De Moor II:28: The Sufficiency of Scripture, Part 2

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

The Papists wish to supplement the feigned Imperfection of the Scriptures by Traditions, propagated orally in the Church from the Apostles, which may be Another Principium/Source of our Faith; Traditions not Human and Ecclesiastical, as they say, but Divine and Apostolic.  Thus Bellarmine, book IV de Verbo Dei, chapter III, Controversiis, tome I, column 204:  “Therefore, the controversy between us and the heretics consists in two things.  The first is that we assert that the entirety of necessary doctrine is not expressly contained in the Scriptures, whether concerning faith or concerning manners:  and that hence in addition to the written Word of God the unwritten Word of God is also required, that is, Divine and Apostolic Traditions.  But they teach, etc.”:  compare book IV de Verbo Dei, chapter II, Controversiis, tome I, column 203.  They maintain that this is the Other Principium of Faith, whether more or less preferable, or worthy to be received with the like affection and reverence of piety, in things to be believed and things to be done, as they commonly assert with the Council of Trent, Session IV, Decree I, page 31b:  while Bellarmine, in book IV de Verbo Dei, chapter VII, column 225, says:  “Some traditions are greater with respect to obligation than some Scriptures, but some are lesser, and some equal.”  Consult concerning this argument of PETRUS SUAVIS POLANUS his Historiam Concilii Tridentini, book II, pages 169-171, 182, 184.

The πρῶτα ψεῦδη, fundamental errors, of the Papists here are the successive Innovations in the Roman Church, or the additions in doctrine, worship, and government, for which they vainly seek support in the written Word.

The Scope/Goal:  to exalt the authority of the Church, to which this treasury of unwritten Traditions has been committed for keeping; and to seek patronage for their errors and successive innovations.

In which commendation of unwritten Traditions, the Papists imitate, α.  the Jews, who, in addition to the written Law and scrolls of the Prophets, have also their own Mishnah, δευτέρωσιν/Tradition, or Oral Law, which God is said to have delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai; thence from Moses this was, according to the Jews, observed and successively propagated by oral Tradition, delivered from Moses to Joshua, from Joshua to the Elders, and thus successively; until in the Second Century after the Birth of Christ under the Emperor Antoninus[1] Rabbi Judah flourished, called Judah haQadosh[2] from the holiness of his life, Judah haNasi[3] from his dignity.  At this point, seeing that the Oral Law was consigned to oblivion, he gathered all the scraps on which the Jews had written certain things for the sake of memory; and from these he composed the Mishnah.  Which as the text of the Body of the Civil and Canonical Law of the Jews, set forth through aphorisms, the most learned Jews then illustrated and augmented with Commentaries under the name of Gemara or Supplement, or Complement; relating in this other part of the Talmud various authors’ disputations, more copious explanations of the text of the Mishnah, discussions of diverse opinions, and finally the settlement of the true opinion.  Now, the Gemara is twofold, that of Jerusalem, published by the Palestinian Doctors about the year of our Lord 230, consisting of only one folio volume:  and of Babylon, written by the Babylonian Doctors, and completed about the year of our Lord 500, consisting of fourteen volumes, which as greater and more excellent surpassed and suppressed the Jerusalem Talmud.  Now, that Talmud, which includes the Mishnah and Gemara, the Jews highly esteem, indeed more highly than Sacred Scripture, as can be seen in the Most Illustrious LEUSDEN’S Philologo Hebræo-mixto, Dissertation XII, § 5, page 89, who nevertheless rightly observes that the Talmud does not actually contain the Oral Law delivered to Moses by God, nor is it to be compared with the Word of God, much less to be preferred to it, nor in any way is it to be as highly esteemed as the Jews make it:  which he proves by these reasons:  1.  Because an Oral Law, beyond the written Mosaic Law, is not given, therefore it is not contained in the Talmud.  It is not given; for the written Law is perfect, Psalm 19:7; Deuteronomy 4:2.  If to Moses another Law, an Oral Law, had been delivered, he would not have passed over this history in silence, as a thing necessary, concerning a foundation and article of faith, upon which all the Theology of the Jews depends.  Entire Sects of the Jews, like the Sadducees, Samaritans, and Karaites, are joined with the Christians in this matter.  Neither is anything found in the Talmud that savors of the divine Law.  2.  Because in the Talmud many impieties are contained, and blasphemies against God and the Lord Jesus.  3.  Because it often makes determinations contrary to Sacred Scripture, and asserts to be true things plainly contradictory:  but truth harmonizes with truth, one divine thing with another.  4.  Because it is evident in the almost infinite fables and lies, the many sources of which he indicates:  see LEUSDEN’S Philologum Hebræo-mixtum, Dissertations XII-XIV, in which he discusses the Talmud.  To which add, α.  that it could not have been done without a continuous miracle, that this Law, containing so many minute points, was propagated through so many ages without writing.  β.  If according to the good pleasure of God this Law ought, not to have been written, but to be orally propagated; who conceded the authority to the Rabbis thereafter to commit this Law to writing contrary to the counsel of God, who had already taken care through so many ages that it be propagated orally?  Therefore, by fables of this sort concerning the divine origin of their Traditions the Jews thought to have looked after the glory of their Nation and Law, and to have acquired authority for their Talmudic work.  Nevertheless, it will be worth the effort to consult HOTTINGER’S Thesaurum Philologicum, book II, chapter III, section III, pages 560-564, in which by thirteen theses he shows the agreement of the Jews and Papists in defense of their Traditions.  Indeed, while the Papists pronounce us to be like unto the Sadducees on account of our rejection of unwritten Traditions, they prove themselves to be the genuine offspring of the Pharisees.

β.  In this erroneous hypothesis the Papists are also able to some extent to be called the Imitators of the Mohammedans, who also acknowledge to some extent the divine authority and origin of Sacred Scripture, only bewailing the corrupted Codices of today (see above, § 9); but they add or substitute another principium of faith, namely, the Koran (consult Chapter I:6):  but against the ἀξιοπιστίαν/trustworthiness of this Book HOORNBEECK, in his Summa Controversiarum, book III, pages 128-134, observes, apart from the fact that praises of the Koran are found in the book itself ad nauseam, which is not according to the dignity of a serious Writer, much less divine, the following things:  1.  Its author, Muhammed, was the most vile of bipeds, a fanatic, a demoniac:  consult above in HOORNBEECK’S Summa Controversiarum, book III, pages 113-122.  2.  This book shamelessly contradicts itself about its origin.  3.  The truths that it appears to adduce out of the history of the Old Testament, it mutilates and perverts, and no longer holds in a sound sense.  4.  The Koran’s ἀμεθοδεία, lack of orderliness, stands against its divinity.  5.  The Mohammedans themselves confess that in the Koran many things are retracted, emended, corrected.  6.  This book is in great part mutilated.  7.  It has many things contrary to itself.  8.  The lies, fables, and figments in the Koran are innumerable.  9.  It also has a great many foul, filthy, and wicked things.  10.  It incites men to barbarity and cruelty.  11.  The doctrine of the Koran is never confirmed by any miracle.  12.  If a comparison of the Koran with the Gospel is made, it will appear to be beneath the dignity of the latter to be compared with the former.  For a confutation of the θεοπνευστίαν/inspiration of the Koran read also what things were written by PETRUS DINANT, de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter I, § 50-57, pages 83-97; and by HENDRIK LUSSING Matthysz, de Necessitate Religionis in genere, et Certitudine Christianæ in specie, vindicata, part I, dissertation V, chapter IV, pages 581-611, pages 454-482.

γ.  Moreover, the Papists in the commendation of unwritten Traditions under the pretext of the Imperfection of the written Word imitate a good many ancient Heretics, surveyed by our AUTHOR, concerning whom in this regard consult SPANHEIM, Historia Ecclesiastica, century II, chapter VI, column 648; our AUTHOR, Oration II after his Exercitationes Miscellaneas, pages 425-427.  IRENÆUS, in his contra Hæreses, book I, chapter XXV, number 5, page 104, relates concerning the Carpocratians:[4]  Ἐν δὲ τοῖς συγγράμμασιν αὐτῶν οὕτως ἀναγέγραπται, καὶ αὐτοὶ οὕτως ἐξηγοῦνται, τὸν Ἰησοῦν λέγοντες ἐν μυστηρίῳ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀποστόλοις κατ᾽ ἰδίαν λελαληκέναι, καὶ αὐτοῦς ἀξιῶσαι, τοῖς ἀξίοις καὶ τοῖς πειθομένοις ταῦτα παραδιδόναι, and in their writings thus it is inscribed, and thus they interpret, declaring that Jesus spoke in a mystery to His disciples, and to His apostles privately, and that they requested permission to hand down these things to the worthy and believing; which things THEODORET cites verbatim out of Irenæus, Hæreticarum fabularum, book I, opera, tome 4, page 197:  consult DANÆUS’ ad Augustinum de Hæresibus, chapter VII, number 2, at the end.  Concerning the Valentinians the same IRENÆUS, in his contra Hæreses, book III, chapter XI, page 192, relates:  “But these that follow Valentinus, being, on the other hand, beyond all fear, putting forth their own writings, boast that they possess more Gospels than there really are.  Indeed, they have proceeded to such a pitch of audacity, that what was written recently by them they entitle the Gospel of Truth, although agreeing in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, so that there is not even a Gospel among them without blasphemy.  For, if what is set forth by them is the Gospel of Truth, but is dissimilar to those that have been delivered to us by the Apostles, those that will are able to learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, that what has been delivered by the Apostles is no longer the Gospel of Truth.  But, that the Apostolic Gospels alone are true and reliable, and admit neither an increase nor diminution of the aforesaid number, I have proved by so many and such weighty things.”  EPIPHANIUS, adversus Hæreses, book I, tome 2, heresy XXXI, chapter XXIV, opera, tome 1, page 193, also relates concerning the Valentinians:  Τοιαύτης δὲ τῆς ὑποθέσεως αὐτῶν οὔσης, ἣν οὔτε Προφῆται ἐκήρυξαν, οὔτε ὁ Κύριος ἐδίδαξεν, οὔτε Ἀπόστολοι παρέδωκαν·  ἣν περὶ τῶν ὅλων αὐχοῦσι πλεῖον τῶν ἄλλων ἐγνωκέναι, ἐξ ἀγράφων ἀναγινώσκοντες, but such is their thesis, which neither the Prophets proclaimed, nor the Lord taught, nor the Apostles delivered:  which they boast in knowing better than all others, having them from things unwritten.  TERTULLIAN has a similar thing, de Præscriptione Hæreticorum, chapter XLIX, pages 221, 222:  Now, the heretic Valentinus introduces many fables….  He also has his own Gospel in addition to these, our Gospels.  PHILASTRIUS, de Hæresibus, chapter LXXXVIII:  Especially the Manichæans, Gnostics, Nicolaitans,[5] Valentinians, and how many others, who, having apocryphal works of the Prophets and Apostles, that is, different Acts, think little of reading the Canonical Scriptures.  Concerning this matter, JAKOB ELSNER explains and refutes the opinion of the contemporary Greek Church, nieuwste Beschzyving van de Grieksche Christenen in Turkyen, chapter V, § 6-14, pages 164-174.

We ourselves allow:  1.  that the language of Tradition is used many times in Sacred Scripture, in which to deliver[6] is often used in the place of to teach, with relation also to written truths, Acts 6:14, in which sense also CYPRIAN said, Epistle LXXIV ad Pompejum, opera, page 315, “If it is taught in the Gospel, or is found in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles, let this be heeded as divine and holy tradition.”  2.  The Oral propagation of written Doctrine, through the ministry of the Word also:  consult JEWEL adversus Hardingum,[7] article XV, opera, tome I, page 121.  3.  We also allow Traditions Historical, which contain the history of matters conducted, and Ritual, which treat of rites and ceremonies of free observation, provided they be well-founded; nevertheless, we do not allow the same as infallible or as the principium of faith.  4.  Moreover, we allow Traditions both flowing from the Scripture, as in the Fathers just so many doctrines are found, not read in words in the Scriptures, but thence derived by legitimate consequence, such as the Son of God is to be called ὁμοούσιος/homoousios, of the same substance:  and declaring the Origin of Scripture, which it is the office of the Church to deliver[8] to us by formal and actual Tradition, concerning which ORIGEN is to be understood, “as he relates that he learned by Tradition that the four Gospels were undoubted in the entire Church,” in EUSEBIUS’ Historia Ecclesiastica, book VI, chapter XXV, Μόνα τέσσαρα εἰδέναι Εὐαγγέλια μαρτύρεται, ὧδέ πως γράφων·  ὡς ἐν παραδόσει μαθὼν περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων Εὐαγγελίων, ἃ καὶ μόνα ἀναντίῤῥητά ἐστιν ἐν τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows:  I have learned by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven.  But concerning Tradition, material and passive, dogmatic or ethical, at this point there is debate between us:  whether, with that θεοπνεύστῳ/inspired Scripture posited, which we have by Tradition of the ancient Church, certain unwritten Traditions be additionally needful to supplement the defects of Scripture in matters necessary for salvation; and whether Divine and Apostolic Traditions of this sort be granted, which we ought to esteem with a veneration equal to that of the written Word?  This we deny against the Papists:

1.  On account of the Perfection of the Scripture just now demonstrated, § 27, and,

2.  On account of the Prohibition of all Addition, as we saw there.

3.  On account of express rejections of Traditions, Isaiah 29:13, 14; Matthew 5:21, 22, 27, 28, 33, 34, 43, 44; 15:2, 3, 6, 9; Colossians 2:22, in which in the very subject matter are condemned indeed Pharisaic and Heretical Traditions; but nevertheless not so much as such, or as all contrary to the written Word, as indeed under the general category of human Traditions, whence ἐθελοθρησκεία/will-worship, Colossians 2:23, which always displeases God, and which sort of Traditions always render the commandment of God void, vain, α.  which is on record concerning not adding, Deuteronomy 4:2 and elsewhere, as we saw in § 27; β.  and which claims the Dominical glory for God alone, Ezekiel 20:18, 19; γ.  and all the rest, from the observance of which men are all the more led away by addition:  indeed, with Law multiplied transgression is wont to be multiplied.  And the similarity of the Traditions of the Roman Church with the Traditions of the Pharisees and Heretics, which in the cited passages are primarily condemned, is easily able to be shown; as it is done by our AUTHOR in Oratione II after Exercitationes Miscellaneas, page 425, 422, 423, etc.

4.  On account of the Traditions themselves.

              α.  In general, a.  their Uncertain Origin; which the Papists do not remove by their Rules for discrimination, which are equally uncertain.  Indeed, Bellarmine, book IV de Verbo Dei, chapter IX, Controversiis, tome I, column 234-237, sets forth five rules, by which it is given to arrive at the recognition of true and Apostolic Traditions, as he says; for example, when the universal Church embraces as a doctrine of faith anything that is not found in the divine books, it is necessary to say that it is had from the Tradition of the Apostles; because the universal Church, judging something to be of the faith, is not able to err, but has these things which are of the faith from the Prophets and Apostles:  and so on.  But all those Rules for discrimination are in the end brought back to the testimony and authority of the Church; but it is this very authority that comes into controversy:  consult CLOPPENBURG’S Disputationem octavam de Canone Theologiæ, opera, tome 2, pages 50, 51.  b.  And the necessary proving of all Traditions by the Scriptures, 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; for how might the faithful prove all things and the Spirits, except by the prescribed examination of the same by the Scripture, unto which as the sole norm of faith we are everywhere sent, Luke 16:29; John 5:39; Acts 17:11; 2 Peter 1:19, etc.

              β.  And in particular the Papistical Traditions’, a.  battle with the Scripture, when, for example, is delivered the local Descent of Christ into Hell , Purgatory, the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.:  see below in Chapter XXI:14; XXIV:9, 10; XXXI:26, 27:  b.  uncertainty, according to their own rules not agreeing with them; when they urge the universal consent of the Church in embracing a Tradition, the universal observance of that Tradition by all the Learned in the past; the testimony of all the Doctors of the Church agreeing that something has come down from Apostolic Tradition; etc.:  c.  or declaration made in the Scriptures, as the matter is concerning the Trinity, see Chapter V:13, etc.; Pædobaptism, which Bellarmine himself, libro de Baptismo, chapter VIII, tome 3, Controversiis, columns 315-317, proves out of Scripture, see Chapter XXX:17, 18; the number of the Sacraments, at least enumerated, by comparison with 1 John 5:6, 8, see Chapter XXIX:28; the admission of women to the Sacred Assembly, by comparison with Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 11:28; the translation of the Sabbath to the Lord’s Day, by comparison with Revelation 1:10; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Colossians 2:16, 17, see Chapter XII:16:  hence in these matters there is no need to have recourse to ἄγραφον/unwritten Tradition, as another principium and infallible foundation of the faith.

The Fathers ὁμοψήφους/agreeing with us in rejecting unwritten doctrinal Traditions, LEYDEKKER cites in Veritate Euangelica triumphante, tome I, book I, chapter XII, § 6, pages 142, 143.

[1] Antoninus Pius reigned from 138 to 161.

[2] קָדוֹשׁ/qadosh means holy.

[3] נָשִׂיא/nasi means prince.

[4] Carpocrates of Alexandria was the founder of a libertine Gnostic sect in the early second century.

[5] Although the Nicolaitans are mentioned by the early Church Fathers, little is known with certainty about them beyond what is mentioned in John’s Apocalypse, that they ate things sacrificed to idols, and committed fornication.  See Revelation 2:6, 14, 15.

[6] Latin:  tradere.

[7] John Jewel (1522-1571) was an English churchman, living through the tumultuous times of the English Reformation.  He suffered exile under Mary, but returned and was installed as Bishop of Salisbury under Elizabeth.  Jewel became a literary defender of the Elizabethan settlement, engaging Roman Catholic opponents (such as Thomas Harding) and Puritans.

[8] Latin:  tradere.