Book Four: On the Unwritten Word of God
Chapter Five: That there are True Traditions is Demonstrated from the Scriptures
We have hitherto demonstrated that the Scriptures without traditions were not altogether necessary nor sufficient; now we will show what I proposed in the second place, namely that there are some true traditions.
And first it can be collected from what we said. For if Scripture does not contain everything and tradition is necessary, it follows that there is some tradition, otherwise God would not have provided well for the Church. Second, it is proved by the testimonies of the Scriptures. The first is John ch.16, “I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” And John last chapter, “But there are many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written down individually I do not think the world itself could contain the books that should be written.” Therefore it is clear that the Lord did and said many things which are not written. For the books which are extant can be grasped in one hand; but John says that the whole world cannot contain the books which should be written. And in addition the things which the Lord promised he would say, John ch.16, he said without doubt after his resurrection, as Luke testifies Acts ch.1, “Appearing to them for forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.” But about the deeds and words of the Lord after his resurrection the Evangelists wrote very little. But it is in no way credible that the Apostles who saw and heard them did not hand them on to the Churches, for they were neither envious nor forgetful such that they would not wish, or not be able, to say them.
The adversaries respond that even if not everything is written that Jesus said or did, yet everything necessary has been written. But this has already been refuted, for many necessary things are not written, and especially about the institution of the sacraments which, without doubt, the Lord handed on in those forty days.
The second testimony is I Corinthians ch.11, where Paul treats of two questions, one about the way of praying in the Church, the other about the way of receiving the Eucharist. He begins the first from tradition, “I praise you,” he says, “because in all things you are mindful of me, and you hold my precepts as I handed them on to you.” For these precepts about the way of praying, of receiving the Eucharist, are nowhere found written down. And Chrysostom and Theophylact openly note on this place that the Apostle is speaking of unwritten precepts; Epiphanius too, Heresy 61, which is that of the Apostolici, and Basil in his book on the Holy Spirit ch.29 and Damascene bk.4 ch.17. Next, because there was still something lacking to the precepts handed on, Paul adds, so that they may keep this, that men should pray in Church with uncovered head, women with covered head.
And to show that much is to be attributed to the tradition and custom of the Church, even without being written down, he concludes, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we do not have such a custom, nor the Church of God.” Therefore he wishes the contentious to be held back from the custom of the Church.
The other question too he begins from tradition, “For I,” he says, “received from the Lord what I also handed on to you.” And he concludes, “The rest I will dispose when I come.” But what he disposed is found nowhere written down. Now Catholics rightly think that he not only disposed what concerned rites and ceremonies, but also handed on other graver matters, as about the ordination of ministers, about the sacrifice of the altar, about the form and matter of the other sacraments; nor can heretics in any way show the contrary.
The third testimony is from II Thessalonians ch.2, “Therefore, brothers, hold the traditions which you have received, whether by speech or by our letter.” To this place Chemnitz and Hermann respond in two ways. First they say that the Apostle handed on the same things first in speech and then by letter, and therefore he is not speaking of unwritten tradition. But the exposition is ridiculous. First, because the disjunctive particle ‘or’ openly indicates that the things he handed on and the things that he wrote were different. Second, because if it were so, one epistle to the Thessalonians should contain the whole doctrine which the Apostle preached to them. But without doubt he preached the whole Gospel fully to them, as is also collected from chs.1 and 2 of the first epistle; therefore the epistle ought to contain the whole Gospel; but it does not contain the hundredth part, as is plain.
They respond second that the Apostle is here speaking of speech which he had pronounced orally, and which he himself had not written, but which was then written, or was afterwards written, by the Evangelists. For the Apostle, as they say, taught altogether nothing that was not somewhere written in the New Testament. To this solution Brentius subscribes in his Prolegomena. But to the contrary. For first in this chapter the Apostle says that he preached to them about Antichrist, and besides other things taught them when he was to come. “And now,” he says, “what detains him you know.” And, “Surely you recall, that when I was with you, I told you these things?” But this is nowhere written, namely when Antichrist will come.
Wherefore Blessed Augustine City of God bk.20 ch.10 says that they knew what the Apostle had taught viva voce, but we cannot know who did not hear the Apostle; therefore not everything was written down that the Apostle said. Besides, whether what the Apostle had taught was written later or not does not matter much as far as the argument is concerned that we are collecting from this place. For the Apostle does not promise that he or another will write what he had handed on orally, but simply prescribed that they observe no less what they had received without writing than what they had received by letter. And in this way did the ancients understand this place.
Basil in his book on the Holy Spirit ch.29 says, “I think it is Apostolic to persevere also in unwritten traditions. I praise you,” he says, “because you have remembered me in all things, and you hold the traditions the way I handed them on to you.” And, “Hold the traditions which you have received whether through speech or by letter.” Chrysostom on this place says, “Hence it is plain that they did not hand on everything by letters, but many things also without letters. But these as well as those are worthy of the same faith.” Oecumenius and Theophylact use the same words in this place, to whom add Damascene bk.4 ch.17, who says, “Because the Apostles handed on many things without writing, Paul writes, ‘Therefore, brothers, stand and hold the traditions, which you have learnt whether by speech or by letter’.” In the same way does the eighth general Synod expound, final act can.1.
To these five Fathers, who expressively expound this place for us, Hermann opposes five others, Jerome, Ambrose, Primasius, Theodoret, and Anselm on this place, whom he says have expounded contrariwise to us. But I reply that those commentaries inscribed with the name of Jerome are not of Jerome but of the heretic Pelagius, as Blessed Augustine teaches On Merit and Remission of Sin bk.3 chs.1, 5, 12, and the very words of the commentary in Romans chs.5-‐9 cry out that their author is Pelagius.
Next, neither is Pelagius against us in this matter, for he says, “When he wants his own sayings to be kept, he does not want extraneous things added; but the Apostolic tradition is that by which the sacraments of baptism are preached in the whole world.” What here is against us? For we admit that extraneous things, that is, foreign and spurious comments of false Apostles, are not to be added to the true dogmas of the Apostles. For that is why Pelagius said that the sacraments of baptism are Apostolic tradition, not the sacrament of baptism is, because he knew that there are many mysteries concerning baptism that are kept in the Church from the unwritten tradition of the Apostles, as exorcism, exsufflation, unction, etc.
Primasius too is for us, for in the first place he puts as it were literally the exposition of Pelagius, about which we have already spoken, and he adds that the Apostle is not only speaking of the sacraments of baptism but also of the traditions that are observed in the whole world and are for that reason recognized to be Apostolic. Hermann thinks that he is speaking of the written Gospel, because it is kept in the whole world; but he should have noticed that also many unwritten things are kept in the whole world, as the feast of the Nativity, of Easter, of the Ascension, of Pentecost, as Augustine teaches in epist.118. Besides, when Primasius says that the Apostle is speaking of the traditions that are recognized to be Apostolic because they are kept in the whole world, without doubt he is speaking of unwritten traditions. For he himself, since he was a disciple of Augustine, knew that the rule of Augustine was in the same epist.118, that what is kept in the whole world, even if it is not written, is kept by Apostolic tradition.
Neither is Ambrose against us or for us, for he only says that the Apostle is advising us in this place to persevere in the doctrine of the Gospel. But he says nothing about what is written or unwritten. Anselm rather is for us, for thus does he expound, “Hold in your heart and works the traditions which you have learnt, whether by our speech when we were present or by letter which we sent you when absent.” What here is against us? What is not rather for us?
Finally Theodoret too I reckon is for us. He speaks thus, “You have,” he says, “a rule of faith, our speeches, which we preached to you and wrote in our epistle.” This place Hermann says makes for him, because Theodoret seems to indicate that the Apostle wrote the same words that he had preached before; but Hermann says this falsely. For the words of Theodoret can also be understood of different words, in this way: you have as rule of faith our speeches, both those which we preached and those which we wrote in our epistle. That this sense is more to the mind of Theodoret is plain, both because it is more conform to the exposition of Chrysostom, which Theodoret is wont everywhere to follow, and also because the first sense is false, since it is certain that not everything that the Apostle preached by mouth was written in the epistle. Our argument from this place of Paul, then, remains in its strength.
The fourth testimony is I Timothy last chapter, “O Timothy, guard the deposit.” And from II Timothy ch.1, “You have the form of sound words, which you heard from me. Guard the good deposit through the Holy Spirit, who lives in us.” And ch.2, “You, therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus; and what you heard from me through many witnesses, this commend to faithful men, who will be fitted also to teach others.”
In these places by the name of deposit cannot be understood the Scripture, but the treasure of doctrine, the understanding of divine dogmas, that is, both the sense of the Scriptures and of other dogmas, all which doctrine he wanted to be prolonged through tradition, as is explained by Chrysostom and Theophylact on this place; to which also Irenaeus alludes bk.3 ch.4 when he says, “The Apostles brought all the things of truth into the Church as into a most fully rich depositary.” And bk.4 ch.43, “You must obey,” he says, “the priests of the Church, who have succession from the Apostles, who along with the succession of the Episcopacy have received a sure charism of truth according to the pleasure of the Father.” And it is easily collected from these very words. For if he were speaking of written words, he would not so anxiously commend the deposit. For Scriptures are easily conserved in chests and by copyists; but the Apostle wants it to be kept by the Holy Spirit in the breast of Timothy. And next he would not add, “Commend these to the faithful, who will be fitted also to teach others,” but he would say, ‘commend these to the copyists so that they may transcribe many copies’. Nor would he say, “What you heard from me through many witnesses,” but ‘what I wrote to you’. Therefore not words only but also the sense, and much more the sense than the words, does the Apostle commend to Timothy, and he commands him to pass it on by his hands to his successors. See on this place the advisory of Vincent of Lerins against the profane novelties of words.
The last testimony is the second and third epistles of John, “Having much to write to you, I did not wish to do it with parchment and ink, etc.” For from these words we understand that many things were said by John to his disciples, and through his disciples to the universal Church, that yet were not written down.
Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME