Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book IV: On the Unwritten Word (Tradition)
Chapter 3: The state of the question, and some falsehoods of the adversaries detected
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book IV: On the Unwritten Word of God (Tradition). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The controversy, then, between us and the heretics consists in two things. The first is that we assert that in the Scriptures the whole necessary doctrine, whether of Faith or of morals, is not expressly contained; and therefore that, 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 all things necessary to Faith and morals are contained, and therefore that there is no need of any unwritten word. Luther in his Commentary on chapter 1 to the Galatians: “Neither ought any other doctrine to be delivered and heard in the Church than the pure word of God, that is, the holy Scripture. Let the doctors, or the hearers, with their other doctrine, be anathema.” John Brentius in his Prolegomena, chapter On tradition: “The Apostle clearly signifies that no Tradition, against and beside the testimonies of Scripture, is to be acknowledged for a doctrine necessary to salvation.” John Calvin book 4 of the Institutes chapter 8 section 8: “Let this therefore be a firm axiom, that no other word of God is to be held, to which place is given in the Church, than what is contained first in the Law and the Prophets, then in the apostolic writings.” Martin Kemnitz in his Examination of the Council of Trent session 4 very often repeats that this is the state of the question, whether the Scriptures contain all doctrines necessary to salvation, and that he affirms, we deny.
Secondly we differ in that they think the Apostles instituted indeed certain things beside Scripture which pertain to the rites and order of the Church, which nevertheless are not necessary or precepts, but free; but that they handed down nothing beside Scripture pertaining necessarily to Faith or morals. This Kemnitz clearly teaches when he treats of the seventh kind of Traditions, and Calvin book 4 of the Institutes chapter 10 section 20. But we acknowledge apostolic Traditions of all kinds, as we set forth above.
Thirdly we differ in that they think that apostolic Traditions, if there were any, do not now exist, that is, that no apostolic Tradition can be certainly demonstrated. So Kemnitz there: “By no certain and firm documents can it be proved which rites were certainly handed down by the Apostles, which cannot be shown from Scripture.” We on the contrary assert that there are not wanting certain ways and grounds by which apostolic Traditions may be shown.
Now before I come to the proof, I will say a few things, after my wont, of their self-contradictions and falsehoods. Brentius and Kemnitz, in the places noted, openly say that nothing can be equalled to the sacred Scriptures. Brentius thus says: “Not content with Scripture divinely commended and confirmed, they boast that the Apostles handed down many things to posterity by word, which have no less authority than those which were committed to writing.” And Kemnitz says: “It is notable audacity to equal anything to the majesty and authority of the canonical Scripture.” But these same confess that the Apostles handed down something beside the Scriptures. Brentius there thus says: “It neither ought nor can be denied that both Christ said and did many things, and the Apostles handed down and instituted many things, which are not comprehended in the letters themselves.” And Kemnitz thus says: “That the Apostles therefore ordained and handed down certain rites to the Churches, is certainly established from their own writings; and it is likely that certain other external ones too, which are not noted in Scripture, were handed down by the Apostles, etc.” Now if the authority of an Apostle commanding by mouth is no less than of one committing to writing, certainly it is not audacity to equal something unwritten to the written word. For we can at least equal the ordination of an external rite handed down by the Apostles with a like ordination committed to writing. For they themselves confess that the Apostles ordained something in both ways. Why then do they cry out that it is notable audacity to equal anything to the written word?
Now let us come to the falsehoods. It is common to Calvin, Brentius, and Kemnitz to repeat rather often that we will have every rite of the Church to be an apostolic Tradition without any distinction. Calvin book 4 of the Institutes chapter 10 section 19: “The Roman masters wish to extort that there be among them no little ceremony which is not reckoned for apostolic.” But we do not say this, but receive only those for apostolic which we can prove by firm testimonies of the ancients to be apostolic. Then it is common to them to act as though they defended only the Scriptures, we only Traditions, and cared not whether Traditions be according to Scripture or against Scripture; but it is not so; for we make more of Scripture than they, nor do we admit any Tradition against Scripture.
But the falsehoods of Kemnitz must be enumerated one by one. In his Examination published in the year of salvation 1566, on the fourth session, pages 68 and 69, he says that we assert that God appointed that the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles should not be written in books, but only handed down by living voice; and he himself afterward, page 185, asserts that the Apostles had a command to write. But both are a falsehood, and the truth is in the middle. For no Catholic ever taught that God appointed that the New Testament should not be written; or let Kemnitz produce the author who said this. For so the Evangelists and Apostles, in our opinion, would have sinned most gravely by writing; but we only say that the New Testament ought chiefly to be written in the heart, and does not necessarily require to be written in books.
It is also false that God commanded the Apostles to write. For we read Matthew last chapter the command to preach the Gospel; but that they should write, we nowhere read. And so God neither expressly commanded them to write, nor not to write. Nor yet do we deny that, God willing and inspiring, the Apostles wrote what they wrote; for it is one thing to do something God suggesting and inspiring, another he openly commanding it. And in this way is to be understood St. Augustine book 1 On the agreement of the Evangelists last chapter, where he thus speaks: “Whatever he willed us to read of his deeds and words, this he commanded them to write as with his own hands.” For he speaks of the internal command whereby Christ invisibly, as the Head, moves his members to various actions; which command ought to be esteemed a certain suggestion and inspiration, rather than a precept properly so called. Nor does it stand in the way that in the Apocalypse we several times read, Write the things which thou seest; for John is bidden to write certain secret visions, not the doctrine of the Gospel and the precepts of morals of which we treat.
Then at the end of his disputation on Tradition, page 420, he thus says: “Lastly this observation too will admonish the Reader of much, that the Papists are not afraid to refer to the Traditions of the Apostles many things which can be shown, from the very Papist writers, to have been instituted and to have proceeded from other much later authors, etc.” And this he proves by eleven examples, of which none is without a falsehood.
The first is where he says that Innocent III wrote (chapter Cum Marthae, On the celebration of Masses) that there are indeed more words in the consecration of the chalice than the Lord said in the Gospel, but that they are had from apostolic Tradition. “But,” says Kemnitz, “the Papist writers have noted by which Roman Pontiffs those words were added.” It is a falsehood. For the Catholic writers have noted, indeed, 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 any who in this matter contradicted Innocent.
The second falsehood: “The whole canon of the Mass,” he says, “is from apostolic Tradition; if anyone show himself even to doubt it, he is struck with anathema.” It is a falsehood. For since in the canon there is made a 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 Kemnitz say openly where he read what he so boldly affirms. We assert therefore not that the whole canon, but that the sum and chief part, is from apostolic Tradition, to which the Supreme Pontiffs afterward added something.
The third falsehood: “Alexander,” he says, “appointed that water be mixed with wine in the celebration of the Eucharist. The same instituted blessed water and salt; therefore these rites are falsely referred to the Tradition of the Apostles.” A falsehood. For hear the words of Alexander in epistle 1: “The opinions of superstitions being rejected, let only bread and wine mixed with water be offered in the sacrifice. For there ought not (as we have received from the Fathers, and reason itself teaches) either wine alone or water alone to be offered in the chalice of the Lord.” And so it is true, what Cyprian says book 2 epistle 3, that this is a divine Tradition. For Alexander sufficiently indicates that this usage did not begin from him, since he says he received it from the Fathers. Of blessed water too he does not say that he first ordered it to be blessed, but indicates that he does what is of ancient custom. For he thus says: “We bless for the peoples water sprinkled with salt, etc.” And so it is deservedly said to be an apostolic Tradition by Clement book 8 of the Apostolic Constitutions chapter 33, and by blessed Basil in the book On the Holy Ghost chapter 27.
The fourth: “Telesphorus instituted the Lenten fast.” A falsehood. For Telesphorus in his epistle does not say that he instituted Lent, but only that the clergy should add three days to the accustomed fast of all Christians, that is, should begin to abstain from flesh on Quinquagesima Sunday: “Know,” he says, “that it is appointed by us and by all the Bishops gathered in this holy and apostolic See, that for seven full weeks before holy Easter all the Clergy fast from flesh.” With which words very well agrees what Jerome says in the epistle to Marcella, On the errors of Montanus, that Lent was instituted by the Apostles by an unwritten Tradition.
The fifth falsehood: “Hyginus,” he says, “instituted Chrism.” A falsehood without any foundation. For nothing of Chrism is found in the epistles of Hyginus; nor is there among others any such decree, except that Gratian, On consecration distinction 4 canon In catechismo, brings a certain decree of Hyginus, by which he appointed that one and the same person can be he who receives the baptized and he who receives the confirmed, that is, the godfather, though it be better that they be different. And so it is rightly said by Pope Fabian in epistle 2 that the Chrism is to be renewed every year, because the Apostles so instituted.
The sixth: “Callixtus instituted the fasts of the four seasons; therefore it is false that they are from apostolic Tradition.” It is a falsehood that Callixtus instituted all the fasts of the four seasons; for he himself in epistle 1 says that he only added one fast to the three which were before. Wherefore what St. Leo says (sermon 2 On the fast of Pentecost, and sermon 8 On the fast of the seventh Month) — that those fasts are from apostolic Tradition — does not fight with the decree of Callixtus.
The seventh: “Sylvester devised the confirmation of children.” A most impudent falsehood. For nothing of the kind is anywhere read of Sylvester, and there are found decrees of Pontiffs far more ancient than Sylvester (On consecration distinction 4 canon In catechismo, and canon Non plures, and distinction 3 canons 1, 2, and following), where not the Sacrament itself, but certain rites about its administration, are instituted.
The eighth: “Felix instituted the consecration of altars.” And this is a falsehood. For it is established that Sylvester was the author of this rite as far as concerns the stone altar and the solemn consecration; for before Sylvester Dionysius the Areopagite writes, in the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy chapter 5 part 1, that altars ought to be anointed with oil and consecrated by the Bishop. Kemnitz seems to have been deceived by epistle 1 of Felix IV, where many things are disputed of the consecration of altars; but nothing new is there instituted, but only the ancient rites are explained.
The ninth: “Felix IV instituted that the sick be anointed before death.” A solemn falsehood. For Mark 6 the Apostles anointed the sick with oil. And James 5 it is commanded that the Priests anoint the sick with oil. And Innocent I, a hundred years more ancient than Felix IV, in his first epistle, which is to Decentius chapter 8, says that the Unction of the sick is a Sacrament of the Church.
The tenth: “Siricius added to the Mass the memory and invocation of the Saints.” And this is a falsehood. For Cyril of Jerusalem, more ancient than Siricius, in his third mystagogical Catechesis: “When we offer this sacrifice,” he says, “we make mention of those who fell asleep before us, first of the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that God by their prayers may receive our petitions, etc.” And likewise in the liturgy of Basil, who was more ancient than Siricius, we see the memory and invocation of the Saints made.
The eleventh: “Pelagius added to the Mass the anniversary memories of the dead.” And this is a falsehood. For Tertullian, far more ancient than Pope Pelagius, in the book On monogamy, mentions that the anniversary oblation for the dead descends from apostolic Tradition.
To these let us add a twelfth falsehood, from the book which he entitles The chief heads of the Theology of the Jesuits. “You will note in this place, Reader,” says Kemnitz, “what difference the Jesuits make between the written Traditions of the Apostles and those which they themselves feign under the name of the Apostles. The written they say are arbitrary; the feigned they say bind under peril of salvation.” This so notable a falsehood Kemnitz gathered from this, that the men of Cologne, in the book against the Catechism of Monheim, had written that For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you does not signify I commanded you, but I taught you; and thence they deduced that from that place it is not gathered that the laity are bound to the use of the chalice in the Sacrament of the altar. But if that I delivered unto you signifies not I taught, but I commanded, what, I pray, is the sense? What means, I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, etc.? Is not here a history narrated, and not a law constituted? And so the Jesuits do not say that the written Traditions do not bind, but say that they bind in a diverse manner. When a Tradition is of the doctrine of Faith or of a thing done, it binds to believing, not to acting, as the Tradition of the death of Christ; but when it is of the precepts of morals, it binds to acting — which same is to be understood also of the unwritten.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III. i « Explicatur status qucestionis , et mendacia quae¬ dam adversariorum deteguntur. Controversia igitur inter nos, et haereticos in duobus consistit. Primum est, quod nos asserimus, in Scripturis non contineri ex¬ presse totam doctrinam necessariam, sive de Fide, sive de moribus : et proinde praeter verbum Dei scriptum, requiri etiam verbum Dei non scriptum, id est, divinas et aposto- licas Traditiones. At ipsi docent , in Scripturis omnia conti¬ neri ad Fidem et mores necessaria , et pro¬ inde non esse opus ullo verbo non scripto. Lutherus in Comment. c. I. ad Galat. : «Ne¬ que alia, » inquit, « doctrina in Ecclesia tradi, et audiri debet, quam purum verbum Dei, hoc est, sancta Scriptura. Doctores, vel auditores alii cum sua doctrina, anathema sunto. » Joannes Brentius inProlegom. cap. de tradit : « Perspicue , » inquit , « signifi¬ cat Apostolus, quod nulla Traditio contra, et praeter testimonia Scripturae agnoscenda sit pro dogmate necessario ad salutem. » Joannes Calvinus lib. IV Institut. c. 8, §. 8. « Esto igitur, » inquit , « hoc firmum axio¬ ma, non aliud habendum esse Dei verbum, cui detur in Ecclesia locus, quam quod Lege primum, et Prophetis, deinde scriptis Apos- tolicis continetur. » Martinus Kemnitius in Exam. Goncil. Trident. sess. IY. saepissime repetit, hunc esse statum quaestionis, an Scripturae contineant omnia dogmata ad salutem necessaria, et se affirmare , nos ne¬ gare . Secundo dissidemus, quod illi existimant, Apostolos quidem quaedam instituisse prae¬ ter Scripturam, quae ad ritus et ordinem Ecclesiae pertinent , quae tamen non sint ne¬ cessaria, nec praecepta, sed libera. Nihil au¬ tem tradidisse praeter Scripturam, ad Fidem aut mores necessario pertinens ; id clare do¬ cet Kemnitius , cum agit de septimo genere Traditionum, et Calvinus lib. IY Instit. cap. 10. §. 20. Nos autem agnoscimus Traditiones apostolicas omnium generum, ut supra ex¬ posuimus. Tertio dissidemus , quod illi putant Tra¬ ditiones apostolicas, si quae fuerunt, nunc non exstare, id est, non posse certo demon- trari aliquam apostolicam Traditionem. Ita Kemnitius ibidem : « Nullis, inquit, certis et firmis documentis probari potest, qui sint ritus certo ab Apostolis traditi, qui ex Scrip¬ tura ostendi non possunt. » Nos e contra¬ rio asserimus, non deesse certas vias, et ra¬ tiones, quibus Apostolicae Traditiones osten¬ dantur. Nunc antequam ad probationem veniam, pauca dicam more solito de contradictioni¬ bus et de mendaciis ipsorum. Brentius et Kemnitius locis notatis aperte dicunt , nihil posse aequari sacris Scripturis. Brentius sic ait : « Non contenti Scriptura divinitus com¬ mendata et confirmata, jactant Apostolos multa tradidisse posteris sermone , quae non minorem habent auctoritatem, quam quse scripto mandata sunt. » Kemnitius autem ait : « Insignis aifdacia est, majestati, et auctoritati Scripturse canonicse aliquid ae¬ quare. » At iidem fatentur Apostolos aliquid tra¬ didisse preeter Scripturas. Brentius ibidem sic ait : « Negari non debet, nec potest, quin tam Christus multa dixerit et fecerit, quam Apostoli multa tradiderint, et instituerint, quae non sunt ab ipsis litteris comprehensa. » 198 LIBER IV. Kemnitius autem sic ait : « Apostolos igitur ritus quosdam ordinasse et tradidisse Eccle¬ siis, ex scriptis ipsorum certo constat, et ve¬ risimile est, quosdam etiam alios externos, qui in Scriptura annotati non sunt, ab Apos¬ tolis traditos esse, etc. » Jam vero si nonmi- nor est auctoritas Apostoli ore praecipientis, quam litteris mandantis, certe non est au¬ dacia, sequare aliquid non scriptum verbo scripto. Possumus enim utminimum aequare ordinationem ritus externi ab Apostolis tra¬ ditam cum simili ordinatione litteris man¬ data. Ipsi enim utroque modo fatentur Apo¬ stolos aliquid ordinasse. Cur ergo clamant insignem audaciam esse aliquid aequare ver¬ bo scripto ? Nunc ad mendacia veniamus. Commune est Calvino, Brentio et Kemnitio saepius re¬ petere, nos velle omnem ritum Ecclesiae esse apostolicam Traditionem sine ullo delectu. Calvinus lib. IV. Instit. cap. 10, §. 19. «Ro¬ manenses magistri extorquere volunt, » in¬ quit, « ut nulla sit apud eos caeremoniola, quae non pro apostolica censeatur. » At non hoc dicimus, sed eas tantum recipimus pro apostolicis , quas firmis testimoniis antiquo¬ rum probare possumus esse apostolicas. De¬ inde commune est iisdem sic agere , quasi ipsi Scripturas tantum, nos Traditiones tan¬ tum defendamus, neque curemus an Tra¬ ditiones sint secundum Scripturam, an contra Scripturam : at non ita est ; nam Scrip¬ turam nos pluris facimus quam illi, nec ul¬ lam Traditionem admittimus contra Scriptu¬ ram. Sed Kemnitii mendacia singillatim enu¬ meranda sunt. In examine igitur edito anno salutis 1566. ad IV. sess. pag. 68. et 69. dicit nos asserere : Deum constituisse ut doctrina Christi et Apostolorum non scriberetur in libris, sed tantum viva voce traderetur, et ipse postea pag. 185. asserit, Apostolos ha¬ buisse mandatum ut scriberent. Sed utrum¬ que est mendacium, et veritas est in medio. Nullus enim Catholicorum docuit unquam, Deum constituisse ut novum Testamentum non scriberetur ; vel prollrat Kemnitius auc¬ torem, qui hoc dixerit. Sic enim Evangelis- tse et Apostoli, nostra sententia , peccassent gravissime, scribendo : sed tantum dicimus, novum Testamentum prmcipue in corde scribi debere, nec necessario exigere ut scri¬ batur in libris. Falsum quoque est, Deum mandasse Apo¬ stolis Ut scriberent. Legimus enim Matth. ult. mandatum ut praedicarent Evangelium ; ut autem scriberent , nusquam legimus. Ita¬ que Deus nec mandavit expresse ut scribe¬ rent, nec ut non scriberent. Nec tamen ne¬ gamus, quin , Deo volente, et inspirante, Apostoli scripserint quae scripserunt : aliud enim est aliquid facere Deo suggerente et inspirante, aliud eo aperte praecipiente. Et hoc modo intelligendus est Sanctus Augusti¬ nus lib. I. De consen. Evangel. c. ult., ubi sic loquitur : « Quidquid ille de suis factis et dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperavit. » Loquitur enim de imperio interno, quo Christus invi¬ sibiliter ut Caput membra sua movet ad va¬ rias actiones, quod imperium suggestio quae¬ dam et inspiratio potius , quam praeceptum proprie dictum existimari debet. Neque obstat, quod in Apocalypsi aliquo¬ ties legimus : Scribe quce vides : jubetur enim Joannes scribere quasdam arcanas visiones, non doctrinam Evangelii, et praecepta mo¬ rum de quibus nos agimus. Deinde in fine disputationis de Tradition. pag. 420. sic ait : « Postremo multa mone¬ bit Lectorem et haec observatio , quod Pon¬ tificii non verentur multa ad Apostolorum Traditiones referre , quse ab aliis auctoribus multo posterioribus instituta, et profecta es¬ se, ex ipsis Pontificiorum Scriptoribus os¬ tendi potest etc. » Hoc autem probat unde¬ cim exemplis, quorum nullum caret menda¬ cio. Primum est ubi dicit : scripsisse Innocen¬ tium III. cap. cum Marthae, extra de cele¬ brat. Missar., plura quidem esse verba in consecratione calicis, quam Dominus in Evangelio dixerit : sed tamen illa haberi ex apostolica Traditione. « At, » inquit Kemni¬ tius, « Scriptores Pontificii annotarunt , a quibus Romanis Pontificibus illa verba ad¬ jecta sint. » Mendacium est. Nam Scriptores catholici annotarunt quidem in reliquo ca¬ none, quis Pontifex quid addiderit; at in verbis consecrationis nemo invenitur aliquid addidisse : nec est, qui in hac re contradixe¬ rit Innocentio. Secundum mendacium : « Totum cano- nem Missae, » inquit , « esse ex apostolica Traditione , si quis vel dubitare se ostende¬ rit, anathemate percellitur. » Mendacium est. Nam cum in canone fiat commemoratio multorum Sanctorum, quorum aliqui 200. annis post Apostolos fuerunt ; quis dubitare potest non totum canonem esse ex apostolica CAPUT IIT. 199 Traditione ? vel dicat aperte Kemnitius , ubi legerit quod tam audacter affirmat. Non igi¬ tur totum canonem, sed summam, et praeci¬ puam partem esserimus esse ex apostolica Traditione, cui postea summi Pontifices ali¬ quid addiderint. Tertium mendacium : « Alexander, » in¬ quit, « aquam vino esse admiscendam in ce¬ lebratione Eucharistiae statuit. Idem aquam, et salem benedictum instituit ; igitur falso isti ritus ad Apostolorum Traditionem revo¬ cantur. » Mendacium. Audi enim Alexandri verba in epist. I. « Repulsis, » inquit, « opi¬ nionibus superstitionum, panis tantum, et vinum aqua permixtum in sacrificio offe¬ rantur. Non debet enim (ut a Patribus ac¬ cepimus, et ipsa ratio docet) in calice Do¬ mini aut vinum solum , aut aqua sola offer¬ ri. » Itaque verum est quod dicit Cyprianus lib. II, ep. 3. hanc esse divinam Traditio¬ nem. Alexander enim satis aperte significat, non a se incepisse hunc usum, cum se a Pa¬ tribus accepisse dicat. De aqua etiam bene¬ dicta non dicit, si primum eam jussisse be¬ nedici, sed indicat , se facere quod est anti¬ quae consuetudinis. Sic enim ait: «Aquam, » inquit, « sale conspersam populis benedici¬ mus, etc. » Itaque merito dicitur esse apos¬ tolica Traditio a Clemente lib. VIII. Aposto- lic. Constit. c. 33. et a B. Basilio lib. De Spi¬ ritu sancto, cap. 27. Quartum est : « Telesphorus jejunium quadragesimale instituit. » Mendacium. Te¬ lesphorus enim in epistola sua non dicit, se instituisse Quadragesimam, sed tantum ut clerici ad solitum jejunium omnium Chris¬ tianorum adderent tres dies, id est, inciperent a carnibus abstinere in Dominica quinqua¬ gesimae : « Cognoscite, » inquit, a nobis et a cunctis Episcopis in hac sancta et aposto¬ lica Sede congregatis statutum esse, ut sep¬ tem hebdomadas plenas ante sanctum Pas¬ cha omnes Clerici a carne jejunent. » Qui¬ bus verbis optime cohaeret quod dicit Hiero¬ nymus in epistola ad Marcellam, de errori¬ bus Montani , Quadragesimam ab Apostolis institutam Traditione non scripta. Quintum mendacium : « Hyginus , » in¬ quit, « Chrisma instituit. » Mendacium sine ullo fundamento. Nihil enim de Chrismate in epistolis Hygini invenitur : nec exstat apud alios tale aliquod decretum , nisi quod Gra¬ tianus de consecrat, dist. 4. can. In catechis- mo, affert decretum quoddam Hygini, quo statuit, unum et eumdem esse posse eum, qui suscipit baptizatum, et qui confirmatum, id est, patrinum, etsi melius sit, ut sint di¬ versi. Itaque recte a Fabiano Papa in ep. 2, dicitur, Chrisma singulis annis renovandum, quod sic Apostoli instituerint. Sextum est : « Calixtus jejunia quatuor temporum instituit; ergo falsum est , quod sint ex apostolica Traditione.» Mendacium est, quod Calixtus omnia instituerit quatuor ten> porum jejunia : ipse enim in epist. I. dicit, se tantum addidisse unum jejunium ad tria, quae antea erant. Quocirca quod sanctus Leo serm. 2. de jejun. Pentec., et serm. 8. de jejun. septimi Mensis dicit,, illa jejunia esse ex apostolica Traditione , non pugnat cum decreto Calixti. Septimum est : « Sylvester confirmatio¬ nem puerorum invenit. » Mendacium impu- dentissimum. Nihil enim tale de Sylvestro usquam legitur, et inveniuntur decreta Pon¬ tificum longe Sylvestro antiquiorum , de consecrat, d. 4. can. In catechismo , et can. Non plures, et d. 3. can. 1. 2. et sequen- tib. : ubi non ipsum Sacramentum, sed ali¬ qui ritus circa ejus administrationem insti¬ tuuntur. Octavum est : « Felix altarium consecra¬ tionem instituit. » Et hoc mendacium est. Constat enim Sylvestrum auctorem hujus ritus fuisse quod attinet ad altare lapideum et solemnem consecrationem : nam ante Sylvestrum Dionysius Areopagita scribit in lib. De Ecclesiastica hierarchia cap. V, p.i. altaria debere inungi oleo et consecrari ab Episcopo. Videtur Kemnitius deceptum fuisse epist. 1. Felicis IV., ubi multa disputantur de consecratione altarium : sed nihil ibi in¬ stituitur novi, sed solum antiqui ritus expli¬ cantur. Nonum est : « Felix IV instituit, ut infir¬ mi ante obitum inungantur. » Mendacium solemne. Nam Marci VI, Apostoli ungebant aegrotos oleo. Et Jacobi V. praecipitur, ut Presbyteri ungant aegrotos oleo. Et Innocen¬ tius I. Felice IV. centum annis antiquior, in epistola prima , quae est ad Decentium c. 8, Unctionem infirmorum Sacramentum Ec¬ clesiae esse dicit. Decimum est : « Siricius memoriam, et invocationem Sanctorum Missae addidit. » Et hoc mendacium est. Nam-Cyrillus Hiero¬ solymitanus Siricio antiquior, in Catech. 3. mystag. : «Cum hoc sacrificium», inquit, « offerimus, facimus mentionem eorum, qui ante nos obdormierunt, primum Patriar- 200 LIBER IV. charum, Prophetarum, Apostolorum, Mar¬ tyrum, ut Deus orationibus illorum susci¬ piat preces nostras etc. » Et similiter in li- turgia Basilii, qui antiquior fuit Siricio, videmus fieri memoriam, et invocationem Sanctorum. Undecimum est: « Pelagius memorias mortuorum anniversarias Missae adjecit. » Et hoc mendacium est. Nam Tertullianus longe antiquior Pelagio Papa, lib. De Mono¬ gamia, meminit anniversariae oblationis pro defunctis ex apostolica Traditione descen¬ dere. His addamus mendacium duodecimum, ex libro, quem inscribit : Theologice je- suitarum prcecipua capita’. «Notabis », in¬ quit Kemnitius, « hoc loco Lector, quam faciant Jesuitae differentiam inter Traditio¬ nes Apostolorum scriptas, et inter eas, quas ipsi sub nomine Apostolorum configunt. Scriptas dicunt esse arbitrarias, confictas dicunt obligare sub periculo salutis ». Hoc mendacium tam insigne, inde collegit Kem¬ nitius, quod Golonienses in libro contra Ca- techismum Monhemii scripserant illud : Ego enim accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis etc(l). Non significare praecepi vobis, sed do¬ cui vos ; atque inde deduxerunt, ex eo loco non colligi, obligari laicos ad usum calicis in Sacramento altaris. Sed si illud Tradidi vobis non significat docui, sed praecepi; quis, quaeso, sensus est? Quid sibi vult, Ego tra¬ didi vobis , quod Dominus Jesus in qua nocte tradebatur accepit panem etc. nonne hic his¬ toria narratur, et non lex constituitur ? Ita¬ que non dicunt Jesuitae : Traditiones scriptas non obligare, sed dicunt obligare diverso modo. Quando Traditio est de doctrina Fidei vel re gesta, obligat ad credendum, non ad operandum, sicut Traditio de morte Christi. At quando est de morum praeceptis, obligat ad operandum, quod idem et de non scrip¬ tis intelligendum est.