Book Four: On the Unwritten Word of God
Chapter Ten: The Objections of the Adversaries Taken from the Scriptures are Solved
The last part of the question remains, in which the arguments of the adversaries must be expounded and solved.
There are three kinds of arguments, of which the first they take from the Scriptures, the second from the Fathers, the third from reasons. From the Scriptures they propose, first, those passages that command that nothing should be added to the word of God; second those that expressly teach the Scriptures are sufficient and contain everything necessary; third those that openly condemn traditions.
The first argument then is clear from three places. Deuteronomy chs.4 and 12, “You will not add to the word that I prescribe to you, nor will you take away from it.” The last chapter of the Apocalypse, “If anyone adds to this etc.” Galatians ch.1, “But if we or an angel from heaven should preach another gospel besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” Here Chemnitz notes that it is not said ‘against’ but ‘besides’. And lest we say that Paul is speaking of both written and unwritten word, he adduces Augustine giving this exposition Against the letters of Petilianus ch.6, “If anyone whether about Christ, or about his Church, or about any other thing that pertains to our faith and life, I do not say if we, but what Paul adds, ‘if an angel from heaven announce to you other than what is in legal and Evangelical Scriptures, let him be anathema.” Like things are contained in Basil in his sum of morals, sum 72 ch.1.
To the first I reply, first that there it is not a question of the written word but of what is handed on viva voce; for he does not say ‘to the word that I have written’ but ‘that I prescribe’. Second I say that the true exposition of this place is that God wishes his commands to be kept completely and perfectly as he himself prescribed, and not to be distorted in any way by a false interpretation. Therefore he does not mean to say that you will not keep other than what I now prescribe, but that in what I prescribe you will not change anything by adding or lessening but you will do completely as I command and not otherwise. This same thing Scripture is wont to signify in these words, “You will not decline to the right, nor to the left.” And that this is true is plain; because otherwise the Prophets and Apostles, who added so many things later, would have sinned.
Brentius, Chemnitz, and Calvin reply that the Prophets did not add anything to the law as far as doctrine is concerned, but they only wrote certain prophecies about the future and explained the doctrine of the law. The New Testament too is not an addition to the Old but an explanation of it; since the Apostle says Romans ch.1 that the Gospel was promised by God through the Prophets in the sacred Scriptures. And Acts ch.15 the Apostles in the Council did not dare to decree anything without the testimony of Scripture.
But on the contrary, for in this way even the traditions are not additions but explanations. For in the law of Moses the writings of the Prophets are not contained, nor in the law and Prophets is the New Testament contained save in general terms and in a certain way virtually, as the whole tree is contained in the seed. For we have in the law, Deuteronomy ch.18, “God will raise up a Prophet for you and him you will hear.” Now there is contained there in general whatever Christ did and said; but yet that in particular Christ should preach the Trinity of persons in God, institute the sacraments, do such miracles, etc. is not contained there.
But what they allege from Acts ch.15 is against them. For although James in that Council proved from the Scriptures that the Church was to be built from the Gentiles, yet the decree of the Council is nowhere found in the scriptures of the New Testament. For they decreed that the Gentiles should not keep the legal provisions save, however, for abstinence from blood and suffocated animals, of which decree the second part is nowhere read in the Old Testament. For where, I ask, did any Prophet predict that in the times of the Messiah suffocated animals and blood were to be prohibited?
Thus too what is written in II Thessalonians ch.2, “Hold the traditions that you have received, whether by speech or by epistle.” And Luke ch.10, “He who hears you hears me.” And Matthew ch.18, “If he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican.” Therefore we affirm that the traditions are in some way explanations of the written word, not that it contains its bare exposition, but because all the traditions and decrees of the Church are contained in the Scriptures in general; but they are not contained in particular nor should they be. Wherefore Augustine Against Cresconius bk.1 ch.33 says, “Although a certain example is not produced from the Scripture, yet the truth of the same scriptures is held by us, since we do what pleases the universal Church, which the authority of the Scriptures themselves commend.”
To the second it is certain that John there prohibits the corruption of that book but not that other books should not be written or other dogmas handed on, otherwise he would have been in conflict with himself, who, according to Chemnitz in his Examination p.202, wrote his Gospel after the Apocalypse.
To the third, on which Brentius and Chemnitz very much rely, there is a double solution and both are solid. The first is that the Apostle is not speaking of the written word alone, but of every word whether written or handed on. For he does not say, ‘if anyone preach to you a gospel besides what we have written’, but ‘besides what we have preached’. Nor are the words of Augustine or of Basil an obstacle, for they are not expressly treating of this place, but they are proving from this place that it is not licit to assert anything contrary to the Scriptures, which is very true. For when Paul speaks in general of Apostolic preaching, and that partly written and partly not written, we can thence rightly prove that it is not licit to assert anything against the written preaching of the Apostles. For from the negation of a universal an argument to negation of the particular is rightly deduced, but not contrariwise. And likewise we can from this word of Paul argue against those who preach against the traditions of the Church already received, even if they seem to be preaching from the Scriptures, as Athanasius beautifully teaches in his book on the Incarnation of the Word, and Cyril, citing Athanasius in his book on Right Faith to Queens, not far from the beginning.
The second solution is that by the word ‘besides’ the Apostle understands ‘against’; and therefore he does not prohibit new dogmas and precepts, provided they are not contrary to what has already been handed on; but he prohibits contrary and alien dogmas and precepts. This is plain first because the Apostle himself afterwards taught many other things; and after this epistle John wrote the Apocalypse and his Gospel. Second, from the purpose of the Apostle; for he is acting against those who taught that the legal provisions should be kept since he himself taught they should not kept. Therefore when he says ‘besides’ he understands ‘against’. Third, from another place where the Apostle thus uses this word ‘besides’. For in the last chapter of Romans he says, “Observe those who cause dissensions and offenses besides the doctrine which you have received.” In this place it is so clear that the ‘besides’ signifies ‘against’ that Erasmus translates it as ‘against’. But in both places the Greek words is the same. Fourth, from the exposition of the Fathers. St. Ambrose expounds ‘if against’, St. Jerome ‘if otherwise’, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact teach that the Apostle did not say ‘if contrary things’ but ‘if besides that which etc.’, to indicate that he not only anathematizes those who teach things openly contrary to the whole doctrine, but also those who in whatever way, whether openly or obliquely, fall away in anything from the doctrine handed on.
St. Basil in his sum of morals 72 ch.1 (which place Chemnitz quoted in his own favor) teaches that from this place is got that those are to be received who hand on what is consonant with the Scriptures; those to be rejected who hand on what is foreign to them. Lastly, St. Augustine Against Faustus bk.17 ch.3 expounds ‘against’, and in tract.98 on John speaks as follows, “He does not say, ‘more than you have received’, but ‘besides that which you have received’. For if he said that he would be prejudicial against himself, since he wanted to come to the Thessalonians to supply what was lacking to their faith. But he who supplies adds what was less but does not take away what was present. But he who goes beside the rule of faith does not walk in the way but departs from the way, etc.”
The second argument they take from those places that seem to indicate that Scripture sufficiently contains everything, which are two. The first is John ch.20, “Many other signs indeed did Jesus do that are not written in this book; but these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” Where John indicates that he has written, not indeed everything, but the things that were sufficient. For if we can have life through the things that are written, what more do we want?
Chemnitz gives a confirmation from three testimonies of the ancients.
Augustine tract.49 on John, “The holy Evangelist testifies,” he says, “that the Lord Christ said and did many things that are not written. Those things were chosen to be written that seemed sufficient for the salvation of believers.” The same Augustine on the Harmony of the Gospels bk.1 last chapter says, “Whatever Christ wanted us to read about his deeds and words this he commanded to be written by his Apostles as by his hands.” Cyril bk.12 on John last chapter, “Not everything,” he says, “that the Lord did has been written down, but what they thought by writing sufficed both for morals and dogmas, so that by right faith and works we might reach the kingdom of heaven.”
The second place is II Timothy ch.3, “All Scripture divinely inspired is useful for teaching, for convicting, for reproving, for educating in justice so that the man of God might be perfect, instructed for every good work.” This place is the Achilles of Brentius and Chemnitz. But thus is it explained by Chemnitz. The words ‘all Scripture’ do not signify any sacred book but the whole corpus of the canonical books together. For what follows, ‘useful for teaching, for convicting, etc.’ cannot fit any one book but only the whole Scripture together. But the words ‘is useful’ does not signify that Scripture is useful in the way in which the useful is distinguished from the necessary and sufficient; it signifies that Scripture was made as a means for perfecting the man of God; as if Paul were saying that Scripture has this use for which it was made, to which it is directed; in the way we say that food is useful for nourishing man, without which however he cannot live.
But the words ‘for teaching, for convicting etc.’ explain the sufficiency of Scripture. For four things only are necessary for the man of God, that is, for the Christian doctor. First that he be able to teach the doctrine of faith. Second that he be able to refute errors against the faith. Third that he be able to teach the doctrine of morals. Fourth that he be able to correct those in error about morals. But all these things are provided by Scripture. For it serves for teaching, that is, for the dogmas of the faith; for convicting, that is, for refuting those erring in the faith; for educating in justice, that is, for teaching the precepts of morals; for reproving, that is, for correcting those erring in morals, from which Paul concludes that the man instructed in the Scriptures is perfect and fit for every good work.
I reply to the first that John in that place is only speaking of the miracles of Christ and he says that he wrote only some of the miracles, not all, because they were sufficient to persuade the world that Christ was the Son of God. For he speaks thus, “Many other signs indeed did Jesus do in the sight of his disciples etc.” But Chemnitz ineptly transfers what is said only about the miracles to all the dogmas of faith and precepts of morals. Besides, John is not speaking save of things written by himself, therefore if they are sufficient all the other Scriptures will be superfluous.
Chemnitz responds that John is speaking of the whole of Scripture. But John refutes this lie when he says, “Many other signs indeed did Jesus do in the sight of his disciples etc.” But what is added, “but these things are written etc.” does not signify that signs alone suffice for us for salvation, but that they are referred and ordered to this, and that it is one of the means required for our salvation, although it alone does not suffice.
To the places of Augustine and Cyril I say that those Fathers are speaking of the words and deeds alone of Christ; and therefore they wanted to say that the things written are sufficient, not all absolutely, but all the words and deeds of Christ. Besides these words and deeds, many other things are necessary, otherwise all the histories and teachings of the Old Testament, and the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of Peter, Paul, John, James and Jude would be superfluous. Nor does this conflict with what we said above, that the Scriptures are not absolutely necessary. For although knowledge of the many things Christ and the Apostles said or did is necessary, yet that knowledge, even without the Scriptures, could be had by tradition alone, although one should in no way deny that it was very useful that the principle chapters be written down.
Add that without doubt those Fathers do not understand from the words and deeds of Christ that everything necessary absolutely was written, but that what the Apostles thought should be written was sufficiently written. For since certain things were written and some handed on without writing, and especially the interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures, then in the sacred books are contained sufficiently all things that were entrusted to writing, or (as Augustine says) that Christ wished to be written. For he wished other things not to be read in divine letters but to be received from the Church, which however are in their own way contained in the Gospel, not indeed in particular but in general, because the Gospel advises us to consult the Church about doubtful things.
To the other place from Paul one can reply in the same way, namely that Scripture sufficiently instructs and perfects the man of God because it expressly contains many things, and what it does not contain it shows where they are to be sought. Next, I say that Paul does not from that place attribute even this sufficiency to Scripture, which fact is collected from two things. First from the words ‘all Scripture’, and second from the words ‘is useful’. For when he speaks of all Scripture he attributes not only to the whole body of Scripture but also to the individual books the praise that they are useful for teaching, convicting etc., and yet Chemnitz admits that any one sacred book is not sufficient.
That this is so is plain first from Paul’s way itself of speaking. For by the judgment of all who know Latin, what is said of all divinely inspired Scripture is said of the individual books that are divinely inspired. Second from the fact that when this letter was being written, the Apocalypse did not yet exist, nor the Gospel of John; and perhaps something else was lacking from the body of the Scriptures. He is not speaking therefore of all and only the body of the Scriptures. Third from the reasoning of the Apostle; for from the universal principle he wishes to conclude in particular that the Scripture of the New Testament, because it was divinely inspired, was useful for teaching, convicting etc. For thus he speaks, “For infancy you have known the Scriptures” (that is the Old Testament, for when Timothy was an infant the New Testament did not exist, as is plain and as the adversaries admit) “that can instruct you in salvation through the faith that is in Christ Jesus.” Here the Apostle in a few words attributes to the Scripture of the Old Testament what a little later he attributes in many words to all Scripture. And lest Timothy should doubt of it, the Apostle gives proof saying, “All Scripture divinely inspired etc.”
Nor is what Chemnitz objects a problem, that all these utilities are not found in any one book; for it is false that they are not found. For no part of Scripture is briefer than the second epistle of John, and yet in it we see preached that Christ is true Son of God, which is a dogma of the faith. Again we see preached that we should love each other, which is a doctrine of morals. Besides we see openly written in it that they are Antichrists who say that Christ has not come in the flesh, which pertains to refuting heretics. Lastly we see that they are rebuked who say ‘hail’ to heretics, which pertains to the correction of morals.
Now the words ‘is useful’, however much they are twisted by Chemnitz, will yet never signify ‘is sufficient’. For he proves somehow or other that there is not deduced from these words that Scripture is not sufficient; but there is not deduced that it is sufficient, which is what he had to prove. For whether you say Scripture is useful for this, or has this use, or is referred or ordered to this, or anything else similar, you will never signify that it alone suffices. Just as he too who says that food is useful for nourishing man says indeed that food is instituted for this, that it nourish, but does not say that food alone suffices; for if natural heat is lacking or some instrument of the body necessary for nutrition, food will not nourish.
Therefore the Apostle does not say that Scripture alone suffices for teaching, convicting etc., and therefore for perfecting and completing man; but yet it is of advantage and help for all these things.
And although the same Apostle does not say that it does not suffice, yet we collect this from other places, as from I Corinthians ch.11, “The rest I will dispose when I come.” And II Thessalonians ch.2, “Hold the traditions, whether by speech or by epistle etc.” And from this place too, although it is not collected that Paul said Scripture does not suffice, yet it is evidently collected that he did not say that Scripture alone suffices, because he attributed these praises to any canonical work, and we known even from the confession of the adversaries that no one canonical work suffices, because then the others would be superfluous.
The third argument is from places in which traditions are condemned, Isaiah ch.29, “In vain do they worship me teaching the commands and doctrines of me,” Matthew ch.15, “You have made void the command of God by your tradition,” Galatians ch.1, “Being an emulator of the traditions of my fathers,” Colossians ch.2, “See that no one deceive you by philosophy or empty deceit according to the tradition of men,” I Timothy ch.1, “Do not attend to Jewish fables, etc.” I Peter ch.1, “You have been redeemed from your vain conversation in paternal tradition.” Here are condemned the traditions that the Jew boasted they received from the hands of Moses and the Prophets; therefore also the traditions that we say have come down to us from Christ and the Apostles by the hands of the Fathers.
I reply that Christ and the Apostles did not censure the traditions that the Jews had received from Moses and the Prophets, one of which was about the canonical books and which were true and which were not; but they censured the traditions they had received from more recent people, some of which were empty, but others pernicious and contrary to the Scriptures. For neither Christ nor the Apostles ever say that these are the traditions of Moses and the Prophets; and they openly say that they are speaking of traditions that are in conflict with the Scriptures. And besides the ancient Fathers explained expressively who was the author of the traditions that Christ and the Apostles censure.
Irenaeus bk.4 chs.25 and 26 disputes against the ancient heretics who thought that under the name of traditions censured by Christ and the Apostles was understood the law of Moses, and he teaches that not the law of Moses but the traditions that corrupt the law of more recent elders were censured by Christ and the Apostles. Epiphanius in the heresy of Ptolomaeus teaches that the traditions of the Jews were four expositions of the sacred books. The first was of Moses and that was not censured. The second was of Rabbi Akiba. The third of Rabbi Jehuda. And the fourth of the sons of Asamonaeus. And it is these that are censured by the Lord.
Jerome on Isaiah ch.8 and Titus ch.3 and in his epistle to Agasias q.10 teaches that the traditions of the Jews that the Lord censured took their beginning from Sammai, Hillel, Akiba, and some others who existed a little before the rise of the Savior, and these traditions had not expounded the law but corrupted it; and these traditions they themselves call ‘secondaries’. About them there exists in civil law a certain constituton of Justinian, q.146 novel., in these words, “The tradition that is called secondary by them we altogether forbid, since it is not contained in the sacred books nor has been handed on by the Prophets but contains certain excerpts from men who speak only of earthly things and have nothing of the divine spirit in them.” Further from these sources have come down the fables that are now in the Talmud and in almost all the books of the Rabbis. But these are nothing to our traditions, which have Christ and the Apostles for authors, and are consonant with the divine Scriptures.
Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME