Book Four: On the Unwritten Word of God

Chapter Eleven: The Objections from the Fathers are Solved

Now response must be made to the testimonies that they bring from the Fathers. So, Chemnitz first produces Irenaeus bk.3 ch.1 who speaks as follows, “For we do not know the disposition of salvation from others than from those through him the gospel came to us. What indeed they then announced they afterwards, by the will of God, handed on to us in the Scriptures, to be the future ground and pillar of our faith.” All the same things then, says Chemnitz, were written by the Apostles that they preached viva voce.

I reply that Irenaeus does not say that the Apostles preached nothing other 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 did say that the Apostles wrote everything they preached, he would say nothing against our opinion. For two things must be carefully noted for understanding both this place of Irenaeus and many other things of other ancient Fathers.

The first is that certain things in Christian doctrine, both of faith and morals, are simply necessary for all for salvation, such as knowledge of the articles of the Apostles’ Creed. Again, knowledge of the ten commandments and of some of the sacraments. The rest are not so necessary that without explicit knowledge and faith and profession of them a man cannot be saved, provided he have a will ready to accept and believe them when they have been legitimately proposed to him by the Church.

This distinction is collected from the fact that without knowledge and faith of the mysteries of the first kind no adult is admitted to baptism; but without knowledge and at any rate explicit faith of the latter ones people are ordinarily admitted. In Acts ch.1, after one sermon of Peter, in which he taught the chief chapters of faith in Christ, 3,000 men were baptized in one day, who without doubt knew nothing else besides those necessary things, and therefore is added that after baptism they persevered in the doctrine of the Apostles, that is, they learnt what they had not yet heard about the Christian mysteries. Thus Paul, although he held the Thessalonians among the number of the saints, and extolled their faith and charity with marvelous praises, yet in I Thessalonians ch.3 he says, “Praying that we may see your face and complete what is lacking to your faith.”

Note, second, that the things which are simply necessary were wont to be preached to everyone by the Apostles, but not to everyone all of the other things; but some things to all, those namely that were useful for all, certain things only to prelates, bishops, and priests, as about the nature of governing the Church, about administering the sacraments, about refuting heretics etc.; just as even now some things are disputed in the schools among the learned, and other things are explained in popular sermons. Thus in Acts ch.20 the Apostle separately instructed the Bishops of Asia. So in I Corinthians ch.2 he spoke wisdom among the perfect. So in II Timothy ch.2 he says, “These things commend to faithful men, who will be fit also to each others.” Thus Irenaeus bk.4 ch.32 says that the Apostles handed on their successors the charism of knowledge along with the episcopate.

Having noted these things, I say that everything was written by the Apostles that was necessary for all, and that they preached openly to all in public; but not all the other things were written. When therefore Irenaeus says that the Apostles wrote down what they preached in the world, this is true and does not oppose traditions, because they did not teach the people everything but only what was necessary or useful for them, but the rest they handed on separately to the more perfect.

Second, Chemnitz introduces Origen on Romans ch.3, Homil.5 on Matthew, Homil.7 on Ezekiel, Homil.1 on Jeremiah, where Origen says that we should not speak about divine things from our own sense but

should confirm everything by testimonies from Scripture; “We must,” he says, “summon the sacred Scriptures to witness, since our senses and narrations have no faith without this witness.” I reply that Origen is speaking of very obscure questions, such as are for the most part those that have the witness of the tradition received in the whole Church. For elsewhere Origen, Homil.5 on Numbers, expressively asserts that many things are kept in the Church, and must be necessarily kept by all, although there exist no testimonies about them.

Third Chemnitz produces in witness the Emperor Constantine, who in the Council of Nicea, on the evidence of Theodoret bk.1 ch.7, speaks as follows, “The Evangelical and Apostolic books and the oracles of the ancient Prophets plainly instruct us what we must think about divine things. Therefore, putting aside all hostile discord, let us take from the words divinely inspired the explanations of questions.” I reply that this testimony is not to be taken as seriously as Calvin and Chemnitz take 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 of the ancient Arians, Constantine was at that time not yet baptized, and therefore did not know the secrets of religion.

But, admitting the authority of Constantine, I say that in the case of all the dogmas that pertain to the nature of God testimonies do exist in the Scriptures, and we can about these dogmas be fully and plainly instructed by the Scriptures if we understand them rightly; but nevertheless the sense of the Scriptures depends on the unwritten tradition of the Church. Wherefore Theodoret, who in bk.1 ch.7 narrates this speech of Constantine, reports in ch.8 that Scriptures were brought forward on both sides, and since the Arians were not convinced by them, because they expounded the Scriptures differently from the Catholics, they were condemned from unwritten words, though words piously understood; to which condemnation Constantine assented, as no one has ever doubted.

Fourth Chemnitz introduces Athanasius who in his book Against the Gentiles, or against idols, says at the very beginning, “The sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures suffice for all instruction of the truth.” I reply that the word ‘all’ is added by Chemnitz himself; for Athanasius only has ‘for instruction of the truth’. For he is not speaking there of all the dogmas but only of two, which are the arguments of the two books that he writes to Macharius, namely that idols are not Gods, and that Christ is true God and likewise man, which two dogmas have express testimonies in the Scriptures. Besides Athanasius adds in the same place that the Scriptures do indeed suffice for indicating the truth of these two dogmas, yet not without the explanation of the holy Fathers; but since their books cannot easily be got hold of by all, he says that he wants to write about these matters what he himself learnt from his predecessors.

Fifth Chemnitz produces Basil in his sermon on confession of faith, where Basil speaks as follows, “It is a proof of infidelity and a most sure sign of pride if anyone wants to reject anything of what has been written, or to introduce anything of what has not been written.” And like things are contained in his sum of morals 72 ch.1 and 80 ch.22. I reply that Basil is speaking of those who add to the dogmas of Scripture some other things that are contrary and alien and repugnant to the Scriptures. For in the same sermon about the confession of faith he says that in his dispute against the heretics he has often used unwritten words, yet with the agreement of the Scriptures; and he says too that he has often taken testimony not only from the Scriptures of the Apostles but also from the Philosophers, when the latter were not contrary to the Scriptures. I add that Basil is speaking also about those who, not content with written words, invent others out of their own head. For this is a sign, and a very certain sign, of pride. Therefore he is dealing with traditions that are thought up by private men not about those that the Church has received form the Apostles through a succession of Bishops.

Chemnitz brings another place from epist.80, where Basil says, “We do not think it right that what custom has obtained among them should be held for law and the canon of right doctrine. Let us stand therefore on the decision of Scripture inspired by God.” I reply that Chemnitz has omitted some words from the middle, and they made against him. For the question then was whether it should be said that there are three hypostases and one nature in God. Some said that one should not so speak, and they put forward as argument the custom of their region where no one used such words. To whom Basil, who thought the contrary, replies that in other regions it is the custom to say there are three hypostases and one nature in God.

And so, if they did not wish to acquiesce in this custom, it was not right that they should want their own different custom to be the rule, but both should stand on the judgment of the Scripture that no one can reject. You see here, therefore, that it is not a matter of a tradition received in the whole Church, but of particular customs. Next Basil therefore appealed from custom to the Scriptures, because from contrary customs nothing certain could be established.

Sixth Chemnitz produces Chrysostom Homil.1 on Matthew, Homil.3 on II Thessalonians, Homil.13 on Genesis, where Chrysostom says that Scripture is useful and clear in necessary things. But to what purpose are these remarks? Next he produces the testimony of the same from Homil.49 on Matthew, where he expounds the verse ch.24, “Then let those in Judea flee to the mountains,” and says that in time of heresies there is no other way of finding out the reason of the truth than the reading of the Scriptures. But this testimony is not from Chrysostom but from the author of an incomplete work, who was either an Arian or certainly his work has been distorted in many places by Arians. For Homil.48 calls heretics ‘consubstantials’ and Homil.49 is almost always speaking against the same, and therefore this whole place was inserted as if by Arians, and from some codices recently edited it has been removed. He produces another testimony of Chrysostom from Homil. on Psalm 95 near the end, “If someone speaks without Scripture, the knowledge of the hearers limps, now assenting, now hesitating; but where he produces the testimony of a voice from the divine Scripture, it confirms both the speech of the speaker and the mind of the hearer.”

I reply that since in the immediately preceding words Chrysostom had said, “For neither should he say anything without witnesses and by the mere knowledge of his mind,” we should understand that when he immediately adds, “If someone speaks without Scripture,” he wishes to be understood, “but by mere knowledge of his mind.” Therefore the sense of his words is this, that if anything is said from one’s own invention it does not as easily persuade as it would if what is said could be confirmed by the testimony of Scripture.

Chemnitz produces another quote of Chrysostom from Homil.13 on II Corinthians, “Since we have the most exact scrutiny, line, and rule of all, the assertion of the divine laws, I ask you all to leave aside what this or that man thinks, and examine everything about these things from the Scriptures.” I reply that Chrysostom is not speaking of obscure dogmas of faith or morals, but of the opinion of carnal men, who prefer wealth to poverty, since the Scriptures openly teach that poverty is far more useful for salvation. Therefore Chrysostom is saying nothing other than that one should in this respect more believe the Scriptures than the opinion of men.

Lastly he produces a testimony of the same Chrysostom from the commentary on Matthew ch.22, “Whatever is required for salvation has already been wholly fulfilled in the Scriptures.” I reply that Chrysostom is speaking of the remedies for vices, and he is teaching that there is no vice for the cure of which some remedy may not be found in Scripture. Which is also taught by Basil in his speech on Psalm 1. But what do these things achieve against traditions?

Seventh he brings forward Epiphanius who in Heresy 61 says, “We cannot state the discovery of any question from our own reasonings but from the consequence of the Scriptures.” I reply that Epiphanius is not saying from the consequence of the Scriptures alone, but he says very clearly elsewhere, as we showed above, that not everything can be taken from Scripture, and therefore tradition is necessary.

Eighth he brings forward Cyril, who in his book on Right Faith to Queens speaks as follows, “You must follow the divine letters, and depart in nothing from their prescription.” I reply that he does not say that it is not licit to say anything that is not contained in the Scriptures, but that it is not licit to speak against the Scriptures. For this is not to depart from the prescription of the Scriptures, because we too indeed gladly embrace them. For we never defend traditions in conflict with Scripture.

Again he brings this from the same Cyril in Homil.5 on Leviticus, “I think that in these two days the two Testaments can be understood, in which may be examined and discussed every word that pertains to God, and from these all knowledge of things can be grasped. But if there is something superfluous that no divine Scripture decrees, no other third Scripture should be taken up for authority of knowledge.” I reply, first, that these homilies on Leviticus are not from Cyril but from Origen or someone else or other, who everywhere destroyed the letter so as to set up mystical meanings out of his own head. Therefore these homilies are not of great authority.

Add that in this 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 wants to sell itself as divine.

Ninth Chemnitz brings forward Theophilus Paschalis bk.2, who speaks as follows, “It is a mark of a diabolic spirit to think something outside the authority of the sacred Scriptures to be divine.” I reply that he is speaking of the apocryphal books which were by some supposed as divine. But it is inept, to say nothing more serious, to turn what is said about one thing toward something else.

He brings forward, tenth, Apollinaris who in Eusebius Hist. bk5 ch.15 says that he put off for a long time writing against the heresy of Montanus lest he should seem to some to be adding to the Evangelical word of God. I reply, first, that these words are not found in all codices. Second, the author does not say ‘adding to the written Evangelical word’. Third, he understands the addition to be of a new, contrary dogma; for in the same place he accuses Montanus of not keeping the doctrine that the Church had received from the Apostles by tradition and the succession of Bishops.

He brings forward, eleventh, Tertullian who in his book Against Hermogenes says, “I adore the fullness of Scripture. Let the workshop of Hermogenes teach, ‘it is written’. But if it is not written, let him fear what is destined for those who add or take away.” I reply that Tertullian is speaking of one dogma only, namely that God created all things from nothing, not from preexisting matter, as Hermogenes fancied. And since this dogma is very openly contained in the Scriptures, Tertullian says that he adores the fullness of Scripture as far as this dogma is concerned; and he adds that Hermogenes, who was adding the contrary dogma to Scripture and was opposing Scripture itself, was falling into the curse by which we are forbidden to add anything to, or taken anything away from, Scripture, so that its truth is changed.

Chemnitz puts forward, twelfth, Cyprian who speaks thus in his epistle to Pompeianus, “Whence is this tradition?” he says. “Does it descend from the Lord’s and the Gospel’s authority, or does it come from the commands or the epistles of the Apostles? For those things are to be done that are written, as God testifies and proposes to Joshua, saying, ‘The book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth’. If then it is prescribed in the Gospel, or is contained in the epistles and acts of the Apostles, let this holy tradition too be observed etc.’” I reply that Cyprian wrote this when he wanted to guard his own error, and so it is not strange if he then reasoned in the manner of the erring. Wherefore St. Augustine rightly refutes this epistle in Against the Donatists bk.4 chs.23ff. Besides, although Cyprian was rejecting that one tradition about baptism, because he thought it was against the Scriptures, yet he did not, for that reason, want the others to be rejected which, although they were not in the Scriptures, yet do not conflict with Scripture.

Thirteenth he brings forward that famous saying of Jerome on Titus ch.1, “Without the authority of Scripture talk has no faith.” And that on Matthew ch.23, “What has no authority from the Scriptures is contemned with the same facility as it is proved.” And that on Haggai ch.1, “What they find and make up as it were on the tradition of the Apostles, without the authority and testimonies of the Scriptures, is pierced by the sword of God.” Finally that from the commentary on Psalm 86 on the verse, “The Lord will in the Scriptures tell of the people and the princes, of those who were in it,” Jerome says, “See what he says, ‘those who were’ not ‘those who are’, so that, with the exception of the Apostles, whatever is said afterwards is cut off, does not have authority.”

I reply to the first that the place has been distorted by Chemnitz, for thus does Jerome have, “Without the authority of Scripture talk has no faith, unless they seem to strengthen false doctrine even with divine testimonies.” He does not therefore call talk what is put forward from outside Scripture, but he says that talkative men do not find faith among us, unless they try to confirm their errors from the Scriptures; which squares most of all with heretics. To the second I say that it too is not faithfully quoted. For Jerome did not speak universally of what does not have authority from the Scriptures etc., but he is speaking of a certain particular opinion whereby some were trying to prove from an apocryphal book that Zacharias, whom the Jews killed between the temple and the altar, was Zacharias the father of John the Baptist. He says, “Because this does not have the authority of the Scriptures, it is contemned with the same facility as it is proved.” And the sense is that because this opinion is proved from an apocryphal, not a canonical, book, it is easily contemned. To the third the solution is plain, for he is only acting against those who make something up and yet wish their figment to seem to be Apostolic tradition. To the last one I say that in this place Jerome is rejecting things alien to Apostolic doctrine, that is, contrary and repugnant to Scripture.

Finally the adversaries bring forward the testimonies of Augustine. And first that from Christian Doctrine bk.2 ch.9, where Augustine says, “In what is openly put in Scripture are found all things that contain the faith and morals of living.” I reply that he is speaking of those dogmas that are necessary for everyone simply, such as those contained in the Apostles’ Creed and in the Decalogue. So the same Augustine in his book on Merit and Remission of Sin last chapter says, “I believe that from this is the authority of the divine speeches most clear, if a man cannot be ignorant of it without loss of promised salvation.” And besides those, there are many other things that are contained in tradition alone, as we showed above from many places of Augustine.

Again, second, that from Against the Letters of Petilianus bk.3 ch.6, “If anyone either 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 have announced to you anything besides what you have received in the legal and Evangelical Scriptures, let him be anathema.” I reply that we showed already above from Augustine’s tract.98 on John that this ‘besides’ signifies ‘contrary to’.

Third, Chemnitz produces certain places from City of God bk.19 ch.18, tract.3 on the epistles of John, epist.163, the book on Pastors ch.14, Confessions bk.6 ch.5, but in these places there is nothing against traditions. For Blessed Augustine only says that dogmas are to be proved from the Scriptures when testimonies from Scripture are had, and that Scripture must be believed, and that nothing must be said against the Scriptures, and the like, which are most true, but in vain are they brought against traditions, or for the sufficiency of Scripture, since by no word did Augustine indicate any such thing in these places.

Fourth he produces this from the book on the Good of Widowhood ch.1, “What more should I teach you than this that we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare to be wise more than we should. Let me not teach you other than to expound the words of the Doctor to you.” I reply that Augustine is not speaking of every dogma, but only of the profession of widowhood, which, as to what sort of good it is, was expounded by the Apostle in I Corinthians ch.7, and therefore Augustine says that it is enough for him if he expounds the words of the Apostle. But as to what Augustine says generally, “Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine,” it is said against those who make up from their judgment new doctrines that are not consonant with the Scriptures.

Fifth, that from Against Maximinus bk.3 ch.14, “But now neither should I put forward the Nicene Council nor you the Council of Rimini to prejudge the issue. Nor let me be detained by the authority of the latter nor you by that of the former; on the authorities of the Scriptures, not on witnesses proper to each, and on those common to both, let thing with thing, cause with cause, reason with reason contest.” Again on Psalm 57, “Take our papers out of the way, let the codex of God come forward, hear Christ speaking, hear truth talking.” Like things are contained in the book on the Unity of the Church chs.3, 6, 10, 16.

I reply that it seems indeed in these places that something is said against Councils, but not against traditions; but neither is anything taught by Augustine against Councils, as we can easily show. For it is certain that Augustine did not want the Councils to be removed from these disputations and only the Scriptures to be received because he did not believe that the authority of legitimate Councils was very great, but he did so for two reasons. First so as to deal with the issue more expeditiously. For if he had wanted to take an argument from the Council he would have first had to prove that the Councils were to be received, which was too long.

And this reason chiefly has place against the Arians, who in no way admitted the Council of Nicea. The second reason is that in those questions that were then at issue, there existed in Scripture very clear testimonies, which without doubt were to be preferred to all the testimonies of Councils. And this reason chiefly has place against the Donatists in questions about the Church. Elsewhere the same Augustine in epists.118, 162, 165-­‐166, and in his book on Baptism, often urges the Councils and traditions, nay also the responses of Pontiffs and Emperors.

Sixth they bring forward that from on Merit and Remission of Sin bk.2 ch.36, “When the dispute is about a thing very obscure, and certain and clear teachings of the divine Scriptures do not help, human presumption should keep itself in check, doing nothing by inclining to either side.” I reply that he is speaking of very obscure questions, such as he thought about the origin of souls, for determining which no firm testimonies were available but only certain conjectures from the divine letters. But this is nothing to traditions, which are strong with all consent of the ancients and of the whole Church. Which argument is a very grave one as Augustine teaches everywhere, and especially in Against Cresconius bk.1 ch.33, where he says that the truth of Scripture is held by us when we do what pleases the universal Church, even if we read nothing written down about it.

Seventh is that from Catechizing the Uneducated chs.3, 6, where Augustine teaches that a brief summa of doctrine from the Scriptures should be proposed to Catechumens, which when they say they believe and promise to wish to observe, they are to be baptized. For hence Chemnitz wishes to establish that what is contained in the Scriptures is sufficient for the Christian. I reply that it is indeed sufficient for someone to be baptized, but it is not sufficient for the Church of God absolutely. Otherwise we could also conclude that the Apostles’ Creed was sufficient for the Church, and that all the rest is superfluous.

These then are the testimonies of the ancients cited by the heretics, wherein three things are to be noted. One, that those we put to the contrary are more than double; two, our testimonies expressly teach about receiving unwritten traditions, so much so that the heretics, since they cannot deny it, turn themselves everywhere to blasphemies. But the testimonies adduced by them do not properly pertain to traditions, but are ultimately twisted in that direction by the adversaries through bad consequences. Finally, when the adversaries are convicted by the evidence of the testimonies, they sometimes confess that traditions were sometimes defended by some Fathers; but we cannot be driven to admit that traditions were opposed by any of the fathers.

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