De Moor II:29: The Sufficiency of Scripture, Part 3

[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.]

Bellarmine

The Papists object against us, 1.  What at any time has obtained in the Church, the same is also able to obtain now.  But Traditions obtained in the Ancient Church before and after Moses, outside of Israel and in Israel, with Passages and example proving this:  see Bellarmine, tome I Controversiis, book IV de Verbo Dei, chapter IV, columns 209 and following.

Responses:  α.  The consequence is to be denied, since the divine Economy actually varies in the diverse ages of the Church.  In § 3, 4, we saw that before Moses only the ἄγραφον/unwritten Word obtained; from Moses to the sealing of the Canon, the ἄγραφον/unwritten and ἔγγραφον/written at the same time, yet in such a way that all doctrinal Traditions were obliged to be examined by Moses and the Canonical Books previously written, Isaiah 8:20; Acts 17:11; after the full sealing of the Canon, now we have only the ἔγγραφον/written Word.

β.  They attempt to prove the Minor:

              a.  From Passages, Exodus 13:8; Psalm 44:1.  But there it is manifest that regard is had to things comprehended in Scripture, which out of those parents were obliged to inculcate in their children, and to explain the Word itself.  The case is not improved by Deuteronomy 32:7, in which it is treated, not so much of doctrinal matters and the heads of faith, but of the remembrance of past divine beneficence; both ancient, which certainly was to be repeated from the Scriptures; and more recent, which privy witnesses esteem to be entrusted to themselves for the glory of God and the salvation of their children, so that thus those might understand as fully as possible the continuous paternal acts of God for them, and hence their own altogether insane and indecent foolishness in their evil deeds.  But we do not proscribe all Historical Tradition, as was already mentioned above.

              b.  Moreover, they seek proof from Heads not read in the Old Testament concerning the Divinity of the Scriptures, the Remedy of Original Sin in Girls and Boys dying before the eighth day, and the spiritual Signification of Sacrifices, etc.  Response:  We do not admit this proof:  while, 1.  the Scripture of Moses and the Prophets abundantly teaches that it is the Word of God and Canon of faith, and marks its books with those criteria, so that they might be able to be recognized and received as divine; compare § 6 above and Commentarium meum in 2 Peter 1:21.  2.  The Remedy of Original Sin both for boys and for girls is only the blood and Spirit of Christ purging from all sin, Isaiah 53:5; Ezekiel 36:25-27, of which Circumcision was merely the seal, Romans 4:11, which indeed was administered only to boys, as alone capable of receiving it; at the same time the advantage of this rite also had regard to women, which were held as circumcised in the men, by comparison with 1 Corinthians 7:14:  and hence they were also admitted to eat the Passover before uncircumcised men, consult Chapter XXIX:11, 22 below, whence Israelite women, no less than the men, were opposed to the uncircumcised, Genesis 34:14.  But, since Circumcision was not effectual to remove Original Sin, but only to signify and seal its removal by the blood and Spirit of Messiah; neither were the males, dying before the eighth day, lacking the Remedy, which supplies the want of Circumcision.  3.  The very nature of the Sacrifices was teaching that this worship of itself was not able to please God; an oral explanation of the ceremonial commandments was added, and also the prophetic promise of the antitypical Sacrifice of Messiah.  4.  And no one would deny that the Scripture is now more perfect, if not in substance, at least in accidents, in degree of clarity and abundance, than formerly in Israel; while, 5.  outside of Israel, after Moses, under the Old Testament, we discern no Church, Psalm 147:19, 20; Acts 14:16.

They object, 2.  What Scripture commends as the rule of faith, and unto the observation of which it obliges the faithful, that is to be held in reverence and as the Word of God:  But Scripture commends and wills Traditions to be observed.  Therefore.  They fetch Proof of the Minor from 1 Corinthians 11:2, 23, 24; 1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:13; 2:2; and especially 2 Thessalonians 2:15:  see Bellarmine, tome I Controversiis, book IV de Verbo Dei, chapter IV, columns 216-220.

I respond:  α.  in general, a.  the language of Tradition is ὁμώνυμος/homonymous; it is used in Scripture concerning doctrine both written, Acts 6:14; 1 Corinthians 15:3, and unwritten, Luke 1:2.  Therefore, when mention is made of Tradition, it is not immediately to be concluded that it treats of unwritten Tradition, since the consequence does not proceed from the general to the specific.  b.  Although in some passages unwritten Tradition is treated, this does not help the Papistical cause, partly because the Apostles delivered doctrine and necessary rites first with the living voice, afterwards in writing, 1 Corinthians 11:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:2; partly because no more than the ancient heretics are they able to teach that their Traditions are indicated in these passages.

β.  In particular, with respect to the passages cited, in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 23, 24, is treated both doctrine, verse 23, etc., and rites, verses 2 and following.  The former, described in the words of Christ, is subjoined.  The latter are furnished in the words of the Apostle, both specifically insofar as he declares what he wills to be observed concerning Prayer and the Lord’s Supper; and generally insofar as He commands that all things be done decently and in order in the Church, 1 Corinthians 14:40.  For it was not necessary to prescribe all rites individually, inasmuch as they vary according to the circumstance of places, times, and persons.  And of this sort were those things that Paul promises that he is going to set in order in person, 1 Corinthians 11:34, as the expression and circumstances show.  But not at all are understood doctrines concerning the sacrament of the altar, concerning the matter and form of the other sacraments:  for Paul delivered that which he had received from the Lord; but the burden of proof rests upon the one asserting that the Apostle had received these things from the Lord.

In 1 Timothy 6:20;[1] 2 Timothy 1:13;[2] 2:2, a.  under the language of παρακαταθήκης/trust is treated either the flock, or the gifts of the Spirit:  or under this language and expression of ὑποτυπώσεως ὑγιαινόντων λόγων, the form of sound words, at one and the same time is treated sound doctrine, which Paul had taught Timothy out of the Scriptures, by comparison with Acts 26:22, and which he was also setting forth in his written Epistles.  b.  In 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul does indeed will that Timothy παρατιθέναι/commit the things heard from the Apostle to faithful men as a deposit of great worth, hence to be kept with the greatest care; but he thus speaks of oral Tradition of doctrine already written, which from the Scriptures of the Old Testament Timothy had known from boyhood, 2 Timothy 3:15, and which he had heard Paul delivering according to the Scriptures, 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4, and which has been declared at greater length by the Evangelists and Apostles in the writings of the New Testament for the use of the Church.  Paul does not will these things παρατίθεσθαι πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις, to be committed to faithful men, through anonymous insinuation of arcane doctrine, but through public preaching and testimony:  which would be all the clearer, if in the place of διὰ πολλῶν μαρτύρων, among many witnesses, we read ἃ ἤκουσας παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ διὰ πολλῶν, the things that thou hast heard of me in many (as opposed to δι᾽ ὀλίγων, in few words, briefly, 1 Peter 5:12), in many words, sermons frequently repeated, μαρτύρων ταῦτα παράθου, etc., testifying, deposit or commit these things, etc., as NORTON KNATCHBULL, in his Animadversionibus in Novum Testamentum,[3] ingeniously explains it, and after him the Reverend HOLTIUS[4] in a Concione Belgica ad 2 Timothy 2:1, 2, which you should see; which HOMBERGK[5] also judges to be done without absurdity:  but which WOLF judges to be with so little proof that this reading is actually destitute of all authority.

Finally, the passage in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, in which the Apostle advises, κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις, etc., hold the traditions, etc., does not prove that ἀγράφους/unwritten doctrinal Traditions are allowed:  but, 1.  παραδόσεις metonymically denotes in general traditions delivered, according to the use of this word, and of similar language of giving, receiving, in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; Virgil, Eclogue 1:19:

But, nevertheless, who this God is, give, Tityrus, to us.

The Spirit ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήψεται, shall receive of mine, John 16:14, 15, that is, shall learn, ἀνθρωποπαθῶς/anthropopathically.  2.  The little word εἴτε, whether…or,[6] does not distinguish matters delivered by Paul, as if he had taught some matters with living voice, and other matters differing in substance in written Epistle.  But, a.  either εἴτε is to be taken conjunctively, as in 1 Corinthians 3:22;[7] Colossians 1:20;[8] b.  or, if it be taken disjunctively, it has regard to the diversity, not of the material delivered, but of the manner of delivery, with the identity of the matter delivered remaining; as the Apostle set forth the same doctrine of the Holy Supper first in living speech and then in writing to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 11:23 and following.  c.  If Paul did not set forth the entire doctrine of the Gospel in this Epistle, it does not follow thence that the written doctrine is one thing, and the doctrine delivered orally in the Church another, because the whole doctrine of salvation is homogeneous, Galatians 1:7-9.  This only shall be thence evident, that the doctrine of the Gospel is less fully contained in this brief Epistle, which they had been more fully taught by Paul in person, and which the Thessalonians at that time, and we to the present day, find more copiously written elsewhere.  As neither the occasion was bearing, nor necessity postulating, that the entire doctrine of the Gospel, to be read in fullness elsewhere, be delivered in every little Epistle.  Which is also to be said on 2 John 12 and 3 John 13, if there the speech is concerning necessary doctrines.

They object, 3.  Examples of Heads, which are not found in the Scriptures, even of the New Testament:  see Bellarmine, tome I Controversiis, book IV de Verbo Dei, chapter IV, columns 213-215, chapters VI, VII, columns 220-232.  Thus PETRUS SUAVIS POLANUS, Historia Concilii Tridentini, book V, page 531, relates, that in the Colloquy at Poissy[9] Claudius Espencæus,[10] disputing with Beza, shows that many doctrines gained strength in Traditions alone, for example, that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, that Infants are to be baptized, that Mary remained a Virgin even after giving birth.

Response:  I advised before, at the beginning of § 27, that we do not demand for the Perfection of Scripture that all things be delivered there αὐτολεξεὶ, in express words; but it is sufficient if they be κατ᾽ ἰσοδυναμίαν, in equivalence of meaning, and κατ᾽ ἀκολούθησιν, by consequence:  neither do we require that there be more things delivered there than are necessary to be known and believed for salvation.  The Heads that the Papists now enumerate, either, α.  are delivered in Scripture sufficiently, if not explicitly, at least implicitly, like the Trinity, the Procession of the Spirit from the Son, ὁμοουσία/homousia, Pædobaptism, etc.:  see Chapter V:13 and following, 2, 5, 10, 21, 22, Chapter XXX:17, 18:  or, β.  are less certain and less necessary to believe, like the perpetual Virginity of Mary after the birth of the Lord, the Mixture of the Cup,[11] the Formula of Baptism, the origin of the Symbol, the observation of Passover, etc.:  consult Chapters XVIII:11; XXXI:6; XXX:11; III:12; XII:16:  or, γ.  are erroneous doctrines, of which sort are Transubstantiation, Purgatory, the Invocation of Saints, which Scripture refutes, and in this manner shows its own Sufficiency; see Chapter XXXI:19-23; Chapter XXXIV:9, 10; Chapter XXVI:3; and more passages, to which our AUTHOR sends the reader.

Apart from the fact that the Papists also labor to prove all these from the Scripture, whence Tradition in these Heads is made less necessary even according to their hypothesis.

They object, 4.  several Reasons:  see Bellarmine, tome I Controversiis, book IV de Verbo Dei, chapter VIII, columns 233, 234.

α.  What is according to the custom of all Nations, that also is according to the custom of the Church:  Some Unwritten Law is according to the custom of all Nations.  Therefore.

Response:  The Major is denied; because, as the Church of God is a peculiar people, Exodus 19:6; 1 Peter 2:9, so it has peculiar customs, Deuteronomy 4:8; Psalm 147:19, 20.  A matter of dissimilitude with respect to Traditions thence also is evident, that the Laws of the Nations are imperfect, but the Law of the Church is perfect, Psalm 19:7, 8; the former often require addition and subtractions, the latter rejects such, Deuteronomy 4:2.

There is nothing to Bellarmine’s appeal to Jewish Traditions outside of Scripture, since these are expressly and sufficiently condemned in the written Word, Matthew 5; 15; etc.

β.  If the peculiar Dignity of the Church consists in the possession of the divine Word, certainly unwritten Traditions are granted:  for otherwise no prerogative is granted to the Church above that of the heretics, who also read the Written Word.

Response:  This is denied:  the ambiguous terminology of the possession of Scripture ought to be explained.  The privilege of the Church above the heretics does not consist in acquaintance with the words of the Scriptures, which also devolves upon devils, James 2:19; Matthew 4:6; but what prerogative is suitable to the Church concerning Scripture is to be restrained to its primary design, the saving understanding of the truths comprehended, and their keeping, genuine explanation, defense, faith, and practice:  consult also § 6 above.

γ.  What the excellency of many Mysteries requires, that God had not denied to His Church:  but the excellency of many Mysteries requires unwritten Traditions:  for many are to be left unmentioned and only to be set forth among the perfect, by the example of Christ, Luke 8:10; 1 Corinthians 2:6.

Response:  The Minor is denied:  The excellency of Mysteries rather requires the public preaching of the same, commanded by Christ, Matthew 10:26, 27, in accordance with the end of the revelation of the same, Romans 16:25, 26; nevertheless, with rules of sobriety applied concerning subject and object, and of prudence concerning manner, Romans 12:3; Hebrews 6:1-3; Romans 6:19.  Indeed, Christ did explain the parables to His disciples separately, but for a far different reason, given in Luke 8:10 to the end.  But in Paul, 1 Corinthians 2:6, there is no distinction between writing and speaking, as elsewhere also  ἡ γραφὴ, the Scripture, is said λέγειν, to speak, Romans 9:17; 4:3, so Paul, while writing, μυστήριον λέγει, speaks a mystery, 1 Corinthians 15:51:  now, he was speaking, whether with voice or with writing, wisdom among the perfect, setting forth such doctrine as is acknowledge as wisdom by the spiritual, 1 Corinthians 2:15, especially by those more perfect in knowledge:  but this was the entire Evangelical doctrine concerning Jesus crucified.

How Bossuet[12] fights with such weak weapons on behalf of unwritten Traditions, SPANHEIM shows, Præfatione Speciminis Stricturarum ad Libellum Episcopi Condomiensis, opera, tome 3, part 2, columns 1030, 1031.

On § 27-29, consult GERHARD’S Confessionem catholicam, tome I, book I, general part I, chapter I, pages 28-73, part II, chapter V, pages 349-394; WILLIAM WHITAKER’S de Sacra Scriptura, question VI, opera, tome I, pages 368-416.

[1] 1 Timothy 6:20:  “O Timothy, keep the trust (τὴν παρακαταθήκην), avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called…”

[2] 2 Timothy 1:13:  “Hold fast the form of sound words (ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων), which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.”

[3] Norton Knatchbull (1602-1685) was an English scholar; he served in Parliament for the county of Kent and the port of New Romney.  He wrote Animadversiones in Libros Novi Testamenti, and in its fourth edition it appeared in English, Annotations upon Some Difficult Texts in All the Books of the New Testament.

[4] Nicolaus Holtius (1693-1773) was a student of Marckius and Wesselius, and later served as pastor at Koudekerk.  He is remembered for his involvement in the trial of Antonius van der Os, whose doctrine of justification seemed to imply that faith is a meritorious human accomplishment.  When Johan van den Honert and Jan Jacob Schultens recommended leniency in the case, Holtius, together with Alexander Comrie, vigorously resisted what they esteemed to be an unwholesome toleration.

[5] Johann Friedrich Hombergk zu Vach (1673-1748) was a Professor of Law at Marburg, and later the chancellor of the university.  He wrote, not only on legal topics, but also on selected texts of the New Testament (Parerga Sacra seu observations quædam ad Novum Testamentum).

[6] 2 Thessalonians 2:15:  “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle (εἴτε διὰ λόγου, εἴτε δι᾽ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν).”

[7] 1 Corinthians 3:22:  “Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come (εἴτε Παῦλος, εἴτε Ἀπολλώς, εἴτε Κηφᾶς, εἴτε κόσμος, εἴτε ζωή, εἴτε θάνατος, εἴτε ἐνεστῶτα, εἴτε μέλλοντα); all are yours…”

[8] Colossians 1:20:  “And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven (εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς).”

[9] The Colloquy at Poissy (1561) was convened to reconcile the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches of France.  The differences, however, were too great, and the Colloquy ended inconclusively.

[10] Claude D’Espence (1511-1571) was one of the theologians of the Sorbonne.  He was a participant in the Council of Trent.

[11] In the Roman sacrament of the Mass, water was mingled with the wine.  It had a variety of mystical explanations (the mingling of the people of God [represented by the water] with Jesus Christ [represented by the wine], etc.).

[12] Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627-1704) was a Roman Catholic bishop and theologian.  He served as the court preacher to Louis XIV of France, and was renowned for his oratorical abilities.  His Exposition de la foi catholique was an attempt to reunite French Protestants to the Roman Church, by giving a somewhat modified and moderate presentation of Roman dogma.