Exceptions to the passages Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32.
Exceptions to the passages Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32.
§ 371. The Papists make exceptions for almost every passage adduced in our syllogism, as one may see in Bellarmine (De v. D., bk. 4, c. 10), Pistorius (Hodeg., p. 17), Gretserus (Defens. Bellarm.), Tannerus (Dioptr. fidei), etc. They say that in Deut. 4:2 and 12:32: (1) “The discussion is not about the written Word of God but about the Word as it is given orally.” We respond. [a] In Exod. 24:4 we are expressly told: “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.” In Exod. 34:27 the Lord commands him: “Write these words because in accordance with them I have made a covenant.” How, then, will one be able to draw a distinction here between the written and unwritten instruction of the Law? [b] Moses is speaking about the Word that parents had to teach their children: “Make them known to your children” (Deut. 4:9). Parents, however, were unable to instruct their children with an unwritten word because, according to Bellarmine’s hypothesis, such a word was communicated not publicly to all people but privately to a few, namely, to the teachers. [c] Note one by one the clear texts of Scripture in which this prohibition is referred to the written Law of God: Deut. 17:18, 20: “And when the king sits on his throne, he will write for himself in a book a copy of this Law … that he may not turn either to the right hand or to the left.” Deut. 28:58: “These afflictions will come upon you if you are not careful to do all the words of this Law that are written in this book.” Deut. 27:26: “Cursed be he who does not confirm the words of this Law by doing them.” (Paul repeats this in Gal. 3:10: “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law and do them.” Therefore whenever mention is made of the Law in the words of Moses, we must take this to mean the written Law.) In Josh. 1:7 a command is found that was once given by Moses: “Only be strong, being careful to do all the Law that Moses commanded you; turn not from it either to the right hand or to the left.” In v. 8 is added: “This Book of the Law shall not depart out of your mouth.” Josh. 23:6: “Therefore be steadfast to keep and do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, turning aside from it neither to the right nor to the left.” [d] We also bring together these passages of Scripture: Rom. 1:[1-]2: “The Gospel that He promised beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures.” Rom. 3:21: “The righteousness of faith has testimony from the Law and the prophets.” In Luke 1:70 God is said to have spoken about redemption “through the mouth of His holy prophets.” Therefore it means the same when something is predicted in the prophetic Scriptures and when it is prophesied orally by the prophets. The judgment about Moses’ teaching is the same. Therefore in this exception (that there is an unwritten word after the canon of Scripture was published) they are begging the question. (Cf. our treatise On Scripture [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 1], § 47.)
[2] “The meaning is that one must keep the commandments entirely and perfectly, just as God Himself commanded, and that they are not to be corrupted with a false interpretation. On the other hand, Moses by no means intended to say that nothing must be done other than that which was being commanded at that time.” We respond. On the contrary, God through Moses explicitly prohibits both: to turn aside from what He commanded and to add something to a divine command. The addition that disagrees with a divine mandate is a corruption of it. And here it is right for us to urge against the Papists that the exclusive [“only”] is added to Deut. 12:32 in the Vulgate version: “Only do that which I command you. Do not add anything nor take away from it.” But now, the Vulgate version became authentic through the Council of Trent in such a way that one may not appeal to the sources and depart from it.
(3) “If an addition had been forbidden, the prophets and apostles would have sinned, for they added many things later.” We respond. One must distinguish between an addition made by human choice and one made by divine inspiration. The former must be judged as prohibited but certainly not the latter, for this command was given not to God but to men. Furthermore, the prophets did not add anything of a different character to the Law but explained it more fully and brought greater light to the prophecies about the coming Messiah. ** (This is the purpose of that statement of Thomas, [ST,] p. 3, q. 60, art. 8, arg. 1: “‘To add’ means to set down something that was completely absent before. Next, ‘to add’ means to explain more clearly that which did exist before or to add a clearer explanation to that which did exist before.”) ** Also, the apostles expressly confess that they are “teaching nothing except Moses and the prophets” (Acts 26:22); consequently, they always prove the sources of their instruction from the Scriptures.
Bellarmine objects that “traditions, too, are not additions of a different character but are merely more detailed explanations.” Yet there is a difference between the kind of traditions that are being pawned off as apostolic and divine without the authority of the Word, on the one hand, and the kind of explanations that the prophets and apostles have published by divine inspiration, on the other. The former are human and uncertain; the latter, divine and certain.
(4) “The nature of the Old Testament is different than the New. In the Old Testament, the Book of the Law was written by God’s fingers, a characteristic that is not exhibited concerning the books of the New Testament.” We respond. Regarding the Decalogue only, not the entire Book of the Law, it is said that God wrote it with His own fingers. And even if the entire book of the Mosaic Law had been written by the fingers of God, one must nevertheless not claim that the New Testament is inferior to it, for it is divinely inspired, published by the inbreathing and inspiration of Him who wrote the Law with His fingers. Furthermore, it appears quite clearly from Rev. 22:18 that that prohibition about neither adding nor taking away applies to the Scripture of the New Testament.
(5) “This prohibition refers to private persons, but God is free to add anything through the Church.” We respond. Idolatrous priests and kings could have used this exception as a beautiful pretext for defending their false worship. In fact, they did use it. 1 Kings 22:24: “When did the Spirit of the Lord go away from me?” Jer. 18:18: “The Law will not perish from the priest nor counsel from the wise nor the Word from the prophet.” But they arrogated to themselves this sort of privilege in vain, for it is evident that public persons, too, are bound by this command, according to the statements of Deut. 17:18; Josh. 1:7; and the examples of Aaron (Exod. 32:14), Nadab, and Abihu (Lev. 10:1); etc.
(6) “Kings and priests have added and established certain things without sinning. Hezekiah celebrated the Passover in the second month (2 Chron. 30:2); the Maccabees established the Feast of Dedication, which was approved by Christ Himself (1 Maccabees 4:5[6]; John 10:22).” We respond. Whatever examples are set forth of those who seem to have taken something away from the Law, in these instances there is set forth either a case of necessity or a free ceremony that is not contrary to the Law. In the examples of those who appear to have added something to the Law, there is set forth a specific application of a general rule taught in the Law. The Law requires the giving of thanks for the singular blessings of God. Therefore in recollection of them, those who established festivals did not sin against the Law.