De locis theologicis

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.