De locis theologicis

WHERE THE ARGUMENTS OF THOSE WHO ATTACKED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS ARE RECORDED

Very well. We have already established in the first place the authority of the Divine Scriptures. Let us now proceed to the second matter and explain by what way and reasoning the force and authority of the apostolic traditions should be understood. The Lutherans consider this point too weak to provide arguments by which the dogmas of faith can be confirmed. For they think it impossible to prove that the Church’s traditions descend from Christ and the apostles. They are not so foolish as to keep weakening Christ’s words once it is clear that they are Christ’s, on the ground that they were not written by the Evangelists. But since they think that only those who heard Christ and the apostles know what Christ and the apostles said, they conclude that among us not even one dogma can now be proved by tradition; rather, all controversies of faith and religion must be settled by testimonies of Sacred Scripture, and nothing may be decided except what is expressed in Sacred Scripture. Erasmus too, often elsewhere and also in the dedicatory letter to his edition of Hilary’s works, asserts that true theological learning consists precisely in defining nothing beyond what is handed down in the Sacred Books; all else, he says, are questions to be deferred until that time when, with the mirror set aside, we shall see God face to face. Yet these people were neither the first nor the only ones to try to bring this pestilence to this point. Wycliffe had tried the same earlier, as Thomas Waldensis writes lib. Doctr. fid. antiq. 2, cap. 19; heretics in earlier centuries had tried it too, as Bernard mentions in homil. 66 in Cant.. Augustine also attributes this heresy to the Arians in disputatione contra Maximinum, as Thomas Waldensis reports lib. 2 De Sacramentis. Certainly, the Arians who assembled at the Synod of Seleucia plainly testified that in a question of faith they would receive absolutely nothing besides the Divine Scriptures, as Epiphanius reports Haeres. 73; he too attributes this error to the Arians Haeres. 75. Basil says Eunomius held the same error. Tertullian lib. De praescript. haeret. and Irenaeus 3 lib. Adversus haereses, cap. 2, add Valentinus and Marcion to this group. Basil of Ancyra, in the confession he presented to the Seventh Synod, says in anathema 7 that this view was held in common not only by the Iconoclasts but by Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus as well. Although this error was common to almost all heretics, the Lutherans have nevertheless adopted it as if it were their own, and have tried with all their might to establish that nothing besides the Sacred Scriptures has apostolic authority.

First argument. “That tradition handed down from one person to another,” they say, “is untrustworthy and uncertain, because the one who receives it either does not listen carefully enough, or sometimes forgets it through illness, age, or the weakness of human nature, or dies before passing on what he received. Things passed from ear to ear either grow day by day or certainly do not remain the same, but are altered as they pass from one ear to another. Indeed, they perish unless preserved in written records. How little of Pythagoras’s teaching remains? Is anything left of the Druids? They relied on traditions, of course, and committed nothing to writing to preserve it in memory forever. Therefore, whatever the Lord Christ saw to be necessary for the salvation of the faithful, and wished to be certain and lasting in the Church, he either commanded or suggested should be consecrated in writing.” Second argument. Augustine also testifies that the Lord both did and said many things that were not written down, but that those things were chosen for writing which would suffice for the salvation of believers. Augustine also taught that when a matter of the greatest obscurity is debated, without the aid of certain and clear proofs from the Divine Scriptures, human presumption ought to restrain itself and do nothing by leaning either way. He then says: “I believe that the authority of the divine utterances would be clearest in this matter too, if a person could not be ignorant of it without losing the salvation that has been promised.” Therefore, nothing is necessary to be believed beyond Sacred Scripture. Third argument. Paul also teaches that Scripture is sufficient for the man of God to be perfect, equipped for every good work. If, then, everything sufficient to equip the faithful for every good work was written down, why are these unwritten traditions, supposedly necessary for forming morals, invented? Fourth and fifth arguments. Moreover, we are not commanded to believe whatever the priests teach us, but what they teach in accordance with the law of the Lord. If, then, they teach anything beyond the law, there is no need to believe them. For since seducers often come out of the true Churches themselves, as the author of the Imperfect Work aptly said, we should not believe even teachers who put forward any Church tradition whatsoever unless they say what agrees with the truth of Scripture. Papias, for example, inserted his thousand years after the resurrection as though it had been handed down by the apostles, and moved Irenaeus and many other men of the Church not so much by the truth of his argument as by the authority of apostolic tradition. Irenaeus himself also teaches, by the tradition of John the Evangelist and the other apostles, that the Lord Christ was forty years old on the day he died. This is so far from the truth that nothing could be more contrary to it. Sixth, seventh, and eighth arguments. Thus Theophilus of Alexandria wrote that it is the work of a demonic spirit to consider anything divine beyond the authority of the Scriptures. Jerome condemned doctrines that are put forward from apostolic tradition without the authority and testimonies of Scripture. Again, he says: “Without the authority of the Scriptures, loquacity has no credibility”; and again: “The opinion of those who, on the basis of an old historical tradition, held that that Zechariah who was killed between the Temple and the altar was the father of John the Baptist is refuted for this sole reason: it has no authority from Scripture. Hence it can be dismissed as easily as it is proved.” Origen too says: “We must call the Holy Scriptures as witnesses. For our opinions and expositions have no credibility without these witnesses.” Ninth argument. This is confirmed especially by the speech that Theodoret reports Constantine used at the Council of Nicaea. “In disputes about divine matters,” he says, “the teaching of the Holy Spirit is prescribed. For the Evangelical and Apostolic books”

together with the oracles of the ancient prophets, fully show us the mind of God. Therefore, let us take explanations of questions from the words of the Divine Spirit.” Calvin says no one then contradicted this speech. If it is true that, in obscure questions of faith, traditions of the Evangelists, apostles, and prophets are to be held alongside Sacred Scripture, that silence was not free of bad faith. Since Theodoret writes that the bishops gladly embraced what the emperor said, it is clear that this doctrine of tradition was new and altogether unknown in those centuries. These traditions of the elders, then, are of little force in proving the dogmas of faith; indeed, since they are human and not divine, we should not esteem them highly, lest the same charge that was made against the Pharisees be brought against us: “In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” Tenth argument. Moreover, has it not always been characteristic of heretics to instruct their disciples in mysteries and traditions? This is foreign to Christ’s teaching, since he spoke openly to the world and said nothing in secret. And if he said anything in the darkness, he certainly ordered the apostles to say it themselves in the light, and what they heard in the ear to preach upon the housetops. We Christians, then, do not have secret traditions of mysteries. Eleventh and twelfth arguments. If we defend our faith and religion by the traditions of the ancients, pagans, Jews, and Muslims do the same. They retain their sects for this very reason in particular: just as we cling to the institutions of our forebears, so do they, and they defend these by the possession of a very long time, undertaking what they consider a just war on their behalf. Our teaching is not Pythagorean, so that we follow traditions as though they were footprints; the doctrine of Christ has been handed down in writing, and in every question of faith and religion we must embrace those writings. These are the arguments the Lutherans put forward.

THE DISPUTATION WITH THE LUTHERANS ON THIS AND EVERY OTHER POINT SEEMS SUPERFLUOUS

Whenever I set myself to argue with the Lutherans, my speech is suddenly diverted, and every means of disputing is at once taken from me. For what purpose should I or could I argue against people who abolish all the principles of theology and use almost nothing but the audacity to assert, which is their constant substitute for every dialectical and theological topic? What can I write against those who want there to be no law in the Church by which the meanings of Scripture are settled, but instead that each person should use his own judgment; who say one ought not hold what others have held, but what one’s own reason prescribes? What could be more foolish than to dispute with someone who admits nothing but the words of Scripture, yet reserves its interpretation for himself alone and thinks everyone else is wildly deluded? So that he would not be forced to fail in a cause wrongly undertaken, if the matter were examined by reason and method, Muhammad shut off every path to disputation by issuing a law. And Luther, by removing all the principles of reasoning, will be unable to find either an entrance or an exit if he begins a debate. For to accept Scripture alone without a rule, according to each person’s arbitrary interpretation, is just the same as accepting no fixed and certain principle of reasoning at all.

Therefore, the wretched Lutherans, no less than the Muslims, cannot detect either their own absurdities or those of their teacher; and by disputing with them we can do nothing but waste time and effort. Yet they would have a right to dispute if they had retained some choice of principles, so that a way to discover the truth remained. Now, however, they leave no principles. Disputation with them will therefore be empty and futile. We must remember above all what the scholastics so often use, and what has almost become a proverb: one must not dispute with someone who denies principles, since doing so is futile. It also follows that they assert paradoxes that conflict with common sense; if you try to refute them by argument, you make matters that are not at all doubtful seem doubtful by arguing about them. For since the premises in a syllogism must be more certain and better known than what follows from them if they are to establish anything, we must certainly fear that when we refute Lutheran positions, we may commit the error of faulty and inept reasoning by using less evident things to disprove matters that are most absurd. Nor need we seek examples far away to explain this, since we have them at hand. To defend the opinion I have just mentioned, the Lutherans first assert that Sacred Scripture has not more than one meaning. This they assert falsely; but let us generously grant it to them. They next assume that this one meaning is taught in Scripture most plainly and familiarly, and that Scripture is not like some waxen nose, capable of being bent to every sense, but is self-explanatory and open to everyone at hand without any teacher or instructor. Having made these fine and clever assumptions, they easily conclude that neither the tradition of the ancients nor the judgment of the Church need be awaited to understand the Sacred Books. Since all these claims are plainly false in themselves and strongly opposed to Scripture itself, if I undertake to refute them in turn, I shall be, as the saying goes, at a loss. For I would understand how ridiculous it is to try to refute vain and fabricated opinions—monstrosities not argued by theologians but dreamed up by people; how foolish it is to answer everyone who asserts the contrary; how useless it is to bring a candle into the noonday sunlight; and finally, how pointless it is to put an evident matter at risk. Peter says that in Paul’s letters there are some things difficult to understand, which unlearned and unstable people distort to their own destruction. These people, by contrast, say all of Paul’s letters are very easy to understand. Paul speaks wisdom hidden in a mystery to the perfect, but gives milk to little ones because they cannot bear anything else; these people, without distinction, swallow down all the mysteries of Scripture and, if God wills, even digest solid food like ostriches between cups. The Father hid certain things from the wise and prudent; to these people he has revealed everything. The Son sometimes spoke to his disciples in parables; to these people he always speaks openly and tells no proverb. In the Apocalypse, a book sealed with seven seals is shown; when it is given to a person who knows letters to read, he answers, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” But the Lamb has opened the book for these people and opened their eyes too, so that they see what we wretches and blind people cannot see—not even what Origen, Basil, Gregory, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Hilary saw. That eunuch in the Actorum apostolorum was so devout that he left the royal court and came from the ends of the earth to the Temple, and so much a lover of the divine law that he read Sacred Scripture even in his carriage; yet he could not understand Isaiah unless someone taught him. These men, however, understand all the prophets without a teacher or interpreter. In short, as Jerome says,

no art can be learned without a teacher. Yet this is the only knowledge, these people claim, that everyone may seize, presume, and teach everywhere before learning it. There are many places in the Sacred Books where such difficulty and obscurity are found that, even after all the vigilance, study, and labor of the ancient commentators, they still seem scarcely understandable to the most learned and able. And will an unlearned multitude, in which there is neither reason nor judgment, easily explain and interpret every passage of Scripture? Is it really easy to resolve—leaving other matters aside—the ambiguities of Hebrew speech, tropes made obscure by age, expressions foreign to the languages to which we are accustomed, proverbs unfamiliar to us, strange parables, and translations sometimes drawn from very remote sources? Explain to me easily, if you can, the Proverbs of Solomon and the Song of Songs, the prophecies of Ezekiel, Daniel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah; explain the Psalms of David, and if you do, then the Sacred Books are neither difficult nor obscure. “Who is wise,” says Hosea, “and will understand these things? Who is discerning, and will know them?” And Solomon says: “Who is such as the wise man?” and, “Who has known the interpretation of a word?” Yet these people are all wise, and with the greatest ease resolve the most difficult questions in Scripture. If Scripture cannot be twisted or bent to various meanings, how have all the heresies arisen from a perverse understanding of Scripture? We have learned this not only from Hilary in On the Trinity 2, Jerome on Galatians 1, Irenaeus lib. 1 Adversus haeres., cap. 1, Augustine in Tractate 18 on John, Vincent of Lérins in Contra propha. nov., the Seventh Synod, session 6, but also plainly by experience. Why, then, are there controversies among the Lutherans themselves about the most important matters if Scripture cannot be bent to various meanings? For some take the words “This is my body” literally, others tropically. Since this is so, the meaning of Divine Scripture must be investigated and held by a different rule than the one these people claim. For if Scripture is directed by a private rule, how can Helvidius be convicted concerning Mary’s perpetual virginity? How can Arius be convicted concerning the true divinity of Christ? Indeed, how can it be established whether this or that interpretation is true if everyone is allowed to interpret Scripture according to his own inclination? For when, as often happens, there are various opinions about the same passage of Scripture, no one can guarantee which is certain. All who disagree will defend their own understanding on equal grounds. This is almost innate in human minds: once a matter has become controversial, they do not know how to yield; and once the controversy has grown heated, everyone thinks that what he rashly undertook to defend is most certainly true. Either each person has his own certain meaning, and the madness of the ancients that Aristotle refuted with plain arguments in Metaphysics 4 will return; or no one’s opinion is certain, and besides there being no end to dissension, we will have no certain judgment of the Christian faith, but each person will invent his own faith for himself according to his opinion. Thus there will be no Catholic faith. And in truth the Lutherans are ridiculous when they demand that their interpretation of Sacred Scripture be held with certainty, though they interpret it in a new and astonishing manner. The apostles were not believed, as Erasmus mockingly says, until they had supported their teaching with many and great miracles; yet now each person demands to be believed when he asserts that he has the spirit of understanding, although none of them has been able to heal even a lame horse. Many things must be passed over so that this speech does not become unpleasant; and yet many things are said that plainly refute their madness.

Indeed, if Cochlaeus had not anticipated me in his Letters to the Princes of Germany and to the Bernese, I would have risked setting out examples and playing them variously in both directions, so that even this risk would have shown everyone how easy it is to prove or disprove any theme from Sacred Scripture if each person interprets it according to his own inclination. Yet, I admit, there are some passages of Scripture that even contentious people cannot drag into one meaning and then another. Who, for example, could twist what Paul wrote to the Corinthians: to one person the word of wisdom is given through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge, to another the interpretation of tongues? But these people confuse all the offices of the ecclesiastical body; for them the whole body is an eye. For they all understand every mystery of Scripture, with the Spirit as their teacher. Still, it is well that Luther himself admits that he does not understand certain passages in the Psalms. It is well that Christ gave teachers to the Church, not everyone, but some, for the perfecting of the saints for the work of ministry. I have discussed much about these things in book 2, and more will be discussed in book 7—not because we wish to fight a battle against the Lutherans, who fight blindfolded, as the saying goes, like Andabatae, but so that Catholics may see, after surveying all the passages with reason and judgment, that there is no surer, more stable, or more necessary rule for explaining Sacred Scripture than the one contained in the tradition of the Church. For this reason the Lutherans’ shamelessness is all the more detestable as they try to weaken and utterly destroy this point. But so that this whole question may be settled once and for all here, where it properly belongs, we must lay down several foundations that contain the very sinews and strength of theology and faith alike.

IN WHICH FOUR FOUNDATIONS ARE LAID FOR ESTABLISHING THE TRADITIONS OF CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES

First foundation: The Church is older than Scripture, and therefore faith and religion can exist without Scripture. For those most ancient Fathers of the first centuries, who were regarded as worshipers of the true God under the law of nature before Moses, preserved the rite of sacrifices and a true understanding of divine things not by written laws but by practice and the institutions of their ancestors. Abraham also received circumcision from God and thereafter handed it on to his family. That Hebrew progeny of humankind preserved this sacrament not inscribed on parchment or tablets but, as it were, imprinted upon minds formed by custom; and for many years in Egypt it maintained the true faith and religion of the one God without any written law. The Lord Christ also wrote no book; indeed, as far as we read, he did not even command that one be written. “Go,” he did not say, “write,” but “preach the Gospel to every creature,” Mark, end. And through Jeremiah, chapter 30: “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.” And the Apostle in 2 Corinthians 3 says: “You are a letter of Christ, administered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of fleshy hearts.” Therefore, the evangelical law, which is the law of the Spirit, not of the letter, was not written down at first, but engraved on the minds of the faithful. For the other apostles too first taught the Gospel by word of mouth, and afterward committed it to writing,

as witnesses enough and suitable to establish the point: Irenaeus Adversus Valentinum libro; Eusebius, not obscurely in other passages and most clearly lib. 3, cap. 24 Hist. Eccles.; Chrysostom homil. 1 in Matth.; Theophylact in initio Commentar. in Matth.; Jerome in Catalogo script., under Matthew and John; in short, all ecclesiastical writers, not to enumerate them one by one. I do not wish to seem tedious to the reader about evident matters, especially because Luke the Evangelist offers most certain testimony on this point, saying: “Since many have undertaken to set down an account of the things fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word handed them down to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed everything carefully from the beginning, to write it down for you in order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth of the words in which you were instructed.” It is therefore clear that the writing of the Gospels came after the doctrine of the faith had already been spread abroad—came after, I say, not before. It is also clear that the Christian Church and religion first stood not on writing but on tradition. It is clear again that in the primitive Church the doctrine of faith did not derive its authority from Scripture; rather, tradition preceded Scripture. “Just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word handed them down to us,” Luke says. Finally, it is clear that at some time there were Catholic doctrines in the Church that were contained in no Sacred Scripture. Moved by this point, Irenaeus says that even if the apostles had left us no writings, we would nevertheless have had to follow the order of the Church’s tradition, which the faithful followed, of course, before the Gospel was written. Second foundation: Not everything that pertains to Christian doctrine is even now expressed in Sacred Scripture. For you will not find the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary, Christ’s descent into hell, the baptism of infants, the conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, or the equality of the three persons in one substance and their distinction by relative properties, expressed in this way in the canonical books. Yet these teachings are so certain in the faith that the Church has judged the authors of contrary doctrines to be heretics. Just as, then, the article of the Resurrection was contained in the words “I am the God of Abraham and Isaac,” which the Lord Christ later explained to those who understood less, so the Church has explained by the Spirit of Truth certain matters that are obscure in Sacred Scripture. Third foundation: Many matters pertain to Christian doctrine and faith that are contained neither plainly nor obscurely in Sacred Scripture. Innocent first proves this in On the Celebration of Mass, chapter “Cum Marthae.” For the words we use in the consecration of the chalice, and which we confess the Lord Christ used—namely, “the mystery of faith” and “of the eternal covenant”—are not found in the Evangelists; nor is the phrase “with his eyes raised to God his Father.” We would not know that Christ said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive,” unless Paul had taught it in Actis. Therefore, just as the Gospel Scripture did not include all the deeds of Jesus, so it did not include all his words; some were received through tradition. Again, Sacred Scripture nowhere perhaps teaches that we must implore the aid of the holy martyrs in our prayers and celebrate their commemorations, that their images are to be venerated, that priests are to consecrate and receive the blood together with the body in the Eucharistic sacrifice, and that the Sacraments of Confirmation and Orders are not to be repeated. Yet the Catholic Church holds these and many other things of the same kind so firmly as if they had been written in the sacred books. Finally, the four Gospels now received by the Church, the fourteen letters

of Paul—in short, to sum up, we hold both the Old and the New Testament most firmly, though we cannot hold them on the authority of Scripture. Therefore, there are many dogmas of the Catholic faith that are not found in Sacred Scripture. Fourth foundation: For the greatest reasons, the apostles handed some things down in writing and others by word of mouth. But it seems necessary to go back further to explain what those reasons were. We know that philosophers of old also observed the custom of handing certain things down to their disciples not in writing but orally. The writings of all later authors certainly attest that Pythagoras instructed his disciples in this way; and, as Clement of Alexandria reports in Stromata 1, Pythagoras himself was circumcised so that, entering the inner sanctuaries, he might learn the mystical philosophy of the Egyptians. Galen says in book 2 of De anatomica admin. that the ancient natural philosophers preserved their arts, as it were, by handing them down from their ancestors. Cicero thinks in De legibus 1 that customs should be planted in the commonwealth and that not everything should be established by written laws; again in the same book he thinks that sacred rites are better preserved in a commonwealth if, received from the fathers, they are then handed down through families. In book 6 of The Gallic War, Caesar writes that the Druids considered it impious to commit the precepts of their discipline to writing. Not only celebrated Hebrew teachers but also Hilary and Origen among our own writers say that Moses received from God on the mountain not only the Law but also its more secret exposition; God commanded him to write the Law for the people, but to reveal the Law’s hidden mysteries to his attendant Joshua, and then for Joshua to reveal them to succeeding chief priests, with great reverence for silence. Anatolius too, as Eusebius reports in Eccles. hist. 7, chapter 28, says that the Seventy translators answered King Ptolemy’s many questions from the traditions of Moses. The author of the Fourth Book of Esdras also plainly testifies to this in chapter 14: “I explained many wonders to Moses, and I commanded him, saying: ‘You shall make these words public, and you shall keep these hidden.’” The Lord gave the same command to Ezra when the Law was restored, saying: “Some things you shall make public, and some you shall hand over secretly to the wise.” The Prophet seems to refer to traditions of this kind when he says: “O God, we have heard with our ears; our fathers have announced it to us”; and again: “How many commands he gave our fathers, so that they would make them known to their children.” Moses himself also refers us to similar traditions of the ancients when he says: “Ask your fathers, and they will tell you; your elders, and they will announce it to you.” Therefore, handing down some things not in writing but by word of mouth was the plan not only of philosophers but also of Moses and indeed of God. Jesus Christ, the teacher of life, had this same excellent plan, as did the apostles. For they did not wish to write down many things handed on to them by the Lord. What reasons led them to do this must be explained briefly. In book 6 of The Gallic War, Caesar says the Druids instituted this practice for two reasons: they did not want the precepts of their discipline to be brought before the common people, nor did they want their students, relying on writing, to devote less effort to memory. This is what happens to most people: with the support of writing, they relax their diligence in learning thoroughly and their memory. As Giovanni Pico says in his Apology, that first reason was especially important to Pythagoras and Plato: they wanted certain mysteries to be entrusted to their disciples through oral tradition. For they thought they could not otherwise protect the dignity of philosophy. Clement of Alexandria reports in Stromata 5 that the Egyptians did not entrust their mysteries to just anyone, nor were they accustomed to pass knowledge of divine things on to the profane; they entrusted them only to those who would attain to kingship, and, among the priests, to those judged most worthy in upbringing, learning, and birth. A letter of the Pythagorean Lysis survives in which he rebukes Hipparchus for

philosophizing publicly, contrary to what his teacher had prescribed. For it is not lawful to give to everyone things that should be shared with only a few, and those few eloquent and hard-working. Those who passed Pythagoras’s teachings freely to the common people were regarded as impious, just like those who revealed the secrets of the Eleusinian goddesses to profane people. They were also like people who poured clear and shining water into a very deep well full of mud, stirring up nothing but mud and losing the water. Lysis was not the only one to rebuke Hipparchus: other disciples accused him and expelled him from the school, and a column was erected for him as for a dead man, as Clement of Alexandria wrote in Stromata 3. Pindar too says: “It is not lawful to reveal the ancient teaching to everyone, but only to the most trustworthy through paths of silence.” For nature loves to be hidden, as Porphyry wrote, and God does not permit the divine mysteries to enter ears polluted by the common crowd. Nature concealed gold and gems in the deepest recesses of the earth, and they are therefore held in such great value; they would become worthless if exposed. Basil in De Spir. Sancto, chapter 29, and Origen in homil. 5 on Numbers assert that Moses did not allow everything in the Temple to be accessible to everyone for this reason: he knew that things made common through use and exposed to view are held in contempt, while what is set apart and rare is joined to the highest admiration and reverence. Plato, writing to Dionysius about certain sacred mysteries, warns him to tear up the letter at once so that it might not fall into the hands of an unworthy crowd. Even the pagans of old took such care to defend the mysteries of their disciplines both from contempt and profane abuse—especially when the mysteries concerned sacred matters. King Tarquinius ordered Marcus Tullius, one of the two officials responsible for sacred rites, sewn into a sack and thrown into the sea because he had given to Petronius Sabinus for copying a book containing secret sacred matters, entrusted to his keeping and trust. This kind of punishment was inflicted on parricides much later. It was most just, as Valerius says, since violation of one’s parents and of God must be atoned for by equal vengeance. This was evidently the reason the apostles secretly conveyed certain things from mind to mind, with only the spoken word intervening. It was fitting for certain mysteries, especially sacred ones, to be kept hidden from the unlearned public and communicated separately to the perfect and the leaders. “I judged that I knew nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified”; “but we speak wisdom among the perfect.” And again: “Hold to the pattern of sound words that you heard from me”; “guard the good deposit”; and “what you heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others also.” If the apostles had passed around publicly to the common people the forms by which the Sacraments were to be celebrated, the rites by which they were to be administered, and other such secrets of religion, what would that have been but giving what is holy to dogs and throwing pearls before swine, contrary to Christ’s law? Indeed, what would it have been but abolishing all the mysteries of the Christian religion? For what is brought before the ears of the common people is no mystery. This, then, is the first reason the apostles handed some things down without writing: so that our sacred rites would not be mocked by pagans or fall into contempt among the faithful common people. The second reason is that the living voice has, I know not what, hidden power, and when it passes from the speaker’s mouth into a disciple’s ears, it sounds more powerfully, as Jerome says to Paulinus. It was therefore unworthy for the entire doctrine of the Gospel, which is the law of the spirit and of life, to be committed everywhere to dead letters without being committed in any part to hearts, especially since it had been written of it: “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.”

It is the part of servants and the unlearned to do everything according to directions. Let this written law, then, belong to the Jews, which prescribes everything, even the smallest details; but let the children, who are already mature men and have been called to the liberty of grace, have a law engraved on their hearts. Therefore, those who enclose the entire Gospel in letters and parchment, leaving nothing of it to the spoken word or to hearts, greatly diminish its dignity and power. Papias says, as Eusebius reports: “Whenever someone who had followed the apostles came along, I carefully asked what Andrew had said, what Peter had said, what Philip or Thomas had said, and what James, John, or Matthew had said. For I did not think that what I gained from reading books was as useful as the living voice and instruction of someone present.” Thus far Papias. But where in the world is the word that the Lutherans so often boast about? For the written word, if we speak truly and properly, is not the Word. But among us, who preserve the utterances and words of Christ and the apostles, the Word of the Lord truly and properly remains forever. The Word, I say, is living; when it passes from the mouths of teachers into the ears of disciples, it resounds more powerfully. “My words, which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from the mouth of your offspring from now and forever.” Add that Tradition is of greater force than Scripture for refuting heretics. Hegesippus, as Eusebius reports, says that the Church remained a pure and immaculate virgin as long as the Lord’s disciples were alive, while corrupters of the truth, if there were any, lay hidden in the caverns of the earth. But after that whole generation, which had heard the living voice from the Lord, departed from this life, the heretics then attacked the apostolic truth openly, as they say, with their heads uncovered. Ignatius, in the same source, teaches that the contagion of heretics is avoided especially by adhering more carefully and tenaciously to the traditions of the apostles. Tertullian too warns even more plainly that we should argue against heretics more from traditions than from Scripture. For Scripture is easily twisted into various meanings, while traditions are not. As Hilary reports in his letter to Constantius Augustus, there is no heretic who does not falsely claim that the things he blasphemously preaches are in accordance with Scripture. They all speak of Scripture without understanding. And Irenaeus says 1 lib., 1. cap.: “Heretics rely on the Scriptures to confirm their dogmas, so that they do not seem to be without a witness. But they deform the utterances of God, and from the figure of a man make the figure of a fox or a bear.” Thus far he. As Vincent of Lérins elegantly says, heretics do what they see their father do, and follow the crafty devices of their author. For what will he not do to wretched people, when he attacked the Lord of Majesty himself with testimonies of Scripture? “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written,” etc. In the same way, whatever doctrine a heretic puts forward, he immediately says, “For it is written,” and brings together not one but a thousand testimonies and a thousand examples from the Law, the Psalms, the apostles, and the prophets, which he interprets in a new way to try to support his own view. Why have I repeated all this at such length? To make you understand that Tradition not only has greater force than Scripture against heretics, but also that nearly every dispute with heretics must be referred to the traditions received from the ancients. For since both Catholics and heretics cite Sacred Scripture in support of their respective positions, the difference lies in its meaning and interpretation. But the true and legitimate meaning of Scripture cannot be known with certainty except through the tradition of the Church, as we have just taught and will demonstrate with many powerful arguments in book 7.

From this it is clear why the apostolic traditions were so necessary. The meaning of the apostolic Scriptures could not be explained to the apostles’ disciples by other Scriptures unless the apostles themselves had published commentaries on their own works, something that has always been foreign to the most serious men. Therefore, they handed on the understanding of Sacred Scripture to their disciples by word of mouth, so that God might fulfill in his Churches at all times: “I will put my law within them.” For the evangelical law, as Jerome wrote most elegantly in his Commentar. ad Galatas, “is not in the writings but in the meaning, not on the surface but in the marrow, not in the leaves of words but in the root of reason.” From this it becomes clearer that through traditions of this kind the ecclesiastical orders are divinely kept in their respective places: the leaders, who hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven, open the most sacred mysteries of Sacred Scripture whenever and wherever they see fit, while those of lower rank receive the book’s mysteries, which have been closed, from the teachers of the Church. Otherwise there would be no teachers in the Church, and anyone, however common or unlearned, would seek on his own, without a teacher, an understanding of those matters that would already be accessible and explained through the apostles’ interpretation and writings. But the apostolic traditions have not been entrusted to just anyone; rather, in Paul’s words, they have been entrusted to wise and prudent people, faithful and devout guardians of the sacred deposit, who will also be able to teach others. On this point Dionysius carefully warns Timothy not to expose the Holy of Holies by explaining it openly to the unlearned, but to reveal the understanding of sacred things more privately to the saints alone. For this reason, he says, our first leaders necessarily handed down the highest and supersubstantial teachings partly in written and partly in unwritten instructions, as the sacred laws prescribe. Moreover, as Cicero says, are not customs planted more agreeably in a commonwealth through tradition? If everything were established in writing, would that not make it all burdensome and make the book of laws and doctrines frighten people by its bulk and size? Moreover, is not the authority of the Church especially commended in this way, an authority that Christ commended so greatly to her as his dearest bride? Since she keeps in her heart not only the words of her Bridegroom but also their meaning, she is truly, as the Apostle said, the pillar and foundation of truth. It was right that some touchstone should be left in the Church’s hand, as it were, by which she could examine false and true doctrines and distinguish the true meaning of Scripture from the false. So much for the reasons. Now this foundation must be confirmed, and it must be shown that the apostles handed down the doctrine of the Gospel partly in writing and partly also by word of mouth. The first witnesses to this are Dionysius in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 1; Clement of Alexandria in De pasch., as cited by Eusebius in Hist. Eccles. 6, chapter 11, and in Stromata 1 and 5; Origen homil. 5 in Num.; Papias, as cited by Eusebius in Hist. Eccles. 6, chapter 39; Hegesippus, on Eusebius’s authority, in Hist. Eccles. 4, chapter 8; Ignatius, as Eusebius reports, lib. 3, cap. 36; Irenaeus lib. 3, cap. 3 et 4, also cited by Eusebius in Hist. Eccles. 4, chapter 14, and book 5, chapters 6 and 20; Tertullian in De corona militis; Cyprian in De ablutione pedum; Epiphanius in Advers. haereses, often elsewhere and especially where he refutes the doctrines of the Arians and Apostolics; Jerome in Adversum Luciferianos; Augustine in De Bapt. contra Donatistas, lib. 2, cap. 7, lib. 4, cap. 24, and book 5, chapters 23 and 26; Damascene in lib. 4, cap. 13 et 17; and Basil in De Spiritu Sancto, chapters 27 and 29. Gratian cites one and another of these in 11 distinct., chapter “Ecclesiasticorum,” and 12 distin., chapter “Illa autem.” Can anything true, then, be contrary to the choir of such men? But if so great a cloud of witnesses does not move the hearts of heretics, let them at least be moved by divine

testimonies. Yet what so many and such great men have testified with one and the same agreement is not human but divine. Sacred Scripture also supplies splendid testimonies. Paul says: “Stand firm and hold to the traditions you received, epistolis sive per sermonem.” And again: “I praise you, brothers, because you keep my instructions just as I handed them on to you.” Later in the same chapter: “I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you.” And a little later: “I will arrange the remaining matters when I come.” And to Timothy: “Hold to the pattern of sound words,” he says, “that you heard from me; guard the good deposit.” And then: “What you heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others also.” John too says in his second letter: “Although I have many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with paper and ink; for I hope to be with you and speak face to face.” Why say more? We have two letters of Peter, and do we believe that he sat mute at Antioch for seven years and without speech in Rome for twenty-five? Did he teach nothing else by word of mouth besides what he left written in two letters? And Andrew, Thomas, Bartholomew, and Philip—did they not found the Churches assigned to them and preserve them in faith and religion without writing, with only the spoken word passing between them? Let us therefore agree to what cannot be denied: the doctrine of faith was handed down by the apostles not entirely in writing but partly by word of mouth.

WHERE THE PATHS FOR INVESTIGATING THE TRADITIONS OF CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES ARE LAID OUT

Now that these matters are understood, what remains to be explained is the hinge on which the whole discussion turns: how a theologian can know that this or that dogma was handed down by the apostles. Let us set out some examples more broadly. If it is asked whether we have the minor orders, the Lenten fast, infant baptism, the veneration of images, and the Creed from the tradition of the apostles, we say that what must now be explained is whether there is any clear and direct path by which one can arrive at certain knowledge of these matters. We are not people who, like the Pharisees, want to pass off our traditions as divine and apostolic; everywhere we wish to distinguish the true from the false and the divine from the human, especially in matters of the dogmas of the Catholic faith. In such matters, a confused mixture of the two is most pernicious. There are, then, four clear paths; if we follow them, we will not go astray in investigating the traditions of the apostles. The first path is opened by Augustine, among other places, in Against the Donatists 4, in these words: “What the universal Church holds, although it was not instituted by Councils but has always been retained, is rightly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority alone.” The reason for this is plain. If we cannot trace the origin and beginning of some custom observed for a long time throughout the whole Church to the Supreme Pontiffs or to Councils of bishops, but that custom can be traced back to the times of the apostles, it follows plainly that it came from the apostles. For example, if it is called into question whether the minor orders of subdiaconate, lectorate, and the others are in the Church by apostolic tradition, it is to be investigated in this way: if the beginning of these orders

came from Damasus, Symmachus, or any other Pontiff or Council, it certainly was not an apostolic tradition. But if mention of this matter is found among earlier writers before any Pontiff or Council, and continues back to apostolic times, then we finally understand that the minor orders were from apostolic tradition, as indeed they were, since not only later writers but also Ignatius in epist. 8 ad Antiochenos, Dionysius in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3, Clement in his letter to all, and Anacletus in his decrees mention it as something already received in the Church. By the same reasoning, you will teach that the law of fasting was an apostolic tradition. Its mention is found in Augustine’s Letter 86 to Casulanus and Letters 118 and 119 to Januarius; Jerome’s Letter to Laeta on the Education of Her Daughter, advers. Iovinianum 2, and commentary on Isaiam cap. 58; Ambrose’s Sermons 25 and 38; Chrysostom’s Homilies 3 and 16 to the People of Antioch; Basil, in other homilies and especially at the beginning of the homily he preached against drunkards and in his later homily on fasting; the Council of Nicaea, cited in 18 Distinct., chapter “Habeatur”; the Council of Laodicea in many canons; Sozomen in Tripartite History 1, chapter 10; Origen in hom. 10 on Leviticus; Irenaeus, cited by Eusebius in Hist. Eccles. 5, chapter 24; and Telesphorus in his letter to all, whom some wrongly consider the author of our fast. Ignatius mentions the matter earlier in Letter 4 to the Philippians; we also have Apostolic Canon 68, approved by the Trullan Synod in canons 9 and 20. For this reason Theophilus of Alexandria, in Paschal Book 1 and 3, rightly not only prescribes the law of fasting as handed down by the ancients but says it was an evangelical tradition. And in Heresy 80, where he teaches the doctrine and faith of the Church preserved by ecclesiastical tradition, Epiphanius speaks expressly of the apostles handing down the fasts on Wednesdays and Fridays, when he mentions the Lenten fast. Pope Leo too says in his sermon for Pentecost, which begins “Plenissime,” that the fast of the four seasons was established by the apostles for the Trinity. Jerome, in his letter to Marcella against Montanus, also plainly teaches that we fast for Lent according to the tradition of the apostles. What we have done in this example we can do in many others; by the same reasoning we can prove that infant baptism, the consecration of virgins, monastic profession, lamps and lighted candles in churches, the veneration of images, and many other things of this sort were handed down by the apostles. What we have said about morals must also be applied to dogmas of faith if heretics accuse any one of them of being new. You have a splendid example of this in Eusebius, Eccles. hist. 5, final chapter. But let us move on to the rest. The second path, close to this one and indeed more direct, is as follows: if the Fathers from the beginning, in continuous succession through the ages, held some dogma of faith in the most unanimous agreement and refuted its contrary as heretical, even though it is not found in Sacred Scripture, then the Church plainly holds it by apostolic tradition. Examples include the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary, Christ’s descent into hell to free the souls of Adam and the other Fathers held there, the fixed number of the Gospels, and other such matters, which I will not enumerate so as not to be long-winded. For the Church received all dogmas of faith from the apostles either in writing or by word of mouth, since they were ministers of the word. The Church has no new revelations in matters of faith but preserves those that the apostles, through the Holy Spirit, left to the faithful people, as we shall demonstrate later. Third path. If something is now approved in the Church by the common consent of the faithful, but human authority could not have brought it about, then it must necessarily derive from the tradition of the apostles. For example, the dissolution of vows and release from oaths were not within human power, both because by natural law we are bound to fulfill vows made to God and to keep oaths, and

human authority cannot pardon and remove things owed and established by natural law, as Gratian teaches at the very beginning of Distinct. 13; and also because in matters owed under an agreement with a superior, an inferior has no power. The same reasoning applies to the dissolution of a ratified marriage by a solemn monastic vow. For since even an unconsummated marriage was indissoluble by natural law before the evangelical law, and no human commonwealth had the power to dissolve such a marriage, it follows that this custom of the Church descended from the institution of Christ and the apostles. For one cannot believe that the Church of God arrogated to itself any general power over matters pertaining to natural law, unless it had received it from Christ and the apostles. This would be a grave error in morals, where we shall show in its place that the Church cannot err. I am not unaware that Alexander III seems to teach otherwise in that final example. When it was objected to him that a marriage could not be dissolved by a solemn religious vow, since it is written, “What God has joined, let no human separate,” he replied that this testimony of Scripture should be interpreted as concerning a consummated marriage. By this answer he indicated that a ratified marriage, if not consummated, could be dissolved by human authority. But, to set aside the fact that Adam’s words, “This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,” etc., from which the Lord concluded that what God had joined a human being ought not and indeed could not separate, were spoken in Paradise at a time when the marriage had not yet been consummated; and to set aside the fact that the marriage contract itself is so firm and enduring by nature that it cannot be dissolved even by the will of those who contract it, although that will is ordinarily very powerful in dissolving human agreements—certainly it has always seemed absurd to the most serious theologians that any marriage could be dissolved by a human being. How much more serious was what Innocent III said, although in another context, but also aptly here: it is not a human being but God who dissolves this, since the Supreme Pontiff dissolves it by divine and not human authority. Surely the Church received from the apostles what the Lord said to Peter—“Whatever you loose on earth,” etc.—namely, the extent to which it ought to be expanded or restricted, since the apostles undoubtedly handed down matters of this kind as necessary to the Church’s government. And some report that John the Evangelist, at Christ’s command, was separated from his bride for the sake of the Gospel. Jerome certainly says in book 1 advers. Iovinian. that John was both a virgin and a husband. Epiphanius also says in Heresy 78 that Paul released Thecla from marriage, although she had as her fiancé the handsomest leading citizen of the city, and that she scorned earthly things and remained a holy virgin so as to become mistress of heavenly things. But we answer Alexander. Someone may perhaps say: “Certainly not.” For someone who prepares another answer to an argument by which Catholics are pressed is not thereby immediately opposed to the Pontiff. Enough, then, has been said about the third path. The fourth path is similar, easier, and more familiar. If churchmen unanimously testify that a dogma or any custom was received by us from the apostles, this is without doubt a certain argument for believing it to be so. Thus the Fathers said at the Sixth Session of the Seventh General Synod that images were handed down by the apostles. The authorities who say the Church received from the apostles the Creed by which the common people profess their faith are Rufinus in his Exposition of the Creed; Jerome in his letter to Pammachius on the errors of John of Jerusalem; Ambrose in Sermon 38 on fasting and Lent; Cassian lib. 6 to

the Emperor Leo; Isidore lib. 6 Etymol. cap. 18; Pope Leo in epist. 8 et 13 ad Augustam; and Clement in epistola prima ad Iacobum, if Clement is indeed the author of that letter. Enough of this. It would be tedious to set out more examples, and it is not necessary for our purpose. It will be enough to have shown four paths by which one may investigate whether a tradition is apostolic.

ON THE VARIOUS KINDS OF APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS

Before confirming the authority of this locus, I think it should be observed that the commands and institutions of the apostles are of two kinds. Some were temporary, their reason being brief and confined to a time; others were permanent, since they had an enduring cause for being observed in the Church. Examples of the first kind are baptism in the name of Jesus and abstinence from blood and from what has been strangled; an example of the latter is mixing water into the chalice. There is another division of apostolic tradition as well. The apostles received some traditions from the Lord Christ, such as that Matrimony, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction are Sacraments of the New Law. Christ himself instituted these—he is the first and only author of his Sacraments—but handed them on to the apostles to be administered to the Christian people. Other traditions were set forth by the apostles themselves, at the prompting of the Holy Spirit, for the benefit of the Church, though the Lord Christ did not set them forth anywhere while he lived on earth, such as the Lenten fast. Although Jerome, in his commentary on Jonah 2, Ambrose in sermon 36, and Chrysostom hom. 1 in Genes. seem to attribute it to Christ as its author, I think it was in fact an apostolic institution. It is attributed to Christ either because the apostles instituted it after Christ’s example when he fasted, or because apostolic decrees are considered to be Christ’s, since he spoke to the Church through the apostles and, indeed, spoke by the Holy Spirit to the apostles, in accordance with what is written in Ioannis 16 cap.: “I have many things yet to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will teach you all truth; for he will not speak on his own, but whatever he hears he will speak, because he will receive from what is mine and announce it to you.” And when the Apostle gave advice on his own, he said, “I think that I too have the Spirit of God”; and again: “Are you seeking proof of Christ, who speaks in me?” In these kinds of traditions we must consider the same matters that we noted in the preceding book about the laws of Scripture; but above all, the distinction made there regarding scriptural commands must be applied here to traditions. For the Church cannot release the faithful from the bond of traditions that the apostles received from Christ and left for the faithful to observe, nor can it abolish them by some contrary custom. For example, if the apostles received from Christ the matter and forms of the Sacraments of Confirmation, Orders, and Extreme Unction, and we received them from the apostles; and if in the same way the Lord Christ declared to the apostles, and they to us, that unconsummated marriages are dissolved by a solemn profession of chastity, while consummated marriages are dissolved when an unbelieving spouse departs after the other spouse has converted to the faith, the Church has no power in these matters, which are divine institutions. In this sense the two chapters “Sunt quidam” and:

“Contra statuta,” 25 Distinct., quaest. 1, must be explained. Such traditions cannot be rendered obsolete by a contrary custom; the chapters “Veritate,” “Si consuetudinem,” and “Frustra,” in 8 Distinct., rightly oppose such a contrary custom. In other matters, however, namely those that the apostles established as pastors of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff may dispense, as with the Church’s other laws (to use the language of the schools); and a contrary custom of the people may likewise abolish institutions of this kind. Such is the triple immersion that, according to Apostolic Canon 49, the Church received by apostolic tradition in the Sacrament of baptism, but which was abolished by a contrary custom. The Lenten fast is of the same kind, as are the penalties the apostles set for crimes, which are reported from the Council of Gangra in 8 Distinct.2, chapter “Presbyter.” To this kind belongs what heretics often cite from Anacletus’s first letter: “After the consecration, let everyone communicate who does not wish to be deprived of the church’s thresholds, for so the apostles decreed.” Anacletus is speaking of ministers who assisted the bishop when he celebrated Mass on solemn days. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that all who attended Mass had to receive the Eucharist then too, especially on days that were not more solemn. For although in ancient practice, according to the institution of the apostles, communion of the whole people was required from the very beginning of the newly born Church, it is clear that by Chrysostom’s time the command had been relaxed, and communion was left to the will of those present: the deacon invited them to it in a loud voice but did not compel them. These and other things of this kind, although handed down by the apostles, are not so fixed that they cannot be changed; Christ’s own commands and institutions, as we have said, are so firm and settled that no human authority may overturn them. The reason for this was given in the preceding passage; it would be pointless for us to repeat it here. I mean this to be understood of institutions pertaining to the governance of the people. For dogmas of faith, whether Christ himself revealed them directly to the apostles or the Holy Spirit did so after Christ’s ascension into heaven, cannot be changed; they remain firm in truth just like those declared by Christ’s own mouth.

ON THE FIRMNESS AND CERTAINTY OF THE APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS

Once these points have been explained, it will not be difficult to show what is chiefly sought in this part: that the most certain arguments can be drawn from the traditions of Christ and the apostles to confirm both the customs of the Church and the dogmas of faith. If the Apostle Paul sets the custom of the Church against the contentious Corinthians, why should we not likewise set against the heretics the custom of the Church, received from the apostles and established by the practice of so many centuries and the agreement of nations, when they demand that we produce Scripture to confirm everything? Certainly, although Paul seemed to have said enough from both Scripture and natural reason to establish the point he wanted the Corinthians to accept, he nevertheless considered that some among them might perhaps resist such testimonies and arguments. He therefore had no better argument for proving his case than to refer them to the custom of the Church: “If anyone,” he says,

“If anyone seems contentious,” Paul says, “we have no such custom, nor does the Church of God.” His meaning is this: if anyone is so hard and stubborn that, despite the arguments offered, he is not persuaded but still contends that a woman ought to pray with her head uncovered, I refute him in no other way than by saying that the Churches of God have no such custom. Such great force resides in tradition that Paul thought those who were moved neither by Scripture nor by natural reason should be refuted by the custom and institution of the Churches. Again, in his First Letter to Timothy he says: “If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree with sound words”—he does not say “with the Scriptures.” And in Galatians: “If anyone preaches to you beyond what you received, let him be anathema.” On the basis of these passages Origen rightly defines in his commentary on the Letter to Titus a heretic as one who professes to believe in Christ yet believes about the truth of the Christian faith something different from what the Church’s tradition holds. And in book 1 of Periarchon he says: “Just as, although many among the Greeks and barbarians promised truth, we have given up seeking it among all those who assert it with false opinions, after we believed that Christ is the Son of God and were persuaded that the truth must be learned from him, so, although many think they know the things of Christ and some of them hold opinions different from those of their predecessors, the preaching of the Church must be preserved, handed down from the apostles through the order of succession and remaining in the Churches to the present day. That truth alone must be believed which in no way disagrees with the Church’s tradition.” Thus far Origen. Ignatius too says in his letter to Heron: “Anyone who says something beyond what has been handed down, even if he is worthy of trust, even if he fasts, even if he maintains his dignity, even if he works miracles, even if he prophesies, appears to you as a wolf.” If, then, anyone who opposes the Church’s tradition must be considered anathema, a heretic, and a wolf, surely a most certain argument can be drawn from it to confirm the dogmas of faith and the customs of the Church. Moreover, the most authoritative writers plainly confirm that institutions of this kind, even when received without writing, have the same force as if they had been written by the apostles. Irenaeus lib. 3 Advers. haeres., cap. 4 et lib. 4, cap. 43; Tertullian as well, although he later departed from the Church’s tradition, nevertheless holds the same view in lib. De corona militis. It is worth quoting his words here, for he tells us not only what he thinks but also why. “The ancient observances of the Church, if no Scripture has determined them, have certainly been strengthened by custom, which without doubt has flowed from tradition.” Immediately after recalling certain traditions of which there is no mention in Scripture, he says: “If you demand a law for these and other disciplines, no written law of tradition will be put forward for you. Custom is their author, their confirmer, their guardian in the faith; it is a competent witness to ancient tradition. Custom is also accepted as law in civil matters; it makes no difference whether it rests on writing or reason.” Thus far Tertullian. And rightly so: for if reason commends a law, then a custom based on reason is no less worthy of commendation than a law. Dist. 1, chapter “Consuetudo.” Basil also confirms the same point with a powerful argument in libro De Spiritu Sancto, cap. 27, saying: “Of the dogmas preached in the Church, some we have from teaching set forth in writing, while others we have received in a hidden mystery from the tradition of the apostles. Both have equal force for piety; no one who has even slight experience of these matters contradicts this. For if we try to reject unwritten customs as having little importance, we will condemn what the Gospel requires as necessary for salvation—or rather, we will reduce the very preaching of the faith to a bare name.” Thus far Basil.

If authority is neglected, his reasoning will make the point most certain. For since we receive the Scriptures themselves on the authority of the Church, and cannot prove more certainly that the Gospel inscribed with Matthew’s name is truly his by any argument than by having received it that way from the Fathers, we will surely derive firm arguments in a similar way from the other institutions we retain from the apostles. If someone brings forward a new sacred book that our Fathers never received—like Basilides, who named and appointed prophets for himself—it cannot be refuted by a surer argument than the tradition of the ancients, as was explained more fully lib. 2. Thus, as Eusebius reports lib. 6, cap. 10, Serapion gravely rejected the Gospel put forward by heretics under the name of Peter. And, as Basil argues, in the courts of the commonwealth too, where written evidence is lacking, witnesses are trusted; just as in human affairs we accept eyewitnesses, so in matters of faith we accept those who have heard, since “faith comes from hearing.” It would be a ridiculous commonwealth that proved everything in court by written evidence and nothing without writing. For we make written documents because of contentious people. Otherwise good people are kept in the truth and their duty by the spoken word alone. Moreover, many things pertaining to Christian morals and doctrine are not found in Sacred Scripture, as we have already established; it would therefore be foolish to demand Scripture in every matter. Tradition, then, is sometimes needed to confirm the dogmas of faith. Again, when Polycarp, Tertullian, and Irenaeus confidently opposed unwritten traditions to Marcion and Valentinus; when Epiphanius opposed them to the Melchizedekians, Apostolics, and Aerians; Jerome to Vigilantius; Augustine to the Donatists; and, to sum up, all the saints opposed them to adversaries of the Catholic faith, and when each one used their force to overthrow the heresies of his own time as if those traditions had been written, we can surely refute and overthrow by means of such traditions any dogmas of the heretics who exist now or may exist in the future, with no less force. For it would be most absurd, as Jerome concludes against Vigilantius, to listen to one Luther or Oecolampadius chattering in a corner of the Church, but to despise all our elders from the apostles onward. If we neglect their traditions, it is hard to say how much damage religion will suffer, as Distinct. 2, chapter “Ecclesiasticorum,” says. What will the whole condition of things be, and especially the piety, worship, and ceremonies directed toward God—not only in the Church, whose mysteries and Sacraments largely consist in tradition, but in any even moderately well-ordered commonwealth—if the customs that grew up from the very beginning with the commonwealth are despised, weakened, and overturned? We are longer here than necessary. Who does not see plainly those things that some mention at greater length? Augustine is cited by these people in his letter to Januarius and in another to Casulanus, where he wrote that it is a most insolent madness to debate whether such customs should be observed; those who despise them should be restrained no less than if they transgressed divine laws, even if some of these customs are human. We could mention other authors too, but we would be using unnecessary witnesses on an undisputed matter. Paul alone sufficiently establishes this point ad Thess. epistola, cap. 2, saying: “Hold fast to the traditions you received, whether by letter or by spoken word.” Apostolic dogmas therefore have equal force and must be retained equally, whether they reached the Church in writing or by word of mouth, as St. Basil argues from this very testimony of the Apostle in lib. De Spir. Sancto, cap. 29. Indeed, the Apostle himself argued from both Scripture and Tradition to the Hebrews, as Chrysostom notes homilia 18 in epistola ad Hebraeos.

He also argued from both Scripture and Tradition to the Hebrews, as Chrysostom observes in homilia 18 in epistola ad Hebraeos. From all these and many other points it is clear that those who despised traditions were always rightly and deservedly cast out of the Church as heretics. Those who treated as worthless the solemn Lenten fasts received from the apostles were considered heretics in this way, as can be seen in Augustine, De haer., cap. 53, and in the letter of the Council of Gangra to the bishops of Armenia. Those who denied the distinction between bishop and presbyter were likewise condemned for heresy, as you will find in Augustine, the same book and chapter, Epiphanius, lib. 3, cap. 75, and the Council of Constance. In short, the Church abhorred Wycliffites, Lutherans, and any other ancient plagues no less for denying traditions of this kind than for rejecting written dogmas. This is why the Seventh General Synod, session 7, issued a teaching that agrees most closely with our argument, in these words: “We confess that we wish to retain the ecclesiastical traditions that are in force either in writing or by custom, among which is the depiction of images. Therefore, observing the tradition of the Catholic Church, we define that holy images are to be venerated. Whoever dares to think otherwise or, after the manner of impious heretics, to defile the ecclesiastical traditions, if they are bishops, let them be deposed; if laypeople, let them be deprived of communion.” At the end of the same session the Fathers say: “If anyone does not care for the traditions of the Church that are in force either in writing or by custom, let him be anathema.” The Council of Trent, session 4, defines the same in these words: “The Holy Council of Trent, recognizing that the saving truth of the Gospel and the doctrine of morals are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions of Christ himself, which were received by the apostles or, at the direction of the Holy Spirit, handed down by the apostles themselves, as it were from hand to hand, until they reached us; receives and venerates these traditions, pertaining both to faith and to morals, as dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by continuous succession, with equal piety and reverence as the Sacred Books.” And later: “If anyone knowingly and deliberately despises the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.” No more. For we should return to the foundations I set out in chapter 3, from which this very point we are pursuing in the present chapter would already be sufficiently established, even if we added nothing else. Yet just as it would be endless work to pursue every detail, so it is necessary to explain some matters more fully. Nor should what we have provided to explain this locus seem excessive. The greater the force with which heretics assail this locus, the greater the effort we must make to explain and fortify it with the utmost care. And, as we said above, of the ten parts into which we divided the nature and power of the theological loci, this second part, which consists in tradition, touches theology and faith most of all. Such an important matter could not be completed in a few words. But let us at last dissolve the arguments against traditions that we set out in the first chapter.

IN WHICH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE FIRST CHAPTER ARE REFUTED

Answer to the first. The argument set out at the beginning is not difficult to refute. It is ridiculous to believe that apostolic traditions cannot be preserved in the hearts of the faithful with the same faith and care as if they were written on papyrus. For the Scripture of the living Spirit of God is no less easily erased than ink, and there are many traditions that you see retained most easily through custom and practice. If Christ’s providence is lacking for the Christian Church, then I defend neither preserved traditions nor the certain authority of Scripture; for neither is established without God’s care, and if you remove that, neither tradition nor Scripture can be vindicated. But if Christ cares for his Church, then it will no longer be doubtful that, just as the Church preserves the Gospel more in its meaning than in its letter, it also preserves the other traditions that the apostles entrusted to it so earnestly. “O Timothy,” Paul says, “guard the deposit, avoiding profane novelties of words and oppositions of falsely named knowledge.” I am surprised that Cajetan understood this passage to mean the deposit of the flock entrusted to him, not the teaching entrusted to him—especially since he interprets a very similar passage in the later letter to Timothy as referring to teaching, not the flock. Cajetan should have been reminded that Paul was speaking about the word of God by what immediately follows: “avoiding profane novelties of words and oppositions of falsely named knowledge.” For both profane novelty of words and falsely named knowledge oppose apostolic tradition. Tradition is commended by its antiquity; if you hear anything new in the Church, then know that it is contrary both to antiquity and to the apostolic faith. When you read that the words must be avoided, do not think of the sounds of words but of their meanings. For the Apostle orders us to avoid new doctrines and opinions, not empty or novel sounds of words. Nevertheless, as far as we can, we ought to avoid novel words too in the teaching of faith and morals. By “falsely named knowledge,” understand either sophistry or the cabalistic art. For those hidden traditions of the Kabbalists are opposed to apostolic traditions as the fabulous is to the true and superstition to sacred things. And, as Theophylact rightly asserts, when the Apostle was arguing against the Gnostics, he exposes their false knowledge, which they nevertheless sold at a high price to the unlearned crowd. Since nothing is so contrary to the ancient doctrines handed down by the apostles as opinions in the Church that are at once new and profane—for apostolic faith approves the ancient and sacred mysteries and rejects what is contrary to them—and nothing is so apostolic as not to depart from what we received long ago (surely the Apostle is speaking about the deposit of the word, not of the flock); and since “falsely named knowledge” means either sophistry, as some think, cabalistic teaching, as Cajetan too thought, or the Gnostics’ teaching, as Theophylact and I also approve, it follows that, since true knowledge is opposed to false knowledge, the same argument applies to things that are opposed. Although all this is so obvious that it needs no confirmation, we must still confirm it with the authority of Vincent of Lérins, a most serious man. “The deposit,” he says, “is what was entrusted to you, not what you invented; what you received, not what you thought up; something not of ingenuity but of teaching, not of private usurpation but of public tradition; something brought to you, not brought forth by you. In it you ought to be not an author but a guardian, not an institutor but a follower, not a leader but one who follows. You received gold; return gold. I do not want you to substitute one thing for another. Guard it against enemies and thieves; guard it diligently, carefully, faithfully, so that in due time, when it is necessary, you may return it to the people to whom it is due. ‘Avoiding profane novelties of words,’ that is, opinions, doctrines, and things

that are contrary to antiquity. For no heresy has arisen except under a definite name, in a definite place, and at a definite time; nor has anyone instituted a heresy without first separating himself from the agreement of the Catholic Church and antiquity. Therefore, this has been lawful and customary among all heresies: they delight in profane novelties and despise the decrees of antiquity. By contrast, it is proper to Catholics to preserve the deposits and trusts of the holy Fathers and condemn profane novelties. Thus at the Council of Ephesus all the Fathers spoke with one voice that what had been handed down of old must be held, while what had been recently invented must be rejected.” Thus far Vincent. This testimony of the Apostle had such great force against heretics that Clement of Alexandria writes Alexandr. 2 Strom. lib. that heretics, because they were convicted by it, rejected Paul’s letters to Timothy. To return, then, to the point from which this discussion digressed: our ancestors were not negligent in so necessary a matter. What the Apostle entrusted with great care to Timothy, and through him to everyone, they too preserved with great care. In this first argument, then, the Lutherans reason as if ecclesiastical matters were not governed by God. If they continue in this way, by the same reasoning they will argue that even the canonical books will not always remain the same but may also perish, if they please. For how many books feed moths and cockroaches? How many monuments of authors have perished through human carelessness? As Lysis the Pythagorean writes to Hipparchus, Pythagoras himself left some little commentaries to his daughter Dama by testament; yet they too, and even more so than traditions, have perished. Since this is so, there is no need to fear that the institutions of the apostles, written not on tablets of stone but in the inmost heart of the Church by the finger of God, will be erased by human forgetfulness. We have said enough, perhaps even too much, in reply to the first argument. Answer to the second. I answer the second in this way. Augustine does not mean that what Jesus said and did, as written by the Evangelists, is sufficient for the salvation and teaching of the faithful. Otherwise the Apostles’ letters, the Apostolorum Acta, the book of the Apocalypse, and even the entire Old Testament would seem superfluous and unnecessary. Rather, he means that for the salvation of the faithful it was not necessary to write down other sayings and deeds of Jesus beyond those that were written. For it was enough to write these, and the Evangelists rightly left the rest out. The answer to Augustine’s other passage that is raised against us is also easy and clear. The things that we hold by the Church’s practice and custom are not merely un-obscure; they are so clear that Augustine himself thought it a most insolent madness to dispute them. When he says, “When a matter of the greatest obscurity is debated,” etc., he sufficiently indicates that he is not speaking at all of matters established by the institution and tradition of the Church. Otherwise, I would like our adversaries to explain this passage from Augustine himself, in Cont. Crescon. 1, cap. 33: “Although no example of this matter is certainly brought forward from the canonical Scriptures, nevertheless in this matter too we would hold to the truth of those same Scriptures when we do what has already seemed right to the whole Church, whose authority the Scriptures themselves commend. For since Holy Scripture cannot deceive, whoever fears being deceived should consult the same Church, which Holy Scripture shows without any ambiguity.” Answer to the third. The Apostle’s testimony is now being wrongly brought against us. For here Paul calls a teacher of the Church a “man of God,” who is equipped through the Sacred Letters for every work of his ministry. There are four things, after all, that a minister of the sacred word must do: teach, reprove, correct, and instruct. Divine Scripture supplies all these things to teachers of the Gospel. If anyone maintains,

I would not strongly object to understanding this passage generally, provided he grant me that Scripture does not always prescribe everything individually and specifically concerning all matters. For if everything had been written specifically, what of this: “I will arrange the other matters when I come”? And what of this: “Though I have many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with paper and ink; for I hope to be with you and speak face to face”? Divine Scripture therefore instructs us not only in what is written, but also in what is not written. “Hold fast,” Paul says, “the traditions you received, whether through letters or through speech.” In this very 3 cap. posterioris ad Tim. epist., whose testimony is used to attack us, after the Apostle had said, “You have followed my teaching and way of life”—words by which he included both kinds of instruction, what is contained in writing and what is contained in practice—he immediately adds, “But you, continue in the things you have learned and have been entrusted with.” Timothy had learned the Sacred Scriptures, as the Apostle says there, and had also received the mysteries of evangelical teaching as a trust, as was said in cap. 2 dictum erat et cap. 6 prioris ad eundem epistolae. The Apostle therefore does not exclude traditions in that passage, but rather commends them. Reply to the fourth. As for the argument Luther adds from Deuter. 17, it has almost no force. We received the law not only written on papyrus sheets, but especially the law inscribed in our hearts. We are not so ignorant as to think that among us a law handed down by word has less claim to be called law than one published in writing. We therefore admit that priests are not to be obeyed unless they teach according to the law of the Lord. But those who hand on the apostolic institutions to the Church teach us most of all according to the law of the Lord; those who fight against ecclesiastical traditions, we contend, fight against the law of the Lord. This readily overturns Calvin's slander. He accuses the Church of having introduced traditions against Sacred Scripture. Deuter. 12 says that in worshipping God we must not seek other ceremonies besides those prescribed by the law, nor add anything to them or take anything away. Solomon also says, “Do not add anything to the words of God, lest you be found a liar and reproved.” Yet even if some traditions of the Church were additions to Sacred Scripture, they would not be additions to the word of God; rather, they are divine words, no less than those written in the Sacred Books. We are not now discussing traditions that came from later leaders of the Church, which must be defended on another occasion and at another time; the discussion concerns the traditions of Christ and the apostles, which we rightly and truly defend here as divine oracles. Nor are traditions of this kind additions to the divine Scriptures, but rather their completion and, as it were, their commentaries. Otherwise the prophets would be accused of adding something to the Law of Moses; the apostles would be accused of adding letters to the Gospels and of aptly adorning the simplicity of the she-ass and colt with their own garments; and, if you please, the same men would be accused for establishing the decree about things sacrificed to idols, blood, and what was strangled, and for issuing certain canons not written in the Sacred Books. But, as we have said, these are not additions to Scripture but interpretations, as was explained at greater length against the Greeks in Concil. Florentino sess. 4, 5, 6, et 7. By this same reasoning we defend the Church's teachings, laws, and salutary institutions. In issuing these, the Church does not lay new foundations or add new structures, but builds upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with gold, silver, and precious stones, and makes the seeds of the kingdom of heaven not different, but more abundant, as Eusebius

says in 3 lib. Eccl. hist., c. 37. We too shall enrich this same teaching in lib. 7, capite postremo, if life is granted us. Enough has now been said about the fourth argument. Reply to the fifth. Let us answer the fifth. Chrysostom—or whoever the author may be—does not say, as heretics are accustomed to quote him, “the truth of the Scriptures,” but “unless they say what is fitting to the truth.” Those who teach apostolic traditions, however, truly say what is also in accord with the truth of Scripture. As for what is alleged to us about Papias's tradition, Eusebius refutes it in 5 lib. Ecclesiast. hist., cap. ultimo, where he says that Papias, being a man of limited sense and understanding, received the spiritual and mystical traditions of the apostles in a bodily and literal way. We should not therefore immediately trust an apostolic tradition merely because one person or another has invoked its authority. Some also appeal to Sacred Scripture, whom we rightly and deservedly reject because they misuse the testimonies of Sacred Scripture. In the same way, Irenaeus could have been misled by Papias and other disciples of John about the age of the Lord and Savior; for he believed them without investigating whether what they said was true. But we shall discuss this matter more carefully later. Reply to the sixth, seventh, and eighth. We need not answer at length the testimonies of Theophilus, Jerome, and Origen. For they speak against those who were selling human inventions contrary even to Sacred Scripture, or certain apocryphal histories, to posterity as divine and certain matters. Otherwise, if Jerome—for they press his testimony most forcefully—did not think anything was to be believed unless it was handed down in Sacred Scripture, with what face does he argue from the authority of tradition against the Luciferians, Vigilantius, and Helvidius? I will make it easy for those who are willing to examine Calvin's supporting argument briefly with me to understand how frivolous and plainly ridiculous it is. I would even urge him to give this serious attention, if I trusted that I could make progress with him by teaching. But since the Lutherans, having abandoned regard for truth, have set themselves this one aim, to advance their cause by any means they can, I shall say only a few things by which good and truthful theologians can free themselves from their traps. First, Joachim Camerarius did not have the wording “fully” but “plainly,” as follows: “For the Gospels, etc., plainly instruct us about the mind of God.” Second, even if we read it as Calvin quotes it, nothing is proved. For since Scripture itself and the teaching authority of the Church clearly commend the authority of traditions, they certainly instruct us fully about the mind of God. They teach that the mind of God, whether handed down in writing or by word, must alike be upheld. Moreover, would it be the act of an agitated and unlearned assembly to rebuke at once the words of someone speaking in the introduction, especially someone speaking in good faith? Would it be right immediately to stir up the crowds and insolently anticipate what was to be settled in the Council with great force and debate? For, as was shown in chapter 1, the Arians had stipulated that in a matter of faith they would accept absolutely nothing apart from the Scriptures. The fathers of the Synods are accustomed wisely to pass over whatever is said in passing by someone who is not going to establish the Council's faith, so that the matter chiefly at issue may be handled more conveniently in its proper place and time—as we shall have to explain later in book 5. Nor did the fathers of Nicaea embrace everything that Constantine had said; rather, after he had urged them to set aside hostile discord and resolve their questions, and had asked everyone to

confess the unity of apostolic doctrines. “To these,” says Theodoret, “the greater part assented above all, and they established agreement and soundness of doctrine among themselves. A few, however,” and so forth. Nothing, then, is proved by Constantine's testimony or the Synod's silence. Besides, even if disputation were to be conducted from Sacred Scripture, its meaning would have to be received not from the dead letters themselves but from the tradition of living speech; we would therefore always need the practice and authority of tradition. So much for the eighth argument. Reply to the ninth. The apostolic traditions of which we speak are not human but divine. Those who teach them therefore do not teach human doctrines—doctrines understood either to be contrary to God's commands, in keeping with what the Lord said in Mark 15, “Why do you transgress God's commandments because of your traditions?”—or to be certain idle and vain traditions, such as washing one's hands after a meal. That custom might perhaps have been useful for cleansing the hands, but certainly not for worshipping God. For this reason the Lord rightly said through Isaiah, “In vain do they worship me.” But in that letter Cyprian reproves those who were trying to introduce a new custom opposed to Christ's institution. Reply to the tenth. I pressed the tenth argument more insistently so that this reply could explain the great difference between the traditions of heretics and those of Catholics. Heretics disclose their mysteries to little women and ignorant, insignificant people; Catholics, on the contrary, regard it as a sacrilege to disclose the Church's mystical and sacred traditions to the common crowd of women and insignificant people. Since the reasons for this were given in chapter 3, the reader may take from there what pertains to this passage. Again, heretics usually conceal those secret traditions of theirs from learned men, especially from those who govern Catholic Churches. Catholics, by contrast, in keeping with the Apostle's command, entrust the mysteries of Christian teaching only to those who are capable of teaching others as well. Therefore the deposit of doctrine is public, since it is entrusted to the magistrates of the commonwealth. “O Timothy,” he says—that is, O bishop, who are both the governor and teacher of the Church—“guard the deposit”; and again, “What you heard from me, entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others also.” We should observe carefully that this deposit was not entrusted to Timothy secretly in a corner or in private, but in the presence of many witnesses, so that it would be understood as a matter not of private seizure or secret, furtive teaching, but of public tradition and open discipline without deceit. Those who do not see this clearly do not adequately explain the meaning of the passage, “I have said nothing in secret.” For Christ's teaching, in which there is nothing disguised, feigned, or deceptive, but all is sincere, true, and simple, contains nothing at all hidden, concealed, or dark. Since heretics have such things, their teaching is rightly called secret, just as a citizen is said to conceal something from the commonwealth when he reveals to private persons in secret what ought to be revealed to the magistrates. For one who proclaims publicly to the people what is meant for the people, and openly discloses to the magistrates alone what it is useful for the magistrates alone to know, does nothing at all secretly. Therefore we do not conceal mysteries in the manner of heretics; following the practice of the apostles, we hide them from the common crowd and reveal them to our superiors: what it is fitting for superiors to know, but not for the common crowd. What, then, you will ask, is meant by “What you hear in the ear, preach upon the housetops”? What is preached upon the housetops is made known to everyone. Indeed, at the time when the Lord gave this command to his disciples, he had not yet opened their minds to understand the Scriptures; he had not yet spoken to them for forty days about the kingdom of God, that is, about the commonwealth's

Christian governance; he had not yet sent the Spirit to teach them the things they could not bear while Christ was alive. He had entrusted to them that part of evangelical teaching which applied to all the faithful, and those laws that it was useful for everyone to know. This, then, is the Lord's command: what you heard in the mystery, preach more openly; what you learned in secret, speak in public; what I taught you either on the mountain or inside the house, proclaim boldly in the cities. But account must be taken of the time and circumstances: “I have many things to tell you, which you cannot bear now.” When I have told them to you, another law will apply. I do not want you to preach those things upon the housetops; I do not want you to announce them to the common people. For the reason you will then have for concealing them will be the same as the reason I have now: the common people cannot bear them. I know that Clement of Alexandria, in libro primo Stromatum, understands this passage of the secret traditions delivered in the ear, which he explains are to be preached upon the housetops, that is, in a lofty and excellent manner. But what I have said seems much more probable to me. Our own sense is also conveyed by this: “I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews gather, and I have said nothing in secret.” The tenth argument has now been sufficiently refuted. Reply to the eleventh. Since the eleventh argument must be explained carefully in the thirteenth book of this work, I do not intend to refute it now. Readers need only be reminded of what the martyr Lucian explains fully and learnedly in Eusebius, 9 lib. Ecclesiast. hist., cap. 6: we Christians are not bound by an error of some human persuasion, nor are we deceived, like others, by our parents' unexamined tradition; God is the author of our instruction and teaching, and rightly and truthfully we glory in having him as our teacher. But more on this another time. Now the final argument must be answered. Reply to the twelfth. The refutation of this argument too, since it must also be treated in book 13, will be very brief here. The Apostate Julian indeed reproached Christians with irrationality and rusticity, and with having no wisdom except belief. Gregory of Nazianzus answers this objection in 1. Adver. Iulianum Steliteutica, showing that it is not foreign to the philosophers whom Julian so greatly admires to use this kind of teaching. For Pythagoras's first and greatest rule was that if anyone questioned his disciples about doctrines or demanded some reason for them, they were to answer nothing other than that this was Pythagoras's view; this would be an unimpeachable ground for doctrine. Thus reason demands, all the more strongly, that we not refuse belief to what divine men have spoken, and that the testimony of those worthy of trust be held as a proof of reason, stronger than any rational or irrational force. Thus far Gregory. Gregory certainly does not seem to shrink from the very thing rejected as absurd in the argument: that our discipline is like the Pythagorean, or rather that theirs is like ours. But let it be most dissimilar: why should this argument oppose teaching handed down by word rather than teaching handed down in writing? We believe both, of course, and will try, if we can, to give an account of both. We shall give many, very great, and most weighty reasons if the Lord grants us life, as we promised where we are to discuss them. This passage can now be concluded. We have spoken about the second source of arguments. The other eight allow a very broad scope for discussion, but we shall contract it into narrow limits, as far as we can and are permitted.

ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH