Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book IV: On the Unwritten Word (Tradition)
Chapter 7: The same proved from the Fathers
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).
Let there now come the testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers, who with incredible agreement teach this truth. And to begin with the Greeks: blessed Ignatius, in Eusebius book 3 of the History chapter 36, exhorted all to adhere more tenaciously to the Traditions of the Apostles: “Which Traditions,” says Eusebius, “he asserts that, for caution's sake, he also left in writing.” So he. From which it follows that they were not written by the Apostles. To this testimony Hermann answers nothing, except that those writings of Ignatius do not exist. But it is false that they do not exist; for Jerome writes, in the book On Illustrious Men, that Ignatius wrote an epistle to the Ephesians, to the Magnesians, to the Trallians, to the Romans, to the Philadelphians, to the Smyrneans, to Polycarp, all of which now exist; and in them we find the fast of Lent, the minor Orders, the Lord's day, and other things which are not in the Scriptures, and which nevertheless Ignatius without doubt learned from the Apostles.
Dionysius the Areopagite, chapter 1 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: “Those first leaders of our priestly office,” he says, “delivered to us those highest and supersubstantial things partly by written, partly by unwritten institutions.” To these and like things Luther, Calvin, and the rest are wont to answer that the books which are carried about under the name of Dionysius are not Dionysius's. But these works are cited under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite in the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth general Synods; likewise by Gregory I in the homily on the hundred sheep, by Martin I in the Roman Council, and by Agatho in his epistle to the Emperor Constantine; from which the heretics are compelled to confess that this author wrote a thousand years ago, and therefore is not to be despised.
Hegesippus, in Eusebius book 4 of the History chapter 8, comprised the apostolic Traditions in five books, which, though they do not now exist, yet this testimony sufficiently indicates that the Apostles did not write all things which they had taught. Polycarp, in Eusebius book 5 chapter 20, used to report the words which he himself had heard from the Apostles as said by the Lord, and about his powers and doctrine. And Irenaeus, as is there had, wrote down the things which Polycarp delivered, not on paper, but in his heart. Here it is certain that the matter is of unwritten Traditions. For if it were of written ones, nothing singular would be said of Polycarp or Irenaeus; for I too can report sayings of the Lord which I have read in the Apostles, nor is there need that I write them down on paper. But nevertheless Kemnitz answers that Eusebius speaks of Traditions which can be proved from the Scriptures; for he says in the same place that all those things which Polycarp said were consonant to the Scriptures. But Kemnitz errs; for it is one thing to be consonant to Scripture, another to be able to be proved from Scripture; for every true Tradition, nay every truth, is consonant to Scripture, since the true cannot dissent from the true; and yet not every truth can be proved from Scripture.
Justin at the end of the second Apology for the Christians, after he had set forth many things of the Christians — and among others certain things not written in the divine Letters, as that they meet on each Lord's day, and, after the reading of the Scriptures and the sermons, bread and wine tempered with water is offered and consecrated, and that it is in no way lawful to partake of the Eucharist except after Baptism, and other things — immediately subjoins: “On the day after Saturn's, which is the day of the Sun, when he had appeared to his Apostles and disciples, he delivered to them these things, which we permit to you also to consider, etc.” And although Justin did not even say that these were delivered by Christ, yet since Justin was very near the times of the Apostles, it would be necessary to believe that the things which in his time were done in the Church were delivered by the Apostles. For what other author can be imagined? To this place, and like ones of Cyprian, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, and others which we shall bring forward, Hermann and his fellows answer almost nothing, except that all these somewhere erred. But this hurts us not. For although some of the Fathers erred in certain doctrines, yet they never all together agreed in the same error; and therefore, when we show that all agree in asserting unwritten Traditions, we prove efficaciously enough that in this they did not err.
Irenaeus book 3 chapters 2, 3, and 4 says many excellent things of Traditions, which nevertheless are drawn by Brentius and Kemnitz to another sense, of which Irenaeus never thought. Brentius says: Irenaeus speaks of the Tradition of Scripture, that is, of that Tradition by which, through the succession of the Fathers, we understand which are the true Scriptures. But that Irenaeus does not mean this, his own words will teach us, book 3 chapter 4: “But what,” he says, “if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures? ought we not to follow the order of Tradition, which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches? To which ordinance many nations of the barbarians assent, who, believing in Christ, have salvation written without paper and ink by the Spirit in their hearts, and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition.” If Irenaeus speaks of the Tradition of Scripture, how did these barbarians have and diligently keep the Tradition, who had no Scriptures?
Kemnitz says: Irenaeus speaks of the Tradition only of those doctrines which are found in the Scriptures, and which can be proved by the Scriptures. But that this too is false, the words of the same Irenaeus will teach; for in chapters 2, 3, and 4 he teaches that there is no other way of coming to the truth than by consulting the Churches in which is the succession of Bishops from the Apostles, and by considering what is there taught, and what those Churches say to be apostolic Tradition. Irenaeus therefore will have it that Tradition extends more widely than the Scriptures, and that the sense of the difficult Scriptures is had not 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 else than what is evidently gathered from the Scriptures, as Kemnitz dreams. When therefore in chapter 2 he had said that the heretics cannot be convicted from the Scriptures, and in chapter 3 had enumerated the Roman Pontiffs from Peter to Eleutherius, who then sat, to show that there is in the Church a continued succession of Bishops preserving the apostolic Tradition, he thus speaks in chapter 4: “These things being of so great demonstration, it is not needful to seek further among others the truth which it is easy to take from the Church; since the Apostles, as into a rich storehouse, most fully brought together into her all things that are of the truth, so that everyone, whoever will, may take from her the drink of life. For this is the entrance of life; but all the rest are thieves and robbers, wherefore we ought to shun them, but to love with the highest diligence the things of the Church, and to apprehend the Tradition of the truth. For what if there were a dispute about some little question? ought we not to have recourse to the most ancient Churches, in which the Apostles conversed, and take from them concerning the present question what is certain and clear? But what, if the Apostles had not even left the Scriptures? ought we not to follow the order of Tradition? etc.” To which words are to be added what the same has book 4 chapter 43: “Who have the succession from the Apostles, who with the succession of the episcopate received the certain charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father.” You see how the Apostles delivered to their successors not only the Scriptures, but the certain charism of truth, that is, the true understanding of the Scriptures, and the whole evangelical doctrine.
Clement of Alexandria, in the book On the Pasch (as is in Eusebius book 6 of the History chapter 11), says that it was extorted from him by the brethren that the things which had been delivered to him by word alone by the presbyters, the successors of the Apostles, he should write down in books and deliver to posterity; I know not what could be said more clearly for Traditions. Origen on chapter 6 of the epistle to the Romans: “The Church,” he says, “received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to little ones.” And homily 5 on the book of Numbers: “Among the Ecclesiastical observances,” he says, “there are some things which all must indeed do, and yet the reason of them is not open to all.” And he immediately enumerates many unwritten Traditions.
Eusebius book 1 On the Demonstration of the Gospel chapter 8: “But Moses wrote the documents of the New Testament on lifeless tables, Christ on minds endued with life. And his disciples, at the nod of their master, accommodating their doctrine to the ears of the many, whatever precepts had been given them by their perfect master as it were beyond the ordinary condition, these they delivered to those who could receive them; but whatever they judged to suit those who still bore souls subject to affections and needing cure, these, letting themselves down to the weakness of the many, they commended partly by letters, partly without letters, to be kept as by a certain unwritten law.” Athanasius in the book On the decrees of the Nicene Synod against Eusebius: “Behold,” he says, “we have shown that this opinion was delivered from the Fathers to the Fathers by hand. But you, O new Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom at length can you show as the progenitors of your words?” Basil book On the Holy Ghost chapter 27: “The doctrines,” he says, “which are kept and preached in the Church, we have partly from written doctrine, partly we have received from the tradition of the Apostles delivered to us in a mystery; and both of these have the same force for piety, and no one contradicts these who has even a moderate experience of the Ecclesiastical rights, etc.” And he immediately enumerates very many unwritten Traditions, and has like things chapter 29.
Kemnitz answers that the things which Basil reports are not doctrines of Faith or of morals, but only certain free rites, as to sign oneself with the sign of the Cross, to adore toward the East, to bless water, etc. But Kemnitz ought to remember that he said that no rite can be shown to have been certainly instituted by the Apostles; but here Basil boldly enumerates very many instituted by the Apostles. Then, although the observation of some of these rites be not necessary to salvation, yet it is necessary to salvation to believe that they were well instituted, and not to despise them; just as many things which are in the Scriptures are not necessary to salvation — as that a man pray with head uncovered, and a woman with head covered, 1 Corinthians 11 — and yet it is necessary to salvation to believe these things and not to despise them. Finally Basil reports not only certain rites, but also certain essentials, as the confession of Faith, that is, the Apostles' Creed, which we have from Tradition, and the anointing with oil in the Sacrament of Confirmation; he also commemorates certain other things which, though of themselves not necessary, yet, after they were commanded, are so necessary that if they be of set purpose omitted, one sins gravely — as the sign of the cross in the consecration of the water, of the Eucharist, of the Chrism; and also the renunciation of Satan and his pomps in Baptism, etc. For Augustine says, tractate 118 on John, that without the sign of the Cross no Sacraments are duly performed; and the same Chrysostom teaches homily 55 on Matthew.
But Brentius, more shamelessly, answers that these opinions of Basil are among the blemishes and errors of Basil, which, for the honor of so great a man, ought to be covered with silence; and he calls us swine and imitators of Cham, who lay bare the shameful things of our Fathers. For he thinks it not to be borne that Basil should say that the pedagogic Traditions (as he himself speaks) of the sign of the Cross and of blessed water have the same force for piety as the doctrines of holy Scripture. But, the revilings being passed over — for it is not ours to render evil for evil — I answer to that which Brentius objects: Traditions are most rightly equalled to the Scriptures; for as in the Scriptures there are certain great precepts, as to love God, and certain lesser, as not to speak an idle word, which do not equally oblige to observance, and yet equally oblige to Faith and veneration — for he is no less a heretic who believes not, or venerates not, that Scripture which says, Of every idle word they shall render an account in the day of judgment, than he who believes not or venerates not that, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, etc. — so also in Traditions some are greater and some lesser as to the obligation of acting, and yet all equally oblige to Faith and veneration. And in the same way certain Traditions are greater as to the obligation than certain Scriptures, certain lesser, and certain equal; while nevertheless all Traditions and all Scriptures are equal as to the Faith and veneration which is due to them, since they proceed from the same author, God, and come to us through the hands of the same Catholic Church, which is our mother and the spouse of Christ.
Finally Hermann, not content with what Brentius and Kemnitz had said, adds: “All these things are not Basil's, but inserted in the book of Basil by some rascal.” Which indeed is a most ready answer; for so it is easy to solve all arguments. Nor does Hermann bring any other proof than the testimony of Erasmus, who thought he had smelt I know not what diversity of style in these foregoing chapters. But blessed John Damascene, far more ancient and more learned, and more versed in the writings of Basil, could smell nothing of the kind. For he (to omit very many of the more recent) in his first oration for the holy images thus says: “So word for word says blessed Basil in the twenty-seventh chapter of that book which he writes to Amphilochius On the Holy Ghost, distinguished into thirty chapters: The institutions which are kept and preached in the Church consist partly of written doctrine, partly of the Tradition of the Apostles, etc.”
Gregory Nazianzen, oration 1 against Julian, beyond the middle, after he had said that on account of the doctrines of the Old and New Testament the doctrine of the Church seemed wonderful to Julian, immediately adds: “But greater and more notable on account of the forms of the Church delivered to us, and preserved to this very day, etc.” And he afterward explains that by the forms of the Church he called the discipline, the polity, the order of the Church, the manner of singing psalms, the mode of imposing penance, the sanctuaries in the temples, the monastic state, the convents of virgins, and very many other things which are had from Tradition alone. All which Julian wished the pagans to imitate, that in that way he might the more easily draw Christians to paganism.
Chrysostom on 2 Thessalonians 2: “It is plain,” he says, “that the Apostles did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things without letters. And both the one and the other are equally worthy of faith.” The same have Theophylact and Oecumenius. Here it is to be noted that, since Basil, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Oecumenius equal Traditions to the Scriptures, what is to be judged of the censure of Kemnitz, who says: “It is altogether notable audacity to equal anything to the authority and majesty of the canonical Scripture”; and everywhere laughs at the Council of Trent because with an equal affection of piety it venerates Traditions and Scripture. The same Chrysostom homily 69 to the people, and homily 3 on the epistle to the Philippians: “Not in vain,” he says, “was it ordained by the Apostles that in the celebration of the venerable mysteries a memory be made of those who have departed hence. They knew that much profit is made to them thence, much usefulness.”
Theophilus, in his first and third Paschal letters, expressly teaches that the law of fasts is an apostolic Tradition. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his mystagogical Catecheses, explains almost nothing else than unwritten Traditions of Baptism and the other Sacraments. Epiphanius heresy 53, which is that of the Melchisedecians: “Bounds,” he says, “are set for us, and foundations, and the building of Faith: the Traditions of the Apostles, and the holy Scriptures, and the successions of doctrine; and on every side the truth of God is fortified; and let no one be deceived by new fables.” Likewise heresy 61, which is that of the Apostolics: “It behooves,” he says, “to use Tradition also; for not all things can be received from the divine Scripture. Wherefore the holy Apostles delivered some things in the Scriptures, some in Tradition.” See like things heresy 75, of Aerius, and in the Compendium of doctrine. To these they answer nothing, except by blaspheming that Epiphanius was too much delighted with Traditions and apocryphal fables, etc. And among other things Brentius thinks it not to be borne that Epiphanius said it is an apostolic Tradition that it is not lawful to marry after a vow of virginity is emitted; since forsooth the first parents of the Lutherans, Luther and Catharine, did this — but these things shall be refuted elsewhere in their place.
Damascene book 4 chapter 17: “Very many things,” he says, “the Apostles delivered without writing, etc.” He has many things too in his oration for the holy images. Of the Latins: Tertullian, book On the soldier's crown chapter 3: “Even in the plea of Tradition,” you say, “written authority must be demanded. Let us therefore ask whether an unwritten Tradition too ought not to be received. Plainly we shall deny that it is to be received, if no examples of other observances prejudge the case, which we vindicate, without the instrument of any Scripture, by the title of Tradition alone, and thence by the patronage of custom.” Then, having enumerated the ceremonies of Baptism, of the sign of the Cross, of the anniversary Sacrifice for the dead, and certain others, in chapter 5 he adds: “Of these and other such disciplines, if thou demand a law of the Scriptures, thou wilt find none: Tradition will be held out to thee as author, custom as confirmer, and Faith as observer.” The same everywhere teaches that Tradition must be used, book 1 against Marcion, book 2 To his wife, the book On the veiling of virgins, and the book On the prescription of heretics, where of set purpose he teaches that heretics are to be confuted not from the Scriptures, but from Tradition. The things they answer to these places are already confuted, when we treated of Irenaeus and Basil.
Blessed Cyprian book 1 epistle 12: “It is necessary also,” he says, “that he who is baptized be anointed, etc.” But it is established that nothing of the chrism is had in the Scriptures, but only in Tradition. The same book 2 epistle 3: “Know that we are admonished that, in offering the chalice, the Lord's Tradition be kept, and that nothing else be done by us than what the Lord first did for us, that the chalice which is offered in commemoration of him be offered mixed with wine.” Kemnitz answers that Cyprian speaks of written Tradition. But it is false; for the Evangelists made no mention of the water. Hermann says: because it is not written that the Lord put water in the chalice, it is better not to put it, for so the Lord did. But since neither is written, it is a marvel whence Hermann assumes so much to himself as to will himself rather than Cyprian to be believed. Brentius turns to insults; for he says that Cyprian was always excessive in asserting his opinions, and that these things slipped from him inconsiderately. And the reason of Brentius is that Cyprian seems to prove this rite by an inept reason; for he says: “Water must be mixed with wine, because wine signifies Christ, water the peoples of the Church; and while water is mixed with 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 would believe that, if one priest did not mix water with wine in the chalice, Christ would presently lose the Church? But Brentius did not observe, or perhaps would not observe, that Cyprian treats not of a real conjunction or separation of Christ and the Church, but only of a significative one. For in the matter of the Sacraments we most rightly argue from imperfect signification. Besides, Cyprian will not have this rite kept chiefly for that reason, but because the Lord so taught; and that reason was added to show that the Tradition is conformable to reason. Wherefore, even if Cyprian had not brought a fitting reason, it would not therefore be to be denied that this rite is to be kept, or was delivered by the Lord.
St. Hilary, in the book against the Emperor Constantius, about the middle, to the Arian Prince objecting, “I will not have words which are not written read,” answers: “This at length, I ask, who commands the Bishops? who forbids the form of apostolic preaching? Say first, if thou thinkest it rightly said, I will not, against new poisons, new preparations of medicines, etc.” By which words Hilary indicates two things: one, that the preaching of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son is of the apostolic preaching, although it be not expressly written that the Son is consubstantial with the Father; the other, that the name homoousios itself is indeed new, but yet to be retained, although it be not written, because it is conformable to the apostolic preaching. Hermann depraves this place by his gloss; for he thus expounds: “This, I ask, who commands the Bishops — that is, that they bring forth something outside Scripture?” But if that is a good gloss, Hilary agrees with Constantius; therefore he ill subjoins, “Say first, if thou thinkest it rightly said, I will not, against new poisons, etc.” And what of this, that in almost the whole book he labors that the name homoousios be retained? But according to Hermann's gloss he would rather have wished it abolished.
St. Ambrose, in the book On those who are initiated into the mysteries chapters 2 and 6, and book 1 On the Sacraments chapters 1 and 2, explains the rites which are kept by the universal Church in Baptism, which are nowhere found written in the divine Letters, and which the others constantly refer to the Apostles as authors. Sermons 25, 34, and 36 he teaches that Lent was commanded by Christ. Epistle 81 and sermon 38 he teaches that the Creed of the Apostles is an unwritten apostolic Tradition. Against Ambrose Hermann blasphemes many things, but they hurt not our purpose. St. Jerome in the epistle to Marcella On the errors of Montanus: “We do not fast one Lent, according to the Tradition of the Apostles, at a time suitable for us.” Likewise in the Dialogue against the Luciferians, before the middle, when the heretic had said, “Many things which are observed in the Churches by Tradition have usurped for themselves the authority of the written law,” the Orthodox answered: “I do not indeed deny that this is the custom of the Churches; but what a thing it is, that thou transfer the laws of the Church to heresy?”
St. Augustine epistle 118: “But those things which we keep not written, but delivered, which indeed are observed throughout the whole world, are given to be understood as retained, being commended and appointed either by the Apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority is most wholesome in the Church: as that the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Lord into heaven, and the coming of the Holy Ghost from heaven, are celebrated by an anniversary solemnity.” To this Hermann answers, chattering much, and at length concluding: “Why, O Augustine, dost thou, with the other Fathers of the Church, obtrude Traditions outside Scripture?” And so Hermann confesses that Augustine, with the other Fathers, acknowledges unwritten Traditions. Which confession truly ought to suffice, if it had any soundness, to check his own petulance. But Brentius answers in two ways. First he says: if it be true that this is an apostolic Tradition, it is not to be received as a necessary law, but as a free observance. But on the contrary: for Augustine in the same place adds: “But other things which are varied through the places of lands and regions, etc., have free observances.” Where Augustine distinguishes between these necessary apostolic Traditions and free observances. Secondly Brentius says: Augustine falsely teaches that these feasts are from apostolic Tradition, since the Apostle rebukes, Galatians chapter 4, that they observed days and times. But Augustine answers, epistle 119 chapter 7, that the Apostle reprehends those who according to the rules of the Astrologers observe times. And in the book against Adimantus chapter 16 he says that the Apostle speaks of the feasts of the Jews, not of the Christians. In which way Jerome and Chrysostom also expound; but Ambrose embraces both expositions together.
The same Augustine, book 2 On Baptism against the Donatists chapter 7: “Which custom I believe comes from apostolic Tradition, as many things which are not found in their letters, nor in the Councils of the later men, and yet, because they are kept throughout the whole Church, are believed to have been delivered and commended by none but them.” And book 4 chapter 6: “That custom, which even then men, looking upward, did not see instituted by the later men, is rightly believed to have been delivered by the Apostles.” And book 4 chapter 24: “What the whole Church holds, and was not instituted by Councils but always retained, is most rightly believed to have been delivered by none but apostolic authority.” And book 5 chapter 23: “The Apostles indeed appointed nothing thereof; but that custom which was opposed to Cyprian is to be believed to have taken its beginning from their Tradition, as there are many things which the whole Church holds, and which on that account are well believed to have been commanded by the Apostles, although they be not found written.” Likewise book On the unity of the Church chapter 22: “Here perhaps thou sayest: read me how Christ commanded those to be received who wish to pass from the heretics to the Church. This openly and evidently neither do I read, nor thou, etc.” And afterward he adds: “Since this is nowhere read, the testimony of the Church is to be believed, which Christ testified to be truthful.” He has like things book 1 against Cresconius chapters 31, 32, and 33.
To these Kemnitz answers two things. First, that Augustine's question in these places is whether an example could be brought from Scripture whereby it might be taught that some heretic was rebaptized, or received without a new Baptism; but not whether heretics were to be rebaptized or not rebaptized; and that Augustine thought no such example could be brought, and taught this in the places alleged. Secondly he says: Augustine without doubt believed that there exist certain and open testimonies in the Scriptures whereby it is proved that heretics are not to be rebaptized; and accordingly that this Tradition is written. The first he proves from book 1 against Cresconius chapter 33, where Augustine says: “Accordingly, although of this thing no example be brought from the canonical Scriptures, etc.”; and he has like things book On the unity of the Church chapter 19. The second he proves: first, from book 1 against the Donatists chapter 7, “Lest I seem to act by human arguments, I bring from the Gospel sure documents.” Secondly, from book 2 chapter 14, “Which is more pernicious — not to be baptized at all, or to be rebaptized — is difficult to judge; but nevertheless, having recourse to that Lord's balance where the moments of things are weighed not by human sense but by divine authority, I find of both matters the sentence of the Lord.” Thirdly, from book 4 chapter 6, “To this is added that, the reasons on either side of the disputation being well perceived, and the testimonies of the Scriptures, it can also be said that what the truth declared, this we follow.” Fourthly, from book 4 chapter 24, “We can truly conjecture what the Sacrament of Baptism avails in little ones, from the circumcision of the flesh, etc.” Fifthly, from book 5 chapter 4, “Whosoever, both from the past custom of the Church, and from the later strength of a plenary Council, and from so many and so great testimonies of the holy Scriptures, and from clear reasons of truth, understands that the Baptism of Christ, consecrated by evangelical words, is not made perverse by the perversity of any man whatsoever.” Sixthly, from book 6 chapter 1, “It might already suffice, what by so often repeated reasons, joined also with the documents of the divine Scriptures, we have shown.” Seventhly, from book 5 chapter 23, “Is it shown by the authority of the holy Scriptures that it is against the commandment of God that those coming from heretics, if they have there already received the Baptism of Christ, are not baptized? But it is plainly shown.” Eighthly, from book 5 chapter 26, “What admonishes us to have recourse to the fountain, that is, to apostolic Tradition, and thence to direct the channel to our times, is best, and without doubt to be done. It is delivered to us, then, as he himself relates, by the Apostles, that there is one God and one Baptism.”
I answer to the first: Kemnitz is deceived; for although Augustine in that one place, book 1 against Cresconius chapter 33, treats of examples, yet in the other cited places he treats not of examples, but of precepts, or of the documents of Scripture, especially book 5 against the Donatists chapter 23, when he says: “The things which the whole Church holds are well believed to have been commanded by the Apostles, although they be not found written.” Besides, even in that one place the chief question was not of an example, or of fact, but of law. For it is established that he treats the question of Anabaptism, which was between the Catholics and the Donatists; and it is certain that the Donatists did not contend about examples, but about law. But because in the course of the disputation the heretics had asked that the Catholics show some example in the Scriptures of someone received by the Church without Baptism, Augustine answered that there are no examples in the Scriptures, neither for the one part nor for the other; and thence concludes that, since there are in the Scriptures neither precepts nor even examples, we must stand to the custom of the Church, which is most rightly believed to have been introduced by the Apostles. And that these things are so is plain, both from the places themselves, and from this, that if the chief question had been of examples, the Donatists would not have been heretics, nor have erred in any way; for it is most true, what they said, Augustine himself agreeing with them, that no example exists in the Scriptures of this matter.
To the second I say two things. First: we bring those places of Augustine chiefly not on account of that which he says, that the custom of not rebaptizing is from apostolic Tradition, but on account of that which he subjoins in those places, that very many things are kept from apostolic Tradition which are not written. For this principle was so certain with Augustine that from it he would prove that even the custom of not rebaptizing was delivered by the Apostles. And so we rely more on this principle of Augustine than on his conclusion. But Kemnitz so assails us as though we relied on the conclusion alone. I say secondly: Augustine never thought that this very custom could be sufficiently proved from the Scriptures, and therefore he indeed brought reasons and Scriptures from every quarter; yet he set the chief foundation in Tradition, which the custom of the Church declared, and which afterward a general Council also declared, as is plain both from the cited places, and from book 2 against the Donatists chapter 4, where he so far did not think there were clear testimonies of Scripture on this matter that he said: “Nor should we ourselves dare to assert any such thing, unless we were confirmed by the most concordant authority of the whole Church.” And it will appear yet more by answering the several places noted by Kemnitz.
To the first, from book 1 chapter 7 against the Donatists, I answer: the words which were in the middle were in bad faith omitted by Kemnitz, and the first joined with the last. For after Augustine had said, “Now, lest I seem to act by human arguments,” he subjoined what Kemnitz omitted: “since the obscurity of this question so compelled great men, and Fathers, Bishops endued with great charity, to dispute among themselves and waver, saving peace, that by a Council of the whole world what was most wholesomely felt should be confirmed, all doubts being removed”; and only then does he add, “from the Gospel I bring sure documents.” Augustine said, then, that that question could not be settled from the Scriptures before a plenary Council of the Church; but that after the Council explained the doubt and the whole question, sure documents of Scripture could now be brought. For the Scriptures explained by a Council firmly and certainly prove that which before they did not firmly prove; which also is shown to be true by the place from the Gospel which blessed Augustine brings. For he brings that of Luke 9: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you is for you. By which place it is shown that outside the Church there can be some gifts of God, as was that gift of casting out demons; but whether Baptism too were to be numbered among them cannot be gathered from that place alone.
To the second I answer: that place is not to the purpose; for there Augustine proves from the Scriptures that it is not lawful 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, of which is our question. For he there wished to teach that those could be admitted into the Church by penance who acknowledged that they had done ill in rebaptizing Catholics. Nor does he bring any other testimony of Scripture than that of John 13: He that is washed needeth not but to wash again. From which place no one would gather that the Baptism of heretics is valid, but only (which Augustine gathers) that after true Baptism another Baptism is not to be added — which not even the Donatists denied.
To the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth I say: Augustine there brings conjectures from the Scriptures, which after the definition of a Council and the ascertained unwritten Tradition avail something to confirm the truth, but of themselves do not suffice. This is plain from the words of Augustine, where he always sets the Scriptures after the custom and the Council, and uses those words: “To this is added,” “We can conjecture,” “The Scriptures being also added, etc.” To the seventh I say: Kemnitz cited in bad faith. For those words, “by the authority of the holy Scriptures it is plainly shown,” are referred not to the foregoing which Kemnitz set down, but to the following which he passed over in silence. For thus says Augustine: “It is plainly shown that many false Christians, although they have not the same charity with the Saints, without which whatever holy things they may have profit nothing, yet have Baptism in common with the Saints.” Where blessed Augustine says it is certain from the Scriptures that many Christians baptized in the Church lose charity, and yet lose not Baptism — which even the Donatists granted; but he does not say that it is certain from the Scriptures that the Baptism given by heretics is valid. Besides, even if those words were referred to the foregoing, still Kemnitz would have nothing; for there too Augustine does not say it is certain that the Baptism of heretics is valid, but says it is certain that he who received the true Baptism of Christ ought not to be rebaptized — which the Donatists also granted; but afterward the question remained: whether the Baptism of heretics was the true Baptism of Christ, or not. To the eighth I say: there Augustine does not prove his opinion from the Scriptures, but reports by what Scripture the adversaries tried to prove the contrary opinion.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII.
Idem probatur ex Patribus.
Accedant nunc testimonia Patrum Graeco¬
rum et Latinorum, qui incredibili consen¬
sione hanc veritatem docent. Ac ut a Grae¬
cis incipiamus, B. Ignatius apud Eusebium
lib. III, hist. c. 36. hortabatur omnes, Apo¬
stolorum Traditionibus tenacius inhaerere :
«Quas Traditiones, » inquit Eusebius, «cau¬
telae gratia etiam scriptas se asserit reli¬
quisse. » Haec ille . Ex quo sequitur, eas ab
Apostolis scriptas non fuisse.
Ad hoc testimonium nihil respondet Her-
mannus, nisi non exstare ista scripta Ignatii.
At falsum est non exstare : scribit enim Hie¬
ronymus in lib. De vir. illustr. Ignatium
scripsisse epistolam ad Ephesios, ad Magne-
sianos, ad Trallianos, ad Romanos, ad Phi-
ladelphienses, ad Smyrnenses, ad Polycar-
pum, quae omnes nunc exstant, et in eis in¬
venimus jejunium Quadragesimae, Ordines
minores, diem Dominicum, et alia quae non
sunt in Scripturis, et tamen ab Aposlolis
sine dubio Ignatius didicit.
Dionysius Areopagita, cap. I, Eccles. hie-
rarchiae : « Primi illi, inquit, nostri sacer¬
dotalis muneris duces summa illa, et super¬
substantialia partim scriptis , partim non
scriptis institutionibus suis nobis tradide¬
runt. » Ad haec et siniilia respondere solent
Lutherus, Calvinus, et caeteri, libros qui
nomine Dionysii circumferuntur, non esse
Dionysii. At citantur opera haec nomine
Dionysii Areopagitae in VI, VII et VIII Sy¬
nodo generali ; item a Gregorio I, in homil.
de cent. ovib., a Martino I, in Concilio Ro¬
mano, et ab Agathone in epist. ad Impera¬
torem Constantinum ex quo coguntur fateri
haeretici, hunc auctorem ante annos mille
scripsisse , proinde non esse contemnen¬
dum.
Hegesippus apud Euseb. lib. IV, hist. cap.
8. Apostolicas Traditiones quinque libris
comprehendit, qui etsi modo non exstent,
tamen satis indicat hoc testimonium, Apo¬
stolos non omnia scripsisse, quae docuerant.
Polycarpus apud Euseb. lib. V, cap. 20, re¬
ferebat verba, quae dicta a Domino, ab
Apostolis ipse audierat, et de virtutibus ejus
ac doctrina. Irenaeus autem, ut ibidem ha¬
betur, quae Polycarpus tradebat, describe¬
bat, non in charta, sed in corde suo. Hic
certum est agi de Traditionibus non scriptis.
Si enim de scriptis ageretur, nihil singulare
diceretur de Polycarpo, vel Irenaeo : nam
etiam ego possum referre dicta a Domino,
quae in Apostolis legi, nec est opus, ut ea
describam in charta.
At nihilominus respondet Kemnitius : lo¬
qui Eusebium de Traditionibus quae probari
possunt ex Scripturis ; ait enim ibidem, illa
omnia quae Polycarpus dicebat, fuisse con¬
sona Scripturis : sed errat Kemnitius, nam
aliud est, esse consonum Scripturae, aliud
posse probari ex Scriptura : omnis enim vera
Traditio, imo omnis veritas est consona
Scripturae, cum verum a vero dissonare non
possit ; nec tamen omnis veritas probari po¬
test ex Scriptura.
Justinus in fine II Apologiae pro Christia¬
nis, posteaquam exposuit multa de Christia¬
nis, et inter alia quaedam non scripta in di¬
vinis Litteris, ut quod conveniant singulis
Dominicis, et post lectionem Scripturarum
et concionum, offeratur et consecretur panis
et vinum aqua temperatum, et quod non li¬
cet ullo modo participare de Eucharistia,
nisi post Baptismum, et alia ; subjungit sta-
tim : « Postridie Saturni, qui dies Solis est,
cum Apostolis, discipulisque suis apparuis¬
set, haec illis tradidit, quae vobis quoque
consideranda permittimus etc. » Et quamvis
etiam Justinus non diceret, haec esse tradita
a Christo, tamen cum Justinus vicinissimus
fuerit temporibus Apostolorum, necessarium
esset credere, quae ipsius tempore in Eccle¬
sia gerebantur ab Apostolis tradita fuisse.
Quis enim alius fingi potest auctor ?
Ad hunc locum et similia Cypriani, Am¬
brosii, Hilarii, Hieronymi, et aliorum, quae
adferemus, nihil fere respondent Herman-
nus et socii ejus, nisi istos omnes alicubi er¬
rasse. Sed hoc nobis non officit. Etsi enim
erraverint aliqui Patrum in quibusdam dog¬
matibus, nunquam tamen omnes simul in
eodem errore convenerunt, proinde cum
ostendimus, omnes convenire in Traditioni¬
bus non scriptis asserendis, satis efficaciter
probamus, in eo illos non errasse.
Irenaeus lib. III, cap. 2, 3 et4, multa prae¬
clara de Traditionibus dicit, quae tamen a
Brentio et Kemnitio trahuntur in alium sen¬
sum, de quo nunquam Irenaeus cogitavit.
Brentius dicit : loqui Irenaeum de Traditione
CAPUT VII.
209
Scripturae, id est, de Traditione illa, qua per
successionem Patrum intelligimus, quae sint
verae Scripturae. At non hoc velle Irenaeum,
verba ejus nos docebunt, lib. III, cap. 4.
« Quid autem , inquit, si neque Apostoli
Scripturas quidem reliquissent nobis ; nonne
oportebat ordinem sequi Traditionis, quam
tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant Eccle¬
sias? Cui ordinationi assentiunt multae gen¬
tes barbarorum, quorum qui in Christum
credunt, sine charta et atramento scriptam
habentes per spiritum in cordibus suis salu¬
tem, et veterem Traditionem diligenter cu¬
stodientes. » Si loquitur Irenaeus de Tradi¬
tione Scripturae, quomodo isti barbari ha¬
bebant, et custodiebant diligenter Traditio¬
nem, qui Scripturas nullas habebant ?
Kemnitius autem dicit : loqui Irenaeum de
Traditione eorum dogmatum tantum, quae
in Scripturis inveniuntur, et quae per Scrip¬
turas probari possunt. At hoc etiam esse fal¬
sum, docebunt ejusdem Irenaei verba, nam
cap. 2, 3 et 4, docet, non esse aliam viam
perveniendi ad veritatem, quam consulendo
Ecclesias, in quibus est successio Episcopo¬
rum ab Apostolis, et considerando quid ibi
doceatur, et quam dicant illae Ecclesiae esse
Apostolicam Traditionem. Vult igitur Ire¬
naeus , Traditionem latius patere , quam
Scripturas et sensum Scripturarum diffici¬
lium non ex Scriptura, sed ex Traditione
haberi, ita ut Traditio sola sufficiat, Scrip¬
turae autem non sufficiant. At falsum esset
hoc totum, si nihil aliud Traditio contineret,
quam id, quod evidenter colligitur ex Scrip¬
turis, ut Kemnitius somniat.
Postquam igitur c. 2, dixerat, haereticos
non posse convinci ex Scripturis, et cap. 3,
enumeraverat Romanos Pontifices a Petro
usque ad Eleutherium, qui tunc sedebat, ut
ostenderet, esse in Ecclesia continuatam
successionem Episcoporum conservantium
Traditionem Apostolicam, ita loquitur cap .
4 : « Tantae igitur ostensionis cum sint haec,
non oportet adhuc quaerere apud alios veri¬
tatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesia sumere :
cum Apostoli quasi in depositorium dives,
plenissime in eam contulerint omnia, quai
sunt veritatis, ut omnis, quicumque velit,
sumat ex ea potum vitae . Haec est enim vitae
introitus ; omnes autem reliqui fures sunt et
latrones, propter quod oportet devitare qui¬
dem illos, quae autem sunt Ecclesiae, cum
summa diligentia diligere, et apprehendere
veritatis Traditionem. Quid enim, etsi de
aliqua modica quaestione disceptatio esset,
nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere
Ecclesias , in quibus Apostoli conversati
sunt, et ab eis de praesenti quaestione sumere
quod certum, et re liquidum est ? Quid au¬
tem, si neque Apostoli Scripturas quidem
reliquissent, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi
Traditionis ? etc. » Quibus verbis addenda
sunt, quae idem habet lib. IV, c. 43. « Qui
successionem habent ab Apostolis, qui cum
Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis
certum secundum placitum Patris accepe¬
runt. » Vides, quomodo Apostoli tradiderunt
successoribus non solum Scripturas , sed
charisma veritatis certum , id est veram
Scripturarum intelligentiam, et universam
doctrinam Evangclicam.
Clemens Alexandrinus in lib. De Pasch.,
ut est apud Euseb. lib. VI, histor. cap. 11,
dicit, extorqueri sibi a fratribus, ut ea quse
a Presbyteris Apostolorum successoribus
voce sibi sola tradita essent, describeret in
libris, ac posteris traderet ; nescio quid cla¬
rius pro Traditionibus dici possit. Origenes
in cap. 6, epist. ad Rom. : « Ecclesia, in¬
quit, ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit, etiam
parvulis Baptismum dare. » Et hom. 5, in
lib. Numer. : «In Ecclesiasticis observatio¬
nibus, inquit, sunt nonnulla, quse omnibus
quidem facere necesse est, nec tamen ratio
eorum omnibus patet. » Et enumerat statim
multas Traditiones non scriptas.
Eusebius lib. I, DeDemonstr. Evang. cap.
8. « Ceeterum » , inquit , « Moses in tabulis
inanimatis, Christus autem in mentibus vita
praeditis perfecta novi Testamenti documen¬
ta descripsit. Ejus vero discipuli, ad magistri
sui nutum , auribus multorum doctrinam
suam accommodantes , quaecumque quidem
veluti ultra habitum progressi a perfecto ip¬
sorum magistro praecepta fuerant , ea iis,
qui capere poterant, tradiderunt : quaecum¬
que vero iis convenire arbitrabantur , qui
animas adhuc affectibus obnoxias gererent,
curationisque indigentes, ea ipsi ad imbecil¬
litatem multorum se demittentes, partim lit¬
teris, partim sine litteris, quasi jure quodam
non scripto servanda commendarunt. »
Athanasius in lib. De decr. Nicaenae Syno¬
di contra Eusebium : « Ecce, » inquit, « nos
quidem ex Patribus ad Patres per manus
traditam fuisse hanc sententiam demonstra¬
vimus. Vos autem, o novi Judaei et Caiphae
discipuli, quos tandem verborum vestrorum
potestis ostendere progenitores? » Basilius
15
210
LIBER IV.
lib. De Spir. sanet., cap. 27. « Dogmata, »
inquit, « quae in Ecclesia servantur ac prae¬
dicantur, partim ex conscripta doctrina ha¬
bemus, partim ex Apostolorum traditione in
mysterio ad nos delata recepimus. Quae utra¬
que eamdem ad pietatem vim habent, et ne¬
mo his contradicit , qui vel mediocrem sal¬
tem Ecclesiasticorum jurium experientiam
habet, etc. » Et enumerat continuo plurimas
Traditiones non scriptas , et similia habet
cap. 29.
Respondet Kemnitius : haec quae Basilius
refert, non esse dogmata Fidei, aut morum,
sed tantum ritus quosdam liberos, ut signa¬
re se signo Crucis, adorare ad Orientem, be¬
nedici aquam etc. At meminisse debetKem-
nitius se dixisse , non posse ostendi ullum
ritum certo ab Apostolis institutum : hic au¬
tem Basilius audacter enumerat plurimos ab
Apostolis institutos. Deinde etsi non sit ne¬
cessaria ad salutem observatio aliquorum ex
his ritibus, tamen necessarium est ad salu¬
tem credere esse bene institutos, et eos non
contemnere : quemadmodum multa quse
sunt in Scripturis , non sunt necessaria ad
salutem, ut quod vir aperto capite oret , et
mulier velato 1. Corint. XI. et tamen neces-
se est ad salutem ista credere , et non con¬
temnere.
Denique Basilius non solum ritus quosdam,
sed etiam qusedam refert essentialia, ut con¬
fessionem Fidei, id est, Symbolum Apostoli-
cum , quod ex Traditione habemus, et olei
unctionem in Sacramento Confirmationis :
quaedam etiam alia commemorat , quae etsi
ex se non sint necessaria , tamen postquam
praecepta sunt, ita sunt necessaria, ut si de
industria omittantur , graviter peccetur, ut
signum crucis in consecratione aquae , Eu¬
charistiae, Chrismatis; necnon abrenuntia-
tio Satanae, et pompis ejus in Baptismo etc.
Dicit enim Augustinus tractat. 118. in Jo.,
sine signo Crucis nulla Sacramenta rite per¬
agi; et idem docetChrysostomushomil. 55.
in Matth.
Brentius autem inverecundior respondet :
has Basilii sententias esse ex naevis et erro¬
ribus Basilii , qui pro honore tanti viri de¬
berent silentio tegi : et nos vocat porcos et
imitatores Chain, qui Patrum nostrorum tur¬
pitudines denudamus. Non enim existimat
esse ferendum quod Basilius dicat, eamdem
vim habere ad pietatem Traditiones paeda-
gogicas (ut ipse loquitur) de signo Crucis, et
aqua benedicta, cum Scripturae sanctae dog¬
matibus.
Sed omissis conviciis , nec enim nostrum
est, reddere mala pro malis , respondeo ad
id quod Brentius objicit : rectissime aequari
Traditiones Scripturis , nam ut in Scripturis
quaedam sunt magna praec epta , ut diligere
Deum, quaedam minora, ut non dicere ver¬
bum otiosum , quae non aeque obligant ad
observationem , et tamen aeque obligant ad
Fidem et venerationem. Non enim minus est
haereticus, qui non credit , aut non venera¬
tur Scripturam illam, quae dicit : De omni
verbo otioso reddent rationem in die judicii{ 1);
quam qui non credit , aut non veneratur il¬
lam : Diliges Dominum Deum tuum etc. (2) Ita
etiam in Traditionibus quaedam sunt majora,
etquaedam minora quoad obligationem agen¬
di, et tamen omnia aeque obligant ad Fidem,
et venerationem. Et eodem modo quaedam
sunt Traditiones majores quoad obligatio¬
nem , quam quaedam Scripturae , quaedam
minores , et quaedam aequales , cum tamen
omnes Traditiones, et omnes Scripturae sint
aequales, quantum ad Fidem et venerationem,
quae illis debetur, cum proficiscantur ab eo¬
dem auctore Deo, etveniant ad nos per ma¬
nus ejusdem Ecclesiae Catholicae , quae est
mater nostra et Christi sponsa.
Denique Bermannus non contentus iis,
quae Brentius et Kemnitius dixerant , addit :
« Ista omnia non esse Basilii, sed inserta
in libro Basilii ab aliquo nebulone. » Quae
sane expeditissima responsio est; sic enim
facile est solvere omnia argumenta : neque
adfert aliam probationem Herinannus,quam
Erasmi testimonium , qui visus est sibi nes¬
cio quam diversitatem styli olfecisse in his
capitibus superioribus. AtB.Joannes Da¬
mascenus longe antiquior et doctior , et in
Basilii scriptis magis versatus , nihil tale ol¬
facere potuit. Is enim (ut omittam Recen-
tiores plurimos) in Orat. 1. pro Sanet, ima-
gin. sic ait : « Sic ad verbum ait B. Basilius
in vigesimoseptimo capite illius libri, quem
de Spiritu sancto triginta distinctum capiti¬
bus ad Amphilochium scribit. Quae in Eccle¬
sia servantur, et praedicantur instituta, par¬
tim ex scripta constant docrina, partim Apo¬
stolorum Traditione etc. »
Gregorius Naziaimenus Orat. 1. in Julia¬
num ultra medium, post quamdixerat, prop-
(1) Matth. XII, 36. — (2) Deut. VI. 5; Matth. XX, 37 ; Mare. XII, 30; Luc. X, 27.
CAPUT VII.
ter dogmata Testamenti veteris et novi, do¬
ctrinam Ecclesiae visam fuisse Juliano mira¬
bilem; addit continuo : « Gaeterum, inquit,
majorem atque insigniorem ob formas Eccle-
si te nobis traditas, atque in hunc usque diem
conservatas etc. » Explicat autem postea, se
figuras Ecclesiae vocasse disciplinam , poli¬
tiam, ordinem Ecclesiae, rationem psallendi,
modum poenitentiae imponendae, sacraria in
templis, monachatum, virginum caenobia, et
alia permulta , quae ex sola Traditione ha¬
bentur. Quae omnia Julianus voluit Ethnicos
imitari , ut eo modo Christianos facilius tra¬
heret ad paganismum.
Ghrysostomus in II. Thessal. II. « Patet,
inquit, quod non omnia per epistolam tradi¬
derint Apostoli, sed multa sine litteris. Ea¬
dem vero fide digna sunt tam ista, quam il¬
la. » Idem habent Theophylactus et QEcu-
menius. Hic illud notandum cum Basilius,
Chrysostomus, Theophylactus, QEcumenius
aequent Traditiones Scripturis , quid sit
judicandum de censura Kemnitii , qui ait:
<( Insignis omnino audacia est , auctoritati,
et majestati Scripturae canonicae aliquid ae¬
quare » : et passim ridet Concilium Triden-
tinum , quod pari pietatis affectu veneretur
Traditiones et Scripturam. Idem Chrysosto¬
mus hom. 69. ad populum, et hom. 3. in
epist. ad Philippen. «Non frustra, inquit,
ab Apostolis sancitum est, ut in celebratio¬
ne venerandorum mysteriorum memoria fiat
eorum, qui hinc discesserunt. Noverunt illis
multum hinc emolumenti fieri, multum uti¬
litatis. »
Theophilus lib. I. et III. Paschali , diserte
docet, legem jejuniorum Apostolieam esse
Traditionem. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus in
catech. mystagog., nihil fere explicat aliud,
quam Traditiones non scriptas de Baptismo,
et aliis Sacramentis. Epiphanius haeres. 53.
quae est Melchisedecianorum : « Termini,
inquit, nobis positi sunt, et fundamenta , et
aidificatio Fidei : Apostolorum Traditiones,
et Scripturae sanctae, et successiones doctri¬
nae, et undequaque veritas Dei munita est :
et nemo decipiatur novis fabulis. » Item hae¬
res. 61. quae est Apostolicorum : « Oportet,
inquit, et Traditione uti ; non enim omnia a
divina Scriptura accipi possunt. Quapropter
aliqua in Scripturis, aliqua in Traditione
sancti Apostoli tradiderunt. » Similia vide
haeres. 75. Aerii, et in compend. doct.
Ad haec nihil respondent , nisi blasphe¬
mando, Epiphanium delectatum esso nimium
311
Traditionibus et apocryphis fabulis etc. Et
inter alia putat Brentius non ferendum, quod
Epiphanius dixerit, apostolieam esse Tradi¬
tionem, quod non liceat nubere post votum
emissum virginitatis : cum nimirum id fece¬
rint primi parentes Lutheranorum Lutherus
et Catharina, sed haec alibi suo loco refellen¬
tur.
Damascenus lib. IV, cap. 17. « Plurima,
inquit. Apostoli sine scripto tradiderunt
etc. » Multa etiam habet orat, pro imagin.
sanet.
Ex Latinis. Tertullianus lib. De Cor. mil.
cap. 3. « Etiam, inquit, in Traditionis ob¬
tentu exigenda est, inquis, auctoritas scrip¬
ta. Ergo quaeramus, an et Traditio non scrip¬
ta non debeat recipi. Plane negabimus reci¬
piendam, si nulla exempla praejudicent alia¬
rum observationum, quas sine ullius Scrip¬
turae instrumento , solius Traditionis titulo,
exinde consuetudinis patrocinio vindicamus.»
Deinde enumeratis caeremoniis Baptismi, si¬
gni Crucis , Sacrificii anniversarii pro de¬
functis , et aliis quibusdam cap. 5. subdit :
« Harum, inquit, et aliarum ejusmodi disci¬
plinarum si legem expostules Scripturarum,
nullam invenies : Traditio tibi praetendetur
auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix , et Fides
observatrix. » Idem passim Traditione uten¬
dum docet , lib. I. Cont. Marcion. ; lib. II.
Ad uxorem ; lib. De veland. virg. et lib. De
praescript. haeret, ubi ex instituto docet, hae¬
reticos non ex Scripturis , sed ex Traditione
confutandos. Quae ad haec loca respondent,
jam confutata sunt , cum ageremus de lre-
naeo, et Basilio.
B. Cyprianus lib. I. epist. 12. « Ungi quo¬
que necesse est, inquit, eum, qui baptizatus
sit etc. » At constat , nihil de chrismate in
Scripturis haberi, sed tantum in Traditione.
Idem lib.II,epistol. 3. «Admonitos nos scias,
ut in calice offerendo Dominica Traditio ser¬
vetur, neque aliud fiat a nobis , quam quod
pro nobis Dominus prior fecit , ut calix, qui
in commemorationem ejus offertur , mixtus
vino offeratur. » Bespondet Kenmitius : lo¬
qui Cyprianum de Traditione scripta. At
falsum est , non enim aquae meminerunt
Evangelistae. Hermannus dicit :quia non est
scriptum, Dominum posuisse aquam in cali¬
ce, melius esse non ponere ; sic enim Domi¬
num fecisse. At cum neutrum scriptum sit,
mirum est , unde tantum sibi assumat Her¬
mannus, ut velit sibi potius, quam Cypriano
credi.
212
LIBER JV.
Brentius vertit se ad contumelias , dicit
enim : Cyprianum semper esse nimium in
suis opinionibus asserendis, et hsec illi inco-
gitanter excidisse. Et ratio Brentii est, quia
videtur Cyprianus inepta ratione probare
hunc ritum; dicit enim : « Debere misceri
aquam vino, quia vinum significat Christum,
aqua populos Ecclesiae : et dum miscetur
aqua vino, Ecclesia jungitur Christo : si au¬
tem vinum solum consecraretur, jam incipe¬
ret Christus esse sine Ecclesia. Quod certe
ridiculum videtur. Quis enim credat, si unus
sacerdos non miscuerit aquam cum vino in
calice, mox Christum amissurumEcclesiam?»
At non animadvertit Brentius , vel animad¬
vertere fortasse noluit, Cyprianum non de
reali conjunctione, vel separatione Christi et
Ecclesiae agere, sed tantum de significativa.
Rectissime enim in materia Sacramentorum
argumentamur ab imperfecta significatione.
Praeterea, Cyprianus non vult servari hunc
ritum propter illam rationem praecipue :
sed quia Dominus sic docuit : ratio autem
illa addita est , ut ostendatur Traditio ratio¬
ni conformis esse. Quocirca, etiamsi Cypria¬
nus non attulisset convenientem rationem,
non propterea negandum esset, ritum hunc
esse servandum, vel a Domino traditum.
S. Hilarius lib. Cont. Constant. Imperat,
circa medium , objicienti Ariano Principi :
« Nolo , verba quae non scripta sunt legi. »
Respondet : « Hoc tandem, inquit, rogo, quis
Episcopis jubeat? quis apostolica? praedica¬
tionis vetet formam? Dic prius, si recte dici
putas, nolo adversus nova venena novas me¬
dicamentorum comparationes etc. » Quibus
verbis duo indicat Hilarius; unum, praedica¬
tionem consubstantialitatis Patris et Filii es¬
se Apostolicae praedicationis , licet expresse
non sit scriptum , Filium esse Patri consub¬
stantialem ; alterum , nomen ipsum ogooutrto?
esse quidem novum, sed tamen retinendum,
licet non sit scriptum , quia conforme est
predicationi apostolicae.
Hermannus hunc locum sua glossa depra¬
vat, sic enim exponit : « Hoc, inquit, rogo,
quis Episcopis jubeat, id est, ut aliquid extra
Scripturam proferant. » At si ista est bona
glossa , Hilarius consentit cum Constantio ;
igitur male subjicit : « Dic prius, si recte dici
putas , nolo adversus nova venena etc. »
Quid , quod toto libro fere hoc agit, ut no¬
men ogoouo-to; retineatur? at secundum glos¬
sam Hermanni aboleri potius voluisset.
S. Ambrosius lib. de iis, qui init, myster.
cap. 2 et 6. et lib. I. de Sacram, c. 1 et 2.
explicat ritus , qui ab universa Ecclesia ser¬
vantur in Baptismo , qui nusquam scripti
inveniuntur in divinis Litteris , et quos ex¬
teri constanter referunt in Apostolos aucto¬
res. Serm.25, 34 et 36. docet, Quadragesimam
a Christo praeceptam. Epist. 81 , et serm.
38. docet, Symbolum Apostolorum Aposto-
licam esse Traditionem non scriptam. Con¬
tra Ambrosium multa blasphemat Herman¬
nus, sed nihil officiunt nostro proposito.
S. Hieronymus in epist. ad Marcellam de
error. Montani : « Non , inquit, unam Qua¬
dragesimam secundum Traditionem Aposto¬
lorum, tempore nobis congruo jejunamus. »
Item in dial. adv. Lucifer, ante medium,
cum haereticus dixisset : « Multa, quae per
Traditionem in Ecclesiis observantur, aucto¬
ritatem sibi scriptae legis usurpaverunt. »
Respondit Orthodoxus : « Non quidem ab¬
nuo, hanc esse Ecclesiarum consuetudinem:
sed qualedest,ut leges Ecclesiae ad haeresim
transferas? »
S. Augustinus epist. 118. «Illa autem quae
non scripta , sed tradita custodimus , quae
quidem toto terrarum orbe servantur, datur
intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis
Conciliis , quorum est in Ecclesia saluberri¬
ma auctoritas , commendata , atque statuta
retineri : sicut quod Domini Passio, et Resur¬
rectio , et Ascensio in coelum , et Adventus
de coelo Spiritus sancti anniversaria solen-
nitate celebrantur. » Ad hoc respondet Her¬
mannus, multa garriens, et tandem conclu¬
dens : «Cum, inquit, Augustine, extra Scri¬
pturam Traditiones cum aliis Patribus Ec¬
clesiae obtrudis? » Itaque fatetur Herman¬
nus, Augustinum cum aliis Patribus agnos¬
cere Traditiones non scriptas. Quae sane con¬
fessio sufficere deberet , si quid haberet sa¬
nitatis, ad ipsius petulantiam coercendam.
At Brentius dupliciter respondet. Primo
dicit : si verum sit, hanc esse apostolicam
Traditionem, non esse accipiendam ut le¬
gem necessariam, sed ut liberam observa¬
tionem. At contra : nam Augustinus ibidem
subdit : « Alia vero quae per loca terrarum
regionumque variantur, etc. liberas habent
observationes. » Ubi Augustinus distinguit
inter has apostolicas Traditiones necessa¬
rias, et observationes liberas. Secundo dicit
Brentius : Augustinum falso docere, ista
festa esse ex apostolica Traditione, cum
Apostolus arguat Galat. cap. IV quod dies
observarent et tempora. Sed respondet Au-
CAPUT VII.
213
gustinus epistol. 119, cap. 7, Apostolum re¬
prehendere eos, qui secundum Astrologo¬
rum regulas observant tempora. Etlib.cont.
Adimant, cap. 16. dicit, Apostolum loqui de
festis Judaeorum non Christianorum. Quo
modo exponunt etiam Hieronymus et Chry-
sostomus : Ambrosius autem utramque si¬
mul expositionem amplectitur.
Idem vero Augustinus lib.II deBap.cont.
Donat, cap. 7. « Quam consuetudinem, in¬
quit, credo ex apostolica Traditione venien¬
tem, sicut multa quae non inveniuntur in lit¬
teris eorum, neque in Conciliis posterorum,
et tamen quia per universam custodiuntur
Ecclesiam, nonnisi ab ipsis tradita, et com¬
mendata creduntur.» Et lib. IV, cap. 6. «Illa
consuetudo, quam etiam tunc homines sur¬
sum versus respicientes non videbant a pos¬
terioribus institutam, recte ab Apostolis tra¬
dita creditur. » Et lib. IV, cap. 24. « Quod
universa, inquit, tenet Ecclesia, nec Conci¬
liis institutum, sed semper retentum est,
nonnisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rec¬
tissime creditur. » Et lib. V, cap. 23. «Apo¬
stoli, «inquit, » nihil quidem exinde percepe¬
runt, sed consuetudo illa, quae opponebatur
Cypriano, ab eorum Traditione exordium
sumpsisse credenda est, sicut sunt multa,
quse universa tenet Ecclesia, et ob hoc ab
Apostolis praecepta bene creduntur, quam¬
quam scripta non reperiantur. » Item lib.de
unitat. Eccles. cap. 22. « Hic forte dicis, in¬
quit , lege mihi , quemadmodum Christus
suscipi jusserit eos, qui ab haereticis transire
ad Ecclesiam volunt. Hoc aperte atque evi¬
denter, ‘neque ego lego, nec tu, etc. » Et
postea subdit : «Cum hoc nusquam legatur,
credendum esse testimonio Ecclesiae, quam
veracem esse Christus testatus est. » Simi¬
lia habet lib. I cont. Crescon. cap. 31, 32
et 33.
Ad haec Kemnitius respondet duo. Primo
Augustini quaestionem in istis locis esse, an
posset proferri exemplum ex Scriptura, quo
haereticus aliquis rebaptizatus, vel sine novo
Baptismo susceptus fuisse doceretur : non
autem, an essent rebaptizandi, vel non re¬
baptizandi haeretici; et quidem Augustinum
putasse, non posse proferri tale exemplum,
et hoc docere in locis allegatis. Secundo ait:
Augustinum sine dubio credidisse exstare
certa et aperta testimonia in Scripturis, qui¬
bus probetur, non esse haereticos rebapti¬
zandos; proinde hanc Traditionem esse
scriptam.
Primum probat ex lib. I. cont. Cresc. cap.
33. ubi Augustinus ait : « Proinde quamvis
hujus rei certe de Scripturis canonicis non
proferatur exemplum, etc. » et similia ha¬
bet lib. de unit. Eccles. cap. 19. Secundum
probat,' primo, ex lib. I cont. Donat, cap. 7.
«Ne videar humanis argumentis agere, ex
Evangelio profero certa documenta. » Se¬
cundo, ex lib. II, cap. 14. « Quid sit perni¬
ciosius, utrum omnino non baptizari, an re¬
baptizari, judicare difficile est : verumtamen
recurrens ad illam stateram Dominicam, ubi
non ex humano sensu, sed ex auctoritate di¬
vina rerum momenta penduntur : invenio
de utraque re Domini sententiam. » Tertio,
ex lib. IV, cap. 6. « Huc accedit, quod bene
perspectis ex utroque latere disputationis
rationibus, et Scripturarum testimoniis, po¬
test etiam dici, quod veritas declaravit, hoc
sequimur. » Quarto, ex lib. IV, cap. 24.
<( Veraciter conjicere possumus, quid valeat
in parvulis Baptismi Sacramentum, ex cir¬
cumcisione carnis, etc. » Quinto, ex lib. V,
cap. 4. « Quisquis et de praeterita Ecclesiae
consuetudine, et posteriori robore plenarii
Concilii, et tot tantisque sanctarum Scriptu¬
rarum testimoniis, et perspicuis rationibus
veritatis intelligit, Christi Baptismum verbis
Evangelicis consecratum, non fieri cujusli-
bet hominis perversitate perversum.» Sexto,
ex lib. VI, cap. 1. « Poterat jam sufficere,
quod toties repetitis rationibus, adjunctis
etiam divinarum Scripturarum documentis,
ostendimus. » Septimo, ex lib. V, cap. 23.
« Contra mandatum Dei esse, quod venien¬
tes ab haereticis, si jam illic Baptismum
Christi acceperunt, non baptizantur, Scrip¬
turarum qua sanctarum auctoritate ostendi¬
tur? sed plane ostenditur. » Octavo, ex lib.
V, cap. 26. « Quod nos admonet, ut ad fon¬
tem recurramus, id est, ad apostolicam Tra¬
ditionem, et inde canalem in nostra tempora
dirigamus, optimum est, et sine dubitatione
faciendum. Traditum est ergo nobis, sicut
ipse commemorat, ab Apostolis , quod sit
unus Deus, et unum Baptisma. »
Respondeo ad primum : falli Kemnitium ;
nam etsi Augustinus in illo uno loco lib. I
cont. Cresc. cap. 33. de exemplis agit, ta¬
men in aliis locis citatis non agit, de exem¬
plis, sed de praeceptis, sive de documentis
Scripturae, praesertim lib. V cont. Donat, c.
23. cum ait : « Quae universa tenet Ecclesia,
ab Apostolis praecepta bene creduntur,
quamquam scripta non reperiantur. » Prae-
214
LIBER IV.
terea in illo etiam uno loco quaestio praeci-
pua non erat de exemplo, sive de facto, sed
de jure. Constat enim, eum tractare quae¬
stionem de Anabaptismo , quse erat inter
Catholicos, et Donatistas : certum autem
est, Donatistas non certasse de exemplis,
sed de jure.
Quia vero inter disputandum haeretici pe¬
tiverant, ut ostenderent Catholici aliquod
exemplum in Scripturis, alicujus recepti ab
Ecclesia sine baptizatione, Augustinus res¬
pondit : exempla in Scripturis nulla esse,
nec pro una parte, nec pro alia; et inde
concludit, cum non sint ulla in Scripturis
non solum praecepta, sed nec exempla, stan¬
dum esse consuetudini Ecclesiae, quae rectis¬
sime creditur ab Apostolis introducta. Quod
autem haec ita se habeant, patet tum ex ipsis
locis, tum ex eo, quod si quaestio praecipua
luisset de exemplis, Donatistae non fuissent
haeretici, nec ullo modo errassent; nam ve¬
rissimum est, quod illi dicebant, consen¬
tiente eis etiam Augustino, nullum exem¬
plum extare in Scripturis de hac re.
Ad secundum dico duo, primo : nos non
adferre illa loca Augustini praecipue propter
id, quod ipse ait, consuetudinem non re¬
baptizandi esse ex apostolica Traditione, sed
propter id, quod ipse in illis locis subjungit,
plurima servari ex Traditione apostolica,
quae scripta non sunt. Hoc enim principium
tam certum erat apud Augustinum, ut inde
probare vellet, etiam consuetudinem non
rebaptizandi esse ab Apostolis traditam. Ita¬
que nos magis nitimur hoc principio Augus¬
tini, quam conclusione ejus. Kemnitius vero
ita nos oppugnat, quasi sola conclusione ni¬
teremur.
Dico secundo : illam ipsam consuetudi¬
nem nunquam putasse Augustinum posse
sufficienter probari ex Scripturis, et ideo at¬
tulisse quidem eum undecumque rationes
et Scripturas ; tamen praecipuum fundamen¬
tum constituisse in Traditione, quam decla¬
rabat Ecclesiae consuetudo, et quam etiam
postea declaravit Concilium generale, ut pa¬
tet tum ex locis citatis, tum ex lib. II cont.
Donat, cap. 4. ubi adeo non putabat esse
clara testimonia Scripturae de hac re, ut di¬
ceret : «Nec nos ipsi tale aliquid audere¬
mus asserere, nisi universae Ecclesiae con¬
cordissima auctoritate firmati. » Et magis
adhuc patebit respondendo ad singula loca
a Kemnitio notata.
Ad primum ex lib. I, cap. 7. cont. Donat.,
respondeo : mala fide a Kemnitio omissa
fuisse verba, quae erant in medio, et conjun¬
cta prima cum postremis. Nam posteaquam
dixerat Augustinus: «Jam ne videar huma¬
nis argumentis agere;» subjunxit quod omi¬
sit Kemnitius : « quoniam quaestionis hujus
obscuritas magnos viros, et magna charitate
praeditos patres Episcopos ita inter se com¬
pulit salva pace disceptare atque fluctuare,
ut totius Orbis Concilio, quod saluberrime
sentiebatur, etiam remotis dubitationibus
firmaretur; » et tunc demum addit : « Ex
Evangelio profero certa documenta. »
Dixit ergo Augustinus, non potuisse ex
Scripturis finiri quaestionem illam ante Con¬
cilium Ecclesiae plenarium, sed postquam
Concilium explicavit dubitationem, et quaes¬
tionem totam, jam adferri posse certa do¬
cumenta Scripturae. Scripturae enim expli¬
catae a Concilio firmiter et certe probant id,
quod antea non firmiter probabant : quod
etiam verum esse ostendit locus ex Evange¬
lio, quem adfert B. Augustinus. Adfert enim
illud Luc. IX : Nolite prohibere, qui enim non
est contra vos, pro vobis est (I). Quo loco os¬
tenditur, extra Ecclesiam posse esse aliqua
dona Dei, ut erat illud donum ejiciendorum
daemonum : an autem inter illa etiam Bap¬
tismus numerandus esset, non potest colligi
ex isto loco solo.
Ad secundum respondeo : locum illum
non esse ad propositum ; ibi enim Augusti¬
nus probat ex Scripturis, non licere rebap¬
tizare, quando quis verum Baptismum se¬
mel in Ecclesia Catholica suscepit, non au¬
tem probat, Baptismum haereticorum esse
verum Baptismum, de quo est nostra quaes-
tio. Docere enim eo loco volebat, posse ad¬
mitti in Ecclesiam per poenitentiam eos, qui
agnoscebant se male fecisse rebaptizando
Catholicos. Neque aliud Scripturae testimo¬
nium profert, nisi illud Joan. XIII : Qui lotus
est , non indiget ut iterum lavet (2). Ex quo
loco nemo colligeret, Baptismum haeretico¬
rum esse ratum, sed solum (quod Augusti¬
nus colligit)post verum Baptismum non esse
addendum alium Baptismum, quod nec Do¬
natistae negassent.
Ad III, IV, V et VI dico : Augustinum ibi
(1) Luc. IX, 50. - (2) Joan. XIII. 10.
CAPUT VIII.
215
adferre conjecturas ex Scripturis, qua? post
definitionem Concilii, et exploratam Tradi¬
tionem non scriptam aliquid valent ad veri¬
tatem confirmandam; perse autem non suf¬
ficiunt. Id patet ex verbis Augustini, ubi
semper ponit Scripturas post consuetudi¬
nem, et Concilium, et utitur illis verbis :
<( Accedit huc : Conjicere possumus : Addi¬
tis etiam Scripturis, etc. »
Ad septimum dico ; Kemnitium mala fide
citasse. Illa enim verba « Scripturarum auc¬
toritate sanctarum plane ostenditur » non
referuntur ad superiora, quae posuit Kemni-
tius, sed ad sequentia, quae ille tacuit. Sic
enim ait Augustinus : « Plane ostenditur,
multos Pseudocliristianos, quamvis non ha¬
beant eamdem charitatem cum Sanctis, sine
qua nihil prosunt queecumque sancta habere
potuerint, Baptismum tamen communem
habere cum Sanctis. » Ubi B. Augustinus di¬
cit certum esse ex Scripturis, multos Chris¬
tianos baptizatos in Ecclesia perdere chari¬
tatem, et tamen non perdere Baptismum, id
quod etiam Donatistae concedebant : non au¬
tem dicit, certum esse ex Scripturis, Baptis¬
mum datum ab haereticis esse ratum.
Preeterea, etiamsi illa verba referrentur
ad superiora, adhuc nihil haberet Kemni-
tius : nam ibi etiam non dicit Augustinus
certum esse, Baptismum haereticorum esse
ratum, sed dicit certum esse, eum qui verum
Christi Baptismum accepit, non debere re¬
baptizari, quod etiam Donatistae concede¬
bant : sed postea supererat quaestio : an
Baptismus haereticorum esset verus Christi
Baptismus, necne.
Ad octavum dico : ibi Augustinum non
probare ex Scripturis sententiam suam, sed
referre, qua Scriptura conabantur adversa¬
rii probare contrariam sententiam.