Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book IV: On the Unwritten Word (Tradition)
Chapter 11: The objections from the Fathers 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).
Now we must answer the testimonies which they bring from the Fathers. Kemnitz therefore first produces Irenaeus book 3 chapter 1, where he thus speaks: “For we knew the disposition of our salvation by no others than by those through whom the Gospel came to us; which they then indeed proclaimed, but afterward, by the will of God, delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our Faith.” The Apostles therefore, says Kemnitz, wrote all the same things which they preached by living voice. I answer: Irenaeus does not say that the Apostles preached nothing else than what they wrote, but only that they wrote the Gospel which they had before preached — which is true, and not against us. But even if Irenaeus said that the Apostles wrote all things which they preached, he would say nothing against our opinion. For two things are to be diligently noted, both for understanding this place of Irenaeus, and for understanding many other places of the other ancients.
The first is that some things in the Christian doctrine, both of Faith and of morals, are simply necessary to salvation for all — such as the knowledge of the articles of the Apostles' Creed, likewise the knowledge of the ten precepts and of some Sacraments. The rest are not so necessary but that, without an explicit knowledge and Faith and profession of them, a man cannot be saved, provided he have a ready will to receive and believe them when they are legitimately proposed to him by the Church. This distinction is gathered from this, that without the knowledge and Faith of the mysteries of the first kind no adult is admitted to Baptism; but without the knowledge and at least explicit Faith of the latter they are ordinarily admitted. Acts 2, after one sermon of Peter, in which he had taught the chief heads of the Faith about Christ, about three thousand men were baptized in one day, who without doubt knew nothing else but those necessary things; and therefore it is subjoined that after Baptism they were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, that is, they were learning the things they had not yet heard of the Christian mysteries. So Paul, though he held the Thessalonians in the number of the Saints, and extolled their Faith and charity with wonderful praises, yet 1 Thessalonians 3 says: Praying that we may see your face, and may accomplish those things that are wanting to your faith.
Note secondly that the things which are simply necessary the Apostles were wont to preach to all; but of the others, not all to all, but some to all — namely those which were useful to all — and some to the Prelates alone, the Bishops and Presbyters, as of the manner of governing the Church, of administering the Sacraments, of refuting heretics, etc.; just as now too some things are disputed in the schools among the learned, other things are explained in the popular sermon. So Acts 20 the Apostle apart instructs the Bishops of Asia. So 1 Corinthians 2 he speaks wisdom among the perfect. So 2 Timothy 2: These things, he says, commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also. So Irenaeus book 4 chapter 43 says that the Apostles delivered to their successors, together with the episcopate, the charism of knowledge. These things noted, I say: all those things were written by the Apostles which are necessary to all, and which they had openly preached to all in common; but the other things were not all written. When therefore Irenaeus says that the Apostles wrote what they had preached in the world, it is true, and not against Traditions, because they did not preach all things to the peoples, but only those which were necessary or useful to them; the rest they delivered apart to the more perfect.
Secondly he produces Origen on chapter 3 to the Romans, on Matthew homily 25, on Ezechiel homily 7, on Jeremiah homily 1, where he says that we ought not to speak of divine things from our own sense, but to confirm all things by the testimonies of Scripture: “It is necessary for us,” he says, “to call the holy Scriptures to witness; for our own senses and expositions without these witnesses have no faith.” I answer: Origen speaks of the most obscure questions, such as for the most part are not those which have the testimony of Tradition received in the whole Church. For otherwise Origen expressly asserts, homily 5 on Numbers, that very many things are kept in the Church, and must be kept by all, of which no testimonies exist.
Thirdly he produces as witness the Emperor Constantine, who in the Council of Nicaea (Theodoret witnessing, book 1 chapter 7) thus says: “The evangelical and apostolic books, and also the oracles of the ancient Prophets, plainly instruct us in the meaning of the Deity. Therefore, hostile discord being laid aside, let us take from the divinely inspired words the explanations of the questions.” I answer: this testimony is not to be made so much of as Calvin and Kemnitz make it. For Constantine was a great Emperor, but not a great Doctor of the Church, especially since (according to the opinion of the new heretics and the old Arians) Constantine at that time was not yet baptized, and therefore did not know the secrets of religion. But, the authority of Constantine being admitted, I say: of all those doctrines which pertain to the nature of God there exist testimonies in the Scriptures, and we can about those doctrines be fully and plainly instructed from the Scriptures, if we understand them rightly; yet the sense of the Scriptures depends on the unwritten Tradition of the Church. Wherefore Theodoret, who book 1 chapter 7 had related this speech of Constantine, in the same book chapter 8 reports that Scriptures were brought forth on both sides, and, when the Arians were not convicted by them (because they expounded the same Scriptures otherwise than the Catholics), they were condemned from unwritten discourses, yet piously understood; to which condemnation that Constantine assented, no one ever doubted.
Fourthly he produces Athanasius, who in the oration against the Gentiles, at the very beginning: “The sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures suffice of themselves for all instruction of the truth.” I answer: that all Kemnitz added of his own; for Athanasius has only for the indication of the truth. For he speaks there not of all doctrines, but only of two, which are the subjects of the two books which he writes to Macarius — namely that idols are not gods, and that Christ is true God and likewise man; which two have express testimonies in the Scriptures. Besides, Athanasius in the same place adds that the Scriptures suffice indeed for the indication of the truth of these two doctrines, yet not without the explanation of the holy Fathers; whose books, since they cannot easily be had by all, he says he wishes to write of these matters what he himself learned from his elders.
Fifthly he produces Basil in the sermon On the confession of Faith, where he thus speaks: “It would be an argument of unbelief, and a most certain sign of pride, if anyone should wish to reject anything of the things which are written, or to introduce any of the things which are not written.” And he has like things in the Summary of Morals 72 chapter 1, and Summary 80 chapter 22. I answer: Basil speaks of those who add to the doctrines of Scripture some other things contrary and foreign, and repugnant to the Scriptures. For in the same sermon On the confession of Faith he says that he, disputing against heretics, often used unwritten discourses, yet such as agreed with the Scriptures; and that the Apostle too received testimonies not only from the Scriptures, but even from the Philosophers, when they were not contrary to the Scriptures. I add also that Basil speaks of those who, not content with the written words, invent others out of their own head; for that is a most certain sign of pride. And so he treats of the Traditions which are devised by private men, not of those which the Church received from the Apostles through the successions of Bishops. Another place he brings from epistle 80, where Basil says: “We do not think it just that the custom which obtained among them be held for a law and canon of right doctrine. Let us therefore stand to the judgment of the divinely inspired Scripture.” I answer: Kemnitz omitted the words which were in the middle, and made against him. For the question then was whether it should be said that there are in God three hypostases and one nature. Some said it should not be so said, and brought as argument the custom of their region, where no one used such words. To whom Basil, who thought the contrary, answers that in other regions it is the custom to say in God three hypostases and one nature; and therefore, if they were unwilling to acquiesce in this custom, it was not just that they should wish their own other custom to be the rule, but that both parties should stand to the judgment of Scripture, which no one can reject. Here therefore you see that the matter is not of a Tradition received in the whole Church, but of particular customs; and that Basil therefore appealed from custom to the Scriptures because from contrary customs nothing certain could be established.
Sixthly he produces Chrysostom homily 1 on Matthew, homily 3 on 2 Thessalonians, and homily 13 on Genesis, where Chrysostom says that Scripture is profitable and clear in necessary things. But to what end this? Then he produces his testimony from homily 49 on Matthew, where, expounding that of chapter 24, Then let them who are in Judea flee to the mountains, he says that in the time of heresies there is no way of finding the truth but the reading of the Scriptures. But this testimony is not Chrysostom's, but the Author of the Unfinished Work, who was either an Arian or at least his work was in many places depraved by the Arians. For in homily 48 he calls the heretics Homousians, and in homily 49 speaks almost always against them; and therefore this whole place, as inserted by the Arians, has lately been removed from certain emended codices. Another testimony of Chrysostom he brings from the homily on Psalm 95, near the end: “If anything is said without Scripture, the thought of the hearers halts, now assenting, now hesitating; but when the testimony of the divine voice comes forth from Scripture, it confirms both the speech of the speaker and the mind of the hearer.” I answer: since in the immediately preceding words Chrysostom had said, “For we ought not to say anything without witnesses, and by the mere thought of the mind,” we must understand that the same, when he immediately subjoins, “If anything be said without Scripture,” wished it to be understood, and by the mere thought of the mind. And so the sense of his words is that if anything be said from one's own invention, it is not so easily persuaded as would be the case if what is said could be confirmed by the testimony of the Scriptures. Another of his he brings from homily 13 on 2 Corinthians: “Since we have the most exact balance, gnomon, and rule of all, the assertion of the divine laws, I beseech you all, leave what seems good to this man or that, and inquire all these things from the Scriptures.” I answer: he speaks not of obscure doctrines of Faith or morals, but of the opinion of the carnal, who prefer riches to poverty, whereas the Scriptures most openly teach that poverty is far more useful to salvation. And so Chrysostom says nothing else here than that the Scriptures are to be believed in this matter rather than the opinion of men. Lastly he brings his testimony from the Commentary on chapter 22 of Matthew: “Whatever is sought for salvation is already all fulfilled in the Scriptures.” I answer: Chrysostom speaks of the remedies of vices, and teaches that there is no vice for the healing of which some remedy is not found in Scripture. Which also Basil teaches in his oration on the first Psalm. But what do these avail against Traditions?
Seventhly he produces Epiphanius, who heresy 61 says: “We can tell the solution of each question not from our own reasonings, but from the consequence of the Scriptures.” I answer: Epiphanius does not say, from the consequence of the Scriptures alone; but elsewhere he most clearly says, as we showed above, that not all things can be received from Scripture, and that therefore Tradition is necessary. Eighthly he produces Cyril, who in the book On right faith to the Queens thus says: “It is necessary for us to follow the divine letters, and in nothing to depart from their prescript.” I answer: he does not say that it is not lawful to say anything which is not had in the Scriptures, but that it is not lawful to say anything against the Scriptures. For this is not to depart from the prescript of the Scriptures, which indeed we too gladly embrace; for we never defend Traditions fighting with Scripture. Likewise he brings that of the same from homily 5 on Leviticus: “I think that in these two days can be understood the two Testaments, in which it is lawful for every word that pertains to God to be sought and discussed, and from them all knowledge of things to be taken. But if anything remain which the divine Scripture does not determine, no other third Scripture ought to be received for the authority of knowledge.” I answer first: those homilies on Leviticus are not blessed Cyril's, but Origen's, or I know not whose, who everywhere destroys the letter to set up mystical senses out of his own head; and accordingly those homilies are not of great authority. Add that in that very place the author of the homily does not exclude the unwritten word of God, but only a third Scripture, that is, a human Scripture which would sell itself for divine.
Ninthly he produces Theophilus, book 2 Paschal, who thus says: “It is of a diabolical spirit to think anything divine outside the authority of the sacred Scriptures.” I answer: he speaks of the apocryphal books, which were by some supposed for divine. But it is inept, not to say worse, to twist to one thing what is said of another. Tenthly he produces Apollinaris, who in Eusebius book 5 of the History chapter 15 says that he long delayed to write against the heresy of Montanus, lest he should seem to some to add something to the evangelical word of God. I answer first: those words are not found in all the codices. Secondly, that author does not say to the written evangelical word. Thirdly, he understands the addition of a new contrary doctrine; for in the same place he accuses Montanus of not having kept the doctrine which the Church had received from the Apostles by Tradition and the succession of Bishops.
Eleventhly he produces Tertullian, who in the book against Hermogenes chapter 22 says: “I adore the fullness of Scripture. Let the workshop of Hermogenes teach that it is written. If it is not written, let him fear that Woe destined for those who add or take away.” I answer: Tertullian speaks of one doctrine only, namely that God created all things out of nothing, not out of pre-existing matter, as Hermogenes dreamed. And because this doctrine is most openly contained in the Scriptures, Tertullian says that he adores the fullness of Scripture as to this doctrine; and adds that Hermogenes, who added to Scripture a contrary doctrine repugnant to Scripture itself, incurred that malediction whereby we are forbidden to add or take away anything from Scripture, so that its truth be changed. Twelfthly he produces Cyprian, who thus speaks in the epistle to Pompey: “Whence is that tradition? Does it descend from the Lord's and evangelical authority, or come from the commands and epistles of the Apostles? For that those things are to be done which are written, God testifies and proposes to Josue, saying: The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth. If therefore it is commanded in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or acts of the Apostles, let this holy Tradition be observed, etc.” I answer: Cyprian wrote these things when he wished to defend his error, and therefore it is no wonder if he then reasoned after the manner of those who err. Wherefore St. Augustine book 5 against the Donatists chapter 23 and following deservedly refutes this epistle. Besides, although Cyprian rejected that one Tradition about Baptism because he thought it against the Scriptures, yet he did not therefore wish the others rejected, which, though not in the Scriptures, yet do not fight with Scripture.
Thirteenthly he produces that celebrated saying of Jerome on chapter 1 of the epistle to Titus: “Without the authority of the Scriptures garrulity would have no faith.” And that on chapter 23 of Matthew, “What has not authority from the Scriptures is despised with the same facility with which it is proved.” And that on chapter 1 of Aggeus: “The things which without authority and testimonies of the Scriptures they of themselves find and feign, as it were an apostolic Tradition, the sword of God strikes.” Finally that from the Commentary on Psalm 86, on that The Lord shall tell in the writings of peoples and of princes, of them that have been in her: “See what he says, who have been, not who are, so that, the Apostles excepted, whatever else shall be said afterward may be cut off and have no authority.” I answer to the first: the place was depraved by Kemnitz. For thus Jerome has it: “Without the authority of the Scriptures garrulity has no faith, unless they seemed to strengthen even a perverse doctrine by divine testimonies.” He does not therefore call garrulity what is brought forth outside Scripture, but says that garrulous men find no faith with any unless they strive to confirm their errors by the Scriptures — which most of all suits the heretics. To the second I say: this too is not faithfully cited; for Jerome did not say universally, what has not authority from the Scriptures, etc., but, speaking of a particular opinion by which some strove to prove from an apocryphal book that Zacharias whom the Jews slew between the temple and the altar was Zacharias the father of John the Baptist, he says: “This, because it has not authority from the Scriptures, is despised with the same facility with which it is proved.” And the sense is: because this opinion is proved from an apocryphal book, not from a canonical one, it is easily despised. To the third the solution is plain: for he acts only against those who feign something and yet wish their fiction to seem an apostolic Tradition. To the last I say: Jerome in that place rejects the things which are foreign to the apostolic doctrine, that is, contrary and repugnant to the Scriptures.
Lastly they bring the testimonies of Augustine. And first that from book 2 On Christian Doctrine chapter 9: “In those things which are openly set down in the Scriptures are found all those things which contain Faith and the morals of living.” I answer: he speaks of those doctrines which are simply necessary to all, such as are had in the Apostles' Creed and in the Decalogue; and therefore the same Augustine book 2 On the merits and remission of sins last chapter: “I believe that of this too there would be a most clear authority of the divine oracles, if a man could not be ignorant of it without loss of the promised salvation.” But besides these there are many other things which are had by Tradition alone, as we showed above from many places of Augustine. Secondly that from 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 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.” I answer: we have already shown above, from Augustine tractate 98 on John, that that besides signifies against. Thirdly he brings certain places from book 19 of the City of God chapter 18, tractate 2 of epistle 163, from the book On the pastors chapter 14, and book 4 of the Confessions chapter 3; but in these places there is nothing at all against Traditions; for blessed Augustine only says that doctrines are to be proved from the Scriptures when the testimonies of Scripture are had, and that Scripture is to be believed, and that nothing is to be said against the Scriptures, and the like, which are most true, but are brought in vain against Traditions or for the sufficiency of Scripture, since Augustine in those places indicated no such thing by any word.
Fourthly he brings that from the book On the good of widowhood chapter 1: “What more shall I teach thee than that which we read in the Apostle? For the holy Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, that we dare not be wise more than it behooves. Let it therefore be nothing else for me to teach thee than to expound to thee the words of the teacher.” I answer: Augustine speaks not of every doctrine, but only of the profession of widowhood, of which, what kind of good it was, the Apostle had sufficiently set forth 1 Corinthians 7; and therefore Augustine says it is enough for him if he expound the words of the Apostle. And that Augustine generally lays down, “Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, that we dare not be wise more than it behooves,” is said against those who out of their own judgment feign new doctrines which are not consonant to the Scriptures. Fifthly that from book 3 against Maximinus chapter 14: “But now neither ought I to bring forward the Nicene, nor thou the Ariminian Council, as about to prejudge. Neither am I held by the authority of this, nor thou by that; let matter contend with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason, by the authorities of the Scriptures — witnesses not proper to either, but common to both.” Likewise on Psalm 57, on that The sinners are alienated, etc.: “Let our papers be taken from the midst, let the codex of God come forth into the midst; hear Christ speaking, hear the truth speaking.” He has like things in the book On the unity of the Church chapters 3, 6, 10, and 16. I answer: it seems indeed in these places that something is said against Councils, but not against Traditions; and that not even against Councils is anything taught by Augustine we can easily show. For it is certain that Augustine did not wish Councils to be removed from these disputations, and the Scriptures alone to be received, because he did not believe the authority of legitimate Councils to be very great, but for a twofold cause. First, that he might act more expeditiously; for if he had wished to take an argument from a Council, he would have had first to prove that Councils are to be received, which was too long. And this reason especially held place against the Arians, who in no way admitted the Council of Nicaea. The other reason is that in those questions which then were, there existed in Scripture most clear testimonies, which without doubt are to be preferred to all the testimonies of Councils. And this reason especially holds place against the Donatists in the question of the Church. Otherwise the same Augustine, in epistles 118, 162, 165, 166, and in the book On Baptism, often urges Councils and Traditions, nay even the answers of Pontiffs and Emperors.
Sixthly they bring that from book 2 On the merits and remission of sins chapter 36: “When a most obscure matter is disputed, the certain and clear documents of the divine Scriptures not helping, human presumption ought to restrain itself, doing nothing by declining to either part.” I answer: he speaks of the most obscure questions, such as he himself thought that of the origin of souls to be, for the defining of which no firm testimonies are at hand, but only some conjectures from the divine Letters. But this is nothing to Traditions, which are confirmed by the consent of the whole Church and of all the ancients; which argument Augustine everywhere teaches to be most grave, and especially book 1 against Cresconius chapter 33, where he says that the truth of Scripture is held by us when we do what pleases the whole Church, even though we read nothing written of it. Seventhly, that from the book On catechizing the unlearned chapters 3 and 6, where Augustine teaches that a brief sum of doctrine from the Scriptures is to be proposed to the catechumens, which, when they say they believe and promise they will observe, they are to be baptized. Hence Kemnitz wishes to conclude that the things which are had in the Scriptures suffice for a Christian. I answer: that indeed suffices that one may be baptized, but does not suffice for the Church of God absolutely. Otherwise we could also conclude that the Apostles' Creed suffices for the Church, and all the rest is superfluous.
These, then, are the testimonies of the ancients cited by the heretics, in which three things are to be noted: one, that those which we cited on the contrary are twice as many; another, that our testimonies expressly teach that unwritten Traditions are to be received, so that the heretics, since they could not deny it, everywhere turned to blasphemies; but the testimonies adduced by them do not properly pertain to Traditions, but are at length wrested to that by the adversaries through bad consequences. The last is that the adversaries, convicted by the evidence of the testimonies, sometimes confess that Traditions were defended by certain Fathers; but we can in no way be driven to admit that Traditions were assailed by any of the Fathers.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Solvuntur objectiones ex Patribus.
Nunc ad ea testimonia, quae ex Patribus
adferunt, respondendum est. Kemnitius igi--
tur primo producit Irenaeum lib. III, cap. 1,
ubi sic loquitur : « Non enim per alios, in¬
quit , dispositionem salutis cognovimus,
quam per eos, per quos Evangelium perve¬
nit ad nos : quod quidem tunc praeconiave-
runt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in
Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum
et columnam Fidei nostrae futurum. » Ea¬
dem igitur, inquit Kemnitius, scripserunt
omnia Apostoli, quae praedicarunt viva voce.
Respondeo : Irenaeum non dicere nihil
aliud Apostolos praedicavisse , quam quod
scripserunt : sed solum scripsisse Evange¬
lium, quod antea praedicaverant, quod est
verum, et non contra nos. Sed, etsi diceret
Irenaeus , Apostolos omnia scripsisse quae
praedicaverunt, nihil diceret adversus sen¬
tentiam nostram . Sunt enim duo diligenter
notanda, tum ad hunc locum Irenaei, tum
ad alia multa aliorum Veterum intelligen-
da.
Primum est, quaedam in doctrina Christia¬
na tam Fidei, quam morum, esse simpliciter
omnibus necessaria ad salutem, qualis est
notitia articulorum Symboli Apostolici :
item cognitio decem praeceptorum, et non¬
nullorum Sacramentorum. Caetera non ita
necessaria sunt, ut sine eorum explicita no¬
titia et Fide et professione homo salvari non
possit, modo promptam habeat voluntatem
ea suscipiendi, et credendi, quando sibi fue¬
rint legitime per Ecclesiam proposita?
Haec distinctio ex eo colligitur, quod sine
notitia, et Fide mysteriorum primi generis,
nemo adultus admittitur ad Baptismum :
sine notitia autem, et Fide saltem explicita
posteriorum ordinarie admittuntur : Act. II,
post unum Petri sermonem, quo docuerat
praecipua capita Fidei de Christo, baptizati
sunt uno die homines ad tria millia, qui sine
dubio nihil aliud noverant, nisi illa necessa¬
ria, et ideo subditur, quod post Baptismum
erant perseverantes in doctrina Apostolorum,
id est, discebant quae nondum audierant de
mysteriis Christianis. Sic Paulus cum Thes-
salonicenses in numero Sanctorum haberet,
et Fidem atque charitatem eorum miris lau¬
dibus extolleret, tamen I. Thess. III, dicit :
Orantes , ut videamus faciem vestram , et com¬
pleamus quae desunt Fidei vestrae (I).
Nota Secundo, ea quae sunt simpliciter
necessaria, Apostolos consuevisse omnibus
praedicare : aliorum autem non omnia om¬
nibus, sed quaedam omnibus, quae nimirum
omnibus utilia erant, quaedam solis Praelatis,
Episcopis, et Presbyteris, ut de ratione gu¬
bernandae Ecclesiae, de Sacramentis adminis¬
trandis, de refelleifdis haereticis etc. sicut
etiam modo alia disputantur in scholis inter
doctos, alia explicantur in concione popu¬
lari. Sic Act. XX, Apostolus'scorsim instruit
Episcopos Asiae. Sic I. Cor. II, sapientiam
loquitur inter perfectos. Sicli Tim. ll.Bcec,
inquit, commenda fidelibus hominibus , qui ido¬
nei erunt et alios docere (2). Sic Irenaeus lib.
IV, cap. 43, dicit, Apostolos cum Episcopa¬
tu tradidisse successoribus charisma scien¬
tiae.
His notatis, dico : illa omnia scripta esse
ab Apostolis, quae sunt omnibus necessaria,
et quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgo praedica¬
verant : alia autem non omnia scripta esse.
(1) I. Thessal. III, 10. — (2) II. Tim. II, 2.
224
LIBER IV.
Cum igitur Irenseus ait, Apostolos scripsisse
quae praedicaverant in Mundo, verum est,
et non contra Traditiones, quia non praedi¬
caverunt populis omnia, sed solum ea quae
illis necessaria, vel utilia erant, caeteraseor-
sim perfectioribus tradiderunt.
Secundo profert Origenem in cap. III, ad
Rom. in Matth. hom. 25. in Ezechiel. homil.
7. in Hier. hom. 1, ubi dicit, oportere nos
de rebus divinis non loqui ex proprio sensu,
sed omnia confirmare Scripturae testimoniis :
<c Necesse nobis est, inquit, Scripturas sanc¬
tas in testimonium vocare. Sensus quippe
nostri, et enarrationes sine his testibus non
habent fidem. » Respondeo : loquitur Ori-
genes de obscurissimis quaestionibus, quales
ut plurimum non sunt illae, quae testimonium
habent Traditionis in tota Ecclesia re¬
ceptae. Alioqui enim diserte asserit Origenes
hom. 5. in Num. plurima in Ecclesia ser¬
vari , et ab omnibus necessario servanda
esse, cum nulla exstent de illis testimonia.
Tertio producit in testem Constantinum
Imperatorem, qui in Concilio Nicaeno, teste
Theodoreto lib. I, cap. 7, sic ait : «Evange-
lici et Apostolici libri, necnon antiquorum
Prophetarum oracula plane instruunt nos
sensu numinis. Proinde hostili posita discor¬
dia, sumamus ex verbis divinitus inspiratis
quaestionum explicationes. » Respondeo :
non esse hoc testimonium tanti faciendum,
quanti Calvinus et Kemnitius iliud faciunt.
Erat enim Constantinus Magnus Imperator,
sed non magnus Ecclesiae Doctor, praesertim
cum secundum opinionem novorum haereti¬
corum et antiquorum Arianorum, Constan¬
tinus eo tempore nondum fuerit baptizatus,
et proinde non noverit arcana religionis.
Sed admissa auctoritafe Constantini, dico :
eorum omnium dogmatum, quae ad naturam
Dei pertinent, exstare in Scripturis testimo¬
nia, et posse nos circa ea dogmata ea plene
et plane instrui ex Scripturis, si eas recte
intelligamus ; verumtamen sensum Scriptu¬
rarum pendere ex Traditione Ecclesiae non
scripta. Quocirca Theodoretus, qui lib. I, c.
7. narraverat hanc orationem Constantini,
idem cap. 8. refert, prolatas fuisse utrinque
Scripturas, et cum ex iis non convincerentur
Ariani, eo quod easdem Scripturas aliter
exponerent, quam Catholici, damnatos eos
fuisse ex sermonibus non scriptis, pie tamen
intellectis ; cui damnationi Constantinum as¬
sensum esse, nemo unquam dubitavit.
Profert quarto Athanasium, qui in Orat.
cont. Gent. in ipso initio : « Sufficiunt per
se, inquit, sacrse ac divinitus inspiratae Scrip¬
turae ad omnem instructionem veritatis. »
Respondeo : illud Omnem de suo adjecisse
Kemnitium : nam Athanasius non habet, ni¬
si ad veritatis indicationem. Loquitur enim
ibi, non de omnibus dogmatibus, sed solum
de duobus, quae sunt argumenta duorum
librorum, quos ad Macarium scribit ; vide¬
licet, quod idola non sint Dei, et quod Chri¬
stus sit verus Deus et similiter homo, quse
duo habent in Scripturis expressa testimo¬
nia. Praeterea Athanasius ibidem addit,
Scripturas quidem sufficere ad indicationem
veritatis horum duorum dogmatum ; tamen
non sine explicatione sanctorum Patrum,
quorum libri cum non facile ab omnibus ha¬
beri possint, dicit se velle scribere de his
rebus, quid a majoribus ipse didicerit.
Profert quinto Basilium in Serm. de Fid.
confess. ubi sic loquitur : « Infidelitatis ar¬
gumentum fuerit, et signum superbiae cer¬
tissimum, si quis eorum, quse scripta sunt,
aliquid velit rejicere, aut eorum, quse non
scripta, introducere. » Et similia habet in
Summ. moral. 72, cap. 1 et Summa 80, c.
22. Respondeo : Loquitur Basilius de iis, qui
addunt ad Scripturae dogmata aliqua alia
contraria et aliena, Scripturisque repugnan¬
tia. Nam in eodem Sermone de confessione
Fidei dicit, se contra haereticos disputantem
saepe usum esse sermonibus non scriptis ;
tamen cum Scripturis consentientibus ; et
Apostolum quoque non solum ex Scripturis,
sed etiam ex Philosophis testimonia acce¬
pisse, quando illa non erant contraria Scrip¬
turis. Addo etiam, de iis quoque Basilium
loqui, qui non contenti vocibus scriptis, ex
proprio capite inveniunt alias. Id enim su¬
perbiae signum est certissimum. Itaque agit
de Traditionibus, quae excogitantur a priva¬
tis hominibus, non de iis, quas ab Apostolis
Ecclesia per successiones Episcoporum ac¬
cepit.
Alium locum affert ex epist. 80, ubi Basi¬
lius ait: «Non putamus aequum esse, ut
quae apud ipsos obtinuit consuetudo, pro
lege et canone habeatur rectae doctrinae.
Stemus itaque arbitratui a Deo inspiratae
Scripturae. » Respondeo : omisit Kemnitius
verba, quae erant in medio, et contra illum
faciebant. Erat enim tunc quaestio, an di¬
cendum esset, esse in Deo tres hypostases,
et unam naturam. Aliqui dicebant, non esse
sic dicendum, et proferebant pro argumento
CAPUT XI.
225
consuetudinem suae regionis , ubi talibus
verbis nemo uteretur. Quibus respondet Ba¬
sibus, qui contrarium sentiebat, in aliis re¬
gionibus esse consuetudinem ut dicerent in
Deo tres hypostases, et unam naturam ; et
ideo si nollent ipsi acquiescere huic consue¬
tudini, non esse etiam aBquum, ut ipsi suam
aliam consuetudinem vellent esse regulam,
sed starent utrique judicio Scripturae^ quam
nemo rejicere potest. Hic igitur vides, non
agi de Traditione in tota Ecclesia recep¬
ta, sed de particularibus consuetudinibus.
Deinde Basilium ideo provocasse a con¬
suetudine ad Scripturas, quia ex consue¬
tudinibus contrariis nihil certi statui po¬
terat.
Sexto profert Chrysostomum hom. 1. in
Matth. hom. 3. in II ad Thessal. et hom.
13. in Genes, ubi Chrysostomus dicit, Scrip¬
turam esse utilem, et claram in rebus ne¬
cessariis. Sed quorsum haec? Deinde profert
ejusdem testimonium ex hom. 49. in Matth.
ubi exponens illud cap. XXIY. Tunc qui in
Judcea sunt fugiant ad montes (1) ; dicit, tem¬
pore haeresum non esse ullam rationem in¬
veniendae veritatis, nisi lectionem Scriptu¬
rarum. Sed hoc testimonium non est Chry-
sostomi, sed Auctoris operis imperfecti, qui
vel fuit Arianus, vel certe opus ejus ab
Arianis multis in locis depravatum est. Nam
hom, 48, haereticos vocat homousianos, et
hom. 49, contra eosdem fere semper loqui¬
tur, et propterea totus hic locus tanquam ab
Arianis insertus, e quibusdam codicibus nu¬
per emendatis sublatus est. Aliud profert
testimonium Chrysostomi ex hom. in Psal.
XCV. circa finem : « Si quid dicitur absque
Scriptura , auditorum cogitatio claudicat,
nunc annuens, nunc haesitans : verum ubi
ex Scriptura divinae vocis prodiit testimo¬
nium, et loquentis sermonem, et audientis
animum confirmat. »
Respondeo : cum in verbis immediate
praecedentibus Chrysostomus dixerit : « Ne¬
que enim oportet quidquam dicere sine te¬
stibus, solaque animi cogitatione » (intelli-
gere debemus, eumdem, cum continuo sub¬
jungit) : « Si quid dicatur absque Scriptura»
subintelligi voluisse, sed sola animi cogita¬
tione. Itaque sensus verborum ejus is est,
ut si quid dicatur ex propria inventione, non
ita facile persuadeatur, atque fieret, si quod
dicitur Scripturas testimonio confirmari pos¬
set.
Aliud profert ejusdem ex homil. 13, in II.
epistol. ad Corinth. « Cum habeamus om¬
nium exactissimam trutinam, gnomonem, et
regulam, divinarum legum assertionem, oro
vos omnes, ut relinquatis, quid huic, vel illi
videatur, et de his a Scripturis haec omnia
inquirite. » Respondeo : non loquitur de
dogmatibus Fidei, aut morum obscuris, sed
de opinione carnalium, qui anteponunt opes
paupertati, cum Scripturae apertissime do¬
ceant , paupertatem esse longe utiliorem
ad salutem. Itaque Chrysostomus nihil hic
aliud dicit, quam magis credendum esse Scrip¬
turis in hac parte, quam hominum opinioni.
Ultimo profert ejusdem Chrysostomi testi¬
monium ex Commentar, in cap. XXII Matth.
(i Quidquid quaeritur ad salutem, totum jam
impletum estin Scripturis. »Respondeo: loqui¬
tur Chrysostomus de remediis vitiorum, ac
docet, nullum esse vitium, ad quodsanan#um
non inveniatur in Scriptura aliquod reme¬
dium. Quod etiam docet Basilius Orat, in I.
Psalm. Sed quid haec valent contra traditio¬
nes?
Septimo profert Epiphanium , qui haeresi
61. ait : « Nos uniuscujusque quaestionis in¬
ventionem non ex propriis ratiocinationibus
dicere possumus, sed ex Scripturarum con¬
sequentia. » Respondeo : non dicit Epipha-
nius, ex Scripturarum consequentia solum :
alibi autem clarissime dicit, ut supra osten¬
dimus, non omnia a Scriptura accipi posse,
et ideo necessariam esse Traditionem.
Octavo profert Cyrillum, qui lib. De recta
Fide ad Regin. sic ait : « Necessarium nobis
est, divinas sequi litteras, et in nullo ab ea¬
rum praescripto discedere. » Respondeo :
non dicit, non licere aliquid dicere, quod in
Scripturis non habeatur ; sed non licere con¬
tra Scripturas dicere. Hoc enim est non dis¬
cedere a praescripto Scripturarum, quod qui¬
dem et nos libenter amplectimur ; nec enim
Traditiones cum Scriptura pugnantes un¬
quam defendimus.
Item profert illud ejusdem ex hom. 5. in
Levit. « Ego puto, in hoc biduo, duo Testa¬
menta posse intelligi, in quibus liceat omne
verbum, quod ad Deum pertinet, requiri, et
discuti, atque ex ipsis omnem rerum scien¬
tiam capi. Si quid autem superfuerit, quod
(1) Matth. XXIV, 16.
16
226
LIBER IV.
non Scriptura divina decernat, nullam aliam
debere tertiam Scripturam ad auctoritatem
scientiae suscipi. » Respondeo primo : homi-
lias illas inLeviticum non esse B. Cyrilli,sed
Origenis, vel nescio cujus alterius , qui pas-
sim litteram destruit, ut mysticos sensus ex
capite suo statuat. Proinde homilias illas non
esse magnae auctoritatis. Adde, quod in eo
ipso loco auctor homiliae non excludit ver¬
bum Dei non scriptum , sed solum tertiam
Scripturam, id est, humanam Scripturam,
quae se pro divina venditare velit.
Profert nono Theophylum lib. II. Pascha¬
li ; qui sic ait : « Diabolici spiritus est, ali¬
quid extra Scripturarum sacrarum auctori¬
tatem putare divinum. » Respondeo : loqui¬
tur de libris apocryphis , qui pro divinis a
quibusdam supponebantur. Ineptum autem
est, ne quid gravius dicam , quae de una re
dicuntur, torquere ad aliam.
Profert decimo Appollinarem , qui apud
Eiilebium lib. V hist. cap. 15. dicit, se lon¬
go tempore distulisse scribere contra Mon¬
tani hseresim, ne videretur quibusdam ali¬
quid addere Evangelico Dei verbo. Respon¬
deo primo : ista verba non in omnibus codi¬
cibus inveniri. Secundo , non dicere eum
auctorem, Evangelico verbo scripto. Tertio,
intelligere additionem novi dogmatis contra¬
rii : nam ibidem accusat Montanum, quod
non servaverit doctrinam, quam Ecclesia ex
Traditione, et successione Episcoporum ab
Apostolis acceperat.
Profert undecimo Tertullianum , qui lib.
cont. Hermog. cap. 22. « Adoro , inquit,
Scripturae plenitudinem. Scriptum esse, do¬
ceat Hermogenis officina. Si non est Scrip¬
tum, timeat vae illud, adjicientibus, vel de¬
trahentibus destinatum. » Respondeo : lo¬
quitur Tertullianus de uno dogmate tantum,
quod scilicet Deus creaverit omnia ex nihilo,
non ex praejacente materia, ut Hermogenes
somniabat. Et quoniam hoc dogma apertis¬
sime continetur in Scripturis, dicit Tertullia¬
nus , se adorare Scripturae plenitudinem,
quantum ad hoc dogma; et addit , Hermo¬
genem , qui addebat ad Scripturam dogma
contrarium, et repugnans ipsi Scripturae, in¬
cidere in illam maledictionem, qua prohibe¬
mur nihil addere, aut detrahere Scripturae,
ita ut veritas ejus immutetur.
Profert duodecimo Cyprianum, qui sic lo¬
quitur in epist. ad Pompejum : « Unde est,
inquit, ista traditio ? utrumne de Dominica et
Evangelica auctoritate descendens , an de
Apostolorum mandatis atque epistolis ve¬
niens? Ea enim facienda esse, quae scripta
sunt, testatur Deus, et proponit ad Jesum
Nave dicens : Non recedet liber legis hujus
ex ore tuo. Si ergo aut in Evangelio praeci¬
pitur, aut in Apostolorum epistolis aut actis
continetur, observetur haec sancta Traditio,
etc. » Respondeo Cyprianum haec scripsisse,
cum errorem suum tueri vellet, et ideo non
mirum, si more errantium tunc ratiocinare¬
tur. Quare S. Augustinus lib. V Cont. Do-
natist. cap. 23. et seq. hanc epistolam me¬
rito refellit. Praeterea etsi Cyprianus illam
unam Traditionem de Baptismo rejiciebat,
quia contra Scripturas esse putabat : tamen
non propterea rejici volebat alias , quae etsi
in Scripturis non sint, tamen cum Scriptura
non pugnant.
Decimotertio profert illud celebre dictum
Hieronymi in cap. I epist. ad Titum : « Si¬
ne auctoritate Scripturarum garrulitas non
haberet Fidem. » Et illud in cap. XXIJI
Matth. Quod <c de Scripturis auctoritatem non
habet , eadem facilitate contemnitur , qua
probatur. » Et illud in cap. I Aggsei. «Quae
absque auctoritate et testimoniis Scriptura¬
rum, quasi Traditione Apostolica sponte re-
periunt, atque confingunt , percutit gladius
Dei.- » Denique illud ex Commentar, in Psal.
LXXXYI in illud : Dominus narrabit in Scri¬
pturis populorum , et principum , horum qui
fuerunt in ea{ 1). «Videte, inquit, quid dicat,
qui fuerunt, non qui sunt, ut exceptis Apo¬
stolis, quodeumque postea aliud dicetur, ab¬
scindatur, non habeat auctoritatem. »
Respondeo ad primum, depravatum esse
locum aKemnitio. Sic enim Hieronymus ha¬
bet : «Sine auctoritate Scripturarum garru¬
litas non habet fidem, nisi viderentur per¬
versam doctrinam, etiam divinis testimoniis
roborare. » Non ergo vocat garrulitatem
quod profertur extra Scripturam, sed dicit,
homines garrulos non invenire fidem apud
ullos, nisi suos errores Scripturis confir¬
mare nitantur; quod maxime quadrat in
haereticos. Ad secundum dico : illud etiam
non fideliter citatum : nam Hieronymus non
dixit universaliter, quod de Scripturis aucto¬
ritatem non habet etc. Sed loquens de parti¬
culari quadam sententia, qua quidam nite¬
bantur ex libro apocrypho probare, Zacha-
(1) Psalrn. LXXXVI, 6.
CAPUT XI.
227
riarn, quem Judaei occiderunt inter templum
et altare , fuisse Zachariam patrem Joannis
Baptistae, ait : « Hoc quia de Scripturis auc¬
toritatem non habet, eadem facilitate con¬
temnitur qua probatur. » Et sensus est, quia
haec sententia probatur ex libro apocrypho,
non ex canonico, facile contemnitur. Ad ter¬
tium patet solutio : solum enim agit contra
illos, qui confingunt aliquid, et tamen videri
volunt suum figmentum Apostolicam Tradi¬
tionem esse. Ad ultimum dico : rejicere eo
loco Hieronymum ea, quae sunt aliena a do¬
ctrina Apostoliea, id est, contraria et repu¬
gnantia Scripturis.
Ultimo proferunt Augustini testimonia. Ac
primum illud ex lib. II de doctr. Clirist. c.
9. « In his, inquit, quae aperte in Scripturis
posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia, quae
continent Fidem , moresque vivendi. » Re¬
spondeo : loquitur de illis dogmatibus, quae
necessaria sunt omnibus simpliciter, qualia
sunt quae habentur in Symbolo Apostolico,
et in Decalogo, fdeo idem Augustinus lib. II.
De peccatorum meritis et remiss. cap. ult.
« Credo, inquit, quod etiam hinc divinorum
eloquiorum clarissima auctoritas esset, si ho¬
mo sine dispendio promissae salutis ignorare
non posset. » At praeter ea multa sunt alia
quae sola Traditione habentur, ut supra
ostendimus ex multis locis Augustini.
Item secundo illud ex lib. III cont. litte¬
ras Petiliani cap. 6. Si quis « sive de Chri¬
sto, sive de ejus Ecclesia , sive de quacum¬
que alia re, quae pertinet ad Fidem, vitam¬
que vestram, non dicam nos, sed quod Pau¬
lus, adjecit : Si Angelus de calo vobis an -
nuntiaverit , praeterquam quod in Scripturis
legalibus et Evangelicis accepistis , anathe¬
ma sit. » Respondeo : jam supra ostendimus
ex Augustino Tract. 98 in Joan. illud Prae¬
terquam significare contra quam.
Tertio, profert loca quaedam ex lib. XIX
de Civit. Dei, cap. 18. Tractat. 2. ex epist.
163. ex lib. De pastorib. eap. 14. et lib. IV
Confess. cap. 3. sed in his locis nihil est
prorsus contra Traditiones : solum enim di¬
cit B. Augustin.ex Scripturis probanda esse
dogmata, quando testimonia Scripturae ha¬
bentur; et credendum esse Scripturae; nihil
esse dicendum contra Scripturas, et similia
quae sunt verissima , sed frustra adferuntur
contra Traditiones, vel pro Scripturae suffi¬
cientia, cum nullo verbo tale aliquid Augu¬
stinus in illis locis indicaverit.
Quarto , illud profert ex lib. De bono vi-
duit. cap. 1. «Quid amplius te doceam, quam
id, quod apud Apostolum legimus? Sapcta
enim Scriptura nostrae .doctrinae regulam
figit, ne audeamus sapere plus quam opor¬
tet. Non sit ergo mihi aliud te docere , nisi
verba tibi doctoris exponere. » Respondeo :
loquitur Augustin. non de omni dogmate sed
solum de professione viduitatis , quod quale
bonum esset, satis exposuerat Apostolus I.
Cor. VII, et ideo dicit Augustinus, satis sibi
esse, si exponat verba Apostoli. Quod autem
generaliter Augustinus ponit : « Scriptura
nostra; doctrinae regulam figit, ne audeamus
sapere plus quam oportet » ; contra illos di¬
ctum est, qui ex proprio judicio fingunt no¬
vas doctrinas , quae Scripturis consonae non
sunt.
Quinto, illud ex lib. III cont. Maximin. c.
14. « Sed nunc nec ego Nicaenum , nec tu
debes Ariminense, tanquam praejudicaturus
proferre Concilium. Nec ego hujus auctori¬
tate, nec tu illius detineris : Scripturarum
auctoritatibus, non quorumque propriis, sed
utrisque communibus testibus, res cum re,
causa cum causa , ratio cum ratione con¬
certet. » Item in Psal. LVII. super illud A lie-
nati sunt peccatores etc. « Auferantur de me¬
dio chartae nostrae, procedat in medium co¬
dex Dei, audi Christum dicentem, audi ve¬
ritatem loquentem. » Similia habentur lib.
De unit. Eccles. cap. 3, 6, 10 et 16.
Respondeo : videri quidem in his locis dici
aliquid contra Concilia, sed non contra Tra¬
ditiones : at nec contra Concilia aliquid ab
Augustino doceri, facile possumus ostendere.
Nam certum est , Augustinum non voluisse
removeri Concilia ab his disputationibus, et
solas Scripturas recipi , quod non crederet
maximam esse legitimorum Conciliorum au¬
ctoritatem, sed duplici de causa. Primo, ut
expeditius ageret : si enim voluisset ex Con¬
cilio argumentum sumere , debuisset prius
probare, Concilia esse recipienda, quod ni¬
mis longum erat. Et haec ratio praecipue lo¬
cum habebat contra A rianos, qui nullo modo
admittebant Concilium Nicaenum. Altera ra¬
tio est, quia in illis quaestionibus, quae tunc
erant, exstabant in Scriptura clarissima tes¬
timonia , quae sine dubio anteponenda sunt
omnibus Conciliorum testimoniis. Et haec
ratio praecipue locum habet contra Donatis-
tas in quaestione de Ecclesia. Alioqui idem
Augustinus in epist. 118, 162, 165, 166 et
228
LIBER IV.
in lib. de Baptismo , saepe urget Concilia et
Traditiones ; imo etiam responsa Pontifi¬
cum, et Imperatorum.
Sexto, proferunt- illud ex lib. II De pecca¬
tor. mer. et remiss. cap.36. « Ubi de re ob¬
scurissima disputatur, non adjuvantibus di¬
vinarum Scripturarum certis clarisque docu¬
mentis, cohibere se debet humana praesump¬
tio , nihil faciens in alteram partem decli¬
nando. » Respondeo : loquitur de quaestio¬
nibus obscurissimis , qualem esse putabat
ipse de orgine animarum, ad quas definien¬
das non suppetunt ulla firma testimonia, sed
solum conjecturae aliquae ex divinis Litteris.
At nihil hoc ad Traditiones, quae totius Ec¬
clesiae et omni Veterum consensu firmantur:
quod argumentum gravissimum esse passim
docet Augustinus , et praesertim lib. I Cont.
Crescon. cap. 33. ubi dicit, Scripturae verita¬
tem a nobis teneri , quando facimus quod
universae Ecclesiae placet, etiamsi nihil de ea
scriptum legamus.
Septimo, illud ex lib. De catechizandis ru¬
dibus, cap. 3, 6. ubi docet Augustinus, pro¬
ponendam Catechumenis summam brevem
doctrinae ex Scripturis , quam cum illi cre¬
dere se dicent, et velle observare promittent
baptizandi sunt. Hinc enim efficere vult
Kemnitius, sufficere Christiano, quae haben¬
tur in Scripturis. Respondeo : id quidem
sufficere, utquis possit baptizari, non autem
sufficere Ecclesiae Dei absolute. Alioqui etiam
possemusconcludere, sufficere Ecclesiae Sym¬
bolum Apostolorum , et reliqua omnia esse
superflua.
Haec sunt ergo testimonia Veterum ab hae¬
reticis citata, in quibus tria notanda sunt :
unum, duplo esse plura ea, quae nos citavi¬
mus in contrarium : alterum, nostra testi¬
monia expresse docere de Traditionibus non
scriptis recipiendis, adeo ut haeretici cum
id negare non possent, passim verterentur
ad blasphemias. Testimonia autem ab eis
adducta, non proprie ad Traditiones perti¬
nere, sed per malas consequentias eo tan¬
dem ab adversariis detorqueri. Postremum
est, adversarios evidentia testimoniornm
convictos, aliquando fateri, a quibusdam
Patribus Traditiones esse defensas: nos au¬
tem adigi non posse, ut admittamus, ab ullo
Patrum oppugnatas Traditiones fuisse.