Book Four: On the Unwritten Word of God
Chapter Three: the State of the Question is Explained, and certain Falsehoods of the Adversaries are Uncovered
The controversy, then, between us and the heretics consists in two things. The first is that we assert that in the Scriptures is not expressly contained the whole doctrine necessary either about faith or about morals; and therefore besides the written word of God there is also required the unwritten word of God, that is, divine and Apostolic traditions.
But they teach that in the Scriptures is contained everything necessary for faith and morals, and that therefore there is no need for any unwritten word. Luther in his commentary on Galatians ch.1 says, “Nor ought any other doctrine to be handed on or heard in the Church than the pure word of God, that is, the holy Scriptures. Let the doctors or other hearers with their doctrine be anathema.” John Brentius in his Prolegomena, the chapter about traditions, says, “The Apostle clearly signifies that no tradition contrary to or in addition to the testimonies of Scripture is to be acknowledged as dogma, and necessary for salvation.” John Calvin Institutes bk.4 ch.8 sect.8, says, “Let this axiom, then, be firm, that nothing else is to be held as the word of God, to which place is given in the Church, than what is contained first in the law and the Prophets, and then in the Apostolic writings.” Martin Chemnitz in his Examination of the Council of Trent sess.4 very often repeats that this is the state of the question, whether the Scriptures contain all the dogmas necessary for faith, and he affirms it and we deny it.
The second point is that we disagree with what they judge, that the Apostles did indeed institute certain things besides Scripture that pertain to the rites and order of the Church, but that these are not necessary nor precepts but free. Now that nothing pertaining to faith or morals was handed on besides the Scriptures is clearly taught by Chemnitz when he deals with the seventh kind of traditions, and by Calvin Institutes bk.4 ch.10 sect.20. But we recognize Apostolic traditions of all the kinds, as we expounded above.
The third point is that we disagree with what they think, that the Apostolic traditions, if there ever were any, are not now extant, that is, no Apostolic tradition can be certainly demonstrated. So Chemnitz in the same place says, “By no certain and firm documents can it be proved what rites were certainly handed on by the Apostles that cannot be shown from the Scriptures.” We on the contrary affirm that definite ways and reasons are not lacking by which the Apostolic traditions can be shown.
Now before I come to proof, let me say a few things in the accustomed way about their contradictions and falsehoods. Brentius and Chemnitz in the places noted openly say that nothing can be equated with the sacred Scriptures. Brentius speaks as follows, “Not content with the divinely commended and confirmed Scripture, they boast that the Apostles handed on to posterity many things in speech that do not have a lesser authority than what they entrusted to writing.” But Chemnitz says, “It is a signal audacity to equate anything to the majesty and authority of canonical Scripture.”
But the same confess that the Apostles did hand on something besides the Scriptures. Brentius in the same place speaks thus, “One should not nor can one deny both that Christ said and did many things and that the Apostles handed on and instituted many things that are not included in their writings.” And Chemnitz says, “That the Apostles therefore ordained and handed on certain rites to the Churches is certainly clear from their writings, and it is likely that certain other external rites were handed on by the Apostles that are not noted in the Scriptures.” But now, if there is no less authority in the mouth of an Apostle giving command than in entrusting it to writing, certainly it is not audacity to equate something unwritten to the written word. For we can at least equate the ordination of an external rite handed on by the Apostles with a like ordination entrusted to writing. For they themselves confess that the Apostles ordained something in both ways. Why then do they clamor that it is a signal audacity to equate anything with the written word?
Now let us come to the lies. It is common to Calvin, Brentius, and Chemnitz to repeat rather often that we want all rites of the Church to be Apostolic tradition without any discrimination. Calvin Institutes bk.4 ch.10 sect.19 says, “The Roman masters wish to twist out that there is no rite among them which is not to be reckoned for Apostolic.” Yet we do not say this, but that those only we receive for Apostolic that we can by the firm testimonies of the ancients prove to be Apostolic. Next it is common to the same to act as if they themselves defend the Scriptures alone and we the traditions alone, and as if we do not care whether the traditions are according to Scripture or against it; but it is not so; for we value Scripture more than they do, nor do we admit any tradition against Scripture.
But the lies of Chemnitz need to be numbered one by one. In his Examination, then, published in the year of salvation 1564, at sess.4 pp.68-‐69, he says that we assert that God established that the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles would not be written in books but only handed on viva voce, and he himself later asserts, p.185, that the Apostles had a mandate to write. But whether it is a lie or the truth is in open view. For no Catholic ever taught that God established that the New Testament would not be written, or let Chemnitz produce the author who said this. For thus the Evangelists and Apostles, in our opinion, would by writing have very gravely sinned; but we only say that the New Testament should be principally written in the heart, and do not necessarily demand that it be written in books.
False too is it to say that God commanded the Apostles to write. For we read in Matthew last chapter a mandate to preach the Gospel; but that they should write we never read. Therefore God did not expressly command them to write, nor not to write. However we do not deny but that by the will and inspiration of God the Apostles wrote what they wrote. For it is one thing to do something when God suggests and inspires, and another to do so when he openly prescribes. And in this way is Augustine to be understood on the Harmony of the Evangelists bk.1 last chapter, where he speaks thus, that whatever God wished us to read about his deeds and words, this he commanded them to write as it were by their own hands. For he is speaking of an internal command by which Christ invisibly moves them, as the head the members, to various actions, which command should be reckoned a certain suggestion and inspiration rather than as a precept properly so called. Nor is it an obstacle that in the Apocalypse we sometimes read, “Write what you see.” For John is commanded to write certain arcane visions, not the doctrine of the Gospel and precepts of morals, which is what we are dealing with.
Next, at the end of his disputation on traditions, p.420, he says as follows, “Lastly the reader will be much warned also by this observation, that the Pontificists do not fear to refer to the traditions of the Apostles many things which can be shown from the very writings of the Pontificists themselves to have been instituted and perfected by much later authors, etc.” And he proves this with eleven examples, none of which is lacking in falsehood.
The first is where he says that Innocent III, ch. ‘Cum Matthae, extra on the celebration of Masses, wrote that there are indeed more words in the consecration of the chalice than the Lord said in the Gospel, but yet they are got from Apostolic tradition. “However,” says Chemnitz, “the Pontificist writers have noted by which Roman Pontiffs those words were added.” The thing is a lie. For Catholic writers did indeed note in the rest of the canon which Pontiff added what; but in the words of consecration no one is found to have added anything; nor is there anyone who has contradicted Innocent on this matter.
The second lie. “If anyone,” he says, “shows he even doubts that the whole canon of the mass is from Apostolic tradition, he is struck with an anathema.” It is a lie. For since in the mass there is commemoration of many saints, some of whom lived 200 years after the Apostles, who can doubt that the whole canon is not from Apostolic tradition? Or let Chemnitz say openly where he has read what he so brazenly affirms. We assert, then, that not the whole canon but the sum and principal part is from Apostolic tradition, to which afterwards something was added by the Supreme Pontiffs.
The third lie. “Alexander,” he says, “ruled that water should be mixed with wine in the celebration of the Eucharist. He also instituted blessed water and salt. Therefore these rites are falsely referred to the tradition of the Apostles.” A lie. For hear the words of Alexander in epist.1. He says, “Having rejected the opinions of the superstitious, let bread only and wine mixed with water be offered in the sacrifice. For (as we have received from the Fathers and as reason itself teaches) wine or water alone should not be offered in the chalice of the Lord.” Therefore what Cyprian bk2 epist.2 says is true, that this is a divine tradition. For Alexander sufficiently openly indicates that this use did not begin with himself, since he says he received it from the Fathers. About blessed water too he does not say that he first ordered it to be blessed, but indicates that he is doing what is of ancient custom. For thus does he speak. “We bless,” he says, “water sprinkled with salt on the people, etc.” Therefore rightly is it said to be an Apostolic tradition by Clement Apostolic Constitutions bk.8 ch.35, and by Blessed Basil on the Holy Spirit ch.27.
The fourth is, “Telesphorus instituted the forty day Lenten fast.” A lie. For Telesphorus does not say in his epistle that he instituted the forty days, but only that clerics would add three days to the accustomed fast of all Christians, that is, they would begin to abstain from meat on the Sunday of Lent. “You know,” he says, “that it was ruled by us and by all the Bishops gathered in this holy and Apostolic See that for seven full weeks before the holy Pasch all clerics should fast from meat.” To these words does very well cohere what Jerome says in his epistle to Marcella about the errors of Montanus, that the forty day fast was instituted by the Apostles in unwritten tradition.
The fifth lie. “Hyginus,” he says, “instituted the chrism.” A lie without any foundation. For nothing about chrism is found in the epistles of Hyginus; nor is there extant among others any such decree, save that Gratian on consecration dist.4 canon ‘in the catechism’ asserts a certain decree of Hyginus by which he established that it can be one and the same person who sponsors the baptized and the confirmed, that is, the patron, although it is better if they are different. Therefore rightly is it said by Pope Fabian in epist.2 that the chrism is to be renewed each individual year, because such was what the Apostles established.
The sixth is that “Calixtus established the fasts of the four times, so it is false that they are from Apostolic tradition.” It is a lie that Calixtus instituted the fasts of the four times, for he himself in epist.1 says that he only added one fast to the three that were there before. Wherefore what Leo says in serm.2 about the fast of Pentecost and in serm.8 about the fast of the seventh month, that these fasts are from Apostolic tradition, does not conflict with the decree of Calixtus.
The seventh is that “Sylvester invented the confirmation of children.” A most impudent lie. For nothing such is ever read about Sylvester, and decrees are found from Pontiffs long before Sylvester, on consecration dist.4 canon ‘In the catechism’, and canon ‘not many’, and dist.5 can.1 ff., where not the sacrament itself but certain rites concerning its administration are established.
The eighth is that “Felix established the consecration of altars.” And this is a lie. For it is clear that Sylvester was the author of this rite. Chemnitz seems to have been deceived by the first epistle of Felix IV, where many things are disputed about the consecration of altars, but nothing new is there instituted but the ancient rites are merely explained.
The ninth is that “Felix IV established that the sick should be anointed before death.” A solemn lie. For in Mark ch.6 the Apostles anointed the sick with oil. And James ch.5 prescribes that priests should anoint the sick with oil. And Innocent I, a hundred years older than Felix IV, in epist.1 which is addressed to Decentius ch.8, says that the anointing of the sick is a sacrament of the Church.
The tenth is that “Syricius added the memory and invocation of saints in the mass.” And this is a lie. For Cyril of Jerusalem, older than Syricius, in Catechism 5 ‘Mystagogy’ says, “When we offer the sacrifice we make mention of those who before us have fallen asleep, first of Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that by their prayers God would take up our prayers etc.” And likewise in the liturgy of Basil, who was older than Syricius, we see that there was memory and invocation of the saints.
The eleventh is that “Pelagius added to the mass annual memorials of the dead.” And this is a lie. For Tertullian, far older than Pope Pelagius, in his book on Monogamy, makes mention of an annual oblation for the dead, and in his book on the Crown of the Soldier says that prayers for the dead descend from Apostolic tradition.
To these we add a twelfth lie from the book which he inscribes, Principal Chapters of the Theology of the Jesuits. “You will, reader,” says Chemnitz, “note in this place the difference the Jesuits make between the written traditions of the Apostles and those they themselves make up under the name of the Apostles. The written ones they say are arbitrary, the made up ones they say are obligatory under peril of salvation.” This so signal lie is collected by Chemnitz from the fact that the doctors of Cologne in their book Against the Catechism of Monhemius had written that the verse, “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,” I Corinthians ch.11, does not signify ‘I commanded you’ but ‘I taught you’, and thence they deduced that from this place is not collected that laymen are obligated to use of the chalice in the sacrament of the altar. But if the “I handed on to you” does not signify ‘I taught’ but ‘I commanded’ what I ask is the sense? What does this mean, “I commanded you that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread etc.” Surely here a history is being narrated not a law being laid down? Therefore the Jesuits do not say that written traditions do not obligate, but that they obligate in diverse ways. When the tradition is about a doctrine of the faith or a thing done, it obliges to belief, not action, as the tradition about the death of Christ. But when it is about precepts of morals it obligates to action, which same thing must be understood of things that are unwritten.
Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME