Book Four: On the Unwritten Word of God

Chapter Seven: The Same is Proved from the Fathers

Let now be added the testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers, who teach this truth with incredible agreement. And to begin with the Greeks, Blessed Ignatius in Eusebius Hist. bk.3 ch.16 exhorts everyone to adhere tenaciously to the traditions of the Apostles. “These traditions,” says Eusebius, “he asserts he has left written down by a warning of grace.” So Ignatius. From which it follows that these traditions were not written down by the Apostles.

To this testimony Hermann makes no reply save that these writings of Ignatius are not extant. But it is false that they are not extant. For Jerome writes in his book on Illustrious Men that Ignatius wrote an epistle to the Ephesians, the Magnesians, the Trallians, the Romans, the Philadelphians, the Smyrneans, to Polycarp, all of which are now extant, and in them we find the fast of Lent, the minor orders, the Lord’s day, and other things that are not in the Scriptures, and yet Ignatius was without doubt teaching from the Apostles.

Dionysius the Areopagite Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ch.1 says, “Our first leaders of the priestly office handed on the sum and more than the sum partly in written and partly in unwritten institutions.” To these and the like things Luther, Calvin and the rest are wont to reply that the books circulated under the name of Dionysius are not from Dionysius. But the works are cited under the name of Dionysius in the sixth, seventh, and eighth General Synod; again by Gregory I in his homily on the 100 sheep, by Martin I in the Council of Rome, and by Agathon in his epistle to the Emperor Constantine; from which the heretics are compelled to admit that this author wrote over 1,000 years ago, and therefore is not to be despised.

Hegesippus in Eusebius Hist. bk.4 ch.8 includes the Apostolic traditions in five books, which although now they are not extant, yet this testimony sufficiently indicates that the Apostles did not write down everything they taught. Polycarp in Eusebius Hist. bk.5 ch.20 related the words that he himself heard from the Apostles were said by the Lord, and about his virtues and doctrine. Now Irenaeus, as is said there, describes that what Polycarp handed on was not on paper but in his heart.

Here certainly it is a question of unwritten traditions. For if it were a question of written ones, nothing singular would be said of Polycarp or of Irenaeus, for I too can relate the things said by the Lord that are read in the Apostles, nor is there need for me to write them on paper.

But Chemnitz nevertheless replies that Eusebius is speaking of traditions that can be proved from the Scriptures. For he says in the same place that everything Polycarp said was consonant with the Scriptures. But Chemnitz is in error. For it is one thing to be consonant with Scripture and another to be able to be proved from Scripture. For every true tradition, nay every truth, is consonant with Scripture, since truth cannot be dissonant with truth, but not every truth can be proved from Scripture.

Justin at the end of his second Apology for the Christians first expounded many things about the Christians, and among others some things not written in the divine letters, as that they come together on each Lord’s day and after a reading from the Scriptures and sermons, bread and wine mixed with water are offered and consecrated, and that it is not permitted in any way to partake of the Eucharist until after baptism, and other things; then he at once adds, “On the day after Saturday, which is Sunday, when he had appeared to his Apostles and disciples, he handed these things on to them which we permit also to be considered by you, etc.” And even if Justin did not say that these things were handed on by Christ, yet since Justin was very close to the times of the Apostles, one must believe that in the Church of his time what was handed on by the Apostles was done. For who else can be supposed to be the author?

To this place and like ones from Cyprian, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome and others that we will adduce, Hermann and his colleagues reply almost nothing save that they all somewhere erred. But this does not harm us. For even if some Fathers erred in some dogmas, yet they never all agreed in the same error at the same time; therefore, when we show that they all agree in asserting unwritten traditions, we can sufficiently prove that on this point they did not err.

Irenaeus bk.2 chs.2-­‐4 says many fine things about traditions, which are however pulled by Brentius and Chemnitz to a different sense of which Irenaeus never thought. Brentius says that Irenaeus is speaking of the tradition of Scripture, that is, of the tradition, whereby we understand the succession of the Fathers, as to which are the true Scriptures. But Irenaeus does not mean this, as his words will teach us bk.3 ch.4. “For what,” he says, “if neither the Scriptures of the Apostles indeed were left to us, should we not follow the order of the tradition that they handed on to us, to whom they committed the Churches? To their ordination the nations of the Barbarians, of those who believe in Christ, assent much, having without letter or ink salvation written by the Holy Spirit in their heart, and diligently keeping the old tradition.” If Irenaeus is speaking of the tradition of Scripture, how did these barbarians, who had no Scriptures, have and diligently keep the tradition?

But Chemnitz says that Irenaeus is speaking only of the tradition of those dogmas which are found in the Scriptures and that can be proved through the Scriptures. But this too is false, as the words of the same Irenaeus will teach. For in chs.2-­‐4 he teaches that there is no other way of reaching the truth than by consulting the Churches in which there is a succession of Bishops from the Apostles, and by considering what is taught there and what those Churches say is Apostolic tradition. Irenaeus means therefore that tradition extends further than the Scriptures, and that the sense of difficult Scripture is not had from Scripture but from tradition, so that tradition alone suffices but the Scriptures do not suffice. But all this would be false if tradition contained nothing other than what is evidently collected from the Scriptures, as Chemnitz fancies.

After then Irenaeus had said in ch.2 that heretics cannot be convicted from Scripture, and in ch.3 had enumerated the Roman Pontiffs from Peter to Eleutherius, who was then on the See, in order to show that there was in the Church a continued succession of Bishops keeping the Apostolic tradition, he speaks as follows, ch.4: “Since then these proofs are so great, one should not seek still among others for the truth that it is easy to receive from the Church; since the Apostles brought as into a rich depositary all things very fully into the Church that are of truth, so that everyone who wants may receive from it the cup of life. For this life is within, but all the rest are thieves and robbers, because of which it is necessary to avoid them, but to love what is of the Church with great diligence, and to grasp the tradition of truth. For what even if there is disagreement about some little thing, surely one should have recourse to the Churches in which the Apostles are preserved, and to take from them about the present question what is certain and clear in fact? And what if the Apostles had not indeed handed on Scriptures, surely we should follow the order of tradition? Etc.” To which words should be added what is contained in bk.4 ch.43, “Those who have succession from the Apostles have, along with the succession of Bishops, received the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father.” You see how the Apostles handed on to their successors not only Scriptures but the sure charism of truth, that is, the true understanding of the Scriptures and the universal doctrine of the Gospel.

Clement of Alexandria in his book on Easter, as it is in Eusebius Hist. bk.6 ch.11, says it was forced from him by the brothers, so that he would describe in his books and hand on to posterity what had been handed on to him viva voce by the priests who were successors of the Apostles. I do not know what more clearly could be said on behalf of traditions. Origen on Romans ch.6 says, “The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to give baptism even to children.” And Homil.5 on Numbers he says, “In Ecclesiastical observances there are some things that everyone must do, but the reason for them is not plain to everyone.” And he enumerates at once many unwritten traditions.

Eusebius Demonstration of the Gospel bk.1 ch.8 says, “Besides, Moses wrote his teachings on inanimate tablets, but Christ in the minds of those endowed with the perfect life of the New Testament. But his disciples, on the approval of their master, commended their doctrine to the ears of many, and whatever precepts there were from their perfect master for those who had progressed as it were beyond the habit, these they handed on to those who could grasp them; but the things they thought fitting for those who still bore souls subject to affections and in need of cure, whom they dismissed to the weakness of the many, these things they commended to them to keep partly in writing, partly without writing, as if by a certain unwritten law.”

Athanasius in his book on the Decrees of the Nicene Synod against Eusebius says, “Behold, we indeed have shown that this opinion has been handed on by hand from the Fathers to the Fathers. But you, O new Jews and sons of Caiaphas, what ancestors of your names can you show?”

Basil in his book on the Holy Spirit, ch.27, says, “The dogmas that are kept and preached in the Church we have partly from written doctrine, partly we have received from the tradition of the Apostles given to us in a mystery; and no one contradicts these who has but a very slight experience with Ecclesiastical rights.” And he immediately enumerates several unwritten traditions; and ch.29 contains similar remarks.

Chemnitz replies that what Basil relates is not dogmas of faith or of morals but only certain free rites, as to sign with the sign of the cross, to worship toward the East, to bless water etc. But Chemnitz should remember that he said that no rite can be shown to have been instituted by the Apostles; but here Basil boldly enumerates several instituted by the Apostles. Next, although the observation of some of these three not be necessary for salvation, yet it is necessary for salvation to believe that they are well instituted and not to contemn them; just as many things in the Scriptures are not necessary for salvation, as that a man pray with uncovered head and a woman with a covered one, I Corinthians ch.11, and yet it is necessary for salvation to believe these and not to contemn them.

Next, Basil reports not only certain rites but also certain essentials, as confession of faith, that is, the Apostles’ Creed, which we have from tradition, and anointing with oil in the sacrament of confirmation; he mentions also certain other things that, although not of themselves necessary, yet after they have been prescribed are so necessary that to omit them purposely is to sin gravely, as the sign of the cross in the blessing of water, of the Eucharist, of the chrism; also the renunciation of Satan and his pomps in baptism etc. For Augustine says tract.118 on John that without the sign of the cross no sacrament is rightly performed, and the same is taught by Chrysostom in homil.55 on Matthew.

But Brentius is more shameless and replies that these opinions of Basil are from the faults and errors of Basil which, for honor of so great a man, should be covered in silence; and he calls us pigs and imitators of Ham who uncover the ugliness of our Fathers. For he does not think one must accept what Basil says, that pedagogical traditions (as he calls them) about the sign of the cross and blessed water have the same force for piety as the dogmas of holy Scripture.

But passing over the insults, for it is not our job to return evil for evil, I reply to what Brentius objects, that traditions are most rightly equated with the Scriptures. For as there are in the Scriptures some great commands, as to love God, there are also some minor ones, as not to say an idle word, which do not equally oblige for observance but yet which oblige for faith and veneration. For he is no less a heretic who does not believe or does not venerate the Scripture which says, “They will render account for every idle word in the day of judgment,” than he who does not believe or does not venerate the Scripture which says, “You will love the Lord your God etc.” So also in the case of traditions some are greater and some lesser as to obligation of action, and yet all equally oblige for faith and veneration. And in the same way there are certain traditions that, as to obligation, are greater than some Scriptures, some lesser, some equal, although however all traditions and all Scriptures are equal as to the faith and veneration that is due to them, since they come from the same author God, and come to us through the hands of the same Catholic Church, which is our mother and spouse of Christ.

Next, Hermann, not content with what Brentius and Chemnitz had said, adds, “All these things are not Basil’s, but inserted into Basil’s book by some good for nothing fellow.” Which to be sure is a very expeditious response, for thus it is easy to solve all arguments. Hermann brings forward no other proof than the testimony of Erasmus, who seemed to himself to have sniffed out in these chapters some difference of style from the preceding ones. But Blessed John Damascene, much older and more learned, and more versed in the writings of Basil, could sniff out nothing such. For he (to pass over several more recent writers) speaks as follows in orat.1 for sacred images, “Thus does Basil literally say in ch.27 of this book, which he writes about the Holy Spirit in 30 distinct chapters to Amphilochius. ‘The institutes that are kept and preached in the Church are partly from written doctrine, partly from the tradition of the Apostles’.”

Gregory Nazianzen in orat.1 against Julian beyond the middle, after he had said that because of the dogmas of the Old and New Testament the doctrine of the Church seemed marvelous to Julian, he immediately adds, “Besides,” he says, “it is greater and more signal because of the figures that we keep as received from tradition up to today, etc.” He explains later that he calls figures of the Church the discipline, the governance, the order of the Church, the reason of singing Psalms, the mode of imposing penance, sacred things in temples, the life of monks and virgins, and many other things which we have from tradition alone. All these things Julian wanted the heathen to imitate, so as in this way to draw Christians more easily to paganism.

Chrysostom on II Thessalonians ch.2 says, “It is plain that the Apostles did not hand on everything by epistle, but many things without writing. But the former and the latter are deserving of the same faith.” The same is contained in Theophylact and Oecumenius. Here one must note, since Basil, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius equate the traditions with the Scriptures, what one must think of the censure of Chemnitz, who says, “It is a signal audacity to equate anything with Scripture in authority and majesty.” And everywhere he mocks the Council of Trent which venerates traditions and Scripture with equal affection of piety. The same Chrysostom in hom.69 to the people, and hom.3 on Philippians, says, “Not in vain was it sanctioned by the Apostles that in the celebration of the venerable mysteries memorial should be had of those who have departed hence. They knew that much gain was done them from here, and much utility.”

Theophylact bks.1 and 3 on Easter expressively teaches that the law of fasting is Apostolic tradition. Cyril of Jerusalem in his mystagogic catechisms explains almost nothing other than unwritten traditions about baptism and the other sacraments. Epiphanius Heresy 55, which is of Melchisedekians, says, “Limits have been placed for us, and foundations, and a building of faith, and traditions of the Apostles, and sacred Scriptures, and successions of doctrine, and everywhere the truth of God is reinforced; and let no one be deceived by new fables.” Again Heresy 61, which is of the Apostolici, he says, “One must also use tradition, for not everything can be received from divine Scripture. Wherefore the holy Apostles handed on some things in the Scriptures, other things in tradition.”

To this the adversaries respond nothing save by blaspheming that Epiphanius was too delighted with traditions and apocryphal fables etc. And among other things Brentius thinks that what Epiphanius said is not to be borne, that it is Apostolic tradition that it is not licit to marry after giving a vow of virginity; since to be sure the first parents of he Lutherans did that, Luther and Catherine. But these things will be refuted elsewhere in their place.

From the Latins, Tertullian in the Crown of the Soldier says, “Even in the pretension of tradition there is required, you say, written authority. Therefore let us ask whether unwritten tradition should be accepted. Clearly we will deny it should be accepted if there is no indication already from examples of other observances which without instrument of any Scripture, by title of tradition alone, we thence vindicate for the patrimony of custom.” Then having enumerated the ceremonies of baptism, sign of the cross, annual sacrifices for the dead, and certain others, he adds, “If you require a law of the Scriptures for these and like disciplines, you will find none; tradition is given you as author, custom as confirmer, and faith as observer.” He everywhere teaches tradition should be used, Against Marcion bk.1, on the Veiling of Virgins, on Prescription, where he teaches that heretics are not to be refuted from Scripture but from tradition. What the adversaries respond to these places was already refuted when we dealt with Irenaeus and Basil.

Blessed Cyril bk.1 epist.12, “He who is baptized must also be anointed etc.” But it is plain that nothing about chrism is contained in the Scriptures but only in tradition. The same in bk.2 epist.3, “Know that we are advised that in offering the chalice the tradition of the Lord be kept, and that we do nothing other than what the Lord first did for us, that the chalice, which is offered in commemoration of him, be offered mixed with wine.” Chemnitz responds that Cyprian is speaking of written tradition. But it is false, for the Evangelists do not mention water. Hermann says that because it is not written that the Lord put water in the chalice it is better not to put it in; for thus did the Lord do. But since neither is written it is remarkable wherefrom Hermann assumes so much for himself, that he should wish himself rather than Cyprian to be believed.

Brentius turns himself to insults, for he says that Cyprian is always excessive in asserting his opinions; and that these things came from him unthinkingly. And Brentius’ reason is that Cyprian seems to prove this rite by an inappropriate reason. For he says: “One must mix water with win because the wine signifies Christ and the water the people of the Church; and when the water is mixed with the wine the Church is joined to Christ, but if wine alone were consecrated then Christ would begin to be without the Church. Which certainly seems ridiculous. For who believes that if one priest did not mix water with wine in the chalice Christ would soon lose the Church?” But Brentius did not notice, or perhaps did not want to notice, that Cyprian is not dealing with real but with signified conjunction or separation of Christ and the Church. For most correctly in the matter of the sacraments we are increased by imperfect signifying. Besides Cyprian does not mean that this rite is observed for this reason in particular, but because the Lord so taught. But the reason is added to show that tradition is conform to reason. Wherefore even if Cyprian had not adduced a fitting reason, it should not therefore be denied that this rite is to be observed or that it was handed on by the Lord.

St. Hilary in his book against the Emperor Constantius, about the middle, when the Arian prince objects, “I do not want words that are not written to be read,” replies, “This finally I ask, who commands the Bishops? Who forbids the form of Apostolic preaching? Say first if you think it rightly said, I do not wish to bring new preparations of medicine against new poisons etc.” In which words Hilary indicates two things: one, the preaching of the consubstantiality of Father and Son is of Apostolic preaching, although it is not expressly written that the Son is consubstantial with the Father; the second, that the name ‘consubstantial’ is indeed new but must yet be retained, although it is not written, because it is conform to Apostolic preaching.

Hermann distorts this place in his gloss, for he expounds it thus. “This I ask,” he says, “who commands the Bishops, that is, to bring forward something outside Scripture.” But if this is a good gloss then Hilary is agreeing with Constantius; therefore he badly adds, “Say first if you think it rightly said, I do not wish etc.” What of the fact that in almost the whole book he is dealing with this, that the name ‘consubstantial’ should be retained? Hermann would rather have wanted it abolished.

St. Ambrose in his book about those who are initiated in the mysteries, chs.2 and 6, and on Sacraments bk.1 chs.1-­‐2, explains the rites that are kept by the whole Church in baptism, which are nowhere found written down in the divine letters, and which others constantly refer to Apostolic authors. In serm.25, 34, and 36 he teaches that Lent was prescribed by Christ. In epist.81 and serm.38 he teaches that the Apostles’ Creed is unwritten Apostolic tradition. Hermann blasphemes much against Ambrose, but in nothing damages our claim.

St. Jerome in his epistle to Marcella on the errors of Montanus says, “We fast for one period of forty days by Apostolic tradition at the time fitting for us.” In his Dialogue against the Luciferians, before the middle, when the heretic had said, “Many things that are observed by tradition in the Church have usurped for themselves the authority of written law,” the orthodox respondent says, “I do not indeed deny that this is the custom of the Churches. But what sort of thing is it that you make the laws of the Church to be heresy?”

St. Augustine in epist.118, “The things we guard that are not written but handed on, which indeed are kept in the whole world, are given to be understood as commanded and established either by the Apostles themselves to be retained, or by plenary Councils, whose authority is very healthy in the Church; just as that the passion, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord into heaven and the coming of the Holy Spirit from heaven are celebrated in annual solemnities.” To this Hermann responds by chattering much and in the end concluding, “Why, Augustine, do you obtrude on the Church along with the other Fathers traditions from outside Scripture?” Therefore Hermann confesses that Augustine along with the other Fathers recognizes unwritten traditions. Which confession ought certainly to be enough, if he had any sanity, to check his petulancy.

But Brentius responds in two ways. First he says that if it is true that this is Apostolic tradition, it should not be accepted as a necessary law but as a free observance. But on the contrary, for Augustine adds in the same place, “But the other things that vary by place of lands or regions etc. they have as free observances.” Here Augustine distinguishes between these necessary Apostolic traditions and free observances. Second Brentius says that Augustine falsely teaches that this feast is from Apostolic tradition, since the Apostle rebukes the Galatians ch.4 for observing days and times. But Augustine responds in epistle 119 ch.7 that the Apostle is censuring those who observed times according to the rules of astrologers. And in his book against Adimantus ch.16 he says that the Apostle is speaking of feasts of the Jews not of Christians. In this way too Jerome and Chrysostom expound, but Ambrose embraces each exposition at the same time.

Now the same Augustine in bk.2 on Baptism against the Donatists ch.7 says, “This custom I believe comes from Apostolic tradition, just as many things are not found in their writings nor in the later councils, and yet because they are guarded by the universal Church they are believed to have been handed on and commended only by them.” And bk.4 ch.6, “The custom which even then men, looking backwards, did not see instituted by later people, is rightly believed to have been handed on by the Apostles.” And bk.4 ch.24, “What the universal Church holds and which was not instituted by Councils but was always retained, is very rightly believed to have been handed on by Apostolic tradition.” And bk.5 ch.23, “The Apostles indeed prescribed nothing then, but the custom which was opposed to Cyprian must be believed to have taken its beginning from their tradition, as are many things that the universal Church holds, and for this reason are well believed to have been prescribed by the Apostles, although nothing written is found.” Again in his book on the Unity of the Church ch.19, “Here perhaps you say, tell me how Christ commanded those to be received who want to pass from the heretics into the Church. This neither I nor you read openly and evidently.” And later he adds, “Since this is nowhere read, it is believed on the testimony of the Church, which Church Christ testified to be true.” Like things are contained in Against Cresconius bk.1 chs.31-­‐33.

To this Chemnitz gives two responses. First that Augustine’s question in this places is whether an example can be produced from Scripture in which a heretic was taught to have been rebaptized or received without new baptism; but not whether heretics should or should not be rebaptized; and indeed Augustine thought that no such example could be produced, and this he teaches in the cited places.

Second he says that Augustine without doubt believed that there exist certain and open testimonies in the Scriptures by which it is proved that heretics are not to be rebaptized; therefore this tradition is written.

The first point he proves from Against Cresconius bk.1 ch.33, where Augustine says, “Therefore although no certain example of this thing can be produced from the canonical Scriptures etc.” and like things are contained in his book on the Unity of the Church ch.19. He proves the second point first from Against the Donatists bk.1 ch.7, “Lest I seem to be acting on human arguments, I produce certain teachings from the Gospel.” Second from bk.2 ch.14, “What is more pernicious, whether not to baptize or to rebaptize, is difficult to judge. Yet having recourse to the Lord’s balance, where the weight of things is measured not by human sense but by divine authority, I find an opinion of the Lord about both matters.” Third from bk.4 ch.7, “Add to this that, when the reasons and the testimonies of the Scriptures about this dispute are looked at from both sides, it can also be said what the truth has declared, and this we follow.” Fourth from bk.4 ch.24, “It can truly be conjectured from the circumcision of the flesh that the sacrament of baptism for children is valid, etc.” Fifth from bk.5 ch.41, “From the custom of the Church and the later support of plenary Councils and from so many and so great testimonies of the sacred Scriptures and the perspicuous reasons of truth, anyone understands that the baptism of Christ consecrated with the words of the Gospel is not made perverse by the perversity of any man.” Sixth from bk.6 ch.1, “That could now suffice which we have shown by reasons so often repeated, joined also with the teachings of the Scriptures.” Seventh from bk.5 ch.23, “That it is against the command of God that those who come from heretics should be baptized, if they have already received the baptism of Christ, is not only shown from the testimonies of the sacred Scriptures but plainly shown.” Eighth from bk.5 ch.26, “What he admonishes us, that we should return to the source, that is, to Apostolic tradition, and from there direct the channel to our own times, is very good and without doubt to be done. It has therefore been handed on to us by the Apostles, as he himself records, that there is one God, one baptism.”

I reply to the first that Chemnitz is deceived. For although Augustine in that one place from Against Cresconius bk.1 ch.33 is dealing with examples, yet in the other places cited he is not dealing with examples but with precepts or teachings of Scripture, especially in Against the Donatists bk.5 ch.23, when he says, “What the universal Church holds is well believed to be a precept from the Apostles, although it is not found written down.” Besides, even in that one place, the chief question was not about an example or about the fact but about the right. For it is clear that he is dealing with the question of rebaptism that existed between the Catholics and the Donatists; but it is certain that the Donatists contested not about examples but about the right.

But because in the disputing the heretics had required the Catholics to show some example in the Scriptures of someone received by the Church without baptism, Augustine responded that there were no examples in the Scriptures neither on one side nor on the other; and hence he concluded that, since there are in the Scriptures not only no precepts but also no examples, one should stand on the custom of the Church, which is very rightly believed to have been introduced by the Apostles. And that things are so is plain both from those places themselves and from the fact that, if the chief question were about examples, the Donatists would not have been heretics nor would they in any way have erred; for what they were saying was very true, and Augustine even agrees with them, that no example is extant in Scripture about this matter.

To the second I say two things. First that we do not adduce the places of Augustine chiefly because of his saying that the custom of not rebaptizing is from Apostolic tradition, but because of his adding in those places that many things are kept by Apostolic tradition that are not written down. For this principle is so certain in Augustine that he wishes to prove from it that even the custom of not rebaptizing was handed on by the Apostles. Therefore we rest more on this principle of Augustine than on his conclusion. Chemnitz however opposes us as if we rested on the conclusion alone.

I say second that Augustine never thought that this very custom could be sufficiently proved from the Scriptures; and therefore indeed he adduced reasons and Scriptures from anywhere, yet he established the chief foundation on the tradition that the custom of the Church declared, as is plain both from the places cited and from Against the Donatists bk.2 ch.4, where he does not think the testimonies of Scripture on this matter are so clear that he says, “Nor would we dare to assert anything unless we were strengthened by the most agreed authority of the universal Church.” And it will be even more clear in the response to the individual places noted by Chemnitz.

To the first from Against the Donatists bk.1 ch.7 I reply that by the bad faith of Chemnitz words have been omitted that were in the middle, and that the first have been joined with the last. For after Augustine had said “Now lest I seem to be acting on human arguments,” he subjoins what Chemnitz omitted, “since the obscurity of this question has compelled great men to be long in flux until by a plenary Council of the whole world what it was most salutary to think was confirmed and doubts were removed;” and then finally he adds, “from the Gospel I bring forward certain teachings.”

Therefore Augustine said that the question could not be settled from the Scriptures before a plenary Council of the Church, but after the Council had explained the doubt and the whole question, then could certain teachings of Scripture be brought forward. For once the Scriptures had been explained by the Council, they firmly and certainly prove what before they did not firmly prove. That this is also true is shown by the place from the Gospel that Blessed Augustine brings forward. For he brings forward the verse of Luke ch9, “Do not prevent them, for who is not against you is for you.” By which place he shows that there can be some gifts of God outside the Church, as was that gift of expelling demons. But whether baptism was to be numbered among them cannot be collected from that place alone.

To the second I reply that the place is not to the purpose; for there Augustine proves from the Scriptures that it is not licit to rebaptize when someone has once received true baptism in the Catholic Church; but he does not prove that the baptism of heretics is true baptism, which is our question. For he wanted to teach in that place that those can be admitted into the Church through penance who acknowledged that they did badly by rebaptizing Catholics. For he does not bring forward any other testimony of Scripture save that of John ch.13, “He who is washed does not need to wash again.” From which place no one collects that the baptism of heretics is valid, but only (as Augustine collects) that after true baptism no other baptism is to be added, which even the Donatists did not deny.

To the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth I say that Augustine is there bringing forward conjectures from the Scriptures that, after definition by the Council and investigation of unwritten tradition, add something to confirm the truth but are by themselves not enough. This is plain from the words of Augustine where he always puts the Scriptures after custom and the Council, and uses these words, “Add to this that we can make conjecture; when the Scriptures too are added, etc.”

To the seventh I say that Chemnitz has quoted in bad faith. For the words (“it is plainly shown by testimonies of the sacred Scriptures”) do not refer to the preceding words that Chemnitz sets down, but to the following ones about which he is silent. For thus does Augustine speak, “It is plainly shown that many false Christians, although they do not have the same charity as the saints, without which whatever the saints could have had does not profit them, yet they have baptism in common with the saints.” Here Blessed Augustine says that it is certain from the Scriptures that many Christians baptized in the Church lose charity but do not lose baptism, which even the Donatists conceded; but he does not say that it is certain from the Scriptures that baptism given by heretics is valid.

Besides, even if those words referred to the preceding ones, Chemnitz would still not have anything. For there too Augustine is not saying that it is certain the baptism of heretics is valid, but he says it is certain that he who has received the true baptism of Christ should not be rebaptized, which even the Donatists conceded; but the question afterwards remained whether the baptism of heretics was the true baptism of Christ or not.

To the eighth I say that Augustine does not there prove his opinion from the Scriptures but he relates the Scripture by which the adversaries were trying to prove the contrary opinion.

Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME