Antithesis.
Antithesis.
§ 401. Because the Papists have convinced themselves that Scripture is imperfect, they claim that this imperfection must be erased by the supplement of traditions. Therefore they adorn their traditions with great praise. In Panopl., bk. 2, c. 5, Lindanus says, “They are the Homeric 
[“magic herb”] that preserves the Christian faith against the enchantments of the heretics.” He calls them “the shield of Ajax” (op. cit., c. 9), “the touchstone” (bk. 1, c. 9), and “the foundation of faith” (bk. 5, c. 2). Hoffmeister, Theol. patrum, p. 24: “We must believe only that truth which in no way disagrees or is out of harmony with ecclesiastical tradition.”
Yet they go off in different directions. (1) Some equate them with the written Word of God and place them on the same level with the Word. Council of Trent, sess. 4:
The sacrosanct Council of Trent notes that this truth and discipline are contained in the sacred books and in unwritten traditions that the apostles received from the mouth of Christ Himself or by the dictation of the Holy Spirit and that have come down to us as if given by hand. It has followed the examples of the orthodox fathers and accepts and reveres with equal affection of piety all the books of the Old and New Testaments, because one God is the author of both, as well as those traditions that pertain both to faith and behavior, as being dictated orally by Christ or the Holy Spirit and preserved by continual succession in the Catholic Church.
This decree was taken from [the Jus canonicum,] dist. 11, c. Ecclesiast.: “We have received some of the ecclesiastical institutions in writing; and some we have received that have been confirmed by apostolic tradition through their successors in the ministry; and some, strengthened by custom, have been given approval through their use. These have the same manner, and we owe each an equal affection of piety.” The Catech. ex decreto concil. Trid. editus, p. 12, Cologne edition: “Every form of teaching that must be given to the faithful is contained in the Word of God, which is distributed into Scripture and traditions.” Censur. Colon., f. 230, claims: “Traditions have equal authority and must be believed with the same faith as those things that have clear testimonies in Scripture.”
(2) There are some who prefer traditions to Scripture and give first place to traditions and second to Scripture. Lindanus, De opt. Script. interpret.: “All tradition of the Church is clearly the bow and stern of the Christian religion, the indubitable bulwark and fortress of salvation. So long as the foundation of tradition is safe, nothing harmful is brought against the Church, no matter how much the Scriptures may be destroyed.”
(3) There are some who give first place to the written Gospel and second place, not the same, to tradition, such as Stanislaus Hosius (according to Vergerius, Dialog. 1. contra Hosium, in Oper., vol. 1, f. 140) and Jacobus Nachiantes Clugiensis, bishop of Chioggia, who said at the Council of Trent: “The words ‘with equal affection of piety’ seem harsh to me because there is nothing that can be compared with the Gospel.” Because of this he was commanded by the officials to leave Trent and to go to Rome to obtain forgiveness from the pope (again according to Vergerius, Epistle ad regem Polon., f. 119).
§ 402. In De verbo Dei, bk. 4, Bellarmine proceeds to debate about traditions in this way: In c. 1 he lists those especially who have defended or assailed unwritten traditions.
In c. 2 he defines tradition and says that “it is a teaching that was not written—not that it has been written nowhere but that it was not written by its first author.” He rebukes Chemnitz because Chemnitz wanted to prove from Cyprian, who (in bk. 2, epistle 3) calls the mixture of the cup a dominical tradition, that “the word ‘tradition’ is assigned to written doctrine, though this is taught nowhere in the Gospel.” (Cyprian, however, thought that this had been written, but he still calls it a tradition. Therefore Chemnitz was speaking according to Cyprian’s supposition.) He uses as an example the Baptism of infants, regarding which he says “nothing is found written in any apostolic book.” (Yet Bellarmine himself, in De bapt., c. 8, draws three arguments from the Scriptures for establishing infant Baptism and adds, c. 9: “This is concluded quite clearly from Scripture.”)
Next, he says that there are two divisions of traditions, the first taken from authors; the second, from the material. The first group is divided into divine, apostolic, and ecclesiastical traditions. Those are called divine “that have been received from Christ Himself as He taught His apostles and that are found nowhere in the sacred books.” He says they are the sort that “pertain to the material and form of the sacraments, about which the divine books have little information, though it is certain that the essence of the sacraments could not have been established except by Christ Himself.” (With the word “sacrament” one understands either the two truly and properly called Sacraments of the New Testament—Baptism and the Eucharist—or the five sacraments of the Papists in addition to those two. The form and material of the former have been explained quite clearly in Holy Scripture; we deny, however, that the form and material of the latter are found therein. Accordingly, we do not acknowledge them as Sacraments instituted by Christ. But Bellarmine contradicts himself when he looks anxiously in the Scriptures for the material and form of these sacraments too.)
Those traditions are called “apostolic” “that were instituted by the apostles but not without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless we do not find them written in their Epistles.” He says that the Lenten fast and the fasts of the Ember days [quatuor temporum] are examples of this. (Whatever the apostles commanded to be observed throughout the Church as pertaining to faith and life, that is divine and necessary. All of this is contained in Holy Writ. On the other hand, whatever rituals and ceremonies they established in certain churches, those are free and adiaphora. The devout ancients say that the apostles did not legislate definite rules about fasting. Augustine, Epistle 86 ad Casulanum: “I find no limitation by command of the Lord or of the apostles as to what days one should not fast and what days he should fast.” Socrates, Hist. eccles., bk. 5, c. 21: “I think that the apostles left to the judgment of individuals that each person should do that which is good, not out of fear or necessity.” Therefore the Lenten fast cannot be referred to apostolic traditions. Therefore Hosius, Confess. Petricov., c. 4, refers it to ecclesiastical traditions. Other Papists refer it to divine traditions. In Adv. haeres., bk. 8, Alphonsus de Castro writes: “Many serious theologians affirm that Lent was instituted by Christ.” Here Bellarmine sides with neither faction because he refers the Lenten fast to neither divine nor ecclesiastical traditions but to apostolic traditions.)
Those that are called “ecclesiastical” traditions are “certain ancient customs, initiated either by prelates or by the people, that gradually developed the force of law, the consensus of the people being silent. These (he says) have equal force with the decrees and constitutions of the Church.” (In the civil commonwealth, indeed, the force of approved customs and written laws is the same, ff. De legibus, l. Diuturna.67 In the ecclesiastical commonwealth, however, it has not yet been demonstrated that these hold the same place. Furthermore, Bellarmine asserts that “ecclesiastical traditions have force equal to the traditions of the Church,” though he has not dared to equate them with the written Word of God. The fathers of Trent, however, decree that all traditions “are to be received with an equal affection of piety with the written Word of God.”)
The second group is divided into traditions about faith and traditions about behavior. These again are either perpetual or temporary, universal or particular, necessary or free. “Traditions about faith are that Mary was always a virgin and that there are four Gospels. Traditions about behavior are that the sign of the cross is to be traced on the forehead or that fasts are to be observed on certain days. A perpetual tradition is one that is instituted to be kept always until the end of the world, such as have been listed up to this point.” (Those either have been written, and thus they will be necessary, or they have not been written, and thus they will be free.) “A temporary tradition is one that has been established for a certain time, such as the observance of certain legal ceremonies (Acts 15).” (Yet these were written and, according to the law of love, one could understand that in matters of adiaphora he must have consideration for the weaker brethren.) “A universal tradition is one that is given to the entire Church to be kept, such as the observance of Easter and the great feasts. A particular tradition is one that is handed down to only one or several churches, such as, at the time of Augustine, the fast of the Sabbath that Peter had given to the church at Rome and was kept only by it and some others.” Augustine, Epistle 86 ad Casulanum: “A necessary tradition is one that is given in the form of a command, as the celebration of Easter on the first Sunday after the fourteenth day after the March full moon. A free tradition is one that is given in the form of advice, such as the sprinkling of purification water.” (What we approve and disapprove in these matters is revealed from our preceding comments, and one will see this in greater detail from what we shall add later.)
In c. 3 Bellarmine explains the state of the question and uncovers some lies of Chemnitz and others. (But an actual inspection of the passages easily frees them from the charge of lying).
In c. 4 he begins to demonstrate the necessity of traditions, where he argues that “Scripture without traditions is neither simply necessary nor sufficient.” We have discussed both points earlier.
In c. 5 he tries to prove from Scripture that “there are some genuine traditions: (1) Because of the proven imperfection of Scripture.” (However, we have proved the perfection of Scripture in the preceding chapter. In De verbo Dei, bk. 4, c. 11, Bellarmine himself concedes that “the apostles wrote all those things that are necessary to all people and that they set out openly for all people.”) And (2) “Because of the testimonies of Scripture,” which we shall consider in order.