Book Four: On the Unwritten Word of God
Chapter Four: the Necessity for Traditions is Shown
Now, in order to come to the proof, we will try to demonstrate three things. First that the Scriptures are neither simply necessary nor sufficient without traditions. Second that Apostolic traditions are found not only about morals but also about faith. Lastly, how we can be certain about true traditions.
I prove the first from the various ages of the Church. For from Adam up to Moses some Church of God existed in the world, men were worshipping God with faith, hope, and love, and with external rites, as is plain from Genesis where are introduced Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Melchizedek and other just men, and from Augustine City of God bk.11ff., where he brings the city of God from the beginning of the world to its end; but there was no divine Scripture before Moses, as is plain, both because, by the consent of all, Moses was the first sacred writer, and because in Genesis no mention is made of written doctrine but only of doctrine handed down, Genesis ch.18, God says, “I know that Abraham will command his sons and his house after him to keep the way of the Lord.” So, for 2,000 years religion was kept by tradition alone; therefore Scripture is not simply necessary. For in the way the ancient religion could be kept without Scripture for 2,000 years, so could the doctrine of Christ be kept without Scripture for 1,500 years. Next, from Moses up to Christ for another 2,000 years there did exist Scriptures indeed but they were only of the Jews, but the rest of the nations, among whom too there was with some the true religion and faith, used only unwritten tradition.
For that, besides the Jews, many others pertained to the Church is plain from Job and his friends. Again from Augustine, who constantly asserts this, Original Sin bk.2 ch.24 and the Predestination of Saints bk1 ch.9 and City of God bk.18 ch.47. And in the people of God, although Scriptures existed, yet the Jews used tradition more than Scripture, as is plain from Exodus ch.13, “You will tell your son in that day, saying this is what the Lord has done etc.,” Deuteronomy ch.32, “Ask your father and he will tell you, your seniors, and they will speak to you,” Job ch.8, “Ask the ancient generation and diligently examine the memory of your fathers,” Judges ch.6, “Where are the marvels that our fathers told us?” Psalm 43, “God, we have heard with our ears, our fathers have told us the work you did, etc.” Psalm 77, “How much he commanded our fathers, make it known to their sons, so that the next generation may know, the sons who will be born and will arise, and they will tell it to their sons.” Ecclesiasticus ch.8, “Let not the telling of your fathers pass you by, for they themselves learnt it from their fathers.” And yet Ecclesiasticus was among the last books of the Old Testament.
Now the reason that the Hebrews used tradition more than Scripture seems to have been because, up to the times of Ezra, the Scriptures were not reduced to the form of books so as to be able easily and conveniently to be possessed, but were dispersed in various annals and papers, and sometimes, by the negligence of the priests, they were for a long time not found, as is plain from IV Kings ch.22, where is narrated as something new that in the days of Josiah one volume of the law of the Lord was found in the temple. But Ezra collected everything after the captivity and reduced it at the same time to one body, adding in Deuteronomy the final chapter about the life of Moses, and certain other things from then to the continuation of the history. About which see Theodoret in his preface to the Psalms, Bede on I Ezra ch.9, and Peter Antonius Beuter in his ninth note on sacred Scripture.
Further, from the advent of Christ for many years the Church existed without Scriptures, so that still in his own time Irenaeus writes bk.3 ch.4 that there were some Christian nations that lived very well by traditions alone without Scripture.
Therefore from this deduction it sufficiently appears that the Scriptures are not simply necessary. But what Chrysostom says Homil.1 on Matthew, that the Scriptures were not necessary for the Patriarchs and Apostles, though for us, because of the corruption of men, they are necessary, is understood of necessity not simply but for well being, that is, for utility. For in other respects there were many wicked even in the time of the Patriarchs and Apostles.
But that the Scriptures do not so contain everything that they themselves suffice without other tradition I prove first because either the whole canon of the Scriptures taken together is sufficient, or the individual books are per se sufficient. It cannot be said that the individual books are sufficient, for then would be false what Chemnitz says, that the use of tradition existed in the Church up to the completion of the whole canon of Scripture. Besides we see that the individual Evangelists do not contain everything. For John wrote nothing of the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Circumcision, the Transfiguration of the Lord, and many other things. The same can be said of the others. Again, if one book sufficiently contains everything, what need was there for so many books? Finally they themselves openly say that the whole canon is necessary so that sufficient doctrine may be had. But neither can that be truly affirmed. For many books truly sacred and canonical have perished, therefore we do not have nor have we had for 1,500 years a sufficient doctrine, if the whole doctrine is located in the Scriptures. For that many books have perished from the Old Testament is taught by Chrysostom Homil.9 on Matthew on the verse, ‘he will be called a Nazarene,’ who says “Many things have perished from the Prophetic memorials, which it is possible to prove from the history of Chronicles. For since the Jews were slothful, and not only slothful but also impious, some things indeed they lost through negligence, but others they at times burnt, at times cut up.” He teaches the same in Homil.7 on I Corinthians; nor can it be replied that everything which perished was repaired by Ezra; for Chrysostom means to prove that now not all the prophecies of the Prophets are extant, and he proves it because the Jews lost many things.
Besides, Ezra did not repair the lost books but emended and collected those that were extant, I Chronicles last chapter, “But the earlier deeds of David,” he says, “and the latest are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the volume of Caiad the seer.” And in II Chronicles ch.9, “But the rest of the works of Solomon are in the words of Nathan the Prophet, and in the books of Abia Silonitis, in the vision also of Addo the seer.” And in III Kings ch.4, “Solomon spoke 3,000 parables and his songs were 5,000.” Where then are they all? From the New Testament the epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans has certainly perished, of which he himself makes mention in Colossians last chapter, and perhaps another to the Corinthians, of which there seems to be mention in I Corinthians ch.5, in the words “I wrote to you in an epistle.” And it is very possible that some others have perished. Therefore let the heretics see whence they will restore so signal a loss.
Second, this same thing is proved from the distinction between the preaching and the writing of the Apostles. For if the proposal had been made to Christ and the Apostles to limit and restrict the word of God to written form, then in the first place Christ would have prescribed a thing of so great moment, and the Apostles would somewhere testify that they were writing from commandment of the Lord, in the way they taught in the whole world from the commandment of the Lord. But we nowhere read of this. Next, to preach viva voce the Apostles did not wait for an offered occasion or necessity, but proceeded of their own accord and by their own purpose; but to writing they did not apply their mind unless compelled by some necessity.
Matthew, says Eusebius Hist. bk.3 ch.24, or ch.18 in another edition, wrote on the occasion of the fact that, since he had preached to the Hebrews and was preparing to go to the Gentiles, he judge it useful to leave to those he was abandoning in body some memorial of his doctrine. Mark, as the same Eusebius reports Hist. bk.2 h.15, neither on his own accord nor as commanded by Peter (whose disciple he was) but as compelled by the prayers of the Romans wrote his Gospel. Luke, as the same Eusebius hands on Hist. bk.3 ch.24, wrote only for this reason, that he saw that many others had presumed to commit to letters what they did not perfectly know, so as surely to remove us from the uncertain narratives of others.
John, writes the same Eusebius in the same place, preached the Gospel to extreme old age without any Scripture, and Jerome adds in his book on Ecclesiastical Writers that he was at length compelled by the Bishops of Asia to write his Gospel because of the heresy of the Ebionites then rising up. Therefore if the heresy of the Ebionites had not existed, we would perhaps not have the Gospel of John, just as neither the other three if the aforesaid occasions had not been offered. For rightly does Eusebius write in the place noted that only two of the twelve Apostles wrote a Gospel, and they were prompted to this by some necessity.
From which is manifestly collected that the Apostles with their primary intention thought not about writing but about preaching the Gospel. Besides, if they had wanted expressly to consign their doctrine to letters, they would certainly have written a catechism or a like book. But they wrote either a history, as the Evangelists, or epistles on some occasion, as did Peter, Paul, James, Judas, John, and in this they handled disputes about dogmas only by the by. Lastly, either the individual Apostles would have produced a written Evangelical doctrine, since they each had care of some province, or certainly, gathered all together before they departed to their provinces, they would have produced some common book, as is plain that they commonly composed a Creed, which however they did not write down but handed on only viva voce, as is taught by Blessed Irenaeus bk.3 ch.4 and by Blessed Jerome in epistle to Pammachius against the errors of John of Jerusalem, and by Blessed Augustine in his book on Faith and Works ch.9, and by Blessed Ambrose epist.81 to Syricius, and by Blessed Leo in epist.13 to Pulcheria, and by Ruffinus and Blessed Maximus in their exposition of the Creed.
It is proved third from the many things that cannot be left unknown and yet are not contained in the Scriptures. And first, in the time of the Old Testament without doubt women had no less than men some remedy whereby to be purged from original sin, and yet for men there was instituted circumcision, according to the opinion of many, but what there was for the women is nowhere contained in Scripture.
Next, at the same time it is not in any way credible that there was no remedy for males dying before the eighth day, on which alone they could be circumcised, and yet there is nothing extant on this matter in Scripture.
Third, many Gentiles were able to be saved and were saved in the time of the Old Testament, and they truly belonged to the Church, as we showed above, and yet altogether nothing is contained in Scripture about their justification from original sin and from other sins.
Fourth, it is necessary to know that some books truly divine are extant, which certainly can in no way be got from the Scriptures. For even if the Scripture says that the books of the Prophets and the Apostles are divine, yet I do not certainly believe that unless I have first believed that the Scripture which says this is divine. For even in the Koran of Mohammed we read everywhere that the Koran was sent from heaven by God, and yet we do not believe it. Therefore this very necessary dogma, namely that some Scripture is divine, cannot be sufficiently got from Scripture alone. Therefore since faith rests on the word of God, unless we have an unwritten word of God we will have no faith.
Fifth, it is no enough to know that Scripture is divine, but one must know which it is. This can in no way be got from the Scriptures. For how do we collect from Scripture that the Gospels of Mark and Luke are true but the Gospels of Thomas and Bartholomew are false? For reason dictates that one should rather believe a book bearing the name of an Apostle than of a non-‐Apostle.
And whence would I gather that the epistle to the Romans is truly of Paul, but the epistle to the Laodiceans, which now circulates, is not of Paul? Since each bears the title of Paul, and since Paul in Colossians last chapter says he wrote to the Laodiceans but he never says he wrote to the Romans?
Sixth, one must also not only know which are the sacred books but also in particular that the ones now in our hands are those books. For it is not enough to believe that the Gospel of Mark is true and that the Gospel of Thomas is not true, but one must also believe that this Gospel, which is now read in the name of Mark, is the true and uncorrupt Gospel that Mark wrote, which certainly cannot be got from the Scriptures. For how would I collect from the Scripture that this Gospel is not spurious, as the Mohammedans say, or certainly not wholly distorted, as the Manichees once said and as the Anabaptists now say?
To these three things Calvin responds Institutes bk.1 ch.7 sects.1-‐2 that the sacred Scriptures are discriminated from the non sacred per se, as light from darkness, sweet from bitter. But on the contrary, for if it were so, why would Luther judge the epistle of James to be straw and Calvin to be Apostolic? Therefore Calvin adds in the same place sect.4 that this difference of Scriptures is not evident to all but only to those who have the spirit. For even the blind do not discriminate light from darkness. But on the contrary, for Calvin in the same place ch.9 sect.1 contends that the Apostles and the faithful of the first Church had the true spirit; but they judged the book of Wisdom to be sacred, as Augustine testifies, On Predestination ch.14, which book Calvin however, who also boasts of the spirit, maintains is profane.
Besides the ancients testify with one voice that from nowhere else do we have it that the Scripture is divine and which are the sacred books than from unwritten tradition. Thus in Eusebius Hist. bk.6 ch.10 Serapion rejected certain things falsely ascribed to Peter, because he had accepted from tradition that Peter wrote nothing of the sort. And in ch.11 Clement of Alexandria, according to the tradition commended to him by his elders, teaches which are the true Gospels. And in ch.18 Origen says, “From tradition I have learnt about four Gospels, because these alone etc.” Basil too in his book on the Holy Spirit ch.27 says that if the unwritten traditions are neglected the Gospel too would suffer great loss. Finally, Augustine in his book Against Fundamentus clearly says that he would not believe the Gospel unless the Church commanded it.
But Calvin objects that the foundation of the Church is the Scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets, Ephesians ch.2, so he will not believe that the Scriptures are divine from the tradition of the Church, because then the foundation of Scripture would be the Church. I reply that the Apostle does not say that the writings of the Apostles and the Prophets are the foundation, but that the Apostles and the Prophets are. But they not only wrote but also handed on by mouth, and taught that they had written. And thus from the word of the Apostles that is unwritten and handed on to us by the Church we know that there is a written word of the Apostles. But of these things we spoke in the previous book.
Brentius therefore in his Prolegomena, not finding a way out, confesses that this one and only unwritten tradition is to be received. And Chemnitz teaches the same when treating of the second kind of traditions in his Examination of the Council of Trent. But if so it is, then Scripture alone is not sufficient, as they themselves so often and so earnestly teach. For if Scripture were deprived of this unwritten tradition and the attestation of the Church it would profit little. Besides if this tradition could have come down to us, why could not other traditions also have come down to us in the same way? Lastly, either this tradition is the word of God or it is not; if it is not, then we do not have faith, for faith rests on the word of God; if it is, why then do they clamor that there is no word of God save a written one?
Seventh it is necessary not only to be able to read Scripture but also to understand it. But very often Scripture is ambiguous and perplexing, so that unless it is explained by someone who cannot err it cannot be understood; therefore it alone does not suffice. And there are many examples; for the equality of the divine persons, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one principle, the sin of origin, the descent of Christ into hell, and many like things are indeed deduced from the sacred letters but not so easily that, if one should fight with the testimonies of Scripture alone, strife with the perverse would never end. For one must note that there are two things in Scripture, written words and the sense contained in them; the words are as it were the scabbard, the sense itself is the sword of the spirit. Of these two the first is possessed by all; for whoever knows letters can read the Scriptures; but the second is not possessed by al, nor can we in many places be certain about the second unless tradition is added. And this perhaps is what Basil wanted to say in his Holy Spirit ch.27, when he says that without unwritten traditions the Gospel is a mere name, that is, only words without sense.
Eighth one must believe that Blessed Mary was always a Virgin, against the error of Helvidius, as the whole Church has always believed, and yet there is no testimony about this in Scripture.
Ninth one must believe that in the New Testament the Pasch is to be celebrated on the Lord’s day; for the Quartodecimans were held to be heretics by the ancient Church; and yet altogether nothing exists in the Scriptures about this. The same can be said of many other things.
Tenth one must believe, and the Lutherans and Calvinist believe with us, against the Anabaptists, that the baptism of infants is approved. But neither do Catholics prove this from the Scriptures alone, nor can the Lutherans in any way prove it. For they reckon that baptism without one’s own actual faith has no value, and therefore they believe that when infants are baptized they actually believe, which not only does Luther teach on Galatians ch.3 and Chemnitz in his Examination of the Council of Trent sess.7, but the general Synod of Lutherans held at Wittemberg defined it. But in no way can it be proved from the Scriptures. For where, I ask, does Scripture indicate that infants use reason, before the use of reason, when they are baptized? Hence, surely, the Anabaptists reduce the Lutherans to remarkable difficulties and compel them, willy nilly, to have recourse to tradition and the use of the Church.
Eleventh Luther believes that there is a purgatory. For thus does he say in his assertions art.37, “I however also believe there is a purgatory, and I advice and persuade that it be believed.” And yet in that article he asserts that purgatory cannot be proved from the sacred letters.
Finally all the heretics of this time believe that there is only a written word of God; but this certainly is nowhere found in the whole of Scripture. For what they especially are accustomed to bring from Deuteronomy ch.4, “You will not add to the word which I speak to you, nor will you take away from it,” helps them nothing; for Moses does not say from the written word, but from the word, which I speak.
Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME