoretus, Theophylact, Thomas and others concerning this text, and also Chrysostom on 1 Cor. 12. But in the third place I say that however the word “prophecy” is taken, whether for the gift of predicting future events, or for the gift of interpreting, from this passage nothing can be concluded against us. For, that expression “in proportion to our faith” is notjoined with the word “having,” but with the understood expression “let us administer.” For, the Apostle is explaining the use ofcharismatic gifts, and he teaches that prophecy should be administered in proportion to the Faith, so that no one prophesies something against the Faith, as the false prophets were doing, nor should a prophet interpret the Scriptures in a 210 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God sense contrary to Catholic Faith, as the heretics often do. The ninth argument is in 1 Cor. 2:15: The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. Therefore the interpretation of Scripture pertains to spiritual men, not to the Pope, or to Councils. I respond: we do not deny that there were and are in the Church spiritual and perfect men, who correctly interpret the Scriptures, who see into the future and who read the secrets of hearts. But we deny that a definitive judgment of the controversies over the Faith pertain to them, and we do this for two reasons. First, because we are not certain with the certainty ofFaith, who these spiritual men are, as we are certain that the Pope and a Council are spiritual, namely, that they are guided by the Holy Spirit. Second, because we know also that very spiritual men are not always enlightened, and at times are ignorant of certain things, as is clear about Elisha who had a double portion ofthe spirit ofElijah, and nevertheless he says in 2 Kings 4:27, the Lord has hidden itfi-om me, and has not toldme. You will say: therefore what is the meaning ofthe phrase “he will judge all things”? I say that it means all things, both spiritual and temporal, both heavenly and earthly. For, he had said that earthly men do not perceive the things of God, but can judge only about earthly things. Now he says that spiritual men judge all things, that is, earthly and divine, but it does not follow that he can judge all divine things. For, who will deny that many ofthe ancient Fathers had an excellent gift ofinterpreting, and were spiritual, and nevertheless it is certain that some ofthe principal ones in certain matter erred in no small way? The tenth argument is in 1 Cor. 12:11. While speaking about the gift ofinterpretation, and similar graces, the Apostle said: All these things are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. Therefore this gift is not tied to a Council or to a Pope, but is freely given by God to whom he wishes. And this is confirmed by examples, because often, during the time ofPriests and Pontiffs in the past, God raised up prophets from the people; for, Amos was a shepherd ofsheep, and still he was made a prophet, and the woman Debora prophesied. I respond that the Apostle is speaking about particular men, and that he wants to say that the gift ofinterpreting is not given passim to all men. And it does not follow from this that the gift ofinterpretation is not present in a Council or a Pontiffteaching ex cathedra. For the nature of a Council or Pontiff is one thing, and that of private individuals is something else. In confirmation ofthe above I say that the privileges ofa few do not make a general law. But ifthey contend it is given to all, because it was given to Amos and Deborah, they can also conclude that the gift ofspeaking is given to all beasts of burden, because it was given to Balaam’s ass. Moreover, it is one thing to speak about new revelations, and something else the explanation of a doctrine already accepted. For, new revelations are not attached to Pontiffs, not now, not in the Old Testament. For, in the Old Testament Isaiah, Jeremiah and others prophesied, but not Aaron and his successors; and in the New Testament Agabus prophesied, and the daughters of Philip, but the Pontiffs Linus, and Clement and others did not prophesy. But the explanation ofthe received doctrine and the decision about dogmas always belonged to the Pontiffs, as we have shown above. Controversies of the Christian Faith 211 The eleventh argument is in 1 Thess. 5:21: Test everything, holdfast what is good, and 1 John 4:1, Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God. Therefore the decision of a Council and a Pope must be tested and examined; for, Paul and John make no exceptions. Also they gather from these texts that the books of heretics are unjustly prohibited, since Paul says “test everything.” I respond with two answers. First, when Paul and John say, test everything, or test the spirits, they do not want to say that everyone in the Church should do that, but that they should do it to whom it pertains. Just as ifit is written to some Academy that they should examine a book, it does not mean that the book to be examined should be given to all the members ofthe Academy, but only to the teachers ofthe faculty who are experts in that field. Second, in both texts they are concerned about doubtful teaching, because only that needs to be tested. But the teaching offorbidden books is not doubtful, for it is obviously bad since it has already been examined and condemned. And the doctrine ofthe Councils is not doubtful, but clearly good. And so the Apostle Paul in Acts 15, when he sent the decree ofthe Council ofJerusalem to the Churches, did not say “test it,” but he ordered the decree to be observed. The twelfth argument is in 1 John 2:27: You have no need that any one should teach you, as his anointing teaches you about everything. I respond: John is not talking absolutely about the knowledge of divine things, as ifthose who have received the Holy Spirit do not need a teacher for any thing. For, ifthat were the case, why did John write this letter, and warn and instruct those whom the anointing was teaching all things? And for what purpose did God place pastors and doctors in the Church? Therefore, he is speaking only about those teachings that they had already received from the Apostles, and with the help ofthe Holy Spirit they had learned and believed. And he admonished them to persevere in the Faith, and not to listen to the pseudo-apostles who were teaching contrary things. It is as if a Catholic would write to other Catholics, who are being attacked and upset by heretics, and say: it is not necessary for you that some Lutheran or Calvinist should teach you the doctrine ofChrist, for you have already learned everything you need to know, and you are bound by the preaching ofthe Church to the anointing of the Holy Spirit. The preceding and following words teach that this is the meaning. Thus he says: Iwrite to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it... and let whatyou heardfrom the beginning abide in you... Iwrite this to you about those who would deceiveyou, etc. (2:21-26). But in what follows he says: Just as Itaught you, abide in him... so that when he appears we may have confidence and notshrinkfrom him in shame at his coming (2:27-28). The thirteenth argument. The Apostle writes in Eph. 2:19-20: You arefellow citizens with the saints and members ofthe household ofGod, built upon the foundation ofthe apostles andprophets. But ifthe understanding of Scripture depended on the Pope and the Councils, our foundation would be upon the Pope and the Councils more than it is on the Apostles and Prophets. I respond to this argument which Calvin often repeats and insists on: we do not deny, and in fact we defend against those who deny it, that the word ofGod proclaimed by the Apostles and Prophets is the first foundation of our Faith; for, we believe whatever we 212 The First General Controversy - On the Word of God believe, because God has revealed it through the Apostles and Prophets. But we add, in addition to this first foundation, that another secondary foundation is required, that is, the attestation ofthe Church. For, we do not know for certain what God has revealed, unless it is from the testimony ofthe Church. And on that account, just as we read that Christ is the fundamental stone, and the first foundation ofthe Church, so also we read in Matt.l6:18 about Peter, on this rock Iwill build by Church. Therefore, our Faith adheres to Christ as the first truth revealing mysteries, as the primary foundation; it adheres also to Peter, that is, the Pontiff proposing and explaining these mysteries, as the secondary foundation. The fourteenth argument. Ifthe Pontiffpassesjudgment on the Scriptures, it follows that the Pontiff or a Council is above Scripture; and ifthe meaning of Scripture is not authentic without the Pontiff or a Council, it follows that the word of God receives its strength and firmness from the word ofmen. I respond: this argument, which is often made by the heretics, is involved totally in an equivocation. For, that the Church judges the Scriptures can be understood in two ways: in one way, that she judges whether what the Scriptures teach is true or false. In the other way, once given as a certain foundation that the words of Scripture are true, she judges what the true interpretation ofthem is. Actually, ifthe Church were to judge in the first way, she would truly be over the Scripture, but we do not say this, although the heretics falsely claim that we do say that; they also often proclaim that we place Scripture under the feet of the Pope. But in the second way in which we do say that the Church or the Pontiff passes judgment concerning the Scriptures, it is not that the Church is over the Scriptures, but over the judgments ofprivate persons. For the Church does not judge concerning the truth of Scripture, but its understanding by you, and by me and by others. And from this the word ofGod does not derive some kind ofstrength, but our understanding. For, the Scripture is not more true, or more certain, because it is thus explained by the Church, but my thought is more true, when it is confirmed by the Church. The fifteenth argument. If our Faith depends on the judgment ofthe Church, then it depends on a human word; therefore it is resting on a very weak foundation. Furthermore, Scripture was made by the Spirit ofGod; therefore it must be understood by the Spirit of God, not by the Church. I respond that the word of the Church (i.e., of a Council or of a Pope teaching er cathedra) is not completely the word ofa man, that is, a word subject to error, but in some way it is the word of God, that is, uttered with the assistance and guidance ofthe Holy Spirit. Indeed, I say that it is the heretics who are relying on a bent reed. For, it should be known that a proposition ofthe Faith is arrived at by the following syllogism: Whatever God revealed in the Scriptures is true. But God revealed this in the Scriptures. Therefore this is true. Ofthe propositions ofthis syllogisms, the first one is certain for everyone; the second one among Catholics is also very firm, for it is based on the testimony ofthe Church, of a Council, or of a Pontiff, concerning whom we have in the Scriptures clear promises that they cannot err. Acts 15:28: It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and io us. And Luke 22:32:1 have prayedfor you that yourfaith may notfail. But among the Controversies of the Christian Faith 213 heretics it relies only on conjecture, or the judgment of one’s own mind, which often seems to be good, but is bad; and since the conclusion follows the weaker part, it is necessary that the whole Faith ofheretics is conjectural and uncertain. The sixteenth argument. When Augustine and the other Fathers explain the Scriptures, they do not make use of an official power of interpreting, but they permit their explanations to be judged by others. I respond: it is one thing to interpret the law like a teacher, but something else to do it like a judge. To explain it like a teacher requires erudition, but to explain it like a judge requires authority. For, a teacher does not propose his opinion as something to be followed necessarily, but only insofar as reason indicates; but a judge proposes it to be followed necessarily. In one way we accept the glosses ofBartholi and Baldi, in another way the declaration ofa King. ThereforeAugustine and the other Fathers, in their Commentaries, perform the office ofteachers; but the Councils and Pontiffs perform the office ofa judge commissioned by God himself. The seventeenth argument. Augustine contends that the Church should not place herselfbefore Christ, because he alwaysjudges truly: but the ecclesiasticaljudges, as men, oftenfall into error. These are Calvin’s words in the preface to his Institutes; from this he concludes that Prelates are notjudges ofthe controversies. I respond, first of all, that the place cited by Calvin is wrong, for in the margin he writes chapter 2 against Cresconius; but against Cresconius there are four books, but in no chapter 2 ofthose books are those words found, but they are found in book 2, chapter 21, where Augustine speaks about questions offact, not ofright, in which ecclesiastical judges can be in error. For he teaches that often ecclesiastical judges are in error by the fact that they baptize those who approach the Sacrament with a false attitude, and nevertheless seem to approach it with a sincere will. And since Calvin seemed not to consider that place important, perhaps he did not note carefully the place. For, otherwise he is accustomed to be quite careful in quoting books, and also the chapters, except when the places contain a veiy clear explanation. We will answer many other arguments, which seem to be pertinent here, when we treat the following points: whether the Church, or a Council or the Pope can err, and whose office it is to preside over Councils.

LIBRO CUARTO.

ÍNDICE (en inglés)

Book Four: On the Unwritten Word of God.

Chapter One: Those who have most of all Defended or Attacked Unwritten Traditions 

Chapter Two: What and How Multiple Tradition is 

Chapter Three: the State of the Question is Explained, and certain Falsehoods of the Adversaries are Uncovered 

Chapter Four: the Necessity for Traditions is Shown 

Chapter Five: That there are True Traditions is Demonstrated from the Scriptures 

Chapter Six: The Same is Shown by the Testimonies of the Pontiffs and the Councils Chapter Seven: The Same is Proved from the Fathers 

Chapter Eight: The Same is Proved by Four Other Arguments 

Chapter Nine: Five Rules are Explained by which we Come to Knowledge of True Traditions 

Chapter Ten: The Objections of the Adversaries Taken from the Scriptures are Solved 

Chapter Eleven: The Objections from the Fathers are Solved 

Chapter Twelve: The Reasonings of the Adversaries are Solved

ÍNDICE (en español)

Capítulo Uno: Los que más han defendido o atacado las tradiciones no escritas

Capítulo Dos: Qué y cómo es la tradición múltiple

Capítulo Tres: Se explica el estado de la cuestión y se descubren ciertas falsedades de los adversarios

Capítulo Cuatro: Se muestra la necesidad de las tradiciones

Capítulo Cinco: Se demuestra que hay tradiciones verdaderas a partir de las Escrituras

Capítulo Seis: Lo mismo se demuestra con los testimonios de los pontífices y los concilios

Capítulo Siete: Lo mismo se prueba con los Padres

Capítulo Ocho: Lo mismo se prueba con otros cuatro argumentos

Capítulo Nueve: Se explican cinco reglas por las que llegamos al conocimiento de las tradiciones verdaderas

Capítulo Diez: Se resuelven las objeciones de los adversarios tomadas de las Escrituras

Capítulo Once: Se resuelven las objeciones de los Padres

Capítulo Doce: Los razonamientos de los Los adversarios se resuelven

Book Four: On the Unwritten Word of God 

Chapter One: Those who have most of all Defended or Attacked Unwritten Traditions 

We have hitherto discoursed of the written word of God; now we will advance to dispute briefly of the unwritten word of God, once we have first noted, to please the more studious, those who in our age have written about traditions, or certainly those we ourselves have read. For it was not licit for us to see them all. So, on this argument Cardinal Hosius wrote excellently in bk.4 Against the Prolegomena of Brentius; again Peter a Soto in his Defense against the same Brentius, from ch.50 to ch.66; Melchior Canus on Theological Places bk.3; Iodocus Tilletanus in his Apology against Chemnitz on behalf of the Council of Trent; Alphonsus a Castro bk.1 ch.5 of his work Against Heresies, and the Bishop of Rochester too at the beginning of his work against the assertion of the articles of Luther; the doctors of Cologne in their Examination of the Catechism of Monhemius, in their censure of the sixth Dialogue; Peter Canisius in his Catechism about the Precepts of the Church, and William Lindanus in the five books of his Panoply; John Lovanius in his book on the Invocation of the Saints chs.23-25; Caspar Cardillus Villalpandaeus in his book on Traditions. Among the heretics have written chiefly against traditions Calvin Institutes bk.4 ch.8 sects.6-8, and ch.10 sects.18-20, and in his Antidote to the Council of Trent sess.4; John Brentius in his Prolegomena against Peter a Soto; Martin Chemnitz in the book he inscribed Theology of the Jesuits, chief chapters; and with great prolixity in his Examination of the Council of Trent when examining the decree on Traditions, which is contained in sess.4, and a certain Hermann Hamelmann, who has recently published an immense volume against traditions, which he divided into three books of Prolegomena, and then into three parts of the principle work, each of which contains many books.

Chapter Two: What and How Multiple Tradition is 

The name of tradition is a general one, and signifies any doctrine whether written or unwritten that is communicated from one to another, Exodus ch.17, “Write this for a memorial in a book, and hand it on in the ears of Joshua.” Acts ch.6, the written law of Moses is called tradition, “We heard him say that Jesus will destroy this place and will change the traditions which Moses handed on to us.” And I Corinthians ch.11, “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you.” Tradition is called doctrine expounded viva voce, and II Thessalonians ch.2, “Hold the traditions which you have received, whether by speech or by letter.” But although the name of tradition is general, yet this very name is adapted by theologians to signify only unwritten doctrine. Thus Irenaeus bk.3 ch.2, “It happens,” he said, “that they agree neither in Scriptures nor in traditions.” Tertullian in his book on the Crown of the Soldier, “If you ask me to read,” he says, you will find no Scripture, tradition is the author extended to you.” And Cyprian bk.2 epist.3, “May you know we are advised that in offering the chalice of the Lord the tradition of the Lord is kept, that the chalice, which is offered in commemoration of him, is offered mixed with wine.” This place Chemnitz falsely explains of written tradition, 173 for nowhere in the whole Gospel or the epistles of the Apostles is it written that the chalice mixed with wine, that is, wine and water are offered. In the same way almost all the ancients use the name of tradition for unwritten doctrine, and we will use the name in this way from now on. Now the doctrine is called unwritten, not which is nowhere written, but which is not written by the first author. Let the baptism of infants be an example. That infants should be baptized is called an unwritten Apostolic tradition, although it is written in the books of almost all the Fathers. But there is a double division of traditions; the first is taken from the authors of traditions; the second from the matter. The first is divided into divine, Apostolic, and Ecclesiastical traditions. Those are called divine which were received from Christ himself teaching the Apostles, and are nowhere found in the divine letters; such are what pertains to the matter and form of the sacraments; for we have little about this in the divine letters and yet it is certain that the essence of the sacraments could only have been instituted by Christ. For which reason the Apostle in I Corinthians ch.11, speaking of the sacrament of the Eucharist, said, “I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you.” Those traditions are properly called Apostolic which were instituted by the Apostles, not however without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and nevertheless they are not extant written down in their epistles; of this sort is the fast of Lent, and of the four times, and many other things about which more hereafter. Yet sometimes divine traditions are wont also to be called Apostolic, and Apostolic traditions divine. Divine traditions are called Apostolic, not because they were instituted by the Apostles, but because they were first handed on to the Church by them, since they themselves had separately received them from Christ; and Apostolic traditions are called divine, not because God immediately instituted them, but because the Apostles instituted them not without the spirit of God. In this way all the epistles of the Apostles are called divine and Apostolic writings, even if certain things in them are divine precepts and certain are properly Apostolic, as is plain from that verse of I Corinthians ch.7, “I do not command, but the Lord,” and later, “I say, not the Lord.” Traditions are properly called Ecclesiastical which are certain ancient customs begun either by prelates or by people, which little by little with the tacit consent of the people obtained the force of law. And indeed divine traditions have the same force as divine precepts, or divine things written in the Gospels; and likewise unwritten Apostolic traditions have the same force as Apostolic written traditions, as is asserted in the Council of Trent sess.4, and the reason is manifest: for the word of God is not such as it is, nor does it have any authority, because it is written on parchments, but because it proceeded from God either immediately, as the words of the Lord, or mediately through the Apostles, as is a decree of the Apostles, Acts ch.15. Nor do the heretics deny this, nor can they; for as we will say later, the question is not how much force there is in divine or Apostolic tradition, but whether any tradition is truly divine or Apostolic. But Ecclesiastical traditions have the same force as written decrees and constitutions of the Church; for also in a civil Republic there is the same force in approved customs as in written laws, as is plain from dist.1 canon. dustom, and bk. diuturna, ff. on laws. 174 The second division of traditions is according to matter, into traditions about faith and traditions about morals; which again are either perpetual or temporal, and either universal or particular, and either necessary or free. A tradition about faith is that Blessed Mary was always a virgin, that there are only four Gospels, etc. A tradition pertaining to morals is that the sign of the cross is to be marked on the forehead, that there should be fasting on certain days, or feasts should be celebrated etc. A tradition is perpetual that is instituted to be always kept, up to the end of the world, as in the examples given. A tradition is temporal that is instituted for a certain time, as the observation of certain ceremonial laws, which were to be kept up to the full promulgation of the Gospel, so that the Church might more easily coalesce from Jews and Gentiles. A tradition is universal that is handed on to be kept by the whole Church, such as is the observation of Easter, of Pentecost, and the like great feasts, as Blessed Augustine teaches in epist.118. A tradition is particular that is handed to only one or several Churches, such as in the time of Augustine was the fast of the Sabbath, which Peter handed on to the Roman Church, and it was kept by it alone and by certain others, as Augustine teaches epist.86 to Casulanus. A tradition is necessary that is handed on in the form of a precept, as the celebration of Easter on the Lord’s day after the fourteenth moon of March. A tradition is free that is handed on in the form of a counsel, as the sprinkling of lustral water and the like.

Chapter Three: the State of the Question is Explained, and certain Falsehoods of the Adversaries are Uncovered 

The controversy, then, between us and the heretics consists in two things. The first is that we assert that in the Scriptures is not expressly contained the whole doctrine necessary either about faith or about morals; and therefore besides the written word of God there is also required the unwritten word of God, that is, divine and Apostolic traditions. But they teach that in the Scriptures is contained everything necessary for faith and morals, and that therefore there is no need for any unwritten word. Luther in his commentary on Galatians ch.1 says, “Nor ought any other doctrine to be handed on or heard in the Church than the pure word of God, that is, the holy Scriptures. Let the doctors or other hearers with their doctrine be anathema.” John Brentius in his Prolegomena, the chapter about traditions, says, “The Apostle clearly signifies that no tradition contrary to or in addition to the testimonies of Scripture is to be acknowledged as dogma, and necessary for salvation.” John Calvin Institutes bk.4 ch.8 sect.8, says, “Let this axiom, then, be firm, that nothing else is to be held as the word of God, to which place is given in the Church, than what is contained first in the law and the Prophets, and then in the Apostolic writings.” Martin Chemnitz in his Examination of the Council of Trent sess.4 very often repeats that this is the state of the question, whether the Scriptures contain all the dogmas necessary for faith, and he affirms it and we deny it. The second point is that we disagree with what they judge, that the Apostles did indeed institute certain things besides Scripture that pertain to the rites and 175 order of the Church, but that these are not necessary nor precepts but free. Now that nothing pertaining to faith or morals was handed on besides the Scriptures is clearly taught by Chemnitz when he deals with the seventh kind of traditions, and by Calvin Institutes bk.4 ch.10 sect.20. But we recognize Apostolic traditions of all the kinds, as we expounded above. The third point is that we disagree with what they think, that the Apostolic traditions, if there ever were any, are not now extant, that is, no Apostolic tradition can be certainly demonstrated. So Chemnitz in the same place says, “By no certain and firm documents can it be proved what rites were certainly handed on by the Apostles that cannot be shown from the Scriptures.” We on the contrary affirm that definite ways and reasons are not lacking by which the Apostolic traditions can be shown. Now before I come to proof, let me say a few things in the accustomed way about their contradictions and falsehoods. Brentius and Chemnitz in the places noted openly say that nothing can be equated with the sacred Scriptures. Brentius speaks as follows, “Not content with the divinely commended and confirmed Scripture, they boast that the Apostles handed on to posterity many things in speech that do not have a lesser authority than what they entrusted to writing.” But Chemnitz says, “It is a signal audacity to equate anything to the majesty and authority of canonical Scripture.” But the same confess that the Apostles did hand on something besides the Scriptures. Brentius in the same place speaks thus, “One should not nor can one deny both that Christ said and did many things and that the Apostles handed on and instituted many things that are not included in their writings.” And Chemnitz says, “That the Apostles therefore ordained and handed on certain rites to the Churches is certainly clear from their writings, and it is likely that certain other external rites were handed on by the Apostles that are not noted in the Scriptures.” But now, if there is no less authority in the mouth of an Apostle giving command than in entrusting it to writing, certainly it is not audacity to equate something unwritten to the written word. For we can at least equate the ordination of an external rite handed on by the Apostles with a like ordination entrusted to writing. For they themselves confess that the Apostles ordained something in both ways. Why then do they clamor that it is a signal audacity to equate anything with the written word? Now let us come to the lies. It is common to Calvin, Brentius, and Chemnitz to repeat rather often that we want all rites of the Church to be Apostolic tradition without any discrimination. Calvin Institutes bk.4 ch.10 sect.19 says, “The Roman masters wish to twist out that there is no rite among them which is not to be reckoned for Apostolic.” Yet we do not say this, but that those only we receive for Apostolic that we can by the firm testimonies of the ancients prove to be Apostolic. Next it is common to the same to act as if they themselves defend the Scriptures alone and we the traditions alone, and as if we do not care whether the traditions are according to Scripture or against it; but it is not so; for we value Scripture more than they do, nor do we admit any tradition against Scripture. But the lies of Chemnitz need to be numbered one by one. In his Examination, then, published in the year of salvation 1564, at sess.4 pp.68-69, he says that we assert that God established that the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles would not be 176 written in books but only handed on viva voce, and he himself later asserts, p.185, that the Apostles had a mandate to write. But whether it is a lie or the truth is in open view. For no Catholic ever taught that God established that the New Testament would not be written, or let Chemnitz produce the author who said this. For thus the Evangelists and Apostles, in our opinion, would by writing have very gravely sinned; but we only say that the New Testament should be principally written in the heart, and do not necessarily demand that it be written in books. False too is it to say that God commanded the Apostles to write. For we read in Matthew last chapter a mandate to preach the Gospel; but that they should write we never read. Therefore God did not expressly command them to write, nor not to write. However we do not deny but that by the will and inspiration of God the Apostles wrote what they wrote. For it is one thing to do something when God suggests and inspires, and another to do so when he openly prescribes. And in this way is Augustine to be understood on the Harmony of the Evangelists bk.1 last chapter, where he speaks thus, that whatever God wished us to read about his deeds and words, this he commanded them to write as it were by their own hands. For he is speaking of an internal command by which Christ invisibly moves them, as the head the members, to various actions, which command should be reckoned a certain suggestion and inspiration rather than as a precept properly so called. Nor is it an obstacle that in the Apocalypse we sometimes read, “Write what you see.” For John is commanded to write certain arcane visions, not the doctrine of the Gospel and precepts of morals, which is what we are dealing with. Next, at the end of his disputation on traditions, p.420, he says as follows, “Lastly the reader will be much warned also by this observation, that the Pontificists do not fear to refer to the traditions of the Apostles many things which can be shown from the very writings of the Pontificists themselves to have been instituted and perfected by much later authors, etc.” And he proves this with eleven examples, none of which is lacking in falsehood. The first is where he says that Innocent III, ch. ‘Cum Matthae, extra on the celebration of Masses, wrote that there are indeed more words in the consecration of the chalice than the Lord said in the Gospel, but yet they are got from Apostolic tradition. “However,” says Chemnitz, “the Pontificist writers have noted by which Roman Pontiffs those words were added.” The thing is a lie. For Catholic writers did indeed note in the rest of the canon which Pontiff added what; but in the words of consecration no one is found to have added anything; nor is there anyone who has contradicted Innocent on this matter. The second lie. “If anyone,” he says, “shows he even doubts that the whole canon of the mass is from Apostolic tradition, he is struck with an anathema.” It is a lie. For since in the mass there is commemoration of many saints, some of whom lived 200 years after the Apostles, who can doubt that the whole canon is not from Apostolic tradition? Or let Chemnitz say openly where he has read what he so brazenly affirms. We assert, then, that not the whole canon but the sum and principal part is from Apostolic tradition, to which afterwards something was added by the Supreme Pontiffs. The third lie. “Alexander,” he says, “ruled that water should be mixed with wine in the celebration of the Eucharist. He also instituted blessed water and salt. 177 Therefore these rites are falsely referred to the tradition of the Apostles.” A lie. For hear the words of Alexander in epist.1. He says, “Having rejected the opinions of the superstitious, let bread only and wine mixed with water be offered in the sacrifice. For (as we have received from the Fathers and as reason itself teaches) wine or water alone should not be offered in the chalice of the Lord.” Therefore what Cyprian bk2 epist.2 says is true, that this is a divine tradition. For Alexander sufficiently openly indicates that this use did not begin with himself, since he says he received it from the Fathers. About blessed water too he does not say that he first ordered it to be blessed, but indicates that he is doing what is of ancient custom. For thus does he speak. “We bless,” he says, “water sprinkled with salt on the people, etc.” Therefore rightly is it said to be an Apostolic tradition by Clement Apostolic Constitutions bk.8 ch.35, and by Blessed Basil on the Holy Spirit ch.27. The fourth is, “Telesphorus instituted the forty day Lenten fast.” A lie. For Telesphorus does not say in his epistle that he instituted the forty days, but only that clerics would add three days to the accustomed fast of all Christians, that is, they would begin to abstain from meat on the Sunday of Lent. “You know,” he says, “that it was ruled by us and by all the Bishops gathered in this holy and Apostolic See that for seven full weeks before the holy Pasch all clerics should fast from meat.” To these words does very well cohere what Jerome says in his epistle to Marcella about the errors of Montanus, that the forty day fast was instituted by the Apostles in unwritten tradition. The fifth lie. “Hyginus,” he says, “instituted the chrism.” A lie without any foundation. For nothing about chrism is found in the epistles of Hyginus; nor is there extant among others any such decree, save that Gratian on consecration dist.4 canon ‘in the catechism’ asserts a certain decree of Hyginus by which he established that it can be one and the same person who sponsors the baptized and the confirmed, that is, the patron, although it is better if they are different. Therefore rightly is it said by Pope Fabian in epist.2 that the chrism is to be renewed each individual year, because such was what the Apostles established. The sixth is that “Calixtus established the fasts of the four times, so it is false that they are from Apostolic tradition.” It is a lie that Calixtus instituted the fasts of the four times, for he himself in epist.1 says that he only added one fast to the three that were there before. Wherefore what Leo says in serm.2 about the fast of Pentecost and in serm.8 about the fast of the seventh month, that these fasts are from Apostolic tradition, does not conflict with the decree of Calixtus. The seventh is that “Sylvester invented the confirmation of children.” A most impudent lie. For nothing such is ever read about Sylvester, and decrees are found from Pontiffs long before Sylvester, on consecration dist.4 canon ‘In the catechism’, and canon ‘not many’, and dist.5 can.1 ff., where not the sacrament itself but certain rites concerning its administration are established. The eighth is that “Felix established the consecration of altars.” And this is a lie. For it is clear that Sylvester was the author of this rite. Chemnitz seems to have been deceived by the first epistle of Felix IV, where many things are disputed about the consecration of altars, but nothing new is there instituted but the ancient rites are merely explained. 178 The ninth is that “Felix IV established that the sick should be anointed before death.” A solemn lie. For in Mark ch.6 the Apostles anointed the sick with oil. And James ch.5 prescribes that priests should anoint the sick with oil. And Innocent I, a hundred years older than Felix IV, in epist.1 which is addressed to Decentius ch.8, says that the anointing of the sick is a sacrament of the Church. The tenth is that “Syricius added the memory and invocation of saints in the mass.” And this is a lie. For Cyril of Jerusalem, older than Syricius, in Catechism 5 ‘Mystagogy’ says, “When we offer the sacrifice we make mention of those who before us have fallen asleep, first of Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that by their prayers God would take up our prayers etc.” And likewise in the liturgy of Basil, who was older than Syricius, we see that there was memory and invocation of the saints. The eleventh is that “Pelagius added to the mass annual memorials of the dead.” And this is a lie. For Tertullian, far older than Pope Pelagius, in his book on Monogamy, makes mention of an annual oblation for the dead, and in his book on the Crown of the Soldier says that prayers for the dead descend from Apostolic tradition. To these we add a twelfth lie from the book which he inscribes, Principal Chapters of the Theology of the Jesuits. “You will, reader,” says Chemnitz, “note in this place the difference the Jesuits make between the written traditions of the Apostles and those they themselves make up under the name of the Apostles. The written ones they say are arbitrary, the made up ones they say are obligatory under peril of salvation.” This so signal lie is collected by Chemnitz from the fact that the doctors of Cologne in their book Against the Catechism of Monhemius had written that the verse, “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,” I Corinthians ch.11, does not signify ‘I commanded you’ but ‘I taught you’, and thence they deduced that from this place is not collected that laymen are obligated to use of the chalice in the sacrament of the altar. But if the “I handed on to you” does not signify ‘I taught’ but ‘I commanded’ what I ask is the sense? What does this mean, “I commanded you that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread etc.” Surely here a history is being narrated not a law being laid down? Therefore the Jesuits do not say that written traditions do not obligate, but that they obligate in diverse ways. When the tradition is about a doctrine of the faith or a thing done, it obliges to belief, not action, as the tradition about the death of Christ. But when it is about precepts of morals it obligates to action, which same thing must be understood of things that are unwritten.

Chapter Four: the Necessity for Traditions is Shown

Now, in order to come to the proof, we will try to demonstrate three things. First that the Scriptures are neither simply necessary nor sufficient without traditions. Second that Apostolic traditions are found not only about morals but also about faith. Lastly, how we can be certain about true traditions. I prove the first from the various ages of the Church. For from Adam up to Moses some Church of God existed in the world, men were worshipping God with faith, hope, and love, and with external rites, as is plain from Genesis where are introduced Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Melchizedek and other just 179 men, and from Augustine City of God bk.11ff., where he brings the city of God from the beginning of the world to its end; but there was no divine Scripture before Moses, as is plain, both because, by the consent of all, Moses was the first sacred writer, and because in Genesis no mention is made of written doctrine but only of doctrine handed down, Genesis ch.18, God says, “I know that Abraham will command his sons and his house after him to keep the way of the Lord.” So, for 2,000 years religion was kept by tradition alone; therefore Scripture is not simply necessary. For in the way the ancient religion could be kept without Scripture for 2,000 years, so could the doctrine of Christ be kept without Scripture for 1,500 years. Next, from Moses up to Christ for another 2,000 years there did exist Scriptures indeed but they were only of the Jews, but the rest of the nations, among whom too there was with some the true religion and faith, used only unwritten tradition. For that, besides the Jews, many others pertained to the Church is plain from Job and his friends. Again from Augustine, who constantly asserts this, Original Sin bk.2 ch.24 and the Predestination of Saints bk1 ch.9 and City of God bk.18 ch.47. And in the people of God, although Scriptures existed, yet the Jews used tradition more than Scripture, as is plain from Exodus ch.13, “You will tell your son in that day, saying this is what the Lord has done etc.,” Deuteronomy ch.32, “Ask your father and he will tell you, your seniors, and they will speak to you,” Job ch.8, “Ask the ancient generation and diligently examine the memory of your fathers,” Judges ch.6, “Where are the marvels that our fathers told us?” Psalm 43, “God, we have heard with our ears, our fathers have told us the work you did, etc.” Psalm 77, “How much he commanded our fathers, make it known to their sons, so that the next generation may know, the sons who will be born and will arise, and they will tell it to their sons.” Ecclesiasticus ch.8, “Let not the telling of your fathers pass you by, for they themselves learnt it from their fathers.” And yet Ecclesiasticus was among the last books of the Old Testament. Now the reason that the Hebrews used tradition more than Scripture seems to have been because, up to the times of Ezra, the Scriptures were not reduced to the form of books so as to be able easily and conveniently to be possessed, but were dispersed in various annals and papers, and sometimes, by the negligence of the priests, they were for a long time not found, as is plain from IV Kings ch.22, where is narrated as something new that in the days of Josiah one volume of the law of the Lord was found in the temple. But Ezra collected everything after the captivity and reduced it at the same time to one body, adding in Deuteronomy the final chapter about the life of Moses, and certain other things from then to the continuation of the history. About which see Theodoret in his preface to the Psalms, Bede on I Ezra ch.9, and Peter Antonius Beuter in his ninth note on sacred Scripture. Further, from the advent of Christ for many years the Church existed without Scriptures, so that still in his own time Irenaeus writes bk.3 ch.4 that there were some Christian nations that lived very well by traditions alone without Scripture. Therefore from this deduction it sufficiently appears that the Scriptures are not simply necessary. But what Chrysostom says Homil.1 on Matthew, that the Scriptures were not necessary for the Patriarchs and Apostles, though for us, because of the corruption of men, they are necessary, is understood of necessity not 180 simply but for well being, that is, for utility. For in other respects there were many wicked even in the time of the Patriarchs and Apostles. But that the Scriptures do not so contain everything that they themselves suffice without other tradition I prove first because either the whole canon of the Scriptures taken together is sufficient, or the individual books are per se sufficient. It cannot be said that the individual books are sufficient, for then would be false what Chemnitz says, that the use of tradition existed in the Church up to the completion of the whole canon of Scripture. Besides we see that the individual Evangelists do not contain everything. For John wrote nothing of the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Circumcision, the Transfiguration of the Lord, and many other things. The same can be said of the others. Again, if one book sufficiently contains everything, what need was there for so many books? Finally they themselves openly say that the whole canon is necessary so that sufficient doctrine may be had. But neither can that be truly affirmed. For many books truly sacred and canonical have perished, therefore we do not have nor have we had for 1,500 years a sufficient doctrine, if the whole doctrine is located in the Scriptures. For that many books have perished from the Old Testament is taught by Chrysostom Homil.9 on Matthew on the verse, ‘he will be called a Nazarene,’ who says “Many things have perished from the Prophetic memorials, which it is possible to prove from the history of Chronicles. For since the Jews were slothful, and not only slothful but also impious, some things indeed they lost through negligence, but others they at times burnt, at times cut up.” He teaches the same in Homil.7 on I Corinthians; nor can it be replied that everything which perished was repaired by Ezra; for Chrysostom means to prove that now not all the prophecies of the Prophets are extant, and he proves it because the Jews lost many things. Besides, Ezra did not repair the lost books but emended and collected those that were extant, I Chronicles last chapter, “But the earlier deeds of David,” he says, “and the latest are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the volume of Caiad the seer.” And in II Chronicles ch.9, “But the rest of the works of Solomon are in the words of Nathan the Prophet, and in the books of Abia Silonitis, in the vision also of Addo the seer.” And in III Kings ch.4, “Solomon spoke 3,000 parables and his songs were 5,000.” Where then are they all? From the New Testament the epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans has certainly perished, of which he himself makes mention in Colossians last chapter, and perhaps another to the Corinthians, of which there seems to be mention in I Corinthians ch.5, in the words “I wrote to you in an epistle.” And it is very possible that some others have perished. Therefore let the heretics see whence they will restore so signal a loss. Second, this same thing is proved from the distinction between the preaching and the writing of the Apostles. For if the proposal had been made to Christ and the Apostles to limit and restrict the word of God to written form, then in the first place Christ would have prescribed a thing of so great moment, and the Apostles would somewhere testify that they were writing from commandment of the Lord, in the way they taught in the whole world from the commandment of the Lord. But we nowhere read of this. Next, to preach viva voce the Apostles did not wait for an offered occasion or necessity, but proceeded of their own accord and by their own 181 purpose; but to writing they did not apply their mind unless compelled by some necessity. Matthew, says Eusebius Hist. bk.3 ch.24, or ch.18 in another edition, wrote on the occasion of the fact that, since he had preached to the Hebrews and was preparing to go to the Gentiles, he judge it useful to leave to those he was abandoning in body some memorial of his doctrine. Mark, as the same Eusebius reports Hist. bk.2 h.15, neither on his own accord nor as commanded by Peter (whose disciple he was) but as compelled by the prayers of the Romans wrote his Gospel. Luke, as the same Eusebius hands on Hist. bk.3 ch.24, wrote only for this reason, that he saw that many others had presumed to commit to letters what they did not perfectly know, so as surely to remove us from the uncertain narratives of others. John, writes the same Eusebius in the same place, preached the Gospel to extreme old age without any Scripture, and Jerome adds in his book on Ecclesiastical Writers that he was at length compelled by the Bishops of Asia to write his Gospel because of the heresy of the Ebionites then rising up. Therefore if the heresy of the Ebionites had not existed, we would perhaps not have the Gospel of John, just as neither the other three if the aforesaid occasions had not been offered. For rightly does Eusebius write in the place noted that only two of the twelve Apostles wrote a Gospel, and they were prompted to this by some necessity. From which is manifestly collected that the Apostles with their primary intention thought not about writing but about preaching the Gospel. Besides, if they had wanted expressly to consign their doctrine to letters, they would certainly have written a catechism or a like book. But they wrote either a history, as the Evangelists, or epistles on some occasion, as did Peter, Paul, James, Judas, John, and in this they handled disputes about dogmas only by the by. Lastly, either the individual Apostles would have produced a written Evangelical doctrine, since they each had care of some province, or certainly, gathered all together before they departed to their provinces, they would have produced some common book, as is plain that they commonly composed a Creed, which however they did not write down but handed on only viva voce, as is taught by Blessed Irenaeus bk.3 ch.4 and by Blessed Jerome in epistle to Pammachius against the errors of John of Jerusalem, and by Blessed Augustine in his book on Faith and Works ch.9, and by Blessed Ambrose epist.81 to Syricius, and by Blessed Leo in epist.13 to Pulcheria, and by Ruffinus and Blessed Maximus in their exposition of the Creed. It is proved third from the many things that cannot be left unknown and yet are not contained in the Scriptures. And first, in the time of the Old Testament without doubt women had no less than men some remedy whereby to be purged from original sin, and yet for men there was instituted circumcision, according to the opinion of many, but what there was for the women is nowhere contained in Scripture. Next, at the same time it is not in any way credible that there was no remedy for males dying before the eighth day, on which alone they could be circumcised, and yet there is nothing extant on this matter in Scripture. Third, many Gentiles were able to be saved and were saved in the time of the Old Testament, and they truly belonged to the Church, as we showed above, and yet 182 altogether nothing is contained in Scripture about their justification from original sin and from other sins. Fourth, it is necessary to know that some books truly divine are extant, which certainly can in no way be got from the Scriptures. For even if the Scripture says that the books of the Prophets and the Apostles are divine, yet I do not certainly believe that unless I have first believed that the Scripture which says this is divine. For even in the Koran of Mohammed we read everywhere that the Koran was sent from heaven by God, and yet we do not believe it. Therefore this very necessary dogma, namely that some Scripture is divine, cannot be sufficiently got from Scripture alone. Therefore since faith rests on the word of God, unless we have an unwritten word of God we will have no faith. Fifth, it is no enough to know that Scripture is divine, but one must know which it is. This can in no way be got from the Scriptures. For how do we collect from Scripture that the Gospels of Mark and Luke are true but the Gospels of Thomas and Bartholomew are false? For reason dictates that one should rather believe a book bearing the name of an Apostle than of a non-Apostle. And whence would I gather that the epistle to the Romans is truly of Paul, but the epistle to the Laodiceans, which now circulates, is not of Paul? Since each bears the title of Paul, and since Paul in Colossians last chapter says he wrote to the Laodiceans but he never says he wrote to the Romans? Sixth, one must also not only know which are the sacred books but also in particular that the ones now in our hands are those books. For it is not enough to believe that the Gospel of Mark is true and that the Gospel of Thomas is not true, but one must also believe that this Gospel, which is now read in the name of Mark, is the true and uncorrupt Gospel that Mark wrote, which certainly cannot be got from the Scriptures. For how would I collect from the Scripture that this Gospel is not spurious, as the Mohammedans say, or certainly not wholly distorted, as the Manichees once said and as the Anabaptists now say? To these three things Calvin responds Institutes bk.1 ch.7 sects.1-2 that the sacred Scriptures are discriminated from the non sacred per se, as light from darkness, sweet from bitter. But on the contrary, for if it were so, why would Luther judge the epistle of James to be straw and Calvin to be Apostolic? Therefore Calvin adds in the same place sect.4 that this difference of Scriptures is not evident to all but only to those who have the spirit. For even the blind do not discriminate light from darkness. But on the contrary, for Calvin in the same place ch.9 sect.1 contends that the Apostles and the faithful of the first Church had the true spirit; but they judged the book of Wisdom to be sacred, as Augustine testifies, On Predestination ch.14, which book Calvin however, who also boasts of the spirit, maintains is profane. Besides the ancients testify with one voice that from nowhere else do we have it that the Scripture is divine and which are the sacred books than from unwritten tradition. Thus in Eusebius Hist. bk.6 ch.10 Serapion rejected certain things falsely ascribed to Peter, because he had accepted from tradition that Peter wrote nothing of the sort. And in ch.11 Clement of Alexandria, according to the tradition commended to him by his elders, teaches which are the true Gospels. And in ch.18 Origen says, “From tradition I have learnt about four Gospels, because these 183 alone etc.” Basil too in his book on the Holy Spirit ch.27 says that if the unwritten traditions are neglected the Gospel too would suffer great loss. Finally, Augustine in his book Against Fundamentus clearly says that he would not believe the Gospel unless the Church commanded it. But Calvin objects that the foundation of the Church is the Scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets, Ephesians ch.2, so he will not believe that the Scriptures are divine from the tradition of the Church, because then the foundation of Scripture would be the Church. I reply that the Apostle does not say that the writings of the Apostles and the Prophets are the foundation, but that the Apostles and the Prophets are. But they not only wrote but also handed on by mouth, and taught that they had written. And thus from the word of the Apostles that is unwritten and handed on to us by the Church we know that there is a written word of the Apostles. But of these things we spoke in the previous book. Brentius therefore in his Prolegomena, not finding a way out, confesses that this one and only unwritten tradition is to be received. And Chemnitz teaches the same when treating of the second kind of traditions in his Examination of the Council of Trent. But if so it is, then Scripture alone is not sufficient, as they themselves so often and so earnestly teach. For if Scripture were deprived of this unwritten tradition and the attestation of the Church it would profit little. Besides if this tradition could have come down to us, why could not other traditions also have come down to us in the same way? Lastly, either this tradition is the word of God or it is not; if it is not, then we do not have faith, for faith rests on the word of God; if it is, why then do they clamor that there is no word of God save a written one? Seventh it is necessary not only to be able to read Scripture but also to understand it. But very often Scripture is ambiguous and perplexing, so that unless it is explained by someone who cannot err it cannot be understood; therefore it alone does not suffice. And there are many examples; for the equality of the divine persons, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one principle, the sin of origin, the descent of Christ into hell, and many like things are indeed deduced from the sacred letters but not so easily that, if one should fight with the testimonies of Scripture alone, strife with the perverse would never end. For one must note that there are two things in Scripture, written words and the sense contained in them; the words are as it were the scabbard, the sense itself is the sword of the spirit. Of these two the first is possessed by all; for whoever knows letters can read the Scriptures; but the second is not possessed by al, nor can we in many places be certain about the second unless tradition is added. And this perhaps is what Basil wanted to say in his Holy Spirit ch.27, when he says that without unwritten traditions the Gospel is a mere name, that is, only words without sense. Eighth one must believe that Blessed Mary was always a Virgin, against the error of Helvidius, as the whole Church has always believed, and yet there is no testimony about this in Scripture. Ninth one must believe that in the New Testament the Pasch is to be celebrated on the Lord’s day; for the Quartodecimans were held to be heretics by the ancient Church; and yet altogether nothing exists in the Scriptures about this. The same can be said of many other things. 184 Tenth one must believe, and the Lutherans and Calvinist believe with us, against the Anabaptists, that the baptism of infants is approved. But neither do Catholics prove this from the Scriptures alone, nor can the Lutherans in any way prove it. For they reckon that baptism without one’s own actual faith has no value, and therefore they believe that when infants are baptized they actually believe, which not only does Luther teach on Galatians ch.3 and Chemnitz in his Examination of the Council of Trent sess.7, but the general Synod of Lutherans held at Wittemberg defined it. But in no way can it be proved from the Scriptures. For where, I ask, does Scripture indicate that infants use reason, before the use of reason, when they are baptized? Hence, surely, the Anabaptists reduce the Lutherans to remarkable difficulties and compel them, willy nilly, to have recourse to tradition and the use of the Church. Eleventh Luther believes that there is a purgatory. For thus does he say in his assertions art.37, “I however also believe there is a purgatory, and I advice and persuade that it be believed.” And yet in that article he asserts that purgatory cannot be proved from the sacred letters. Finally all the heretics of this time believe that there is only a written word of God; but this certainly is nowhere found in the whole of Scripture. For what they especially are accustomed to bring from Deuteronomy ch.4, “You will not add to the word which I speak to you, nor will you take away from it,” helps them nothing; for Moses does not say from the written word, but from the word, which I speak. 

Chapter Five: That there are True Traditions is Demonstrated from the Scriptures 

We have hitherto demonstrated that the Scriptures without traditions were not altogether necessary nor sufficient; now we will show what I proposed in the second place, namely that there are some true traditions. And first it can be collected from what we said. For if Scripture does not contain everything and tradition is necessary, it follows that there is some tradition, otherwise God would not have provided well for the Church. Second, it is proved by the testimonies of the Scriptures. The first is John ch.16, “I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” And John last chapter, “But there are many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written down individually I do not think the world itself could contain the books that should be written.” Therefore it is clear that the Lord did and said many things which are not written. For the books which are extant can be grasped in one hand; but John says that the whole world cannot contain the books which should be written. And in addition the things which the Lord promised he would say, John ch.16, he said without doubt after his resurrection, as Luke testifies Acts ch.1, “Appearing to them for forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.” But about the deeds and words of the Lord after his resurrection the Evangelists wrote very little. But it is in no way credible that the Apostles who saw and heard them did not hand them on to the Churches, for they were neither envious nor forgetful such that they would not wish, or not be able, to say them. The adversaries respond that even if not everything is written that Jesus said or did, yet everything necessary has been written. But this has already been refuted, 185 for many necessary things are not written, and especially about the institution of the sacraments which, without doubt, the Lord handed on in those forty days. The second testimony is I Corinthians ch.11, where Paul treats of two questions, one about the way of praying in the Church, the other about the way of receiving the Eucharist. He begins the first from tradition, “I praise you,” he says, “because in all things you are mindful of me, and you hold my precepts as I handed them on to you.” For these precepts about the way of praying, of receiving the Eucharist, are nowhere found written down. And Chrysostom and Theophylact openly note on this place that the Apostle is speaking of unwritten precepts; Epiphanius too, Heresy 61, which is that of the Apostolici, and Basil in his book on the Holy Spirit ch.29 and Damascene bk.4 ch.17. Next, because there was still something lacking to the precepts handed on, Paul adds, so that they may keep this, that men should pray in Church with uncovered head, women with covered head. And to show that much is to be attributed to the tradition and custom of the Church, even without being written down, he concludes, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we do not have such a custom, nor the Church of God.” Therefore he wishes the contentious to be held back from the custom of the Church. The other question too he begins from tradition, “For I,” he says, “received from the Lord what I also handed on to you.” And he concludes, “The rest I will dispose when I come.” But what he disposed is found nowhere written down. Now Catholics rightly think that he not only disposed what concerned rites and ceremonies, but also handed on other graver matters, as about the ordination of ministers, about the sacrifice of the altar, about the form and matter of the other sacraments; nor can heretics in any way show the contrary. The third testimony is from II Thessalonians ch.2, “Therefore, brothers, hold the traditions which you have received, whether by speech or by our letter.” To this place Chemnitz and Hermann respond in two ways. First they say that the Apostle handed on the same things first in speech and then by letter, and therefore he is not speaking of unwritten tradition. But the exposition is ridiculous. First, because the disjunctive particle ‘or’ openly indicates that the things he handed on and the things that he wrote were different. Second, because if it were so, one epistle to the Thessalonians should contain the whole doctrine which the Apostle preached to them. But without doubt he preached the whole Gospel fully to them, as is also collected from chs.1 and 2 of the first epistle; therefore the epistle ought to contain the whole Gospel; but it does not contain the hundredth part, as is plain. They respond second that the Apostle is here speaking of speech which he had pronounced orally, and which he himself had not written, but which was then written, or was afterwards written, by the Evangelists. For the Apostle, as they say, taught altogether nothing that was not somewhere written in the New Testament. To this solution Brentius subscribes in his Prolegomena. But to the contrary. For first in this chapter the Apostle says that he preached to them about Antichrist, and besides other things taught them when he was to come. “And now,” he says, “what detains him you know.” And, “Surely you recall, that when I was with you, I told you these things?” But this is nowhere written, namely when Antichrist will come. Wherefore Blessed Augustine City of God bk.20 ch.10 says that they knew what the Apostle had taught viva voce, but we cannot know who did not hear the Apostle; 186 therefore not everything was written down that the Apostle said. Besides, whether what the Apostle had taught was written later or not does not matter much as far as the argument is concerned that we are collecting from this place. For the Apostle does not promise that he or another will write what he had handed on orally, but simply prescribed that they observe no less what they had received without writing than what they had received by letter. And in this way did the ancients understand this place. Basil in his book on the Holy Spirit ch.29 says, “I think it is Apostolic to persevere also in unwritten traditions. I praise you,” he says, “because you have remembered me in all things, and you hold the traditions the way I handed them on to you.” And, “Hold the traditions which you have received whether through speech or by letter.” Chrysostom on this place says, “Hence it is plain that they did not hand on everything by letters, but many things also without letters. But these as well as those are worthy of the same faith.” Oecumenius and Theophylact use the same words in this place, to whom add Damascene bk.4 ch.17, who says, “Because the Apostles handed on many things without writing, Paul writes, ‘Therefore, brothers, stand and hold the traditions, which you have learnt whether by speech or by letter’.” In the same way does the eighth general Synod expound, final act can.1. To these five Fathers, who expressively expound this place for us, Hermann opposes five others, Jerome, Ambrose, Primasius, Theodoret, and Anselm on this place, whom he says have expounded contrariwise to us. But I reply that those commentaries inscribed with the name of Jerome are not of Jerome but of the heretic Pelagius, as Blessed Augustine teaches On Merit and Remission of Sin bk.3 chs.1, 5, 12, and the very words of the commentary in Romans chs.5-9 cry out that their author is Pelagius. Next, neither is Pelagius against us in this matter, for he says, “When he wants his own sayings to be kept, he does not want extraneous things added; but the Apostolic tradition is that by which the sacraments of baptism are preached in the whole world.” What here is against us? For we admit that extraneous things, that is, foreign and spurious comments of false Apostles, are not to be added to the true dogmas of the Apostles. For that is why Pelagius said that the sacraments of baptism are Apostolic tradition, not the sacrament of baptism is, because he knew that there are many mysteries concerning baptism that are kept in the Church from the unwritten tradition of the Apostles, as exorcism, exsufflation, unction, etc. Primasius too is for us, for in the first place he puts as it were literally the exposition of Pelagius, about which we have already spoken, and he adds that the Apostle is not only speaking of the sacraments of baptism but also of the traditions that are observed in the whole world and are for that reason recognized to be Apostolic. Hermann thinks that he is speaking of the written Gospel, because it is kept in the whole world; but he should have noticed that also many unwritten things are kept in the whole world, as the feast of the Nativity, of Easter, of the Ascension, of Pentecost, as Augustine teaches in epist.118. Besides, when Primasius says that the Apostle is speaking of the traditions that are recognized to be Apostolic because they are kept in the whole world, without doubt he is speaking of unwritten traditions. For he himself, since he was a disciple of Augustine, knew that the rule of 187 Augustine was in the same epist.118, that what is kept in the whole world, even if it is not written, is kept by Apostolic tradition. Neither is Ambrose against us or for us, for he only says that the Apostle is advising us in this place to persevere in the doctrine of the Gospel. But he says nothing about what is written or unwritten. Anselm rather is for us, for thus does he expound, “Hold in your heart and works the traditions which you have learnt, whether by our speech when we were present or by letter which we sent you when absent.” What here is against us? What is not rather for us? Finally Theodoret too I reckon is for us. He speaks thus, “You have,” he says, “a rule of faith, our speeches, which we preached to you and wrote in our epistle.” This place Hermann says makes for him, because Theodoret seems to indicate that the Apostle wrote the same words that he had preached before; but Hermann says this falsely. For the words of Theodoret can also be understood of different words, in this way: you have as rule of faith our speeches, both those which we preached and those which we wrote in our epistle. That this sense is more to the mind of Theodoret is plain, both because it is more conform to the exposition of Chrysostom, which Theodoret is wont everywhere to follow, and also because the first sense is false, since it is certain that not everything that the Apostle preached by mouth was written in the epistle. Our argument from this place of Paul, then, remains in its strength. The fourth testimony is I Timothy last chapter, “O Timothy, guard the deposit.” And from II Timothy ch.1, “You have the form of sound words, which you heard from me. Guard the good deposit through the Holy Spirit, who lives in us.” And ch.2, “You, therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus; and what you heard from me through many witnesses, this commend to faithful men, who will be fitted also to teach others.” In these places by the name of deposit cannot be understood the Scripture, but the treasure of doctrine, the understanding of divine dogmas, that is, both the sense of the Scriptures and of other dogmas, all which doctrine he wanted to be prolonged through tradition, as is explained by Chrysostom and Theophylact on this place; to which also Irenaeus alludes bk.3 ch.4 when he says, “The Apostles brought all the things of truth into the Church as into a most fully rich depositary.” And bk.4 ch.43, “You must obey,” he says, “the priests of the Church, who have succession from the Apostles, who along with the succession of the Episcopacy have received a sure charism of truth according to the pleasure of the Father.” And it is easily collected from these very words. For if he were speaking of written words, he would not so anxiously commend the deposit. For Scriptures are easily conserved in chests and by copyists; but the Apostle wants it to be kept by the Holy Spirit in the breast of Timothy. And next he would not add, “Commend these to the faithful, who will be fitted also to teach others,” but he would say, ‘commend these to the copyists so that they may transcribe many copies’. Nor would he say, “What you heard from me through many witnesses,” but ‘what I wrote to you’. Therefore not words only but also the sense, and much more the sense than the words, does the Apostle commend to Timothy, and he commands him to pass it on by his hands to his successors. See on this place the advisory of Vincent of Lerins against the profane novelties of words. 188 The last testimony is the second and third epistles of John, “Having much to write to you, I did not wish to do it with parchment and ink, etc.” For from these words we understand that many things were said by John to his disciples, and through his disciples to the universal Church, that yet were not written down. 

Chapter Six: The Same is Shown by the Testimonies of the Pontiffs and the Councils

To the places from Scripture we will add some few testimonies from the ancient holy Pontiffs and Councils. And first St. Fabian, Pope and martyr, in epist.2 to the Bishops of the East, after teaching that the sacred chrism is to be renewed each year, subjoined as follows, “We received this from the holy Apostles and their successors, and we command you to keep it.” So Fabian. And to be sure we read nothing about renewing the chrism in the sacred letters. St. Innocent I in epist.1 to Decentius says, “If the priests of the Lord wish to keep the ecclesiastical institutes as they are handed on by the Apostles, there should be no variety in these orders and consecrations.” So Innocent. Here he is dealing with unwritten traditions, and especially in ch.3 when he teaches that confirmation is also to be conferred on children, and by the Bishop alone and under a certain form of words. And he so testifies that these sort of unwritten traditions are Apostolic that he did not wish even in this letter to write down the form of words. “The words,” he says, “I cannot say, lest I seem to provide more than responds to the consultation.” St. Leo I in his sermon on Lent says, “Let the Apostolic institution of the forty day fast be fulfilled.” And in sermon 2 on the fast of Pentecost, “One must not doubt, most beloved, that every Christian observance of education is divine, and that whatever has been received by the Church as a custom of devotion proceeds from Apostolic tradition and the teaching of the Holy Spirit.” See also sermons 8 and 9 about the fast of the seventh month. Already indeed the most ancient and famous first Council of Nicea condemned from unwritten doctrine the heresy of Arius, as is expressively testified by Theodoret Hist. bk.1 ch.8. For although certain Scriptues could be brought against Arius, yet because Arius also professed the Scriptures, they condemned him from an unwritten doctrine, but one handed down by the hands of the Fathers to their successors in the Church. The second Council of Nicea act.6 vol.4 says, “But that the veneration of images has been handed on to us from the times of the Apostles, along with many other things that are observed in the Church without Scripture, is handed on extensively in the histories.” And act.7 near the end it has the following, “If anyone does not care for the tradition of the Church, whether getting its force from writing or custom, let him be anathema.” The same is found in the eighth General Council act.8. And after the final act can.1, the Fathers profess that they will keep all the traditions, not only Apostolic but also Ecclesiastical. From which it should not seem remarkable to the Lutherans if any other such thing is taught by the Council of Trent sess.4, for it established nothing new. 189 

Chapter Seven: The Same is Proved from the Fathers 

Let now be added the testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers, who teach this truth with incredible agreement. And to begin with the Greeks, Blessed Ignatius in Eusebius Hist. bk.3 ch.16 exhorts everyone to adhere tenaciously to the traditions of the Apostles. “These traditions,” says Eusebius, “he asserts he has left written down by a warning of grace.” So Ignatius. From which it follows that these traditions were not written down by the Apostles. To this testimony Hermann makes no reply save that these writings of Ignatius are not extant. But it is false that they are not extant. For Jerome writes in his book on Illustrious Men that Ignatius wrote an epistle to the Ephesians, the Magnesians, the Trallians, the Romans, the Philadelphians, the Smyrneans, to Polycarp, all of which are now extant, and in them we find the fast of Lent, the minor orders, the Lord’s day, and other things that are not in the Scriptures, and yet Ignatius was without doubt teaching from the Apostles. Dionysius the Areopagite Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ch.1 says, “Our first leaders of the priestly office handed on the sum and more than the sum partly in written and partly in unwritten institutions.” To these and the like things Luther, Calvin and the rest are wont to reply that the books circulated under the name of Dionysius are not from Dionysius. But the works are cited under the name of Dionysius in the sixth, seventh, and eighth General Synod; again by Gregory I in his homily on the 100 sheep, by Martin I in the Council of Rome, and by Agathon in his epistle to the Emperor Constantine; from which the heretics are compelled to admit that this author wrote over 1,000 years ago, and therefore is not to be despised. Hegesippus in Eusebius Hist. bk.4 ch.8 includes the Apostolic traditions in five books, which although now they are not extant, yet this testimony sufficiently indicates that the Apostles did not write down everything they taught. Polycarp in Eusebius Hist. bk.5 ch.20 related the words that he himself heard from the Apostles were said by the Lord, and about his virtues and doctrine. Now Irenaeus, as is said there, describes that what Polycarp handed on was not on paper but in his heart. Here certainly it is a question of unwritten traditions. For if it were a question of written ones, nothing singular would be said of Polycarp or of Irenaeus, for I too can relate the things said by the Lord that are read in the Apostles, nor is there need for me to write them on paper. But Chemnitz nevertheless replies that Eusebius is speaking of traditions that can be proved from the Scriptures. For he says in the same place that everything Polycarp said was consonant with the Scriptures. But Chemnitz is in error. For it is one thing to be consonant with Scripture and another to be able to be proved from Scripture. For every true tradition, nay every truth, is consonant with Scripture, since truth cannot be dissonant with truth, but not every truth can be proved from Scripture. Justin at the end of his second Apology for the Christians first expounded many things about the Christians, and among others some things not written in the divine letters, as that they come together on each Lord’s day and after a reading from the Scriptures and sermons, bread and wine mixed with water are offered and consecrated, and that it is not permitted in any way to partake of the Eucharist until after baptism, and other things; then he at once adds, “On the day after Saturday, 190 which is Sunday, when he had appeared to his Apostles and disciples, he handed these things on to them which we permit also to be considered by you, etc.” And even if Justin did not say that these things were handed on by Christ, yet since Justin was very close to the times of the Apostles, one must believe that in the Church of his time what was handed on by the Apostles was done. For who else can be supposed to be the author? To this place and like ones from Cyprian, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome and others that we will adduce, Hermann and his colleagues reply almost nothing save that they all somewhere erred. But this does not harm us. For even if some Fathers erred in some dogmas, yet they never all agreed in the same error at the same time; therefore, when we show that they all agree in asserting unwritten traditions, we can sufficiently prove that on this point they did not err. Irenaeus bk.2 chs.2-4 says many fine things about traditions, which are however pulled by Brentius and Chemnitz to a different sense of which Irenaeus never thought. Brentius says that Irenaeus is speaking of the tradition of Scripture, that is, of the tradition, whereby we understand the succession of the Fathers, as to which are the true Scriptures. But Irenaeus does not mean this, as his words will teach us bk.3 ch.4. “For what,” he says, “if neither the Scriptures of the Apostles indeed were left to us, should we not follow the order of the tradition that they handed on to us, to whom they committed the Churches? To their ordination the nations of the Barbarians, of those who believe in Christ, assent much, having without letter or ink salvation written by the Holy Spirit in their heart, and diligently keeping the old tradition.” If Irenaeus is speaking of the tradition of Scripture, how did these barbarians, who had no Scriptures, have and diligently keep the tradition? But Chemnitz says that Irenaeus is speaking only of the tradition of those dogmas which are found in the Scriptures and that can be proved through the Scriptures. But this too is false, as the words of the same Irenaeus will teach. For in chs.2-4 he teaches that there is no other way of reaching the truth than by consulting the Churches in which there is a succession of Bishops from the Apostles, and by considering what is taught there and what those Churches say is Apostolic tradition. Irenaeus means therefore that tradition extends further than the Scriptures, and that the sense of difficult Scripture is not had from Scripture but from tradition, so that tradition alone suffices but the Scriptures do not suffice. But all this would be false if tradition contained nothing other than what is evidently collected from the Scriptures, as Chemnitz fancies. After then Irenaeus had said in ch.2 that heretics cannot be convicted from Scripture, and in ch.3 had enumerated the Roman Pontiffs from Peter to Eleutherius, who was then on the See, in order to show that there was in the Church a continued succession of Bishops keeping the Apostolic tradition, he speaks as follows, ch.4: “Since then these proofs are so great, one should not seek still among others for the truth that it is easy to receive from the Church; since the Apostles brought as into a rich depositary all things very fully into the Church that are of truth, so that everyone who wants may receive from it the cup of life. For this life is within, but all the rest are thieves and robbers, because of which it is necessary to avoid them, but to love what is of the Church with great diligence, and to grasp the tradition of truth. For what even if there is disagreement about some little thing, surely one should 191 have recourse to the Churches in which the Apostles are preserved, and to take from them about the present question what is certain and clear in fact? And what if the Apostles had not indeed handed on Scriptures, surely we should follow the order of tradition? Etc.” To which words should be added what is contained in bk.4 ch.43, “Those who have succession from the Apostles have, along with the succession of Bishops, received the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father.” You see how the Apostles handed on to their successors not only Scriptures but the sure charism of truth, that is, the true understanding of the Scriptures and the universal doctrine of the Gospel. Clement of Alexandria in his book on Easter, as it is in Eusebius Hist. bk.6 ch.11, says it was forced from him by the brothers, so that he would describe in his books and hand on to posterity what had been handed on to him viva voce by the priests who were successors of the Apostles. I do not know what more clearly could be said on behalf of traditions. Origen on Romans ch.6 says, “The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to give baptism even to children.” And Homil.5 on Numbers he says, “In Ecclesiastical observances there are some things that everyone must do, but the reason for them is not plain to everyone.” And he enumerates at once many unwritten traditions. Eusebius Demonstration of the Gospel bk.1 ch.8 says, “Besides, Moses wrote his teachings on inanimate tablets, but Christ in the minds of those endowed with the perfect life of the New Testament. But his disciples, on the approval of their master, commended their doctrine to the ears of many, and whatever precepts there were from their perfect master for those who had progressed as it were beyond the habit, these they handed on to those who could grasp them; but the things they thought fitting for those who still bore souls subject to affections and in need of cure, whom they dismissed to the weakness of the many, these things they commended to them to keep partly in writing, partly without writing, as if by a certain unwritten law.” Athanasius in his book on the Decrees of the Nicene Synod against Eusebius says, “Behold, we indeed have shown that this opinion has been handed on by hand from the Fathers to the Fathers. But you, O new Jews and sons of Caiaphas, what ancestors of your names can you show?” Basil in his book on the Holy Spirit, ch.27, says, “The dogmas that are kept and preached in the Church we have partly from written doctrine, partly we have received from the tradition of the Apostles given to us in a mystery; and no one contradicts these who has but a very slight experience with Ecclesiastical rights.” And he immediately enumerates several unwritten traditions; and ch.29 contains similar remarks. Chemnitz replies that what Basil relates is not dogmas of faith or of morals but only certain free rites, as to sign with the sign of the cross, to worship toward the East, to bless water etc. But Chemnitz should remember that he said that no rite can be shown to have been instituted by the Apostles; but here Basil boldly enumerates several instituted by the Apostles. Next, although the observation of some of these three not be necessary for salvation, yet it is necessary for salvation to believe that they are well instituted and not to contemn them; just as many things in the Scriptures are not necessary for salvation, as that a man pray with uncovered 192 head and a woman with a covered one, I Corinthians ch.11, and yet it is necessary for salvation to believe these and not to contemn them. Next, Basil reports not only certain rites but also certain essentials, as confession of faith, that is, the Apostles’ Creed, which we have from tradition, and anointing with oil in the sacrament of confirmation; he mentions also certain other things that, although not of themselves necessary, yet after they have been prescribed are so necessary that to omit them purposely is to sin gravely, as the sign of the cross in the blessing of water, of the Eucharist, of the chrism; also the renunciation of Satan and his pomps in baptism etc. For Augustine says tract.118 on John that without the sign of the cross no sacrament is rightly performed, and the same is taught by Chrysostom in homil.55 on Matthew. But Brentius is more shameless and replies that these opinions of Basil are from the faults and errors of Basil which, for honor of so great a man, should be covered in silence; and he calls us pigs and imitators of Ham who uncover the ugliness of our Fathers. For he does not think one must accept what Basil says, that pedagogical traditions (as he calls them) about the sign of the cross and blessed water have the same force for piety as the dogmas of holy Scripture. But passing over the insults, for it is not our job to return evil for evil, I reply to what Brentius objects, that traditions are most rightly equated with the Scriptures. For as there are in the Scriptures some great commands, as to love God, there are also some minor ones, as not to say an idle word, which do not equally oblige for observance but yet which oblige for faith and veneration. For he is no less a heretic who does not believe or does not venerate the Scripture which says, “They will render account for every idle word in the day of judgment,” than he who does not believe or does not venerate the Scripture which says, “You will love the Lord your God etc.” So also in the case of traditions some are greater and some lesser as to obligation of action, and yet all equally oblige for faith and veneration. And in the same way there are certain traditions that, as to obligation, are greater than some Scriptures, some lesser, some equal, although however all traditions and all Scriptures are equal as to the faith and veneration that is due to them, since they come from the same author God, and come to us through the hands of the same Catholic Church, which is our mother and spouse of Christ. Next, Hermann, not content with what Brentius and Chemnitz had said, adds, “All these things are not Basil’s, but inserted into Basil’s book by some good for nothing fellow.” Which to be sure is a very expeditious response, for thus it is easy to solve all arguments. Hermann brings forward no other proof than the testimony of Erasmus, who seemed to himself to have sniffed out in these chapters some difference of style from the preceding ones. But Blessed John Damascene, much older and more learned, and more versed in the writings of Basil, could sniff out nothing such. For he (to pass over several more recent writers) speaks as follows in orat.1 for sacred images, “Thus does Basil literally say in ch.27 of this book, which he writes about the Holy Spirit in 30 distinct chapters to Amphilochius. ‘The institutes that are kept and preached in the Church are partly from written doctrine, partly from the tradition of the Apostles’.” Gregory Nazianzen in orat.1 against Julian beyond the middle, after he had said that because of the dogmas of the Old and New Testament the doctrine of the 193 Church seemed marvelous to Julian, he immediately adds, “Besides,” he says, “it is greater and more signal because of the figures that we keep as received from tradition up to today, etc.” He explains later that he calls figures of the Church the discipline, the governance, the order of the Church, the reason of singing Psalms, the mode of imposing penance, sacred things in temples, the life of monks and virgins, and many other things which we have from tradition alone. All these things Julian wanted the heathen to imitate, so as in this way to draw Christians more easily to paganism. Chrysostom on II Thessalonians ch.2 says, “It is plain that the Apostles did not hand on everything by epistle, but many things without writing. But the former and the latter are deserving of the same faith.” The same is contained in Theophylact and Oecumenius. Here one must note, since Basil, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius equate the traditions with the Scriptures, what one must think of the censure of Chemnitz, who says, “It is a signal audacity to equate anything with Scripture in authority and majesty.” And everywhere he mocks the Council of Trent which venerates traditions and Scripture with equal affection of piety. The same Chrysostom in hom.69 to the people, and hom.3 on Philippians, says, “Not in vain was it sanctioned by the Apostles that in the celebration of the venerable mysteries memorial should be had of those who have departed hence. They knew that much gain was done them from here, and much utility.” Theophylact bks.1 and 3 on Easter expressively teaches that the law of fasting is Apostolic tradition. Cyril of Jerusalem in his mystagogic catechisms explains almost nothing other than unwritten traditions about baptism and the other sacraments. Epiphanius Heresy 55, which is of Melchisedekians, says, “Limits have been placed for us, and foundations, and a building of faith, and traditions of the Apostles, and sacred Scriptures, and successions of doctrine, and everywhere the truth of God is reinforced; and let no one be deceived by new fables.” Again Heresy 61, which is of the Apostolici, he says, “One must also use tradition, for not everything can be received from divine Scripture. Wherefore the holy Apostles handed on some things in the Scriptures, other things in tradition.” To this the adversaries respond nothing save by blaspheming that Epiphanius was too delighted with traditions and apocryphal fables etc. And among other things Brentius thinks that what Epiphanius said is not to be borne, that it is Apostolic tradition that it is not licit to marry after giving a vow of virginity; since to be sure the first parents of he Lutherans did that, Luther and Catherine. But these things will be refuted elsewhere in their place. From the Latins, Tertullian in the Crown of the Soldier says, “Even in the pretension of tradition there is required, you say, written authority. Therefore let us ask whether unwritten tradition should be accepted. Clearly we will deny it should be accepted if there is no indication already from examples of other observances which without instrument of any Scripture, by title of tradition alone, we thence vindicate for the patrimony of custom.” Then having enumerated the ceremonies of baptism, sign of the cross, annual sacrifices for the dead, and certain others, he adds, “If you require a law of the Scriptures for these and like disciplines, you will find none; tradition is given you as author, custom as confirmer, and faith as observer.” He everywhere teaches tradition should be used, Against Marcion bk.1, on the 194 Veiling of Virgins, on Prescription, where he teaches that heretics are not to be refuted from Scripture but from tradition. What the adversaries respond to these places was already refuted when we dealt with Irenaeus and Basil. Blessed Cyril bk.1 epist.12, “He who is baptized must also be anointed etc.” But it is plain that nothing about chrism is contained in the Scriptures but only in tradition. The same in bk.2 epist.3, “Know that we are advised that in offering the chalice the tradition of the Lord be kept, and that we do nothing other than what the Lord first did for us, that the chalice, which is offered in commemoration of him, be offered mixed with wine.” Chemnitz responds that Cyprian is speaking of written tradition. But it is false, for the Evangelists do not mention water. Hermann says that because it is not written that the Lord put water in the chalice it is better not to put it in; for thus did the Lord do. But since neither is written it is remarkable wherefrom Hermann assumes so much for himself, that he should wish himself rather than Cyprian to be believed. Brentius turns himself to insults, for he says that Cyprian is always excessive in asserting his opinions; and that these things came from him unthinkingly. And Brentius’ reason is that Cyprian seems to prove this rite by an inappropriate reason. For he says: “One must mix water with win because the wine signifies Christ and the water the people of the Church; and when the water is mixed with the wine the Church is joined to Christ, but if wine alone were consecrated then Christ would begin to be without the Church. Which certainly seems ridiculous. For who believes that if one priest did not mix water with wine in the chalice Christ would soon lose the Church?” But Brentius did not notice, or perhaps did not want to notice, that Cyprian is not dealing with real but with signified conjunction or separation of Christ and the Church. For most correctly in the matter of the sacraments we are increased by imperfect signifying. Besides Cyprian does not mean that this rite is observed for this reason in particular, but because the Lord so taught. But the reason is added to show that tradition is conform to reason. Wherefore even if Cyprian had not adduced a fitting reason, it should not therefore be denied that this rite is to be observed or that it was handed on by the Lord. St. Hilary in his book against the Emperor Constantius, about the middle, when the Arian prince objects, “I do not want words that are not written to be read,” replies, “This finally I ask, who commands the Bishops? Who forbids the form of Apostolic preaching? Say first if you think it rightly said, I do not wish to bring new preparations of medicine against new poisons etc.” In which words Hilary indicates two things: one, the preaching of the consubstantiality of Father and Son is of Apostolic preaching, although it is not expressly written that the Son is consubstantial with the Father; the second, that the name ‘consubstantial’ is indeed new but must yet be retained, although it is not written, because it is conform to Apostolic preaching. Hermann distorts this place in his gloss, for he expounds it thus. “This I ask,” he says, “who commands the Bishops, that is, to bring forward something outside Scripture.” But if this is a good gloss then Hilary is agreeing with Constantius; therefore he badly adds, “Say first if you think it rightly said, I do not wish etc.” What of the fact that in almost the whole book he is dealing with this, that the name 195 ‘consubstantial’ should be retained? Hermann would rather have wanted it abolished. St. Ambrose in his book about those who are initiated in the mysteries, chs.2 and 6, and on Sacraments bk.1 chs.1-2, explains the rites that are kept by the whole Church in baptism, which are nowhere found written down in the divine letters, and which others constantly refer to Apostolic authors. In serm.25, 34, and 36 he teaches that Lent was prescribed by Christ. In epist.81 and serm.38 he teaches that the Apostles’ Creed is unwritten Apostolic tradition. Hermann blasphemes much against Ambrose, but in nothing damages our claim. St. Jerome in his epistle to Marcella on the errors of Montanus says, “We fast for one period of forty days by Apostolic tradition at the time fitting for us.” In his Dialogue against the Luciferians, before the middle, when the heretic had said, “Many things that are observed by tradition in the Church have usurped for themselves the authority of written law,” the orthodox respondent says, “I do not indeed deny that this is the custom of the Churches. But what sort of thing is it that you make the laws of the Church to be heresy?” St. Augustine in epist.118, “The things we guard that are not written but handed on, which indeed are kept in the whole world, are given to be understood as commanded and established either by the Apostles themselves to be retained, or by plenary Councils, whose authority is very healthy in the Church; just as that the passion, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord into heaven and the coming of the Holy Spirit from heaven are celebrated in annual solemnities.” To this Hermann responds by chattering much and in the end concluding, “Why, Augustine, do you obtrude on the Church along with the other Fathers traditions from outside Scripture?” Therefore Hermann confesses that Augustine along with the other Fathers recognizes unwritten traditions. Which confession ought certainly to be enough, if he had any sanity, to check his petulancy. But Brentius responds in two ways. First he says that if it is true that this is Apostolic tradition, it should not be accepted as a necessary law but as a free observance. But on the contrary, for Augustine adds in the same place, “But the other things that vary by place of lands or regions etc. they have as free observances.” Here Augustine distinguishes between these necessary Apostolic traditions and free observances. Second Brentius says that Augustine falsely teaches that this feast is from Apostolic tradition, since the Apostle rebukes the Galatians ch.4 for observing days and times. But Augustine responds in epistle 119 ch.7 that the Apostle is censuring those who observed times according to the rules of astrologers. And in his book against Adimantus ch.16 he says that the Apostle is speaking of feasts of the Jews not of Christians. In this way too Jerome and Chrysostom expound, but Ambrose embraces each exposition at the same time. Now the same Augustine in bk.2 on Baptism against the Donatists ch.7 says, “This custom I believe comes from Apostolic tradition, just as many things are not found in their writings nor in the later councils, and yet because they are guarded by the universal Church they are believed to have been handed on and commended only by them.” And bk.4 ch.6, “The custom which even then men, looking backwards, did not see instituted by later people, is rightly believed to have been handed on by the Apostles.” And bk.4 ch.24, “What the universal Church holds and which was not 196 instituted by Councils but was always retained, is very rightly believed to have been handed on by Apostolic tradition.” And bk.5 ch.23, “The Apostles indeed prescribed nothing then, but the custom which was opposed to Cyprian must be believed to have taken its beginning from their tradition, as are many things that the universal Church holds, and for this reason are well believed to have been prescribed by the Apostles, although nothing written is found.” Again in his book on the Unity of the Church ch.19, “Here perhaps you say, tell me how Christ commanded those to be received who want to pass from the heretics into the Church. This neither I nor you read openly and evidently.” And later he adds, “Since this is nowhere read, it is believed on the testimony of the Church, which Church Christ testified to be true.” Like things are contained in Against Cresconius bk.1 chs.31-33. To this Chemnitz gives two responses. First that Augustine’s question in this places is whether an example can be produced from Scripture in which a heretic was taught to have been rebaptized or received without new baptism; but not whether heretics should or should not be rebaptized; and indeed Augustine thought that no such example could be produced, and this he teaches in the cited places. Second he says that Augustine without doubt believed that there exist certain and open testimonies in the Scriptures by which it is proved that heretics are not to be rebaptized; therefore this tradition is written. The first point he proves from Against Cresconius bk.1 ch.33, where Augustine says, “Therefore although no certain example of this thing can be produced from the canonical Scriptures etc.” and like things are contained in his book on the Unity of the Church ch.19. He proves the second point first from Against the Donatists bk.1 ch.7, “Lest I seem to be acting on human arguments, I produce certain teachings from the Gospel.” Second from bk.2 ch.14, “What is more pernicious, whether not to baptize or to rebaptize, is difficult to judge. Yet having recourse to the Lord’s balance, where the weight of things is measured not by human sense but by divine authority, I find an opinion of the Lord about both matters.” Third from bk.4 ch.7, “Add to this that, when the reasons and the testimonies of the Scriptures about this dispute are looked at from both sides, it can also be said what the truth has declared, and this we follow.” Fourth from bk.4 ch.24, “It can truly be conjectured from the circumcision of the flesh that the sacrament of baptism for children is valid, etc.” Fifth from bk.5 ch.41, “From the custom of the Church and the later support of plenary Councils and from so many and so great testimonies of the sacred Scriptures and the perspicuous reasons of truth, anyone understands that the baptism of Christ consecrated with the words of the Gospel is not made perverse by the perversity of any man.” Sixth from bk.6 ch.1, “That could now suffice which we have shown by reasons so often repeated, joined also with the teachings of the Scriptures.” Seventh from bk.5 ch.23, “That it is against the command of God that those who come from heretics should be baptized, if they have already received the baptism of Christ, is not only shown from the testimonies of the sacred Scriptures but plainly shown.” Eighth from bk.5 ch.26, “What he admonishes us, that we should return to the source, that is, to Apostolic tradition, and from there direct the channel to our own times, is very good and without doubt to be done. It has therefore been handed on to us by the Apostles, as he himself records, that there is one God, one baptism.” 197 I reply to the first that Chemnitz is deceived. For although Augustine in that one place from Against Cresconius bk.1 ch.33 is dealing with examples, yet in the other places cited he is not dealing with examples but with precepts or teachings of Scripture, especially in Against the Donatists bk.5 ch.23, when he says, “What the universal Church holds is well believed to be a precept from the Apostles, although it is not found written down.” Besides, even in that one place, the chief question was not about an example or about the fact but about the right. For it is clear that he is dealing with the question of rebaptism that existed between the Catholics and the Donatists; but it is certain that the Donatists contested not about examples but about the right. But because in the disputing the heretics had required the Catholics to show some example in the Scriptures of someone received by the Church without baptism, Augustine responded that there were no examples in the Scriptures neither on one side nor on the other; and hence he concluded that, since there are in the Scriptures not only no precepts but also no examples, one should stand on the custom of the Church, which is very rightly believed to have been introduced by the Apostles. And that things are so is plain both from those places themselves and from the fact that, if the chief question were about examples, the Donatists would not have been heretics nor would they in any way have erred; for what they were saying was very true, and Augustine even agrees with them, that no example is extant in Scripture about this matter. To the second I say two things. First that we do not adduce the places of Augustine chiefly because of his saying that the custom of not rebaptizing is from Apostolic tradition, but because of his adding in those places that many things are kept by Apostolic tradition that are not written down. For this principle is so certain in Augustine that he wishes to prove from it that even the custom of not rebaptizing was handed on by the Apostles. Therefore we rest more on this principle of Augustine than on his conclusion. Chemnitz however opposes us as if we rested on the conclusion alone. I say second that Augustine never thought that this very custom could be sufficiently proved from the Scriptures; and therefore indeed he adduced reasons and Scriptures from anywhere, yet he established the chief foundation on the tradition that the custom of the Church declared, as is plain both from the places cited and from Against the Donatists bk.2 ch.4, where he does not think the testimonies of Scripture on this matter are so clear that he says, “Nor would we dare to assert anything unless we were strengthened by the most agreed authority of the universal Church.” And it will be even more clear in the response to the individual places noted by Chemnitz. To the first from Against the Donatists bk.1 ch.7 I reply that by the bad faith of Chemnitz words have been omitted that were in the middle, and that the first have been joined with the last. For after Augustine had said “Now lest I seem to be acting on human arguments,” he subjoins what Chemnitz omitted, “since the obscurity of this question has compelled great men to be long in flux until by a plenary Council of the whole world what it was most salutary to think was confirmed and doubts were removed;” and then finally he adds, “from the Gospel I bring forward certain teachings.” 198 Therefore Augustine said that the question could not be settled from the Scriptures before a plenary Council of the Church, but after the Council had explained the doubt and the whole question, then could certain teachings of Scripture be brought forward. For once the Scriptures had been explained by the Council, they firmly and certainly prove what before they did not firmly prove. That this is also true is shown by the place from the Gospel that Blessed Augustine brings forward. For he brings forward the verse of Luke ch9, “Do not prevent them, for who is not against you is for you.” By which place he shows that there can be some gifts of God outside the Church, as was that gift of expelling demons. But whether baptism was to be numbered among them cannot be collected from that place alone. To the second I reply that the place is not to the purpose; for there Augustine proves from the Scriptures that it is not licit to rebaptize when someone has once received true baptism in the Catholic Church; but he does not prove that the baptism of heretics is true baptism, which is our question. For he wanted to teach in that place that those can be admitted into the Church through penance who acknowledged that they did badly by rebaptizing Catholics. For he does not bring forward any other testimony of Scripture save that of John ch.13, “He who is washed does not need to wash again.” From which place no one collects that the baptism of heretics is valid, but only (as Augustine collects) that after true baptism no other baptism is to be added, which even the Donatists did not deny. To the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth I say that Augustine is there bringing forward conjectures from the Scriptures that, after definition by the Council and investigation of unwritten tradition, add something to confirm the truth but are by themselves not enough. This is plain from the words of Augustine where he always puts the Scriptures after custom and the Council, and uses these words, “Add to this that we can make conjecture; when the Scriptures too are added, etc.” To the seventh I say that Chemnitz has quoted in bad faith. For the words (“it is plainly shown by testimonies of the sacred Scriptures”) do not refer to the preceding words that Chemnitz sets down, but to the following ones about which he is silent. For thus does Augustine speak, “It is plainly shown that many false Christians, although they do not have the same charity as the saints, without which whatever the saints could have had does not profit them, yet they have baptism in common with the saints.” Here Blessed Augustine says that it is certain from the Scriptures that many Christians baptized in the Church lose charity but do not lose baptism, which even the Donatists conceded; but he does not say that it is certain from the Scriptures that baptism given by heretics is valid. Besides, even if those words referred to the preceding ones, Chemnitz would still not have anything. For there too Augustine is not saying that it is certain the baptism of heretics is valid, but he says it is certain that he who has received the true baptism of Christ should not be rebaptized, which even the Donatists conceded; but the question afterwards remained whether the baptism of heretics was the true baptism of Christ or not. To the eighth I say that Augustine does not there prove his opinion from the Scriptures but he relates the Scripture by which the adversaries were trying to prove the contrary opinion. 199 

Chapter Eight: The Same is Proved by Four Other Arguments

Besides this common consent of the Fathers, the same thing is proved by the consensus of the heretics in their contempt for traditions. For as we collect from the common consent of the holy Fathers of all ages, who accept traditions, that the traditions are to be accepted, so we collect from the common consent of the heretics all ages, who reject traditions, that traditions are not to be rejected. About the Valentinians, the Marcionists, and the like Irenaeus gives witness bk.3 ch.2, and Tertullian on Prescription that they rejected the unwritten traditions of the Church. Cyprian too, when he wanted to defend the error of rebaptism, could do no other than appeal from tradition to Scripture, as is plain from his epistle to Pompeius and from another to Iubaianus. Although Cyprian had recognized traditions before, as we showed above; and even his later error he is reckoned by Blessed Augustine, in epist.8 to Vincentius, to have corrected before death. The Donatists too always urge the Scriptures, and Blessed Augustine, in his book on the Unity of the Church ch.19 and elsewhere, objects to them the traditions and the custom of the Church. That the Arians in no way allowed anything besides the Scriptures is evidenced by Hilary, who in his book Against Constantius introduces an Arian saying, “I do not wish to read words that are not written.” Maximus the Arian in Augustine Against Maximinus at the beginning speaks thus, “If you bring forward something that is common to all from the Scriptures we must listen, but those words that are outside the Scriptures are in no case received by us. Furthermore, because the Lord himself warns us and says, ‘Without cause they worship me teaching as commands the precepts of men’.” The same is evidenced by Epiphanius Heresy 69 and 73. That the Arians also rejected traditions is written by Epiphanius Heresy 75. The same thing about the Eunomians is plain from Basil in his book on the Holy Spirit chs.27 and 29. The same about Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus is reported by Basil Bishop of Ancyra in his Catholic Confession, which was read in the Seventh Synod, first act; and the same about the Apostolici of his own time by Bernard in Homil.66 on Song of Songs. The same of John Wycliffe by Thomas Waldenses in Doctrine of the Ancient Faith bk2 ch.19. From these as from their hands have the Lutherans taken their own dogma about contemning traditions, just as we have been taught by the holy Fathers about receiving the same with all honor. To these add the custom of all nations. For the Jews had some traditions outside Scripture as is taught by Origen Homil.5 on Numbers and in his commentary on Romans ch.3, and by Hilary on Psalm 2, and also by Anatolius, a very ancient Christian author, in Eusebius Hist. bk.7 ch.28. And although there are not lacking some Catholics who deny there was any unwritten tradition among the Jews, yet I cannot agree with them; since, as we showed above, the old written law did not sufficiently contain everything, and for a long time that people, even after the birth of Moses, lived without written law. Next all the profane republics were ruled in large part by unwritten laws. Pericles in Thucydides divides Athenian law into written and unwritten. Aristotle in Politics bk.3 ch.11 establishes that the city should be ruled in part by the best laws and in part by the judgment of the best man, in Ethics bk.5 ch.4 he calls a judge or 200 arbiter a living law, because, namely, there was some other written law that was as it were not living. Further Lycurgus wanted to give no written law to the Spartans, as Plutarch says, but to live by traditions alone, so that they might be more careful in living than in reading. That the same pleased Cicero is evident from his Laws bk.1, and Caesar, Gallic War bk.6, writes the same about the wise men among the Gauls. The most noble of the philosophers, Pythagoras and Socrates, although they taught much, yet wrote nothing, as Blessed Augustine teaches on the Harmony of the Gospels bk.1 ch.7, save that Socrates imitated in verse the fables written by Aesop. Lastly in civil law the same authority is attributed to written law as to unwritten custom. Therefore nature itself in some way seems to exclaim that unwritten traditions are necessary or certainly very useful. Add the dignity of the Catholic Church. For as once the Jews excelled all nations, because to them were given the words of God, as is said in Romans ch.3, so now the Catholic Church stands above all sects, because it alone, as being the spouse of Christ, knows all the mysteries of the true religion and is conscious of the secrets of the spouse, and therefore is called the pillar and ground of the truth, I Timothy ch.3. But if everything was written and very openly, as the heretics wish, the Church would have no privilege. For the heretics, pagans, and Jews would know nothing less about the mysteries of our faith than we ourselves and our priests know; nor would what Irenaeus says, bk.3 ch.4, be true that into the Church alone, as into a rich treasure house, the knowledge of divine things has been deposited by the Apostles. Add finally the dignity of many mysteries which require silence, nor is it fitting that they be explained in the Scriptures, which are read in the whole world. For if it is not licit to admit anyone not baptized to see the tremendous mysteries of the mass, how will it be licit to hand on the same writings to them? Hence the Lord explained separately to the disciples the parables that he spoke to the people, Luke ch.8, and the Apostle says I Corinthians ch.2, “we speak wisdom among the perfect.” And the ancients, when they speak about the sacrament of the Eucharist, are everywhere accustomed to say, “the faithful know, the initiates know.” This reason is touched on by Dionysius Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ch.1, by Origen Homil.5 on Numbers, by Basil on the Holy Spirit ch.27, and by Innocent I in epist.1. 

Chapter Nine: Five Rules are Explained by which we Come to Knowledge of True Traditions

It now follows for us to show by what ways and reasons we can investigate which are the true and genuine traditions of the Apostles. So the first rule is: when the universal Church embraces something as a dogma of faith which is not found in divine letters, one must say that it is possessed from a tradition of the Apostles. The reason for this is that since the universal Church cannot err, for it is the pillar and ground of the truth, I Timothy ch.3, and since about it the Lord said, Matthew ch.16, “The gates of hell will not prevail against it,” then certainly what the Church de fide believes is without doubt de fide; but nothing is de fide save what God has revealed by the Apostles or Prophets, or what is evidently therefrom deduced. For the Church is not ruled by new revelations but abides in those which those handed on who were ministers of the word, and therefore is it said in Ephesians ch.2, “Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and 201 Prophets.” Therefore all the things that the Church holds by faith were handed on by the Apostles or the Prophets, in writing or in speech. Of such sort is the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary, the number of the canonical books, and the like. The second rule is: when the universal Church keeps something that no one could have established save God, which however is nowhere found written down, one must say that it is handed down from Christ and his Apostles. The reason is similar to the preceding one. For the universal Church can not only not err in believing but neither in working, and especially in divine rite and cult; and rightly does Augustine in epist.118 teach that it is a mark of the most insolent insanity to think what is done by the universal Church is not rightly done. Therefore what the Church cannot rightly keep unless it was instituted by God and yet does keep, one must say was instituted by God, even if it is not read anywhere. Such is the baptism of children. For the Church would err very gravely if without the command of God it baptized children who do not actually believe. Wherefore Augustine in bk.10 on Genesis ch.23 says, “The custom of mother Church for baptizing children must in no way be spurned, nor in any way thought to be superfluous, nor is it to be altogether believed unless it were an Apostolic tradition.” Such also is that the baptism of heretics is valid, and therefore Augustine always refers the command not to rebaptize those baptized by heretics to the tradition of the Apostles. For neither can the Church give authority to baptism if it does not have it from Christ. The third rule is: what has been kept in the universal Church and for all past time is rightly believed to have been instituted by the Apostles, even if it is such that it could have been instituted by the Church. This rule is from Augustine Against the Donatists bk.4 ch.24. An example is the forty day Lenten fast; for that could have been instituted by the Church if Christ or the Apostles had not instituted it, yet we say and prove that it was instituted by Christ or the Apostles; for by going back up in time and seeking the origin of this institution, we do not find it save in the time of the Apostles; although Calvin Institutes bk.4 ch.12 sect.20 teaches the forty day Lenten fast is mere superstition, and was handed on neither by Christ nor the Apostles, but was thought out by later people through evil zeal. Blessed Bernard serm.3 on the Lenten fast says, “Hitherto we fast alone up to the ninth hour, but now (in Lent) we will all fast up to vespers with each other, kings and princes, nobles and peasants, clergy and people, rich and poor together in one.” Before Bernard, Gregory in Homil.16 on the Gospels makes mention of the Lenten fast, giving a reason that we fast for forty days. Before Gregory Leo in his twelve sermons on Lent. Before him Augustine in epists.118 and 119, and serm.44 on Lent. Before him Jerome on Matthew ch.9 and Jonah ch.3, and elsewhere. Paulinus in epist.6 to Amandus. Chrysostom in Homily on Genesis and elsewhere. Before these Ambrose in his eight sermons on Lent. Epiphanius in his doctrinal compendium. Basil in his second prayer on fasting. Nazianzen on holy washing, and Cyril in Catechesis 5. Before these Origen Homil.10 on Leviticus; before him Irenaeus in Eusebius Hist. bk.5 ch.24; before him Pope Telesphorus in his decretal epistle; before him Ignatius in his epistle to the Philippians, and Clement Constit. bk.5 ch.13 can.68 of the Apostles. For like reason Calvin Institutes bk.4 ch.19 sect.24 says that minor orders are a novel invention which is nowhere read about save in silly advocates, Sorbonists 202 and Canonists. But we show from the posited rule that it is of Apostolic tradition. For before all the Sorbonists and Canonists was Isidore, who in Etymologies bk.7 ch.12 enumerates the individual orders and expounds the reason for their names. Before Isidore was the IV Council of Carthage, in which in chs.1-10 is handed on by what rite Bishops are ordained, and priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, lectors, exorcists, porters. And before this Council was Jerome, who on Titus ch.2 enumerates all the orders, besides acolytes, of which he makes mention in his epistle to Nepotianus on the life of clerics. Before Jerome was the Council of Laodicea in whose ch.24 are named all the minor orders. Before this Council Pope Cornelius in epistle to Fabius of Antioch, as it is in Eusebius Hist. bk.6 ch.33, asserts that in the Roman Church in his time there were, besides the Bishop, 46 priests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, and 52 exorcists along with lectors and porters. But even before Cornelius Ignatius salutes by name all the orders in his epistle to the Antiochans. The fourth rule is: when all the doctors of the Church teach by common consent that something comes down from Apostolic tradition, whether gathered in a general Council or writing separately in their books, this is to be believed to be Apostolic tradition. The reason for this rule is if all doctors of the Church, when they agree in some opinion, could err, the whole Church would err, since it is held to follow and does follow its doctors. An example of the first is the veneration of images, which the doctors of the Church gathered in the II Council of Nicea, final act, asserted was from Apostolic tradition. An example of the second can scarce be found, if altogether all Fathers who wrote should expressly say something; yet it seems to suffice if some Fathers of great name expressly assert it, and the rest do not contradict although, however, they make mention of the thing; for then that opinion can be said not rashly to belong to them all. For when in a grave matter one of the ancients erred, always many are found who contradict. By this rule we prove that the rites observed in baptism are of Apostolic tradition; namely that he who is baptized be baptized with water first blessed by the priest; that he be ordered to renounce Satan and his pomps; that he be signed with the sign of the cross; that he be anointed with blessed oil, etc. For the same is expressively asserted by Basil on the Holy Spirit ch.27, by Tertullian on the Crown of the Soldier, and by certain others. But no one has ever contradicted, since there is almost no ancient writer who does not mention these ceremonies as received by all in the Church. For like reason that Lent is a divine or Apostolic tradition can also be firmly proved by this rule, because it is expressively asserted by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Jerome, Ambrose, Leo, and non contradicts, although yet all make mention of this observance. The fifth rule is that that is without doubt to be believed to descend from Apostolic tradition which is held as such in those Churches where the succession from the Apostles is complete and continued. This rule is handed on by Irenaeus bk.3 ch.3, by Tertullian in his book On Prescription. The reason for the rule is that the Apostles handed on to their successors, together with the office of Bishop, also the doctrine of religion. If therefore by ascending in some Church through the Bishops succeeding each other we come to some Apostle, and if it cannot be shown that any of those 203 Bishops introduced a new doctrine, we are certain that Apostolic traditions are preserved there. And indeed there was once found an uninterrupted succession not only at Rome, but also at Ephesus, Corinth, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and elsewhere; and for this reason Tertullian refers men to any of the Apostolic Churches to find there the Apostolic traditions; and Theodosius I, all peoples, canon on the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith, commands all to keep the same faith that was preached at that time in Rome by Damasus and in Alexandria by Peter, the two Pontiffs of the chief Apostolic Churches. But now there is lacking a definite succession in all the Apostolic Churches besides the Roman, and therefore from the testimony of this Church alone can a definite argument be taken to prove Apostolic traditions; and then especially when the doctrine or the rites of those Churches differ from the doctrine and rites of the Roman Church. 

Chapter Ten: The Objections of the Adversaries Taken from the Scriptures are Solved

The last part of the question remains, in which the arguments of the adversaries must be expounded and solved. There are three kinds of arguments, of which the first they take from the Scriptures, the second from the Fathers, the third from reasons. From the Scriptures they propose, first, those passages that command that nothing should be added to the word of God; second those that expressly teach the Scriptures are sufficient and contain everything necessary; third those that openly condemn traditions. The first argument then is clear from three places. Deuteronomy chs.4 and 12, “You will not add to the word that I prescribe to you, nor will you take away from it.” The last chapter of the Apocalypse, “If anyone adds to this etc.” Galatians ch.1, “But if we or an angel from heaven should preach another gospel besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” Here Chemnitz notes that it is not said ‘against’ but ‘besides’. And lest we say that Paul is speaking of both written and unwritten word, he adduces Augustine giving this exposition Against the letters of Petilianus ch.6, “If anyone whether about Christ, or about his Church, or about any other thing that pertains to our faith and life, I do not say if we, but what Paul adds, ‘if an angel from heaven announce to you other than what is in legal and Evangelical Scriptures, let him be anathema.” Like things are contained in Basil in his sum of morals, sum 72 ch.1. To the first I reply, first that there it is not a question of the written word but of what is handed on viva voce; for he does not say ‘to the word that I have written’ but ‘that I prescribe’. Second I say that the true exposition of this place is that God wishes his commands to be kept completely and perfectly as he himself prescribed, and not to be distorted in any way by a false interpretation. Therefore he does not mean to say that you will not keep other than what I now prescribe, but that in what I prescribe you will not change anything by adding or lessening but you will do completely as I command and not otherwise. This same thing Scripture is wont to signify in these words, “You will not decline to the right, nor to the left.” And that this is true is plain; because otherwise the Prophets and Apostles, who added so many things later, would have sinned. Brentius, Chemnitz, and Calvin reply that the Prophets did not add anything to the law as far as doctrine is concerned, but they only wrote certain prophecies 204 about the future and explained the doctrine of the law. The New Testament too is not an addition to the Old but an explanation of it; since the Apostle says Romans ch.1 that the Gospel was promised by God through the Prophets in the sacred Scriptures. And Acts ch.15 the Apostles in the Council did not dare to decree anything without the testimony of Scripture. But on the contrary, for in this way even the traditions are not additions but explanations. For in the law of Moses the writings of the Prophets are not contained, nor in the law and Prophets is the New Testament contained save in general terms and in a certain way virtually, as the whole tree is contained in the seed. For we have in the law, Deuteronomy ch.18, “God will raise up a Prophet for you and him you will hear.” Now there is contained there in general whatever Christ did and said; but yet that in particular Christ should preach the Trinity of persons in God, institute the sacraments, do such miracles, etc. is not contained there. But what they allege from Acts ch.15 is against them. For although James in that Council proved from the Scriptures that the Church was to be built from the Gentiles, yet the decree of the Council is nowhere found in the scriptures of the New Testament. For they decreed that the Gentiles should not keep the legal provisions save, however, for abstinence from blood and suffocated animals, of which decree the second part is nowhere read in the Old Testament. For where, I ask, did any Prophet predict that in the times of the Messiah suffocated animals and blood were to be prohibited? Thus too what is written in II Thessalonians ch.2, “Hold the traditions that you have received, whether by speech or by epistle.” And Luke ch.10, “He who hears you hears me.” And Matthew ch.18, “If he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican.” Therefore we affirm that the traditions are in some way explanations of the written word, not that it contains its bare exposition, but because all the traditions and decrees of the Church are contained in the Scriptures in general; but they are not contained in particular nor should they be. Wherefore Augustine Against Cresconius bk.1 ch.33 says, “Although a certain example is not produced from the Scripture, yet the truth of the same scriptures is held by us, since we do what pleases the universal Church, which the authority of the Scriptures themselves commend.” To the second it is certain that John there prohibits the corruption of that book but not that other books should not be written or other dogmas handed on, otherwise he would have been in conflict with himself, who, according to Chemnitz in his Examination p.202, wrote his Gospel after the Apocalypse. To the third, on which Brentius and Chemnitz very much rely, there is a double solution and both are solid. The first is that the Apostle is not speaking of the written word alone, but of every word whether written or handed on. For he does not say, ‘if anyone preach to you a gospel besides what we have written’, but ‘besides what we have preached’. Nor are the words of Augustine or of Basil an obstacle, for they are not expressly treating of this place, but they are proving from this place that it is not licit to assert anything contrary to the Scriptures, which is very true. For when Paul speaks in general of Apostolic preaching, and that partly written and partly not written, we can thence rightly prove that it is not licit to assert anything against the written preaching of the Apostles. For from the negation 205 of a universal an argument to negation of the particular is rightly deduced, but not contrariwise. And likewise we can from this word of Paul argue against those who preach against the traditions of the Church already received, even if they seem to be preaching from the Scriptures, as Athanasius beautifully teaches in his book on the Incarnation of the Word, and Cyril, citing Athanasius in his book on Right Faith to Queens, not far from the beginning. The second solution is that by the word ‘besides’ the Apostle understands ‘against’; and therefore he does not prohibit new dogmas and precepts, provided they are not contrary to what has already been handed on; but he prohibits contrary and alien dogmas and precepts. This is plain first because the Apostle himself afterwards taught many other things; and after this epistle John wrote the Apocalypse and his Gospel. Second, from the purpose of the Apostle; for he is acting against those who taught that the legal provisions should be kept since he himself taught they should not kept. Therefore when he says ‘besides’ he understands ‘against’. Third, from another place where the Apostle thus uses this word ‘besides’. For in the last chapter of Romans he says, “Observe those who cause dissensions and offenses besides the doctrine which you have received.” In this place it is so clear that the ‘besides’ signifies ‘against’ that Erasmus translates it as ‘against’. But in both places the Greek words is the same. Fourth, from the exposition of the Fathers. St. Ambrose expounds ‘if against’, St. Jerome ‘if otherwise’, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact teach that the Apostle did not say ‘if contrary things’ but ‘if besides that which etc.’, to indicate that he not only anathematizes those who teach things openly contrary to the whole doctrine, but also those who in whatever way, whether openly or obliquely, fall away in anything from the doctrine handed on. St. Basil in his sum of morals 72 ch.1 (which place Chemnitz quoted in his own favor) teaches that from this place is got that those are to be received who hand on what is consonant with the Scriptures; those to be rejected who hand on what is foreign to them. Lastly, St. Augustine Against Faustus bk.17 ch.3 expounds ‘against’, and in tract.98 on John speaks as follows, “He does not say, ‘more than you have received’, but ‘besides that which you have received’. For if he said that he would be prejudicial against himself, since he wanted to come to the Thessalonians to supply what was lacking to their faith. But he who supplies adds what was less but does not take away what was present. But he who goes beside the rule of faith does not walk in the way but departs from the way, etc.” The second argument they take from those places that seem to indicate that Scripture sufficiently contains everything, which are two. The first is John ch.20, “Many other signs indeed did Jesus do that are not written in this book; but these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” Where John indicates that he has written, not indeed everything, but the things that were sufficient. For if we can have life through the things that are written, what more do we want? Chemnitz gives a confirmation from three testimonies of the ancients. Augustine tract.49 on John, “The holy Evangelist testifies,” he says, “that the Lord Christ said and did many things that are not written. Those things were chosen to be written that seemed sufficient for the salvation of believers.” The same Augustine on the Harmony of the Gospels bk.1 last chapter says, “Whatever Christ wanted us to 206 read about his deeds and words this he commanded to be written by his Apostles as by his hands.” Cyril bk.12 on John last chapter, “Not everything,” he says, “that the Lord did has been written down, but what they thought by writing sufficed both for morals and dogmas, so that by right faith and works we might reach the kingdom of heaven.” The second place is II Timothy ch.3, “All Scripture divinely inspired is useful for teaching, for convicting, for reproving, for educating in justice so that the man of God might be perfect, instructed for every good work.” This place is the Achilles of Brentius and Chemnitz. But thus is it explained by Chemnitz. The words ‘all Scripture’ do not signify any sacred book but the whole corpus of the canonical books together. For what follows, ‘useful for teaching, for convicting, etc.’ cannot fit any one book but only the whole Scripture together. But the words ‘is useful’ does not signify that Scripture is useful in the way in which the useful is distinguished from the necessary and sufficient; it signifies that Scripture was made as a means for perfecting the man of God; as if Paul were saying that Scripture has this use for which it was made, to which it is directed; in the way we say that food is useful for nourishing man, without which however he cannot live. But the words ‘for teaching, for convicting etc.’ explain the sufficiency of Scripture. For four things only are necessary for the man of God, that is, for the Christian doctor. First that he be able to teach the doctrine of faith. Second that he be able to refute errors against the faith. Third that he be able to teach the doctrine of morals. Fourth that he be able to correct those in error about morals. But all these things are provided by Scripture. For it serves for teaching, that is, for the dogmas of the faith; for convicting, that is, for refuting those erring in the faith; for educating in justice, that is, for teaching the precepts of morals; for reproving, that is, for correcting those erring in morals, from which Paul concludes that the man instructed in the Scriptures is perfect and fit for every good work. I reply to the first that John in that place is only speaking of the miracles of Christ and he says that he wrote only some of the miracles, not all, because they were sufficient to persuade the world that Christ was the Son of God. For he speaks thus, “Many other signs indeed did Jesus do in the sight of his disciples etc.” But Chemnitz ineptly transfers what is said only about the miracles to all the dogmas of faith and precepts of morals. Besides, John is not speaking save of things written by himself, therefore if they are sufficient all the other Scriptures will be superfluous. Chemnitz responds that John is speaking of the whole of Scripture. But John refutes this lie when he says, “Many other signs indeed did Jesus do in the sight of his disciples etc.” But what is added, “but these things are written etc.” does not signify that signs alone suffice for us for salvation, but that they are referred and ordered to this, and that it is one of the means required for our salvation, although it alone does not suffice. To the places of Augustine and Cyril I say that those Fathers are speaking of the words and deeds alone of Christ; and therefore they wanted to say that the things written are sufficient, not all absolutely, but all the words and deeds of Christ. Besides these words and deeds, many other things are necessary, otherwise all the histories and teachings of the Old Testament, and the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of Peter, Paul, John, James and Jude would be superfluous. Nor does this 207 conflict with what we said above, that the Scriptures are not absolutely necessary. For although knowledge of the many things Christ and the Apostles said or did is necessary, yet that knowledge, even without the Scriptures, could be had by tradition alone, although one should in no way deny that it was very useful that the principle chapters be written down. Add that without doubt those Fathers do not understand from the words and deeds of Christ that everything necessary absolutely was written, but that what the Apostles thought should be written was sufficiently written. For since certain things were written and some handed on without writing, and especially the interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures, then in the sacred books are contained sufficiently all things that were entrusted to writing, or (as Augustine says) that Christ wished to be written. For he wished other things not to be read in divine letters but to be received from the Church, which however are in their own way contained in the Gospel, not indeed in particular but in general, because the Gospel advises us to consult the Church about doubtful things. To the other place from Paul one can reply in the same way, namely that Scripture sufficiently instructs and perfects the man of God because it expressly contains many things, and what it does not contain it shows where they are to be sought. Next, I say that Paul does not from that place attribute even this sufficiency to Scripture, which fact is collected from two things. First from the words ‘all Scripture’, and second from the words ‘is useful’. For when he speaks of all Scripture he attributes not only to the whole body of Scripture but also to the individual books the praise that they are useful for teaching, convicting etc., and yet Chemnitz admits that any one sacred book is not sufficient. That this is so is plain first from Paul’s way itself of speaking. For by the judgment of all who know Latin, what is said of all divinely inspired Scripture is said of the individual books that are divinely inspired. Second from the fact that when this letter was being written, the Apocalypse did not yet exist, nor the Gospel of John; and perhaps something else was lacking from the body of the Scriptures. He is not speaking therefore of all and only the body of the Scriptures. Third from the reasoning of the Apostle; for from the universal principle he wishes to conclude in particular that the Scripture of the New Testament, because it was divinely inspired, was useful for teaching, convicting etc. For thus he speaks, “For infancy you have known the Scriptures” (that is the Old Testament, for when Timothy was an infant the New Testament did not exist, as is plain and as the adversaries admit) “that can instruct you in salvation through the faith that is in Christ Jesus.” Here the Apostle in a few words attributes to the Scripture of the Old Testament what a little later he attributes in many words to all Scripture. And lest Timothy should doubt of it, the Apostle gives proof saying, “All Scripture divinely inspired etc.” Nor is what Chemnitz objects a problem, that all these utilities are not found in any one book; for it is false that they are not found. For no part of Scripture is briefer than the second epistle of John, and yet in it we see preached that Christ is true Son of God, which is a dogma of the faith. Again we see preached that we should love each other, which is a doctrine of morals. Besides we see openly written in it that they are Antichrists who say that Christ has not come in the flesh, which 208 pertains to refuting heretics. Lastly we see that they are rebuked who say ‘hail’ to heretics, which pertains to the correction of morals. Now the words ‘is useful’, however much they are twisted by Chemnitz, will yet never signify ‘is sufficient’. For he proves somehow or other that there is not deduced from these words that Scripture is not sufficient; but there is not deduced that it is sufficient, which is what he had to prove. For whether you say Scripture is useful for this, or has this use, or is referred or ordered to this, or anything else similar, you will never signify that it alone suffices. Just as he too who says that food is useful for nourishing man says indeed that food is instituted for this, that it nourish, but does not say that food alone suffices; for if natural heat is lacking or some instrument of the body necessary for nutrition, food will not nourish. Therefore the Apostle does not say that Scripture alone suffices for teaching, convicting etc., and therefore for perfecting and completing man; but yet it is of advantage and help for all these things. And although the same Apostle does not say that it does not suffice, yet we collect this from other places, as from I Corinthians ch.11, “The rest I will dispose when I come.” And II Thessalonians ch.2, “Hold the traditions, whether by speech or by epistle etc.” And from this place too, although it is not collected that Paul said Scripture does not suffice, yet it is evidently collected that he did not say that Scripture alone suffices, because he attributed these praises to any canonical work, and we known even from the confession of the adversaries that no one canonical work suffices, because then the others would be superfluous. The third argument is from places in which traditions are condemned, Isaiah ch.29, “In vain do they worship me teaching the commands and doctrines of me,” Matthew ch.15, “You have made void the command of God by your tradition,” Galatians ch.1, “Being an emulator of the traditions of my fathers,” Colossians ch.2, “See that no one deceive you by philosophy or empty deceit according to the tradition of men,” I Timothy ch.1, “Do not attend to Jewish fables, etc.” I Peter ch.1, “You have been redeemed from your vain conversation in paternal tradition.” Here are condemned the traditions that the Jew boasted they received from the hands of Moses and the Prophets; therefore also the traditions that we say have come down to us from Christ and the Apostles by the hands of the Fathers. I reply that Christ and the Apostles did not censure the traditions that the Jews had received from Moses and the Prophets, one of which was about the canonical books and which were true and which were not; but they censured the traditions they had received from more recent people, some of which were empty, but others pernicious and contrary to the Scriptures. For neither Christ nor the Apostles ever say that these are the traditions of Moses and the Prophets; and they openly say that they are speaking of traditions that are in conflict with the Scriptures. And besides the ancient Fathers explained expressively who was the author of the traditions that Christ and the Apostles censure. Irenaeus bk.4 chs.25 and 26 disputes against the ancient heretics who thought that under the name of traditions censured by Christ and the Apostles was understood the law of Moses, and he teaches that not the law of Moses but the traditions that corrupt the law of more recent elders were censured by Christ and the Apostles. Epiphanius in the heresy of Ptolomaeus teaches that the traditions of 209 the Jews were four expositions of the sacred books. The first was of Moses and that was not censured. The second was of Rabbi Akiba. The third of Rabbi Jehuda. And the fourth of the sons of Asamonaeus. And it is these that are censured by the Lord. Jerome on Isaiah ch.8 and Titus ch.3 and in his epistle to Agasias q.10 teaches that the traditions of the Jews that the Lord censured took their beginning from Sammai, Hillel, Akiba, and some others who existed a little before the rise of the Savior, and these traditions had not expounded the law but corrupted it; and these traditions they themselves call ‘secondaries’. About them there exists in civil law a certain constituton of Justinian, q.146 novel., in these words, “The tradition that is called secondary by them we altogether forbid, since it is not contained in the sacred books nor has been handed on by the Prophets but contains certain excerpts from men who speak only of earthly things and have nothing of the divine spirit in them.” Further from these sources have come down the fables that are now in the Talmud and in almost all the books of the Rabbis. But these are nothing to our traditions, which have Christ and the Apostles for authors, and are consonant with the divine Scriptures. 

Chapter Eleven: The Objections from the Fathers are Solved 

Now response must be made to the testimonies that they bring from the Fathers. So, Chemnitz first produces Irenaeus bk.3 ch.1 who speaks as follows, “For we do not know the disposition of salvation from others than from those through him the gospel came to us. What indeed they then announced they afterwards, by the will of God, handed on to us in the Scriptures, to be the future ground and pillar of our faith.” All the same things then, says Chemnitz, were written by the Apostles that they preached viva voce. I reply that Irenaeus does not say that the Apostles preached nothing other than what they wrote, but only that they wrote the gospel which they had before preached, which is true and not against us. But even if Irenaeus did say that the Apostles wrote everything they preached, he would say nothing against our opinion. For two things must be carefully noted for understanding both this place of Irenaeus and many other things of other ancient Fathers. The first is that certain things in Christian doctrine, both of faith and morals, are simply necessary for all for salvation, such as knowledge of the articles of the Apostles’ Creed. Again, knowledge of the ten commandments and of some of the sacraments. The rest are not so necessary that without explicit knowledge and faith and profession of them a man cannot be saved, provided he have a will ready to accept and believe them when they have been legitimately proposed to him by the Church. This distinction is collected from the fact that without knowledge and faith of the mysteries of the first kind no adult is admitted to baptism; but without knowledge and at any rate explicit faith of the latter ones people are ordinarily admitted. In Acts ch.1, after one sermon of Peter, in which he taught the chief chapters of faith in Christ, 3,000 men were baptized in one day, who without doubt knew nothing else besides those necessary things, and therefore is added that after baptism they persevered in the doctrine of the Apostles, that is, they learnt what they had not yet heard about the Christian mysteries. Thus Paul, although he held 210 the Thessalonians among the number of the saints, and extolled their faith and charity with marvelous praises, yet in I Thessalonians ch.3 he says, “Praying that we may see your face and complete what is lacking to your faith.” Note, second, that the things which are simply necessary were wont to be preached to everyone by the Apostles, but not to everyone all of the other things; but some things to all, those namely that were useful for all, certain things only to prelates, bishops, and priests, as about the nature of governing the Church, about administering the sacraments, about refuting heretics etc.; just as even now some things are disputed in the schools among the learned, and other things are explained in popular sermons. Thus in Acts ch.20 the Apostle separately instructed the Bishops of Asia. So in I Corinthians ch.2 he spoke wisdom among the perfect. So in II Timothy ch.2 he says, “These things commend to faithful men, who will be fit also to each others.” Thus Irenaeus bk.4 ch.32 says that the Apostles handed on their successors the charism of knowledge along with the episcopate. Having noted these things, I say that everything was written by the Apostles that was necessary for all, and that they preached openly to all in public; but not all the other things were written. When therefore Irenaeus says that the Apostles wrote down what they preached in the world, this is true and does not oppose traditions, because they did not teach the people everything but only what was necessary or useful for them, but the rest they handed on separately to the more perfect. Second, Chemnitz introduces Origen on Romans ch.3, Homil.5 on Matthew, Homil.7 on Ezekiel, Homil.1 on Jeremiah, where Origen says that we should not speak about divine things from our own sense but should confirm everything by testimonies from Scripture; “We must,” he says, “summon the sacred Scriptures to witness, since our senses and narrations have no faith without this witness.” I reply that Origen is speaking of very obscure questions, such as are for the most part those that have the witness of the tradition received in the whole Church. For elsewhere Origen, Homil.5 on Numbers, expressively asserts that many things are kept in the Church, and must be necessarily kept by all, although there exist no testimonies about them. Third Chemnitz produces in witness the Emperor Constantine, who in the Council of Nicea, on the evidence of Theodoret bk.1 ch.7, speaks as follows, “The Evangelical and Apostolic books and the oracles of the ancient Prophets plainly instruct us what we must think about divine things. Therefore, putting aside all hostile discord, let us take from the words divinely inspired the explanations of questions.” I reply that this testimony is not to be taken as seriously as Calvin and Chemnitz take it. For Constantine was a great Emperor but not a great doctor of the Church, especially since, according to the opinion of the new heretics and of the ancient Arians, Constantine was at that time not yet baptized, and therefore did not know the secrets of religion. But, admitting the authority of Constantine, I say that in the case of all the dogmas that pertain to the nature of God testimonies do exist in the Scriptures, and we can about these dogmas be fully and plainly instructed by the Scriptures if we understand them rightly; but nevertheless the sense of the Scriptures depends on the unwritten tradition of the Church. Wherefore Theodoret, who in bk.1 ch.7 narrates this speech of Constantine, reports in ch.8 that Scriptures were brought 211 forward on both sides, and since the Arians were not convinced by them, because they expounded the Scriptures differently from the Catholics, they were condemned from unwritten words, though words piously understood; to which condemnation Constantine assented, as no one has ever doubted. Fourth Chemnitz introduces Athanasius who in his book Against the Gentiles, or against idols, says at the very beginning, “The sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures suffice for all instruction of the truth.” I reply that the word ‘all’ is added by Chemnitz himself; for Athanasius only has ‘for instruction of the truth’. For he is not speaking there of all the dogmas but only of two, which are the arguments of the two books that he writes to Macharius, namely that idols are not Gods, and that Christ is true God and likewise man, which two dogmas have express testimonies in the Scriptures. Besides Athanasius adds in the same place that the Scriptures do indeed suffice for indicating the truth of these two dogmas, yet not without the explanation of the holy Fathers; but since their books cannot easily be got hold of by all, he says that he wants to write about these matters what he himself learnt from his predecessors. Fifth Chemnitz produces Basil in his sermon on confession of faith, where Basil speaks as follows, “It is a proof of infidelity and a most sure sign of pride if anyone wants to reject anything of what has been written, or to introduce anything of what has not been written.” And like things are contained in his sum of morals 72 ch.1 and 80 ch.22. I reply that Basil is speaking of those who add to the dogmas of Scripture some other things that are contrary and alien and repugnant to the Scriptures. For in the same sermon about the confession of faith he says that in his dispute against the heretics he has often used unwritten words, yet with the agreement of the Scriptures; and he says too that he has often taken testimony not only from the Scriptures of the Apostles but also from the Philosophers, when the latter were not contrary to the Scriptures. I add that Basil is speaking also about those who, not content with written words, invent others out of their own head. For this is a sign, and a very certain sign, of pride. Therefore he is dealing with traditions that are thought up by private men not about those that the Church has received form the Apostles through a succession of Bishops. Chemnitz brings another place from epist.80, where Basil says, “We do not think it right that what custom has obtained among them should be held for law and the canon of right doctrine. Let us stand therefore on the decision of Scripture inspired by God.” I reply that Chemnitz has omitted some words from the middle, and they made against him. For the question then was whether it should be said that there are three hypostases and one nature in God. Some said that one should not so speak, and they put forward as argument the custom of their region where no one used such words. To whom Basil, who thought the contrary, replies that in other regions it is the custom to say there are three hypostases and one nature in God. And so, if they did not wish to acquiesce in this custom, it was not right that they should want their own different custom to be the rule, but both should stand on the judgment of the Scripture that no one can reject. You see here, therefore, that it is not a matter of a tradition received in the whole Church, but of particular customs. Next Basil therefore appealed from custom to the Scriptures, because from contrary customs nothing certain could be established. 212 Sixth Chemnitz produces Chrysostom Homil.1 on Matthew, Homil.3 on II Thessalonians, Homil.13 on Genesis, where Chrysostom says that Scripture is useful and clear in necessary things. But to what purpose are these remarks? Next he produces the testimony of the same from Homil.49 on Matthew, where he expounds the verse ch.24, “Then let those in Judea flee to the mountains,” and says that in time of heresies there is no other way of finding out the reason of the truth than the reading of the Scriptures. But this testimony is not from Chrysostom but from the author of an incomplete work, who was either an Arian or certainly his work has been distorted in many places by Arians. For Homil.48 calls heretics ‘consubstantials’ and Homil.49 is almost always speaking against the same, and therefore this whole place was inserted as if by Arians, and from some codices recently edited it has been removed. He produces another testimony of Chrysostom from Homil. on Psalm 95 near the end, “If someone speaks without Scripture, the knowledge of the hearers limps, now assenting, now hesitating; but where he produces the testimony of a voice from the divine Scripture, it confirms both the speech of the speaker and the mind of the hearer.” I reply that since in the immediately preceding words Chrysostom had said, “For neither should he say anything without witnesses and by the mere knowledge of his mind,” we should understand that when he immediately adds, “If someone speaks without Scripture,” he wishes to be understood, “but by mere knowledge of his mind.” Therefore the sense of his words is this, that if anything is said from one’s own invention it does not as easily persuade as it would if what is said could be confirmed by the testimony of Scripture. Chemnitz produces another quote of Chrysostom from Homil.13 on II Corinthians, “Since we have the most exact scrutiny, line, and rule of all, the assertion of the divine laws, I ask you all to leave aside what this or that man thinks, and examine everything about these things from the Scriptures.” I reply that Chrysostom is not speaking of obscure dogmas of faith or morals, but of the opinion of carnal men, who prefer wealth to poverty, since the Scriptures openly teach that poverty is far more useful for salvation. Therefore Chrysostom is saying nothing other than that one should in this respect more believe the Scriptures than the opinion of men. Lastly he produces a testimony of the same Chrysostom from the commentary on Matthew ch.22, “Whatever is required for salvation has already been wholly fulfilled in the Scriptures.” I reply that Chrysostom is speaking of the remedies for vices, and he is teaching that there is no vice for the cure of which some remedy may not be found in Scripture. Which is also taught by Basil in his speech on Psalm 1. But what do these things achieve against traditions? Seventh he brings forward Epiphanius who in Heresy 61 says, “We cannot state the discovery of any question from our own reasonings but from the consequence of the Scriptures.” I reply that Epiphanius is not saying from the consequence of the Scriptures alone, but he says very clearly elsewhere, as we showed above, that not everything can be taken from Scripture, and therefore tradition is necessary. Eighth he brings forward Cyril, who in his book on Right Faith to Queens speaks as follows, “You must follow the divine letters, and depart in nothing from 213 their prescription.” I reply that he does not say that it is not licit to say anything that is not contained in the Scriptures, but that it is not licit to speak against the Scriptures. For this is not to depart from the prescription of the Scriptures, because we too indeed gladly embrace them. For we never defend traditions in conflict with Scripture. Again he brings this from the same Cyril in Homil.5 on Leviticus, “I think that in these two days the two Testaments can be understood, in which may be examined and discussed every word that pertains to God, and from these all knowledge of things can be grasped. But if there is something superfluous that no divine Scripture decrees, no other third Scripture should be taken up for authority of knowledge.” I reply, first, that these homilies on Leviticus are not from Cyril but from Origen or someone else or other, who everywhere destroyed the letter so as to set up mystical meanings out of his own head. Therefore these homilies are not of great authority. Add that in this very place the author of the homily does not exclude the unwritten word of God, but only a third Scripture, that is, a human Scripture, which wants to sell itself as divine. Ninth Chemnitz brings forward Theophilus Paschalis bk.2, who speaks as follows, “It is a mark of a diabolic spirit to think something outside the authority of the sacred Scriptures to be divine.” I reply that he is speaking of the apocryphal books which were by some supposed as divine. But it is inept, to say nothing more serious, to turn what is said about one thing toward something else. He brings forward, tenth, Apollinaris who in Eusebius Hist. bk5 ch.15 says that he put off for a long time writing against the heresy of Montanus lest he should seem to some to be adding to the Evangelical word of God. I reply, first, that these words are not found in all codices. Second, the author does not say ‘adding to the written Evangelical word’. Third, he understands the addition to be of a new, contrary dogma; for in the same place he accuses Montanus of not keeping the doctrine that the Church had received from the Apostles by tradition and the succession of Bishops. He brings forward, eleventh, Tertullian who in his book Against Hermogenes says, “I adore the fullness of Scripture. Let the workshop of Hermogenes teach, ‘it is written’. But if it is not written, let him fear what is destined for those who add or take away.” I reply that Tertullian is speaking of one dogma only, namely that God created all things from nothing, not from preexisting matter, as Hermogenes fancied. And since this dogma is very openly contained in the Scriptures, Tertullian says that he adores the fullness of Scripture as far as this dogma is concerned; and he adds that Hermogenes, who was adding the contrary dogma to Scripture and was opposing Scripture itself, was falling into the curse by which we are forbidden to add anything to, or taken anything away from, Scripture, so that its truth is changed. Chemnitz puts forward, twelfth, Cyprian who speaks thus in his epistle to Pompeianus, “Whence is this tradition?” he says. “Does it descend from the Lord’s and the Gospel’s authority, or does it come from the commands or the epistles of the Apostles? For those things are to be done that are written, as God testifies and proposes to Joshua, saying, ‘The book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth’. If then it is prescribed in the Gospel, or is contained in the epistles and acts of the Apostles, let this holy tradition too be observed etc.’” I reply that Cyprian wrote this 214 when he wanted to guard his own error, and so it is not strange if he then reasoned in the manner of the erring. Wherefore St. Augustine rightly refutes this epistle in Against the Donatists bk.4 chs.23ff. Besides, although Cyprian was rejecting that one tradition about baptism, because he thought it was against the Scriptures, yet he did not, for that reason, want the others to be rejected which, although they were not in the Scriptures, yet do not conflict with Scripture. Thirteenth he brings forward that famous saying of Jerome on Titus ch.1, “Without the authority of Scripture talk has no faith.” And that on Matthew ch.23, “What has no authority from the Scriptures is contemned with the same facility as it is proved.” And that on Haggai ch.1, “What they find and make up as it were on the tradition of the Apostles, without the authority and testimonies of the Scriptures, is pierced by the sword of God.” Finally that from the commentary on Psalm 86 on the verse, “The Lord will in the Scriptures tell of the people and the princes, of those who were in it,” Jerome says, “See what he says, ‘those who were’ not ‘those who are’, so that, with the exception of the Apostles, whatever is said afterwards is cut off, does not have authority.” I reply to the first that the place has been distorted by Chemnitz, for thus does Jerome have, “Without the authority of Scripture talk has no faith, unless they seem to strengthen false doctrine even with divine testimonies.” He does not therefore call talk what is put forward from outside Scripture, but he says that talkative men do not find faith among us, unless they try to confirm their errors from the Scriptures; which squares most of all with heretics. To the second I say that it too is not faithfully quoted. For Jerome did not speak universally of what does not have authority from the Scriptures etc., but he is speaking of a certain particular opinion whereby some were trying to prove from an apocryphal book that Zacharias, whom the Jews killed between the temple and the altar, was Zacharias the father of John the Baptist. He says, “Because this does not have the authority of the Scriptures, it is contemned with the same facility as it is proved.” And the sense is that because this opinion is proved from an apocryphal, not a canonical, book, it is easily contemned. To the third the solution is plain, for he is only acting against those who make something up and yet wish their figment to seem to be Apostolic tradition. To the last one I say that in this place Jerome is rejecting things alien to Apostolic doctrine, that is, contrary and repugnant to Scripture. Finally the adversaries bring forward the testimonies of Augustine. And first that from Christian Doctrine bk.2 ch.9, where Augustine says, “In what is openly put in Scripture are found all things that contain the faith and morals of living.” I reply that he is speaking of those dogmas that are necessary for everyone simply, such as those contained in the Apostles’ Creed and in the Decalogue. So the same Augustine in his book on Merit and Remission of Sin last chapter says, “I believe that from this is the authority of the divine speeches most clear, if a man cannot be ignorant of it without loss of promised salvation.” And besides those, there are many other things that are contained in tradition alone, as we showed above from many places of Augustine. Again, second, that from Against the Letters of Petilianus bk.3 ch.6, “If anyone either about Christ or about his Church or about any other thing that pertains to our faith and life, I do not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven have 215 announced to you anything besides what you have received in the legal and Evangelical Scriptures, let him be anathema.” I reply that we showed already above from Augustine’s tract.98 on John that this ‘besides’ signifies ‘contrary to’. Third, Chemnitz produces certain places from City of God bk.19 ch.18, tract.3 on the epistles of John, epist.163, the book on Pastors ch.14, Confessions bk.6 ch.5, but in these places there is nothing against traditions. For Blessed Augustine only says that dogmas are to be proved from the Scriptures when testimonies from Scripture are had, and that Scripture must be believed, and that nothing must be said against the Scriptures, and the like, which are most true, but in vain are they brought against traditions, or for the sufficiency of Scripture, since by no word did Augustine indicate any such thing in these places. Fourth he produces this from the book on the Good of Widowhood ch.1, “What more should I teach you than this that we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare to be wise more than we should. Let me not teach you other than to expound the words of the Doctor to you.” I reply that Augustine is not speaking of every dogma, but only of the profession of widowhood, which, as to what sort of good it is, was expounded by the Apostle in I Corinthians ch.7, and therefore Augustine says that it is enough for him if he expounds the words of the Apostle. But as to what Augustine says generally, “Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine,” it is said against those who make up from their judgment new doctrines that are not consonant with the Scriptures. Fifth, that from Against Maximinus bk.3 ch.14, “But now neither should I put forward the Nicene Council nor you the Council of Rimini to prejudge the issue. Nor let me be detained by the authority of the latter nor you by that of the former; on the authorities of the Scriptures, not on witnesses proper to each, and on those common to both, let thing with thing, cause with cause, reason with reason contest.” Again on Psalm 57, “Take our papers out of the way, let the codex of God come forward, hear Christ speaking, hear truth talking.” Like things are contained in the book on the Unity of the Church chs.3, 6, 10, 16. I reply that it seems indeed in these places that something is said against Councils, but not against traditions; but neither is anything taught by Augustine against Councils, as we can easily show. For it is certain that Augustine did not want the Councils to be removed from these disputations and only the Scriptures to be received because he did not believe that the authority of legitimate Councils was very great, but he did so for two reasons. First so as to deal with the issue more expeditiously. For if he had wanted to take an argument from the Council he would have first had to prove that the Councils were to be received, which was too long. And this reason chiefly has place against the Arians, who in no way admitted the Council of Nicea. The second reason is that in those questions that were then at issue, there existed in Scripture very clear testimonies, which without doubt were to be preferred to all the testimonies of Councils. And this reason chiefly has place against the Donatists in questions about the Church. Elsewhere the same Augustine in epists.118, 162, 165-166, and in his book on Baptism, often urges the Councils and traditions, nay also the responses of Pontiffs and Emperors. Sixth they bring forward that from on Merit and Remission of Sin bk.2 ch.36, “When the dispute is about a thing very obscure, and certain and clear teachings of 216 the divine Scriptures do not help, human presumption should keep itself in check, doing nothing by inclining to either side.” I reply that he is speaking of very obscure questions, such as he thought about the origin of souls, for determining which no firm testimonies were available but only certain conjectures from the divine letters. But this is nothing to traditions, which are strong with all consent of the ancients and of the whole Church. Which argument is a very grave one as Augustine teaches everywhere, and especially in Against Cresconius bk.1 ch.33, where he says that the truth of Scripture is held by us when we do what pleases the universal Church, even if we read nothing written down about it. Seventh is that from Catechizing the Uneducated chs.3, 6, where Augustine teaches that a brief summa of doctrine from the Scriptures should be proposed to Catechumens, which when they say they believe and promise to wish to observe, they are to be baptized. For hence Chemnitz wishes to establish that what is contained in the Scriptures is sufficient for the Christian. I reply that it is indeed sufficient for someone to be baptized, but it is not sufficient for the Church of God absolutely. Otherwise we could also conclude that the Apostles’ Creed was sufficient for the Church, and that all the rest is superfluous. These then are the testimonies of the ancients cited by the heretics, wherein three things are to be noted. One, that those we put to the contrary are more than double; two, our testimonies expressly teach about receiving unwritten traditions, so much so that the heretics, since they cannot deny it, turn themselves everywhere to blasphemies. But the testimonies adduced by them do not properly pertain to traditions, but are ultimately twisted in that direction by the adversaries through bad consequences. Finally, when the adversaries are convicted by the evidence of the testimonies, they sometimes confess that traditions were sometimes defended by some Fathers; but we cannot be driven to admit that traditions were opposed by any of the fathers. 

Chapter Twelve: The Reasonings of the Adversaries are Solved 

There remains the third kind of arguments, which are taken from reason. So, the first argument is that it seems impossible that unwritten traditions could have been preserved, since there are very many impediments: forgetfulness, lack of skill, negligence, perversity, which are never lacking among the human race. From which fact also we see that it has happened that the dogmas of Lycurgus, Pythagoras, and the like, who taught and did not write, have altogether perished. I reply that not only is it not impossible for traditions to be preserved but that it is even impossible for them not to be preserved. For this care does not fall chiefly on men but on God, who rules the Church. Just as God, therefore, has preserved the Church up to this day against so many persecutions of Emperors, Philosophers, Jews, heretics, and just as he could preserve the traditions from Adam up to Moses for 2,000 years and then the Scriptures from Moses up to this time through 3,000 and more years, so he could without doubt preserve traditions from Christ up to us for 1,500 years, especially since, besides the providence of God, which is the chief cause, there are four other assisting causes. The first is Scripture. For although the traditions are not written in the divine letters, yet they are written in the records of the ancients and in Ecclesiastical books. 217 The second is continuous use. For most traditions are in continuous observance, as the rite of administering the sacraments, feast days, times of fasting, celebration of the mass and of divine offices, and others of the same sort. Therefore as vernacular languages are preserved, even if there are no grammars extant, because of continuous use, as the Hebrew tongue, which was conserved as vernacular in the people of God from Adam up to the captivity of Babylon for so many thousands of years, so too traditions of this sort could, without any Scripture, be preserved by use. The third cause is that there are certain external records that last for a very long time, as the most ancient temples, and in them altars, sacred fonts, memorials of saints, crosses, images, Ecclesiastical books, and the like. At Baleoli in Flanders in the year 1571 it was narrated to me by the Pastor of the place, when I had by chance come to those parts, that when an heretical minister had persuaded the people that the erection of stone altars was a new invention and scarcely a hundred years old, the citizens began to demolish the altars. But when they were busy at the work, they noticed some very ancient letters incised on one of the altars, in which was noted the year in which the altar had been dedicated. Now from that notice they understood that the altar had been erected long before and, unless I mistake, some hundreds of years before the time at which the heretic had said altars began. So the stone monument confounded the heretic and preserved the tradition of the Church. The fourth cause is heresy. For God marvelously uses the enemies of the Church to preserve the Church. For because in each age new heretics have arisen, who opposed different dogmas of the Church, therefore too in each age there have existed learned men who, in order to resist the heretics, investigated the doctrine of the Church and the ancient traditions and commended them to posterity with great care. In the same way those who possess their goods in peace for a long time easily lose the instruments and letters in which is contained whence those goods came to them and by what right they posses them. But he who is always litigating very carefully guards them nor does he allow them for any reason to be destroyed. The second argument of the adversaries. The divine letters are written so that we may have a rule and norm of faith and morals, as Augustine teaches in City of God bk.19 ch.18 and Against Faustus bk.11 ch.5. But the words of God are perfect, therefore Scripture is a perfect rule and adequate for our faith. Therefore whatever is in Scripture is de fide, and whatever is not in Scripture is not de fide; therefore Scripture alone is necessary and sufficient for preserving the faith. I reply to the major proposition in two ways. First, that the proper and chief end of Scripture was not to be a rule of faith, but to be a certain useful admonition to preserve and foster the doctrine received from preaching. Proof that the chief end of Scripture is not to be a rule of faith: for then it ought to contain all and only those things that pertain of themselves to the faith, as we see was done in the Creed, which is truly said, and was composed, to be a sort of brief rule of faith. But in the Scriptures there are many things that of themselves do not pertain to faith, that is, which were not written for the reason that they should necessarily be believed; but those things are necessarily believed which are written, as is plain about all the histories of the Old Testament, even about many histories of the Gospel and of the 218 Acts of Apostles, about the salutations of Paul in his epistles, and other things of that sort. But that there are many things needing to be believed that are not in the Scriptures was shown copiously above; therefore the chief end of Scripture is not to be a rule of faith, but by various teachings, examples, exhortations, now frightening us, nor instructing us, now threatening us, now consoling us, to help us in this pilgrimage. For hence it is that Scripture is not one continuous body as a rule of faith ought to be, but it contains various works, histories, speeches, prophecies, songs, epistles etc. This end is expressed by Paul in Romans ch.15, “Whatever things were written were written for our doctrine, so that by the patience and consolation of the Scriptures we might have hope.” And II Peter ch.1, “I think it just, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up in admonition.” And ch.3, “Behold I write this second letter to you, in which I excite your sincere mind in admonition.” I say second that Scripture, although it was not made chiefly to be a rule of faith, is yet a rule of faith, not total but partial. For the total rule of faith is the word of God, or the revelation of God made to the Church, which is divided into two partial rules, Scripture and Tradition. And indeed Scripture, because it is a rule, has from this that whatever it contains is necessarily true and to be believed, and whatever is repugnant to it is necessarily false and to be rejected; but because it is not a total rule but partial, hence it happens to it that it does not measure everything, and for that reason there is something de fide which is not contained in it. And in this way should the words of Blessed Augustine be understood. For he nowhere says that Scripture alone is the rule, but he says that Scripture is the rule by which the writings of the ancient Fathers should be examined, so that we accept those that are consonant with Scripture, and reject those that oppose Scripture. The third argument the adversaries take from the inconvenience that traditions bring with them. For if this door is opened, so that we say some dogmas are to be received that can be proved by no testimony of Scripture, occasion will be given for many to make up and introduce into the Church many false things under the name of traditions. For we see that formerly even the most holy men were deceived in this way. For Papias is said to have taught from tradition that the reign of Christ would be for 1,000 years after the resurrection here on earth, which was believed by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, and very many others. See Eusebius Hist. bk.3 ch.39. Besides Irenaeus bk.2 chs.39-40 teaches from tradition that Christ suffered in the fiftieth year of his age or thereabouts; but contrariwise Tertullian in his book Against the Jews ch.5 and Clement of Alexandria in Stromateis bk.1 teach that Christ suffered in the thirtieth year of his age, which traditions are all false. I reply. First, if this argument is of any validity, not only traditions but even the Scriptures must be rejected. For many even false and pernicious books were formerly adorned with the title of canonical books, of Peter, of Paul, of Barnabas, and of other Apostles, as is plain from Gelasius in the Council of 70 Bishops, from Jerome in his book on Illustrious Men on Luke. Wherefore also Paul in II Thessalonians ch.2 says, “Do not be afraid either by speech or by epistle, as if sent by us.” Namely because both speeches viva voce and written epistles were being promulgated by false Apostles in the name of the true Apostles. Besides Papias took that error of his about the thousand years not so much from unwritten tradition as 219 from the Scripture falsely understood of the Gospels and of the Apocalypse, as Jerome teaches on Isaiah ch.49 and on Matthew ch.19. Irenaeus too tries to prove from tradition and Scripture that the Lord had reached almost fifty years of age. For he proves it from John ch.8, “You have not yet reached fifth years and you have seen Abraham?” Finally Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria try to prove their error from badly understood Scripture alone. In vain, therefore, and rashly does Chemnitz bring these things against traditions. I say second that this inconvenience, which is common to traditions and to the Scriptures, does not much harm either the true traditions or the true Scriptures. For there is an authority in the Church and also a definite way and reason for discriminating true traditions and Scriptures from false; nor by the public judgment of the Church has any apocryphal book been received for canonical, or a false tradition for true. The fourth argument of the adversaries. It is proper to heretics to hide their dogmas and to say that Christ and the Apostles preached some things openly to everyone and certain things they handed on to certain others only in secret. For Irenaeus bk.1 ch.23 writes of the Basilidians that they assert they should not speak their mysteries, but keep them secret through silence. And ch.24 about Carpocratians he says, “They say that Jesus in a mystery spoke separately to his disciples and Apostles, and required of them that they hand these things on separately to the worthy and those who assent.” Tertullian too in his book on Prescription says, “They are wont to say that the Apostles did not know everything; or they did indeed know everything but did not hand on everything to everyone.” I reply that heretics are the apes of Christians, as Cyprian teaches in his epistle to Iubaianus, and for that reason they also want to have mysteries. But there is a difference between their mysteries and ours, that their mysteries they require to be secret for the reason that these are very base, as is plain about the gnostics, who made the Eucharist from man’s semen and women’s menstrual discharge, as Epiphanius reports; this is also reported by Augustine of the Manichees in his book on Heresies ch.46, and the mysteries of the Anabaptists are clearly similar. And he again says that they want those things to be kept secret from the learned and manifest only to the unskilled. For on this point Irenaeus and Tertullian blame the old heretics who said that Christ did not hand on those mysteries to the Apostles, nor the Apostles to their successors the Bishops, but to some unknown others. But our mysteries are not handed on only to some people for fear of the light, but because there is no need that they be known by all, or because not all have the capacity for them. Otherwise they are such as could be publicly preached. For nothing save what is pure and chaste is done by the Church. And this I think is what the Lord wanted when he says Matthew ch.10, “What you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops,” namely if there is need. And John ch.18, “I have spoken openly to the world and in the synagogue where all the Jews gather, and in the dark I have said nothing;” that is, I have said nothing that could not be said everywhere, as far as concerns the truth and purity of what I said. With this however is not in conflict that some things he expounded separately to his disciples. 

Praise to God and to the Virgin Mother Mary