Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book IV: On the Unwritten Word (Tradition)
Chapter 10: The objections of the adversaries drawn from Scripture are solved
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).
There remains the last part of the question, in which the arguments of the adversaries must be set forth and solved. There are three kinds of arguments, of which they take the first from the Scriptures, the second from the Fathers, the third from reasons. From the Scriptures: first they set forth those which command that nothing be added to the word of God; secondly those which expressly teach that the Scriptures are sufficient and contain all necessary things; thirdly those which openly condemn Traditions.
The first argument, then, consists of three places: Deuteronomy 4 and 12, You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you take away from it; Apocalypse last chapter, If any man shall add to these things, etc.; Galatians 1, But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. Where Kemnitz notes that it is not said against, but besides. And lest we say that Paul speaks of the word both written and unwritten, he adduces Augustine so expounding, book 3 against the letters of Petilian chapter 6: “If anyone — whether of Christ, or of his Church, or of any other matter which pertains to your Faith and life — I will not say we, but altogether that which Paul added, if an angel from heaven announce to you besides that which you have received in the legal and evangelical Scriptures, let him be anathema.” Like things Basil has in the Summary of Morals, summary 72 chapter 1.
To the first I answer: first, that there the matter is not of the written word, but of the word delivered by living voice; for he does not say to the word which I wrote, but which I command. Secondly I say: the true exposition of that place is that God wills his commandments to be kept entire and perfect, as he commanded, and in no way to be depraved by false interpretation. And so he does not mean, you shall keep nothing other than what I now command, but in this which I command you shall change nothing, by adding or diminishing, but shall do it entire, as I bid, and not otherwise. Which same the Scripture is wont to signify by those words, Thou shalt not decline to the right hand nor to the left. And that this is true is plain, because otherwise the Prophets and Apostles would have sinned, who afterward added so many things. Brentius, Kemnitz, and Calvin answer that the Prophets added nothing to the Law as far as concerns doctrine, but only wrote certain prophecies of future things and explained the doctrine of the Law; and that the New Testament too is not an addition to the old, but an explanation, since the Apostle Romans 1 says that the Gospel was promised by God through the Prophets in the holy Scriptures; and that Acts 15 the Apostles did not dare to decree anything in the Council without the testimony of Scripture. But on the contrary: for in this way Traditions too are not additions, but explanations. For in the Law of Moses the writings of the Prophets are not contained, nor in the Law and the Prophets is the New Testament contained, except in the universal and in a manner in potency, as the whole tree is contained in the seed. For we have in the Law, Deuteronomy 18, A Prophet shall God raise up to thee, etc.; him thou shalt hear. There indeed is contained in general whatever Christ did and said; but in particular, that Christ should preach the Trinity of Persons in God, institute Sacraments, work such miracles, etc., is not there had. And what they allege from Acts 15 is against themselves. For although James in that Council proved from the Scriptures that the Church was to be built of the Gentiles, yet the decree of the Council is nowhere found in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. For they decreed that the Gentiles keep not the legal observances, excepting, however, abstinence from blood and things strangled; of which decree the second part is nowhere read in the Old Testament. For where, I pray, did any Prophet foretell that in the times of the Messiah things strangled and blood were to be forbidden? So also, because it is written 2 Thessalonians 2, Hold the traditions which you have received, whether by word or by epistle, and Luke 10, He that heareth you heareth me, and Matthew 18, If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican, therefore we affirm that Traditions are in a manner explanations of the written word; not that they contain a bare exposition of it, but because all Traditions and the decrees of the Church are contained in the Scriptures in the universal, but in the particular are not contained, nor ought to be contained. Wherefore Augustine book 1 against Cresconius chapter 33 thus says: “Although indeed of the canonical Scriptures no example be brought forth, yet the truth of those same Scriptures is held by us, since we now do what has pleased the whole Church, which the authority of those very Scriptures commends.”
To the second: it is certain that John there forbids the corruption of that book, not that other books be written or other doctrines delivered; otherwise he would have fought with himself, who, according to Kemnitz in his Examination page 202, wrote the Gospel after the Apocalypse.
To the third, on which Brentius and Kemnitz chiefly rely, there is a twofold solution, and each solid. The former, that the Apostle speaks not of the written word alone, but of every word, whether written or delivered. For he does not say, if anyone preach besides that which we wrote, but besides that which we preached. Nor do those words of Augustine or Basil stand in the way; for they do not of set purpose expound this place, but prove from this place that it is not lawful to assert anything contrary to the Scriptures — which is most true. For since Paul speaks in general of the apostolic preaching, and that is partly written, partly unwritten, we can thence rightly prove that it is not lawful to assert anything against the written preaching of the Apostles. For from the negation of the universal an argument is rightly drawn to the negation of the particular, but not on the contrary. And likewise we can from this word of Paul argue against those who evangelize against the Traditions of the Church already received, even though they seem to evangelize from the Scriptures, as Athanasius beautifully teaches in the book On the Incarnation of the Word, and Cyril citing Athanasius in the book On right faith to the Queens, not far from the beginning. The other solution is that by that besides the Apostle understands against; and accordingly he does not forbid new doctrines and precepts, provided they be not contrary to those already delivered, but forbids doctrines and precepts contrary and foreign. This is plain first, because the Apostle himself afterward taught many other things, and after this epistle John wrote the Apocalypse and his Gospel. Secondly, from the purpose of the Apostle, for he speaks against those who taught that the legal observances were to be kept, whereas he himself had taught that they were not to be kept. Therefore when he says besides, he understands against. Thirdly, from another place where the Apostle so uses the word besides. For Romans last chapter: Mark them who make dissensions and offences besides the doctrine which you have learned. In which place it is so clear that besides signifies against that Erasmus translated against; and in both places the same Greek word is [para]. Fourthly, from the exposition of the Fathers. St. Ambrose expounds If against. St. Jerome, If otherwise. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact say that the Apostle did not say if contrary things, but if besides that which, etc., to indicate that not only those are anathematized who openly teach things contrary to the whole doctrine, but also those who in any way whatsoever, whether openly or obliquely, weaken anything of the delivered doctrine. St. Basil, Summary of Morals 72 chapter 1 (which place Kemnitz had cited for himself), teaches from this place that those are to be received who deliver things consonant to the Scriptures, those to be rejected who deliver foreign things. Finally St. Augustine book 17 against Faustus chapter 3 expounds against; and tractate 98 on John thus speaks: “He does not say, more than you received, but besides that which you received. For if he said that, he would prejudge himself, who desired to come to the Thessalonians to supply what was wanting to their Faith. But he who supplies what was less adds, he does not take away what was there. But he who oversteps the rule of Faith does not advance on the way, but recedes from the way, etc.”
The second argument they take from those places which seem to indicate that Scripture sufficiently contains all things, which are two. The first, John 20: Many other signs also did Jesus, which are not written in this book; but these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. Where John indicates that he wrote, not indeed all things, but those which were sufficient. For if we can have life through the things which are written, what more do we seek? Kemnitz confirms it from three testimonies of the ancients. Augustine tractate 49 on John: “The holy Evangelist testifies,” he says, “that the Lord Christ both said and did many things which are not written; but those were chosen to be written which seemed to suffice for the salvation of believers.” The same Augustine book 1 On the agreement of the Evangelists last chapter: “Whatever he,” that is Christ, “willed us to read of his deeds and words, this he commanded them,” that is the Apostles, “to write as with his own hands.” Cyril book 12 on John last chapter: “Not all things which the Lord did are written, but those which the writers thought sufficient, both for morals and for doctrines, that, shining with right Faith, and works, and virtue, we may come to the kingdom of heaven.”
The second place is 2 Timothy 3: All Scripture, divinely inspired, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. Which place is the Achilles of Brentius and Kemnitz. And it is thus explained by Kemnitz. That all Scripture does not signify any sacred book whatsoever, but the whole body of the canonical books together. For what follows, is profitable to teach, to reprove, etc., cannot suit some one book, but only the whole Scripture together. And that is profitable does not signify that Scripture is profitable in the manner in which the profitable is distinguished from the necessary and the sufficient, but signifies that Scripture was made as a means to perfect the man of God; as if Paul said, Scripture has this use, for this it was made, to this it is directed; as we say that food is profitable to nourish a man, without which nevertheless he cannot live. And that to teach, to reprove, etc., explains the sufficiency of Scripture. For only four things are necessary to the man of God, that is, to the Christian teacher. First, that he can teach the doctrine of Faith. Secondly, that he can refute errors against the Faith. Thirdly, that he can teach the doctrine of morals. Fourthly, that he can correct those erring about morals; and all these Scripture supplies. For it serves to teach, that is, the doctrines of Faith; to reprove, that is, to refute those erring about Faith; to instruct in justice, that is, to teach the precepts of morals; to correct, that is, to correct those erring in morals; whence Paul concludes that the man furnished with the Scriptures is perfect and apt to every good work.
I answer to the first: John in that place speaks only of the miracles of Christ, and says that he wrote only some miracles, not all, because those sufficed to persuade the world that Christ is the Son of God; for thus he says, Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, etc. But ineptly Kemnitz transfers what is said of the miracles alone to all the doctrines of Faith and precepts of morals. Besides, John speaks only of the things written by himself; therefore if these suffice, all the other Scriptures will be superfluous. Kemnitz answers that John speaks of the whole Scripture. But John refutes this falsehood, who says, Many other signs also did Jesus, which are not written in this book. And what is added, but these are written, etc., does not signify that the signs alone suffice us for salvation, but that they are referred and ordained to this, and are one of the means required for our salvation, even though alone it does not suffice. To those places of Augustine and Cyril I say: those Fathers speak only of the sayings and deeds of Christ, and therefore they meant that his sayings and deeds are written sufficiently — not all things absolutely, but all the sayings and deeds of Christ. Besides which sayings and deeds, there are many other necessary things; otherwise all the histories and documents of the Old Testament, and the Acts of the Apostles themselves, and the epistles of Peter, Paul, John, James, and Jude, would be superfluous. Nor does this fight with what we said above, that the Scriptures were not absolutely necessary; for although the knowledge of many things which Christ and the Apostles said or did is necessary, yet that knowledge could have been had, even without the Scriptures, by Tradition alone — although it must in no way be denied that it was most useful that the chief heads be written. Add that without doubt those Fathers do not, from the sayings and deeds of Christ, understand that all necessary things absolutely are written sufficiently, but that those things are written sufficiently which the Apostles thought were to be written. For since some things were to be written, some to be delivered without writing (and especially the interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures), in the sacred books are contained sufficiently all things which were to be committed to writing, or (as Augustine speaks) which Christ willed to be read. For other things he willed not to be read in the divine Letters, but to be received from the Church; which nevertheless in their own way are contained in the Gospel, not indeed in the particular, but in the universal, because the Gospel admonishes that in doubtful matters we consult the Church.
To the other place from Paul, it can be answered in the same way, namely that Scripture sufficiently instructs and perfects the man of God because it contains many things expressly, and the things it does not contain, it shows whence they are to be sought. Then I say: Paul in that place does not even attribute this sufficiency to Scripture, which is gathered from two things: first from that All Scripture; secondly from that is profitable. For when he says All Scripture, he attributes not only to the whole body of the Scriptures, but also to the several books, that praise of being profitable to teach, to reprove, etc.; and yet Kemnitz confesses that no single sacred book suffices. And that it is so is plain, first, from the very manner of speaking. For, by the judgment of all who know Latin, what is said of all Scripture divinely inspired is said of the several books which are divinely inspired. Secondly, from this, that when this epistle was written the Apocalypse did not yet exist, nor the Gospel of John, and perhaps something else was wanting from the body of the Scriptures; therefore he does not speak of the whole and only body of the Scriptures. Thirdly, from the Apostle's reasoning; for from this universal principle he wished to conclude in particular that the Scripture of the Old Testament, because it was divinely inspired, was profitable to teach, to reprove, etc. For thus he says: From thy infancy thou hast known the holy Scriptures (that is, the Old Testament; for when Timothy was an infant the New Testament did not yet exist, as is plain, and the adversaries admit), which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. Where the Apostle in few words attributes to the Scripture of the Old Testament all that which a little after he attributes in many words to all Scripture. And lest Timothy should doubt of it, the Apostle proves it, subjoining: All Scripture, divinely inspired, etc. Nor does it stand in the way that Kemnitz objects that these utilities are not all found in every book; for it is false that they are not found. For there is no part of Scripture shorter than the second epistle of John, and yet in it we see it preached that Christ is the true Son of God, which is a doctrine of Faith; likewise we see it preached that we love one another, which is a doctrine of morals; besides we see openly written in it that they are Antichrists who say that Christ did not come in the flesh, which pertains to refuting heretics; lastly we see those reprehended who say Ave to heretics, which pertains to the correction of morals.
Now that is profitable, however much it be twisted by Kemnitz, will yet never signify is sufficient. For he somehow proves that it is not deduced from that word that Scripture is not sufficient; but neither is it deduced that it is sufficient, which was what he had to prove. For whether you say, Scripture is profitable to this, or has this use, or is referred and ordained to this, or anything else of the kind, you will yet never signify that it alone suffices. Just as he too who says, food is profitable to nourish a man, says indeed that food was instituted for this, to nourish, but does not say that food alone suffices; for if the natural heat fail, or some instrument of the body necessary for nutrition, the food will not nourish. And so the Apostle does not say that Scripture alone suffices to teach, to reprove, etc., and thus to perfect and complete the man, but only that it profits and helps to all these. And although the same Apostle does not say it does not suffice, yet we gather it from his other places, as from that 1 Corinthians 11, The rest I will set in order when I come; and 2 Thessalonians 2, Hold the traditions, whether by word or by epistle, etc. From this place also, although it be not gathered that Paul said Scripture is not sufficient, yet it is evidently gathered that he did not say Scripture alone is sufficient, because he attributes these praises to every canonical work, and we know, even by the confession of the adversaries, that not every canonical work suffices, since then the others would be superfluous.
The third argument, from the places in which Traditions are condemned. Mark 7: In vain do they worship me, teaching precepts and doctrines of men. Matthew 15: You have made void the commandment of God for your tradition. Galatians 1: Being a zealot for the traditions of my fathers. Colossians 2: Beware lest any man deceive you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men. 1 Timothy 1: Not to give heed to Jewish fables, etc. 1 Peter 1: You are redeemed from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers. Here Traditions are condemned which the Jews boasted they had received by hand from Moses and the Prophets; therefore likewise the Traditions which we say came to us from Christ and the Apostles by the hands of the Fathers are understood to be condemned. I answer: Christ and the Apostles do not reprehend the Traditions which the Jews had received from Moses and the Prophets, one of which was about the very canonical books, which were true and which not; but the Traditions which they had received from certain later men, some of which were vain, some pernicious and against the Scriptures. For neither do Christ or the Apostles ever call them the Traditions of Moses and the Prophets; and they openly say that they speak of those which fight with the Scriptures. And besides, the ancient Fathers expressly explained who was the author of the Traditions which Christ and the Apostles reprehend. Irenaeus book 4 chapters 25 and 26 disputes against the old heretics, who thought that by the name of the Traditions reprehended by Christ and the Apostles was to be understood the Law of Moses, and teaches that not the Law of Moses, but the Traditions of the later elders corrupting the Law, are reprehended by Christ and the Apostles. Epiphanius in the Prologue to the Heresies teaches that the Traditions of the Jews were four expositions of the sacred books: the first Moses's, and that not reprehended; the second R. Akiba's; the third R. Juda's; and the fourth of the sons of Asamonaeus; and that these are the ones which are reprehended by the Lord. Jerome on chapter 8 of Isaiah, and on chapter 3 of the epistle to Titus, and in the epistle to Algasia question 10, teaches that the Jewish Traditions which the Lord reprehended had their beginning from Sammai, Hillel, Achiba, and certain others who had existed a little before the birth of the Saviour, and had not so much expounded as corrupted the Law; which Traditions they themselves call [deuteroseis]. Of which there is extant in the civil Law a certain constitution of Justinian, which is Novel 146, in these words: “What is called by them deuterosis, as it were a secondary Tradition, we altogether forbid, as being what is not comprehended in the sacred Books, nor delivered from above through the Prophets, but contains certain excerpts of men who speak only earthly things and have nothing in themselves of the divine.” Now from these fountains descended the fables which are now in the Talmud, and in almost all the books of the Rabbins. But these are nothing to our Traditions, which have Christ and the Apostles as authors, and are consonant to the divine Scriptures.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. Solvuntur objectiones adversariorum , quee ex Scripturis petuntur . Restat ultima pars quaestionis , in qua ar¬ gumenta adversariorum exponenda, et sol¬ venda sunt. Tria sunt genera argumentorum, quorum primum a Scripturis, secundum a Patribus, tertium a rationibus sumunt. E Scripturis. Primo proponunt eas quae jubent, nihil debere addi verbo Dei. Secundo illas quae expresse docentj' Scripturas esse suf¬ ficientes, et continere omnia necessaria. Tertio illas, quae aperte damnant Traditio¬ nes. Primum igitur argumentum ex tribus locis constat : Deuter. IV. et XII. Non addetis ad verbum , quod ego praecipio vobis , nec aufe¬ retis exeo. Apocal. ult. Si quis apposuerit ad heee, etc. Galatas I. Sed licet nos, aut Angelus de coelo evangelizet vobie praeter quam quod evangelizavimus vobis, anathema sit (1). Ubi (1) Deut. IV. 2; et XII, 32; Apoc. XXII, 18; Galat..I, 8. CAPUT X. 219 notat Kemnitius, non esse dictum contra , sed ‘proster. Et ne dicamus loqui Paulum de verbo tam scripto, quam non scripto , addu¬ cit Augustinum sic exponentem lib. III. cont. Iit. Petii, cap. 6. Si quis « sive de Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacumque alia re, quae pertinet ad Eidem vitamque vestram, non dicam, nos, sed omnino quod» Paulus adjecit: «Si Angelus de coelo vobis annuntiaverit praeterquam quod in Scrip¬ turis legalibus et Evangelicis accepistis, anathema sit. » Similia habet Basilius in Sum. Moral., sum. 72. c. 1. Ad primum respondeo : primo ibi non agi de verbo scripto, sed tradito viva voce : nam non ait ad verbum quod scripsi , sed quod ego praecipio. Secundo dico : veram expositio¬ nem ejus loci esse, quod Deus velit integre, et perfecte servari mandata, ut ipse praece¬ pit, et nullo modo ea depravari falsa inter¬ pretatione. Itaque non vult dicere , non ser¬ vabitis aliud quam id, quod nunc praecipio , sed in hoc quod prcecipio nihil mutabitis , addendo , vel minuendo, sed integre facietis, ut jubeo, et non aliter. Quod idem solet Scriptura signi¬ ficare illis verbis : Non declinabis ad dextram, neque ad sinistram. Et quod hoc sit verum, patet, quia alioqui peccassent Prophetae et Apostoli, qui tam multa postea addide¬ runt. , Respondent Brentius, Kemnitius, Calvinus; Prophetas non addidisse quidquam ad Le¬ gem, quantum ad doctrinam attinet, sed tantum vaticinia quaedam de futuris scrip¬ sisse, et Legis doctrinam explicavisse. Tes¬ tamentum quoque novum non esse additio¬ nem ad vetus, sed explicationem, cum Apos¬ tolus ad Rom. I. dicat, Evangelium promis¬ sum a Deo per Prophetas in Scripturis sanc¬ tis. Et Actor. XV, non sint ausi Apostoli in Concilio aliquid decernere sine testimonio Scripturae. At contra : nam hoc modo etiam Traditio¬ nes non sunt additiones, sed explicationes. Nam in Lege Mosis non continentur Prophe¬ tarum scripta, neque in lege et Prophetis continetur Testamentum novum, nisi in universali, et quodammodo in virtute, si¬ cut tota arbor continetur in semine. Habe¬ mus enim in lege Deut. XVIII. Prophetam suscitabit tibi Deus etc. illum audies (1). Ibi autem continetur in genere quidquid Chris¬ tus fecit et dixit : at in particulari tamen quod Christus deberet praedicare Trinita¬ tem personarum in Deo, instituere Sacra¬ menta, facere talia miracula etc. ibi non ha¬ betur. Quod vero allegant ex Act. XV, contra ipsos est. Nam etsi Jacobus in eo Concilio probavit ex Scripturis, Ecclesiam aedifican¬ dam ex gentibus : tamen decretum Concilii nusquam invenitur in Scripturis Testamenti veteris. Decreverunt enim ut gentes non servent legalia, excepta tamen abstinentia a sanguine et suffocato, cujus decreti secunda pars nusquam in Testamento veteri legitur. Ubi enim, quaeso, ullus Propheta praedixit, Messiae temporibus prohibenda esse suffo¬ cata, et sanguinem ? Sic etiam quia scriptum est, II. Thessal. II. Tenete Traditiones quas accepistis , sive per sermonem , sive per epistolam. Et Luc. X. Qui vos audit, me audit. Et Matth. XVIII. Si Ec¬ clesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut Ethnicus et Publicanus (2). Idcirco nos affirmamus, Tra¬ ditiones esse quodammodo explicationes verbi scripti ; non quod nudam contineant ejus expositionem, sed quia omnes Tradi¬ tiones, et Ecclesiae decreta continentur in Scripturis in universali : sed in particulari non continentur, nec debent contineri. Quare Augustinus lib. I, cont. Grescon. cap. 33. sic ait: « Quamvis certe de Scripturis canonicis non proferatur exemplum, tamen earumdem Scripturarum a nobis tenetur veritas, cum jam facimus, quod universae placuit Eccle¬ siae, quam ipsarum Scripturarum commen¬ dat auctoritas ». Ad secundum; certum est, Joannem ibi prohibere corruptionem libri illius, non au¬ tem ne alii libri scribantur, aut alia dogmata tradantur , alioqui ipse secum pugnasset, qui juxta Kemnitium in examin. pag. 202. scripsit Evangelium post Apocalypsim. Ad tertium, quo maxime Brentius etKem- nitius nituntur, duplex solutio est, et utra¬ que solida. Prior, quod Apostolus non lo¬ quatur de solo verbo scripto, sed de omni verbo, sive scripto, sive tradito. Non enim dicit, si quis evangelizaverit praeter id quod scripsimus, sed praeter id quod evangeliza- vimus. Neque obstant illa verba Augustini, vel Basilii : illi enim non exponunt ex pro¬ fesso hunc locum, sed probant ex hoc loco, non licere quidquam asserere contrarium Scripturis : quod verissimum est. Cum enim (1) Deut. XVIII, 15. —(2) II. Thessal. II, 14; Luc. X, 16; Matth. XVIII. 17. 220 LIBER IV. Paulus loquatur in genere de praedicatione apostolica, et illa partim sit scripta, partim non scripta ; possumus inde recte probare, non licere aliquid asserere contra scriptam praedicationem Apostolorum. Ex universalis enim negatione recte ducitur argumentum ad negatiotiem particularis : non tamen e contrario. Et similiter possumus ex hoc ver¬ bo Pauli argumentari contra eos, qui evan- gelizant contra Traditiones Ecclesiae jam receptas, etiamsi ex Scripturis videantur evangelizare, ut pulchre docet Athanasius in lib. De Incarnat. Verbi, et Cyrillus Atba- nasium citans lib. De recta fide ad Reginas, non procul ab initio. Altera solutio est, quod per illud prceter Apostolus intelligat contra : et proinde non prohibeat nova dogmata, et praecepta, modo non sint coutraria jam traditis : sed prohi¬ beat dogmata, et praecepta contraria, et aliena. Id patet primo, quia Apostolus ipse multa alia postea docuit : et post hanc epis¬ tolam scripsit Joannes Apocalypsim , et Evangelium suum. Secundo, ex proposito Apostoli, ait enim contra eos, qui docebant servanda esse-legalia, cum ipse docuisset non esse servanda. Igitur cum dicit prester, intelligit contra. Tertio, ex alio loco, ubi Apostolus sic utitur voce prceter. Nam Rom. ult. : Observate , inquit, eos, qui dissensiones , et offendicula , prceter doctrinam quam vos di¬ dicistis , faciunt (1). Quo loco adeo clarum est, illud prceter significare contra , ut Eras- mus verterit contra. In utroque autem loco eadem est vox Graeca nxpot. Quarto, ex Pa¬ trum expositione. S. Ambrosius exponit Si contra. S. Hieronymus Si aliter. Chrysosto- mus, QEcumenius, et Theophylactus dicunt, Apostolum non dixisse, si contraria , sed si prceter quam quod etc. ut indicaret, non so¬ lum eos anathematizari, qui aperte contra¬ ria toti doctrinae docent, sed etiam eos, qui quomodocumque sive aperte, sive oblique quidlibet labefactant ex doctrina tradita. Sanctus Basilius Sum. mor. 72. cap. 1. (quem locum pro se citaverat Kemnitius) docet ex hoc loco haberi, eos recipiendos, qui consona Scripturis tradunt : eos rejicien¬ dos, qui aliena. Denique S. Augustinus lib. XVII, cont. Faust. cap. 3. exponit contra : et Tract. 98. in Jo. sic loquitur : « Non ait, plus quam accepistis, sed praeter quod ac¬ cepistis. Nam si illud diceret, sibi ipsi prae¬ judicaret, qui cupiebat venire ad Thessalo- nicenses, ut suppleret quae illorum Fidei de¬ fuerunt. Sed qui supplet, quod minus erat, addit, non quod inerat tollit. Qui autem prae¬ tergreditur regulam Fidei, non accedit in via, sed recedit de via etc. » Argumentum, secundum sumunt ab iis lo¬ cis, quae videntur indicare, Scripturam suf¬ ficienter omnia continere, quae duo sunt. Primus Jo. XX. Multa quidem , et alia signa fecit Jesus, quee non sunt scripta in libro hoc ; heee autem scripta sunt , ut credatis , quod Je¬ sus est Filius Dei , et ut credentes vitam habea¬ tis in nomine ejus (2). Ubi Joannes indicat, se scripsisse, non quidem omnia, sed ea, quae sufficiebant. Si enim possumus vi¬ tam habere per ea, quae scripta sunt, quid amplius quaerimus ? Confirmat Kemnitius ex tribus testimoniis Veterum. Augustinus tract. 49. in Jo. « Sanctus Evangelista testatur », inquit, « multa Dominum Christum et dixisse et fe¬ cisse, quae scripta non sunt : electa sunt au¬ tem quae scriberentur, quae saluti creden¬ tium sufficere videbantur » . Idem Augusti¬ nus lib. I. De cons. Evang. cap. ult. « Quid¬ quid », inquit, « ille, » id est Christus, « de suis factis et dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis », id est Apostolis, « tan- quam suis manibus imperavit. » Cyrillus lib. XII. in Jo. cap. ult. « Non omnia », in¬ quit, « quae Dominus fecit, conscripta sunt, sed quae scribentes tam ad mores, quam ad dogmata putarunt sufficere, ut recta Fide, et operibus, ac virtute rutilantes ad regnum ccelorum perveniamus ». Secundus locus est, II. Timoth.III. « Om¬ nis Scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum , ad arguendum , ad corrigendum,- ad erudiendum in justitia , ut perfectus sit homo Dei , ad omne opus bonum instructus (3). Qui locus est Achilles Brentii, et Kemnitii. Sic autem explicatur a Kemnitio. Illud omnis Scriptura non significat quemlibet librum sacrum, sed totum corpus simul librorum canonicorum. Nam quod sequitur, utilis est ad docendum , arguendum, etc. non potest convenire uni alicui libro, sed solum toti Scripturae simul. Illud autem utilis est, non significat esse utilem Scripturam eo modo, quo utile distinguitur a necessario et suffi¬ cienti, sed significat Scripturam esse factam tamquam medium ad perficiendum homi- (1) Rom. XVI, 17. — (2) Joan. XXI, 25. — (3) II. Thim. III, 16. CAPUT X. 221 nem Dei: quasi diceret Paulus, Scriptura hunc habet usum ad hoc facta est , ad hoc diri¬ gitur ; quomodo dicimus, cibum esse utilem ad alendum hominem : sine quo tamen vi¬ vere non potest. Illud vero ad docendum , arguendum , etc. explicat snfficientiam Scripturae. Quatuor enim solum sunt necessaria homini Dei, id est, doctori Christiano. Primo, ut possit do¬ cere doctrinam Fidei. Secundo, ut possit refellere errores contra Fidem. Tertio, ut possit docere doctrinam morum. Quar¬ to, ut possit corrigere errantes circa mo¬ res ; haec autem omnia praestat Scriptura. Servit enim ad docendum, id est, dogmata Fidei : ad arguendum, id est, ad refutandos errantes de Fide : ad erudiendum in justi¬ tia, id est, ad docenda praecepta morum : ad corripiendum, id est, ad corrigendos erran¬ tes in moribus : ex quo concludit Paulus, hominem Scripturis instructum esse per¬ fectum, et aptum ad omne opus bonum. Respondeo ad primum : Joannem in eo loco tantum loqui de miraculis Christi, ac dicere, se scripsisse tantum aliqua miracula, non omnia, quia illa sufficiebant ad persua¬ dendum Mundo, Christum esse Filium Dei; sic enim ait : Multa quidem et alia signa fecit Jesus, in conspectu discipulorum suorum etc. Inepte autem Kemnitius, quae de solis mira¬ culis dicuntur, transfert ad omnia dogmata Fidei, et moram praecepta. Praeterea, Joan- nes non loquitur, nisi de rebus a se scriptis; ergo si illae sufficiunt, superfluae erunt omnes aliae Scripturae. Respondet Kemnitius : Joannem loqui de tota Scriptura. At refellit hoc mendacium Joannes, qui ait : Multa quidem et alia signa fecit Jesus , quee non sunt scripta in libro hoc. Quod vero additur, heee autem scripta sunt ctc. non significat signa sola sufficere nobis ad salutem, sed illa ad hoc referri, et ordi¬ nari, et esse unum ex mediis requisitis ad nostram salutem, etiamsi solum non suffi¬ ciat. Ad illa loca Augustini et Cyrilli dico : eos Patres de solis dictis et factis Christi loqui : ac propterea dicere eos voluisse, scripta esse sufficienter, non omnia absolute, sed omnia dicta et facta Christi. Praeter quae dic¬ ta et facta, multa sunt alia necessaria, alio- qui omnes historiae, et documenta Testamenti veteris, et ipsa Acta Apostolorum, et epis¬ tolae Petri, Pauli, Joannis, Jacobi, et Judai supervacanea essent. Neque hoc pugnat cum eo quod supra diximus, Scripturas non fuisse absolute necessarias : etsi enim neces¬ saria est cognitio multarum rerum quas Christus et Apostoli dixerunt, aut fecerunt, ea tamen cognitio, etiam sine Scripturis, sola Traditione haberi potuisset, quamquam utilissimum fuisse, ut praecipua capita scri¬ berentur, nullo modo negandum sit. Adde, qi*od sine dubio Patres illi, ex dic¬ tis et factis Christi non intelligunt esse scrip¬ ta sufficienter omnia necessaria absolute, sed esse scripta sufficienter ea, quae Apostoli scribenda esse putaverunt. Cum enim quae¬ dam scribenda essent, quaedam sine scripto tradenda, ac praecipue interpretatio, atque intelligentia Scripturarum ; in libris sacris continentur sufficienter omnia, quae scriptis mandanda erant, sive (ut Augustinus loqui¬ tur) quae Christus legi voluit. Alia enim non legi in divinis Litteris, sed ab Ecclesia accipi voluit, quae tamen suo etiam modo in Evan- gelio continentur, non quidem in particula¬ ri, sed in universali, quia Evangelium mo¬ net, ut de rebus dubiis Ecclesiam consula¬ mus. Ad alterum locum ex Paulo, potest res¬ ponderi eodem modo, quod nimirum Scrip¬ tura sufficienter instruat, et perficiat homi¬ nem Dei, quia multa expresse continet: et quae non continet, ostendit, unde sint pe¬ tenda. Deinde dico : Paulum eo loco ne hanc quidem sufficientiam Scripturae tribuere, quod ex duobus colligitur. Primo ex illo Om¬ nis Scriptura : secundo ex illo Utilis est. Nam cum dicit Omnis Scriptura , non solum toti corpori Scripturarum, sed etiam singulis libris tribuit eam laudem, quod utiles sint ad docendum, arguendum, etc. ettainen fa¬ tetur Kemnitius , non sufficere quemlibet librum sacrum. Quod autem ita sit, patet primo ex ipso modo loquendi. Nam judicio omnium Latine scientium, quod dicitur de omni Scriptura divinitus inspirata, dicitur de singulis libris qui sunt divinitus inspirati. Secundo ex eo, quod cum haec epistola scriberetur, nondum exstabat Apocalypsis, nec Evangelium Joan¬ nis, et forte aliquid aliud deerat ex corpore Scripturarum ; non loquitur igitur de toto et solo corpore Scripturarum. Tertio ex Apostoli ratiocinatione: nam ex hoc principio univer¬ sali volebat 'concludere in particulari, Scripturam Testamenti veteris, quia divi¬ nitus inspirata erat, utilem fuisse ad docen¬ dum, arguendum etc. Sic enim ait : Ab in- 222 LIBER IV. fantia sacras litteras nosti , (id est, Testamen¬ tum vetus ; nam cum esset infans Timo¬ theus, nondum exstabat Testamentum no¬ vum, ut patet, et adversarii admittunt) quee te possunt instruere ad salutem per Fidem , quae est in Christo Jesu (1). Ubi Apostolus paucis verbis tribuit Scripturae Testamenti veteris id totum, quod paulo post multis verbis tri¬ buit omni Scripturae. Et ne Timotheus de eo dubitaret, probat Apostolus, subjungens : Omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata etc. Neque obstat quod Kemnitius objicit, non inveniri in quolibet libro has omlies utilita¬ tes : nam falsum est non inveniri. Nulla est enim pars Scripturae brevior epistola se¬ cunda Joannis, et tamen in ea videmus prae¬ dicari, Christum esse verum Dei Filium, quod est dogma Fidei. Item videmus prae¬ dicari, ut diligamus alterutrum, quae est doctrina morum. Praeterea videmus aperte in ea scribi, esse Antichristos eos, qui di¬ cunt, Christum non venisse in carne, quod pertinet ad haereticos refellendos. Postremo videmus reprehendi eos, qui dicunt haere¬ ticis Ave, quod ad correctionem morum per¬ tinet. Jam vero illud utilis es# quantumvis a Kem- nitio torqueatur, numquam tamen significa¬ bit sufficiens est. Ipse enim utcumque probat, non deduci ex ea voce, quod Scriptura non sit sufficiens : sed nec deducitur, quod sit sufficiens, quod ei probandum erat. Sive enim dicas : Scriptura utilis est ad hoc, sive hunc habet usum , sive ad hoc refertur et ordi¬ natur, sive quidlibet aliud simile, numquam tamen significabis eam solam sufficere. Si¬ cut etiam qui dicit, cibus utilis est ad nu¬ triendum hominem, dicit quidem cibum ad hoc esse institutum, ut nutriat, sed non di¬ cit sufficere solum cibum : nam si calor na¬ turalis deficiat, aut aliquod instrumentum corporis ad nutritionem necessarium, cibus non nutriet. Itaque Apostolus non dicit, so¬ lam Scripturam sufficere ad docendum, ar¬ guendum etc. proinde ad hominem perfi¬ ciendum et absolvendum: sed tamen ad haec omnia prodesse et juvare. Et quamvis ipse idem Apostolus non dicat, non sufficere , tamen id colligimus ex aliis ejus locis : ut ex illo I. Cor. XI. Coetera cum venero, disponam. Et II. Thess. II. Tenete Traditiones, sive per sermonem', sive per Epi¬ stolam, etc. (2) . Ex hoc etiam loco, licet non colligatur Paulum dixisse. Scripturam non sufficere ; colligitur tamen evidenter eum non dixisse, Scripturam solum sufficere, quia ipse tribuit has laudes cuilibet operi canonico, et scimus ex confessione etiam adversariorum, non sufficere quodlibet opus canonicum, quia tunc alia essent superflua. Argumentum Tertium ex locis, in quibus damnantur Traditiones. Marci VII, In vanum colunt me docentes preeeepta et doctrinas ho¬ minum. Mattii. XV. Irritum fecistis mandatum Dei propter Traditionem vestram. Galat. I. FEmulator existens paternarum mearum Tra¬ ditionum. Coloss. II. Videte ne quis vos deci¬ piat per Philosophiam, et inanem fallaciam se¬ cundum Traditionem hominum I. Timotb. I. Neque intenderent fabulis Judaicis, etc. I. Petr. I. Redempti estis de vana vestra conversatione paternee Traditionis (3). Hic damnantur Tra¬ ditiones, quas Judaei jactabant se per manus accepisse a Mose et Prophetis ; ergo similiter damnatae esse intelliguntur Traditiones, quas nos dicimus a Christo, et Apostolis ad nos devenisse per manus Patrum. Respondeo : Christum et Apostolos non reprehendere Traditiones, quas acceperant Judaei a Mose et Prophetis, quarum una erat de ipsis libris canonicis, qui essent veri, et qui non essent ; sed Traditiones quas acce¬ perant a quibusdam recenti oribus, quarum aliquae inanes, aliquae perniciosae erant, et contra Scripturas. Nam nec Christus aut Apostoli unquam vocant eas Traditiones Mosis et Prophetarum : et aperte dicunt se loqui de illis, quae cum Scripturis pugnant. Et praeterea Patres veteres explicuerunt di¬ serte quis fuerit auctor Traditionum, quas Christus et Apostoli reprehendunt. Ireneeus lib. IV, cap. 25 et 26, disputat contra veteres haereticos, qui putabant no¬ mine Traditionum a Christo et Apostolis re¬ prehensarum intelligi Legem Mosis, et do¬ cet, non Mosis Legem, sed recentiorum se¬ niorum Traditiones Legem corrumpentes a Christo et Apostolis reprehendi. Epiphanius in haer. Prol. docet Traditiones Judaeorum fuisse quatuor expositiones librorum sacro¬ rum. Primam Mosis, et eam non reprehen¬ di. Secundam R. Akibam. Tertiam R. Juda. Et quartam filiorum Asamonaei, atque has esse, quae reprehunduntur a Domino. — (3) Mare. VII, 7; Matth. (1) II. Timoth. III, 15. — (2) I. Cor. XI, 34; II. Thessal. II, 14. XV, 3; Galat. I, 14; Coloss. II, 8; I. Timoth. I, 4 ; I. Petr. I, 18. CAPUT XI. 223 Hieronymus in cap. VIII Isaiae, et in cap. III. epist. ad Tit. et in epist. ad Algasiam, cjuaest. 10, docet Traditiones Judaicas, quas Dominus reprehendit, initium habuisse a Sammai, Killel, Achiba, et quibusdam aliis, qui paulo ante ortum Salvatoris exstiterant, et Legem non tam exposuerant, quam cor¬ ruperant ; quas Traditiones ipsi Seure/aeSa-ets vocant. De quibus exstat injure civili con¬ stitutio quaedam Justiniani, quae est 146. Novel. in haec verba : « Quae deuterosis, quasi secundaria Traditio ab ipsis dicitur, in universum interdicimus, ut quae sacris Libris comprehensa non sit, neque desuper tradita per Prophetas, sed excerpta quaedam virorum contineat, qui terrena duntaxat lo¬ quuntur, nec quidquam divini in se habeant numinis. » Porro ex his fontibus descende¬ runt fabulae, quae nunc sunt in Thalmud, et in omnibus libris fere Rabbinorum. Sed ni¬ hil haec ad Traditiones nostras, quae Chri¬ stum et Apostolos auctores habent, et Scrip¬ turis divinis consonae sunt.