Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book IV: On the Unwritten Word (Tradition)
Chapter 4: The necessity of Traditions is shown
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).
Now that we may come to the proof, we will try to demonstrate three things. First, that the Scriptures without Traditions were neither simply necessary nor sufficient. Secondly, that apostolic Traditions are found not only of morals, but also of Faith. Lastly, by what way we can be certain of the true Traditions.
The first I prove from the various ages of the Church. For from Adam to Moses there was some Church of God in the world, and men worshipped God by Faith, Hope, and Charity, and by external rites, as is plain from Genesis, where Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noe, Abraham, Melchisedech, and other just men are introduced, and from Augustine book 11 of the City of God and the following, where he traces the City of God from the beginning of the world to the end. But there was no divine Scripture before Moses, as is plain, both because by the consent of all Moses is the first sacred writer, and because in Genesis there is no mention of written doctrine, but only of handed-down doctrine: Genesis 18, I know, says God, that Abraham will command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord. Therefore for two thousand years religion was preserved by Tradition alone; therefore Scripture is not simply necessary. For as that ancient religion could be preserved without Scripture for two thousand years, so the doctrine of Christ could be preserved without Scripture for fifteen hundred. Then from Moses to Christ, through another two thousand years, Scriptures existed indeed, yet those were only of the Jews; but the other nations, among some of whom too there was truly religion and Faith, used only unwritten Tradition.
For that, besides the Jews, many others belonged to the Church, is plain from Job and his friends; likewise from Augustine, who constantly asserts this, book 2 On original sin chapter 24, book 1 On the predestination of the Saints chapter 9, and book 18 of the City of God chapter 47. And in the very people of God, although the Scriptures existed, yet the Jews used Tradition more than Scripture, as is plain from that of Exodus 13, Thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying: This is what the Lord did, etc.; Deuteronomy 32, Ask thy father, and he will declare to thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee; Job 8, Inquire of the former generation, and search diligently into the memory of the fathers; Judges 6, Where are the wonders which our fathers have told us?; Psalm 43, We have heard, O God, with our ears; our fathers have declared to us the work thou hast wrought; Psalm 77, How great things he commanded our fathers, that they should make the same known to their children, that another generation might know them: the children that should be born, and should rise up, and declare them to their children; Ecclesiasticus 8, Let not the discourse of the elders escape thee, for they have learned of their fathers. And yet Ecclesiasticus was among the last writers of the Old Testament.
The cause why the Hebrews used Tradition more than Scripture seems to have been that, until the times of Esdras, the Scriptures were not reduced to the form of books, that they might be easily and conveniently had, but were scattered in various annals and papers, and sometimes, through the negligence of the priests, were for a long time not found; as is plain from 4 Kings 22, where it is related as something new that in the days of Josias one volume of the Law of the Lord was found in the Temple. But Esdras after the captivity collected all things and reduced them together into one body, adding in Deuteronomy the last chapter on the life of Moses, and certain other things here and there for the continuation of the history. Of which see Theodoret in his preface on the Psalms, Bede on chapter 9 of the first book of Esdras, and Peter Antony Beuther annotation 9 on sacred Scripture.
Moreover from the coming of Christ, for many years, the Church was without Scriptures, so that even in his own time Irenaeus writes, book 3 chapter 4, that there were some Christian nations which lived excellently by Traditions alone without Scripture. Therefore from this deduction it sufficiently appears that the Scriptures are not simply necessary. And what Chrysostom says, homily 1 on Matthew — that the Scriptures were not necessary to the Patriarchs and Apostles, but are necessary to us on account of the corruption of men — is understood of a necessity not simple, but of well-being, that is, of usefulness; for otherwise, even in the time of the Patriarchs and Apostles, there were many wicked men.
But that the Scriptures do not so contain all things as to suffice of themselves without other Tradition, I prove first: because either the whole canon of the Scriptures taken together is sufficient, or the several books are sufficient of themselves. Kemnitz cannot say that the several books are sufficient of themselves; for then that would be false which he says, that the use of Tradition was in the Church until the completion of the whole canon of the Scriptures. Besides, we see that the Evangelists do not each contain all things. For John wrote nothing of the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Circumcision, the Epiphany of the Lord, and many other things; the same may be said of the others. Likewise, if one book contains all things sufficiently, what need was there of so many books? Finally, they themselves openly say that the whole canon is necessary that a sufficient doctrine may be had. But neither can this be truly affirmed. For many truly sacred and canonical books have perished; therefore we have not, nor have had for 1500 years, a sufficient doctrine, if the whole is placed in the Scriptures. For that out of the Old Testament many books perished, Chrysostom teaches homily 9 on Matthew, on that He shall be called a Nazarene: “Many,” he says, “of the Prophetic monuments have perished, which it is possible to prove from the history of Paralipomenon. For the Jews, being slothful — and not only slothful, but even impious — lost some things negligently, and others they both burned and cut to pieces.” The same he teaches homily 7 on the first to the Corinthians. Nor can it be answered that all those things which had perished were restored by Esdras; for Chrysostom wishes to prove that not all the prophecies of the Prophets now exist, and proves it because the Jews lost many.
Besides, Esdras did not restore the lost books, but emended and collected those which existed. 1 Paralipomenon last chapter: Now the acts of David, the first and last, are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer. And 2 Paralipomenon 9: And the rest of the works of Solomon are written in the words of Nathan the prophet, and in the books of Ahias the Silonite, and in the vision of Addo the seer. And 3 Kings 4: Solomon spoke three thousand parables, and his poems were five thousand. Where are all these? From the New Testament it is probable that there perished the epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, which he himself mentions (in some men's opinion, Colossians last chapter), and without doubt another to the Corinthians, mention of which seems to be made 1 Corinthians 5, in those words, I wrote to you in an epistle; and it may easily be that still some others have perished. Let the heretics therefore see whence they will repair so notable a defect.
Secondly, this same is proved from the difference which is between the preaching and the Scripture of the Apostles. For if it had been Christ's and the Apostles' purpose to confine and restrict the word of God to Scripture, in the first place Christ would have openly commanded a thing of such moment, and the Apostles would somewhere testify that they wrote by the Lord's command, just as by the Lord's command they taught in the whole world; but this we nowhere read. Then, to preach by living voice the Apostles waited for no offered occasion or necessity, but of their own accord and from their own purpose went forth; but to writing they applied their mind only compelled by a certain necessity.
Matthew, Eusebius writes book 3 of the History chapter 24 (or chapter 18 in another edition), wrote on this occasion, that, when he had preached to the Hebrews and was preparing to go to the Gentiles, he judged, as it were, that he should leave to those whom he was deserting in body some memorial of his doctrine and preaching. Mark, the same Eusebius relates book 2 chapter 15, wrote the Gospel neither of his own accord, nor commanded by Peter (whose disciple he was), but compelled by the prayers of the Romans. Luke, the same Eusebius reports book 3 chapter 24, wrote only for this reason, that he had seen many others rashly presume to commit to writing the things which they did not perfectly know, that he might draw us away from the uncertain narrations of others. John, the same Eusebius writes in the same place, preached the Gospel to extreme old age without any Scripture; and Jerome adds, in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, that at length he was compelled by the Bishops of Asia to write the Gospel on account of the heresy of the Ebionites then arising. And so, unless the Ebionite heresy had existed, we should perhaps not have the Gospel of John, as neither the other three, unless the aforesaid occasions had been offered. For rightly Eusebius writes, in the noted place, that only two of the twelve Apostles wrote a Gospel, and those provoked to it by a certain necessity.
From which it is manifestly gathered that the Apostles thought, in their primary intention, not of writing, but of preaching the Gospel. Besides, if they had of set purpose willed to consign their doctrine to writing, they would certainly have composed a Catechism, or a like book. But they either wrote history, as the Evangelists, or epistles from some occasion, as Peter, Paul, James, Jude, John, and in these treated disputations of doctrines only in passing. Finally, either the several Apostles would have published a written evangelical doctrine while each had the care of some province, or at least all gathered together, before they departed to their provinces, would have published some common book; just as it is established that they in common composed the Creed of Faith, which nevertheless they did not write, but delivered only by living voice, as blessed Irenaeus teaches book 3 chapter 4, blessed Jerome in the epistle to Pammachius against the errors of John of Jerusalem, blessed Augustine book On Faith and Works chapter 9, blessed Ambrose epistle 81 to Siricius, blessed Leo epistle 13 to Pulcheria, Rufinus, and blessed Maximus in their expositions of the Creed.
Thirdly it is proved from many things which cannot be unknown, and yet are not contained in the Scriptures. And first, in the time of the Old Testament, without doubt women no less than men had some remedy by which they were purged from original sin; and yet for males circumcision was instituted (according to the opinion of many), but what there was for females, the Scripture nowhere has. Then, at the same time, it is in no way credible that there was no remedy for males dying before the eighth day, on which alone they could be circumcised; and yet nothing exists of this matter in Scripture. Thirdly, many Gentiles could be saved, and were saved, in the time of the Old Testament, and truly belonged to the Church, as we showed above; and yet nothing at all is had in Scripture of their justification from original sin and other sins.
Fourthly, it is necessary to know that there exist some truly divine books, which certainly can in no way be had from the Scriptures. For even though the Scripture say that the books of the Prophets and Apostles are divine, yet I shall not certainly believe it 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 itself was sent from heaven by God, and yet we do not believe it. And so this doctrine, so necessary — namely that there is some divine Scripture — cannot be sufficiently had from Scripture alone. Accordingly, since Faith rests on the word of God, unless we have the unwritten word of God, we shall have no Faith.
Fifthly, it is not enough to know that there is a divine Scripture, but one must know which it is; which can in no way be had from the Scriptures. For how shall we gather from Scripture that the Gospels of Mark and Luke are true, the Gospels of Thomas and Bartholomew are false? whereas reason rather dictates that more credit is to be given to a book bearing the title of an Apostle than of a non-Apostle. And whence shall I gather that the epistle to the Romans is truly Paul's, that the epistle to the Laodiceans, which now circulates, is not Paul's? since both bear the title of Paul, and since Paul in the epistle to the Colossians last chapter says that he wrote to the Laodiceans, but nowhere says that he wrote to the Romans.
Sixthly, one must know not only which are the sacred books, but also, in particular, that these which are in our hands are those. For it is not enough to believe that the Gospel of Mark is true, the Gospel of Thomas is not true, but one must also believe that this Gospel which is now read under the name of Mark is that true and incorrupt one which Mark wrote; which certainly cannot be had from the Scriptures. For how shall I gather from Scripture that this Gospel is not supposititious, as the Mohammedans say, or wholly depraved, as the Manichees of old said, and now the Anabaptists?
To these three Calvin answers, book 1 of the Institutes chapter 7 sections 1 and 2, that the sacred Scriptures are discerned from the non-sacred of themselves, as light from darkness, sweet from bitter. But on the contrary: for if it were so, why did Luther judge the epistle of James to be strawy, and Calvin apostolic? Therefore Calvin adds in the same place section 4 that this difference of the Scriptures does not appear to all, but only to those having the spirit; for a blind man too does not discern light from darkness. But on the contrary: for Calvin in the same place chapter 9 section 1 contends that the Apostles and the Faithful of the primitive Church had the true spirit; but they judged the book of Wisdom to be sacred, as Augustine testifies, book On predestination chapter 14; which book nevertheless Calvin, who also boasts of the spirit, will have to be profane. Besides, the ancients with one mouth testify that we have from no other source the knowledge that the Scripture is divine, and which are the sacred books, than from unwritten Tradition. So in Eusebius book 6 of the History chapter 10, Serapion rejects certain things falsely inscribed with Peter's name, because he had received by Tradition that Peter wrote nothing of the kind. And chapter 11, Clement of Alexandria, according to the Tradition commended to him by the elders, teaches which are the true Gospels. And chapter 18, Origen: “From Tradition,” he says, “I learned concerning the four Gospels, that these alone, etc.” Basil too, book On the Holy Ghost chapter 27, says that if unwritten Traditions be neglected, the Gospel itself will suffer great detriment. Finally Augustine, in the book against the epistle called Fundamental chapter 5, clearly says that he would not believe the Gospel unless the Church commanded it.
But Calvin insists: the foundation of the Church is the Scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets, Ephesians 2; therefore we do not believe the Scriptures to be divine from the Tradition of the Church, because then the foundation of the Scripture would be the Church. I answer: the Apostle does not say that the writings of the Apostles and Prophets are the foundation, but the Apostles and Prophets. But these not only wrote, but also delivered by mouth, and taught that they had written. And so from the unwritten word of the Apostles, delivered to us through the Church, we know what is the written word of the Apostles. But of these we have spoken in the former book.
Brentius therefore, in his Prolegomena, not finding a way out, confesses that this one and only unwritten Tradition is to be received. And the same Kemnitz teaches, treating of the second kind of Traditions, in his Examination of the Council of Trent. But if it is so, then Scripture alone is not sufficient, as they so often and so seriously teach; for if it be destitute of this unwritten Tradition and of the testimony of the Church, it will profit little. Besides, if this Tradition could come down to us, why could not others also come by the same way? Finally, either this Tradition is the word of God, or not: if not, then we have no Faith, for Faith rests on the word of God; if so, why then do they cry out that there is no word of God but the written?
Seventhly, it is necessary not only to be able to read the Scripture, but also to understand it; but very often the Scripture is ambiguous and perplexed, so that unless it be explained by someone who cannot err, it cannot be understood; therefore it alone does not suffice. The examples are very many: for the equality of the divine Persons; the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one principle; original sin; the descent of Christ into hell; and many like things are indeed deduced from the sacred Letters, but not so easily but that, if we must fight with the testimonies of Scripture alone, the disputes with the froward can never be ended. For it is to be noted that there are two things in Scripture: the written words, and the sense included in them. The words are as it were the sheath; the sense is the very sword of the spirit. Of these two, the first is had by all; for whoever knows letters can read the Scriptures; but the second not all have, nor can we in very many places be certain of the second unless Tradition come in. And this perhaps Basil meant, On the Holy Ghost chapter 27, when he says that without unwritten Traditions the Gospel is a bare name, that is, is only words and terms without sense.
Eighthly, it is to be believed 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 of this matter in the Scriptures. Ninthly, it is to be believed that in the New Testament the Pasch is to be celebrated on the Lord's day; for the Quartodecimans were held heretics by the ancient Church; and yet nothing at all exists of this matter in the Scriptures. The same might be said of many others. Tenthly, it must be believed — and the Lutherans and Calvinists believe with us, against the Anabaptists — that the Baptism of infants is valid; but this neither do the Catholics prove from the Scriptures alone, nor can the Lutherans in any way prove it. For they think that Baptism without one's own actual Faith avails nothing, and therefore believe that infants, while they are baptized, actually believe — which not only Luther teaches on chapter 3 to the Galatians, and Kemnitz in his Examination of the seventh session of the Council of Trent, but also the general Synod of the Lutherans held at Württemberg defined; but this can in no way be proved from the Scriptures. For where, I pray, does the Scripture indicate that infants use reason before the use of reason, while they are baptized? Hence forsooth the Anabaptists reduce the Lutherans to wonderful straits, and compel them, will they nill they, to have recourse to Tradition and the usage of the Church.
Eleventhly, Luther believes that there is a Purgatory. For thus he says in his assertion of article 37: “Yet I both believe that there is a Purgatory, and counsel and persuade that it is to be believed.” And yet in that article 37 he asserts that Purgatory cannot be proved from the sacred Letters. Finally, all the heretics of this time believe that there is no word of God but the written; but this certainly is nowhere found in the whole Scripture. For what they are chiefly wont to bring forward, from Deuteronomy 4, You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it, helps them nothing; for Moses does not say from the written word, but from the word which I speak.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV. Ostenditur necessitas Traditionum. Nunc ut ad probationem veniamus, tria demonstrare conabimur. Primum, Scriptu¬ ras sine Traditionibus nec fuisse simpliciter necessarias, riec sufficientes. Secundo Tra¬ ditiones apostolicas, non solum de moribus, sed etiam de Fide reperiri. Postremo, qua via certi esse possimus de veris Traditio¬ nibus. Primum probo ex variis aetatibus Eccle¬ siae. Nam ab Adam usque ad Mosen fuit Ecclesia Dei aliqua in Mundo, et colebant homines Deum Fide, Spe, et Charitate, et externis ritibus, ut patet ex Genesi, ubi in¬ troducuntur Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noe, Abrabam, Melchisedech, et alii homines justi, et ex Augustino, lib . XI. Civit. Dei, et sequentibus, ubi deducit Civitatem Dei ab. initio Mundi usque ad finem : at nulla fuit Scriptura divina ante Mosem, ut patet; tum quia omnium consensu Moses est primus scriptor sacer ; tum quia in Genesi non fit mentio doctrinae scriptae, sed solum traditae, Gen. XVIII, Scio, inquit Deus, quod Abra- ham preeeepturus sit filiis suis, et domui suce post se, ut custodiant viam Domini (2). Igitur annis bis mille conservata est religio sola Traditione ; non igitur Scriptura simpliciter necessaria. Quomodo enim conservari potuit antiqua illa religio sine Scriptura ad duo millia annorum, ita potuit doctrina Christi conservari sine scriptura ad mille quin¬ gentos. Deinde a Mose usque ad Chris¬ tum per alia duo annorum millia, exstite¬ runt quidem Scripturae, tamen ese solse erant Judaeorum, reliquae autem gentes, in quibus etiam erat apiql aliquos vere religio , et Fides, sola Traditione non scripta uteban¬ tur. Nam quod, praeter Judaeos, multi alii ad Ecclesiam pertinerent, patet ex Job, et ami¬ cis ejus. Item ex Augustino, qui hoc constan¬ ter asserit lib. II. De pecc. orig. cap. 24. et lib. I. De praedest. Sanctor, cap. 9. et lib. XVIII. Civit. Dei, c . 47. et in ipso po¬ pulo Dei, etsi Scripturae exstarent, tamen (1) I. Cor. XI, 23. — (2) Gen. XVIII, 19. CAPUT IV. 201 magis utebantur Judaei Traditione quam Scriptura, ut patet ex illo Exod. XIII. Nar¬ rabis filio tuo in illo die dicens , hoc est , quod fecit Dominus 'etc. Deuter. XXXII. Interroga patrem tum, et annuntiabit tibi , majores tuos , et dicent tibi. Job. VIII. Interroga generatio¬ nem pristinam , et diligenter investiga patrum memoriam. Judicum VI. Ubi sunt mirabilia, quce narraverunt patres nostri ? Psalm.XLlII, Deus , auribus nostris audivimus , patres nostri annuntiaverunt nobis opus quod operatus etc. Psalm. LXXVII. Quanta mandavit patribus nostris nota facere ea filiis suis , ut cognoscat generatio altera : filii qui nascentur , et exur¬ gent , et narrabunt filiis suis. Eccles. VIII. Non te praetereat narratio seniorum , ipsi enim didicerunt a patribus suis (1). Et tamen fuit Ecclesiasticus ex ultimis Scriptoribus Tes¬ tamenti veteris. Causa autem cur uterentur Hebraei magis Traditione quam Scriptura, videtur fuisse, quia usque ad tempora Esdrae, Scripturae non erant redactae ad formam librorum, ut facile et commode haberi possent, sed erant dis¬ persae in variis annalibus et chartis, et in¬ terdum ex negligentia sacerdotum longo tempore non inveniebantur, ut patet ex IV. Reg. XXII, ubi narratur tanquam novum quid, quod in diebus Josiae fuerit inventum unum volumen Legis Domini in Templo. Esdras autem post captivitatem omnia colle¬ git, et simul in unum corpus redegit, addens in Deuteronomio ultimum caput de vita Mo¬ sis, et quaedam alia hinc inde ad historiae continuationem. De quo vide Theodoretum praefat. in Psalm,- Bedam in c. 9. lib. I Es¬ drae, et Petrum Antonium Beuter annotat. 9. de sac. Script. Porro a Christi adventu per annos multos fuit Ecclesia sine Scripturis, ita ut adime sUo tempore scribat Irenaeus lib. III, cap. 4. fuisse Gentes aliquas Christianas, quae solis Traditionibus sine Scriptura optime vive¬ rent. Igitur ex hac deductione satis apparet, Scripturas non esse simpliciter necessarias. Quod autem Chrysostomus dicit hom. I, in Matth., Scripturas non fuisse necessarias Patriarchis et Apostolis : tamen nobis prop¬ ter hominum corruptionem esse necessarias ; intelligitur de necessitate non simpliciter, sed ad bene esse , id est, de utilitate : nam alio qui etiam tempore Patriarcharum et A postolorum multi improbi fuerunt. Quod autem Scripturae non omnia ita con¬ tineant, ut sufficiant ipsae sine alia Tradi¬ tione, probo primo: quia vel totus canon Scripturarum simul sumptus est sufficiens, vel singuli libri per se sunt sufficientes. Non potest Kemnitius dicere , quod singuli libri per se sint sufficientes ; nam tunc falsum esset quod dicit, Traditionis usum fuisse in Ecclesia usque ad complementum totius ca¬ nonis Scripturarum. Praeterea videmus, Evangelistas non singulos omnia continere. Nam Joannes nihil scripsit de Annuntiatio¬ ne, Nativitate, Circumcisione, Epiphania Domini, et aliis multis rebus : idem de aliis dici potest. Item, si unus liber continet suf¬ ficienter omnia, quid opus fuit tot libris ? Denique ipsi aperte dicunt, totum canonem esse necessarium ad hoc, ut sufficiens doc¬ trina habeatur. At neque id vere affirmari potest. Nam multi libri vere sacri et cano¬ nici perierunt ; igitur non habemus, nec ha¬ buimus a 1500 annis, sufficientem doctrinam, si tota sita est in Scripturis. Nam ex Testa¬ mento veteri multos libros periisse docet Chrysostomus hom. 9. in Matth. in illud, Nazaraeus vocabitur: « Multa, » inquit, « ex Propheticis periere monumentis, quod de historia Paralipomenon probare possibile est. Desides enim cum essent Judaei : nec de¬ sides modo, sed etiam impii, alia quidem perdiderunt negligenter, alia vero tum in¬ cenderunt, tum conciderunt. » Idem docet hom. 7. in priorem ad Cor. neque respon¬ deri potest, illa omnia qnae perierant fuisse reparata per Esdram : nam Chrysostomus vult probare, nunc non omnia exstare vati¬ cinia Prophetarum, et probat, quia Judaei multa amiserunt. Praeterea Esdras non reparavit libros per¬ ditos, sed emendavit et collegit eos qui ex¬ stabant I, Paralip. ult: Gesta autem David, inquit, priora , et novissima scripta sunt in libro Samuelis Videntis et in libro Nathan Prophetae , atque in volumine Gad Videntis. Et II Paralip. IX. Reliqua antem opera Sa¬ lomonis scripta sunt in verbis Nathan Prophe¬ tae , et in libris Aie Silonitis , in visione quoque Addo Videntis. Et lib. III Reg. IV. Locutus est Salomon tria millia parabolas , et fuerunt carmina ejus quinque millia (2). Ubinam sunt haec omnia ? Ex Testamento novo probabile (1) Exod. XIII, 8; Deut. XXXII, 7; Job. VIII, 8. ; Judic. VI, 13; Psal. XLIII, 1 ; Psalm. LXXVII, 3 et 5; Eccl. VIII, 11. — (2) I. Paralip. XXIX, 29; II. Paralip. IX, 29; III. Reg. IV, 32. 202 LIBER IV. est periisse epistolam Pauli aci Laodicenses cujus ipse meminit aliquorum opinione, Co¬ los. ult. et sine dubio aliam ad Corinth. cu¬ jus mentio fieri videtur I. Cor. V, in illis verbis Scripsi vobis in epistola (-1) : et facile potest fieri, adhuc aliqua alia periisse. Vi¬ derint ergo haeretici, unde resarcient tam insignem defectum. Secundo, probatur hoc idem ex discri¬ mine, quod est inter praedicationem, et Scripturam Apostolorum. Nam si Christo et Apostolis fuisset propositum verbum Dei coarctandi et restringendi ad Scripturam : in primis rem tanti momenti Christus aper¬ te praecepisset, et Apostoli alicubi testaren¬ tur, se ex Domini mandato scribere, quem¬ admodum ex Domini mandato in toto orbe docuerunt : at id nusquam legimus. Deinde, ad praedicandum viva voce non expectarunt Apostoli oblatam occasionem, vel necessita¬ tem ; sed sponte sua, et ex proprio instituto perrexerunt : at ad scribendum nonnisi ne¬ cessitate quadam coacti animum applicue¬ runt. Matthaeum, scribit Euseb. lib. III, hist. cap. 24. vel c. 18. in alia editione, ea occa¬ sione scripsisse, quia cum praedicasset He¬ braeis, et ad Gentes ire pararet, ut ille judi¬ cavit, si iis, quos corpore deserebat, aliquod memoriale doctrinae suae et praedicationis relinqueret. Marcum, refert idem Euseb. lib. II, hist. cap. 15. nec sponte sua, nec a Petro (cujus discipulus erat) jussum, sed compulsum precibus Romanorum scripsisse Evangelium. Lucam, idem Euseb. tradit lib. III, histor.-cap. 24. ideo solum scripsisse, quia viderat multos alios temere praesump¬ sisse ea litteris mandare, quae non perfecte noverant, ut nimirum nos abstraheret ab in¬ certis aliorum narrationibus. Joannem, scribit idem Euseb. ibidem, us¬ que ad extremam senectutem sine ulla Scrip¬ tura Evangelium praedicasse, et addit Hie¬ ronymus in lib. de Script. Eccles., tandem eum compulsum fuisse ab Asiae Episcopis Evangelium scribere propter Ebionitarum haeresim tunc exorientem. Itaque nisi Ebio- nis haeresis exstitisset, Joannis Evangelium fortasse non haberemus, quemadmodum nec alia tria, nisi praedictae occasiones obla¬ tae fuissent. Recte enim, scribit Eusebius loco notato, solum duos ex Apostolis duo¬ decim Evangelium scripsisse, et eos neces¬ sitate quadam ad hoc provocatos. Ex quo manifeste colligitur, Apostolos non de scribendo, sed de praedicando Evangelio primaria intentione cogitasse. Praeterea, si doctrinam suam litteris consignare ex pro¬ fesso voluissent, certe Catechismum , aut similem librum confecissent. At ipsi vel his¬ toriam scripserunt, ut Evangelistae, vel epis¬ tolas ex occasione aliqua, ut Petrus, Paulus, Jacobus, Judas, Joannes, et in iis nonnisi obiter disputationes de dogmatibus tracta¬ verunt. Denique, vel singuli Apostoli edidis¬ sent scriptam doctrinam Evangelicam, dum singuli haberent curam alicujus provinciae, vel certe omnes simul congregati , ante¬ quam discederent, in suas provincias commu¬ nem aliquem librum edidissent, sicut constat eos communiter Symbolum Fidei compo¬ suisse, quod tamen non scripserunt, sed viva tantum voce tradiderunt , ut docent B. Irenaeus' lib III, cap. 4. B. Hieronymus in epist. ad Pammach. cont. error. Jo. Hie- rosolym. Et B. Augustinus lib. De Fide et oper. cap. 9. B. Ambrosius epist. 81. ad Si- ricium, B. Leo epist. 13. ad Pulcheriam, Ruffmus et B. Maximus in exposit. Symb. Probatur tertio ex multis, quae ignorari non possunt, et tamen in Scripturis non continentur. At primum, tempore Testa- tamenti veteris sine dubio non minus foe- minae, quam viri remedium aliquod habe¬ bant, quo a peccato originali purgarentur; et tamen pro masculis instituta erat circum¬ cisio secundum multorum opinionem, quid autem esset pro foeminis, nusquam habet Scriptura. Deinde, eodem tempore non est ullo modo credibile, non fuisse remedium ullum pro masculis morientibus ante octavum diem, quo solo poterant circumcidi, et tamen nihil exstat de hac re in Scriptura. Tertio, gentiles multi salvari poterant, et salvabantur tempore Testamenti veteris, et vere ad Ecclesiam pertinebant, ut supra os¬ tendimus ; et tamen nihil prorsus de eorum justificatione a peccato originali , aliisque peccatis in Scriptura habetur. Quarto, necesse est nosse, exstare libros aliquos vere divinos, quod certe nullo modo ex Scripturis haberi potest. Nam etiamsi Scriptura dicat, libros Prophetarum, et Apostolorum esse divinos, tamen non certo, id credam, nisi prius credidero, Scriptu¬ li) I. Cor. V. 9. CAPUT IV. 203 ram, quae hoc dicit, esse divinam. Nam etiam in Alcorano Mahumeti passim legi¬ mus, ipsum Alcoranmn de coelo a Deo mis¬ sum, et tamen ei non credimus. Itaque hoc dogma tam necessarium, quod scilicet aliqua sit Scriptura divina, non potest sufficienter haberi ex sola Scriptura. Proinde cum Fi¬ des nitatur verbo Dei, nisi habeamus ver¬ bum Dei non scriptum, nulla nobis erit Fi¬ des. Quinto, non satis est scire, esse Scriptu¬ ram divinam, sed oportet scire quae sit illa : id quod nullo modo potest haberi ex Scrip¬ turis. Quomodo enim colligemus ex Scrip¬ tura, Evangelia Marci et Lucae esse vera, Evangelia Thomae et Bartholomaei esse falsa ? cum ratio potius dictet, magis cre¬ dendum libro praeferenti titulum Apostoli, quam non Apostoli. Et unde colligam, epistolam ad Romanos esse vere Pauli, epistolam ad Laodicenses, quae nunc circumfertur, non esse Pauli? cum utraque praeferat titulum Pauli., et cum Pau¬ lus in epist. ad Coloss. cap. ult. dicat, se scripsisse ad Laodicenses, nusquam autem dicat, se scripissse ad Romanos. Sexto, oportet etiam non solum scire, qui sint libri sacri, sed etiam in particulari istos, qui sunt in manibus, esse illos. Non enim satis est, credere, Evangelium Marci esse verum, Evangelium Thomae non esse verum, sed oportet etiam credere, hoc Evangelium, quod nunc legitur nomine Marci, esse illud verum, et incorruptum quod scripsit Mar¬ cus, quod certe ex Scripturis haberi non potest. Quomodo enim ex Scriptura colligam, hoc Evangelium non esse suppositium, ut dicunt Mahumetani, vel certe totum depra¬ vatum, ut dicebant olim Manichaei, et nunc Anabaptistae ? Ad haec tria respondet Calvinus lib. I. In- stit. c. 7. §. 1. et 2. Scripturas sacras dis¬ cerni a non sacris per se , ut lucem a tene¬ bris, dulce ab amaro. At contra : nam si ita esset, cur Lutherus judicaret epistolam Ja- cobi stramineam, et Calvinus Apostolicam? Ideo addit Calvinus ibid. §. 4. non omnibus apparere hanc differentiam Scripturarum, sed solum habentibus spiritum : nam etiam lucem a tenebris non discernit caecus. At contra, nam Calvinus ibidem cap. 9. §. 1. contendit , Apostolos et primae Ecclesiae Fi¬ deles habuisse verum spiritum : sed illi judi¬ cabant librum Sapientiae esse sacrum , ut Augustinus testatur quem. De praedest. c. 14, tamen librum Calvinus, qui etiam spiritum jactat, vult esse profanum. Praeterea, Veteres uno ore testantur, non aliunde nos habere Sciapturaip esse divinam, et qui sint libri sacri, quam ex Traditione non scripta. Sic apud Euseb. lib. VI, hist. cap. 10, Serapion rejicit quaedam falso in¬ scripta Petro, quia per Traditionem accepe¬ rat, nihil tale scripsisse Petrum. Et cap. 11. Clemens Alexandrinus secundum Traditio¬ nem sibi a senioribus commendatam, docet quae sint vera Evangelia. Et cap. 18. Orige- nes : « Ex Traditione, inquit, didici de qua- tuor Evangeliis , quod haec sola etc. » Basi- lius quoque lib. De Spir. sanet, c. 27. dicit, si Traditiones non scriptae negligantur, fore ut Evangelium etiam magnum detrimentum patiatur. Denique, Augustinus lib. cont. ep. fundam, c. 5. clare dicit, se Evangelio non crediturum, nisi Ecclesia id praecipiat. Sed instat Calvinus : fundamentum Eccle¬ siae sunt Scripturae Apostolorum et Prophe¬ tarum , Ephes. II. igitur non credimus Scripturas esse divinas ex Traditione Ec¬ clesiae , quia tunc fundamentum Scriptu¬ rae esset Ecclesia. Respondeo : Apostolum non dicere, scripta Apostolorum et Prophe¬ tarum esse fundamentum , sed Apostolos et Prophetas. Isti autem non solum scripserunt, sed etiam ore tradiderunt , et docuerunt se scripsisse. Atque ita ex verbo Apostolorum non scripto, et per Ecclesiam nobis tradito cognoscimus , quod sit verbum Apostolo¬ rum scriptum. Sed de his diximus libro su¬ periore. Brentius igitur in Prolegomenis, non inve¬ niens exitum, fatetur, hanc unam et solam Traditionem non scriptam esse recipiendam. Et idem docet Kemnitius, tractans secundum genus Traditionum , in Exam. Concil. Trid. At, si ita est, non igitur sola Scriptura suffi¬ ciens est, ut ipsi tam saepe et tam serio do¬ cent : si enim destituatur hac Traditione non scripta, et Ecclesiae testificatione , parum proderit. Praeterea si haec Traditio ad nos pervenire potuit, cur non per eamdem viam potuerunt etiam aliae pervenire? Denique, vel haec Traditio est verbum Dei , vel non : si non ; igitur non habemus Fidem, Fides enim verbo Dei nititur : si sic, cur ergo cla¬ mant, nullum esse Dei verbum nisi scrip¬ tum ? Septimo, necesse est, non solum Scriptu¬ ram posse legere , sed etiam intelligere : at saepissime Scriptura ambigua et perplexa 204 LIBER IV. est, ut nisi ab aliquo qui errare non possit, explicetur, non possit intelligi ; igitur sola non sufficit. Exempla sunt plurima : nam aequalitas divinarum personarum; processio Spiritus sancti a Patre et Filio ut ab uno prin¬ cipio ; peccatum originis ; descensus Christi ad inferos, et multa similia deducuntur qui¬ dem ex sacris Litteris, sed non adeo facile ut si solis pugnandum sit Scripturse testimo¬ niis, nunquam lites cum protervis finiri pos¬ sint. Notandum est enim , duo esse in Scrip¬ tura, voces scriptas, et sensum in eis inclu¬ sum : voces sunt quasi vagina; sensus est ipse gladius spiritus. Ex his duobus primum habetur ab omnibus : quicumque enim novit litteras, potest legere Scripturas : at secun¬ dum non habent omnes, nec possumus in plurimis locis certi esse de secundo , nisi ac¬ cedat Traditio. Et hoc forte dicere voluit Ba¬ sibus de Spir. sanet, cap. 27. cum ait, sine Traditionibus non scriptis Evangelium esse purum nomen, id est, esse tantum voces et verba sine sensu. t # Octavo credendum est, Beatam Mariam semper fuisse Virginem, contra errorem Hel¬ vidii, ut semper tota Ecclesia credidit ; et ta¬ men nullum de hac re est in Scripturis testi¬ monium. Nono credendum est, in novo Testamento Pascha esse celebrandum die Dominico ; nam haeretici habiti sunt ab Ecclesia antiqua Quartodecimani : et tamen nihil prorsus de hac re exstat in Scripturis. Idem dici posset de multis aliis. Decimo credere oportet, et credunt nobis- cum Lutlierani et Calvinistee contra Ana- baptistas, Baptismum parvulorum esse ra¬ tum : id autem ex solis Scripturis , nec Ca¬ tholici probant, nec Lutlierani probare ullo modo possunt. Nam illi existimant, Baptis¬ mum sine Fide actuali propria nihil valere, et propterea credunt, infantes dum bapti¬ zantur actu credere, id quod non solum Lu- therus docet in cap. 3. ad Gal. et Kemnitius in Exam. sess. VII. Cone. Trid. sed et Syno¬ dus generalis Lutheranorum Wiirtembergse habita definivit : at hoc nullo modo ex Scri¬ pturis probari potest. Ubi enim, quseso, Scriptura indicat, infantes uti ratione ante usum rationis dum baptizantur ? Hinc vide¬ licet Anabaptistee Lutheranos redigunt ad miras angustias, et cogunt eos, velint nolint, ad Traditionem et usum Ecclesiae recurrere. Undecimo credit Lutherus Purgatorium esse. Sic enim ait in assert. art. 37. « Ego tamen et credo Purgatorium esse, et consulo suadeoque credendum. » Et tamen in art. illo 37. asserit, Purgatorium non posse probari ex sacris Litteris. Denique credunt omnes liseretici hujus temporis, nullum esse verbum Dei nisi scrip¬ tum : at hoc certe in tota Scriptura nusquam invenitur. Quod enim preeeipue solent adfer- re ex Deuter. IV. Non addetis ad verbum quod vobis loquor nec auferetis ex eo (I), nihil eos juvat, non enim dicit Moses ex verbo scripto sed, ex verbo quod loquor.