De locis theologicis

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