§ 1. No one of all the Jubilarians, so far as I know, omitted this part. Therefore there is no need to name them all. The Heidelberg Evangelical Academic does so in theses 19 and 20. But in this matter scarcely anyone lies more bitterly than Erhard Lauterbach, who endeavors to show that the papists act
contrary to the word of God and follow their own traditions. And in sermon 1, part 1, he concludes: alles wider die H. Schrifft, also dass es der Teuffel auss der Hellen nicht wol köndte ärger machen—“all things are contrary to Holy Scripture, so that the devil from hell could scarcely do worse.” Polycarp Leyser does so in sermon 1. Baldwin Frederick, on page 7 of his preparatory sermon, defames all Catholic states because they make much of human laws after abandoning the word of God, and because in their churches they do nothing but kill souls: Es werde mit falscher Lehr vnd verbottenen Gottesdienst nur eitel Seelmordt begangen—“through false doctrine and forbidden worship, nothing but murder of souls is committed by Catholics in their churches.” Paul Laurentius, in his second sermon, page 24, affirms that the cause of all evils is that human traditions have prevailed against the divine word: Dass auss dess verfluchten Bapsts Gebott und Tyranney alles in Abgötterey sey verwandelt worden, da man an statt dess reinen Wort Gottes dess Bapsts Lügen und Menschen Satzungen wil getrieben haben—“Through the command and tyranny of the accursed pope all things have been transformed into idolatry, because the pope’s lies and human ordinances have taken the place of the pure word of God.”
Nor only in churches before the people do they fill ears with lies; poets also do so in the assemblies of ministers. It is pleasing to hear one of these, because his malevolence is clearer in it. It is Albert Otto Bilgenius, court tutor of Solms:
How great once was the darkness of the former age,
How great its deceptions, how great the deceit in the world;
Into how great a darkness of errors, and how great a Charybdis,
The ancient ages of our fathers fell—
Not even if I had tasted all the waters of Aganippe
Could I signify it in my verses.
The light of the Gospel in the age of our ancestors was more obscure
And feebler than winter light.
The voice of the Gospel, immersed in dense darkness,
Once lay buried in Cimmerian night.
The Bible, oppressed by the trifles and filth of the pontiffs,
Lost, resounded in no places.
No one was seen to unroll the books of the prophets;
No one dared to turn the apostolic books.
For if any read the sacred Bible with impartial minds,
They believed themselves struck by the pontiff’s thunderbolt.
Hence they taught that sacred Scripture—a great impiety—
Was imperfect, flexible, mutilated;
And that very many things were required for a salutary life
Which you would see to be foreign to the holy book;
Indeed, that one who sought the matter of salvation from it profited nothing,
And that it was by no means a good norm in religion.
Sleep securely, Dorbellus; and come with me,
Durandus, Biel and Holkot, and Ockham, Brikot.
Peter Lombard, Scotus, Thomas Aquinas
Gave laws to the churches and gave laws to the schools.
What aid, I ask, could bubble forth for the wretched
From the writings of these men? Tell me, I ask, O man.
These are his words. We shall explain the whole matter briefly in these propositions.
§ 2. First proposition. The Church has always used the unwritten word of God—that is, tradition. For before Moses, and indeed before the flood, there was a Church of God, yet there was no written word of God. Sharp acknowledges this in controversy 6, response to the first objection: “In the prosyllogism there is a deception of homonymy in the name ‘Scripture,’ for the substance of Scripture and the thing written—that is, the word of God. And then it is nothing other than doctrina ἄγραφος, unwritten doctrine. At another time it is taken for the accident of this doctrine, namely its writing and inscription in books. In the first sense Scripture is older than the Church, and thus the proposition is false. For Scripture, or the word of God, is the foundation of the Church, Ephesians 2:20. But a foundation is older than the building. Thus Scripture is the seed of the Church, Matthew 13:1; 1 Peter 1:23. But seed is older than that offspring of which it is the seed. Finally, this same word which is now written was then unwritten.”
But if the matter is dealt with sincerely between us, and “Scripture” signifies a written thing or a doctrine θεόπνευστον, divinely inspired, we now possess agreement. For when we say that certain unwritten things must be believed, we do not affirm that any doctrine not θεόπνευστον—that is, not revealed by God—is to be received as though it were revealed by God.
Next, after the coming of Moses it was written, but not all the heads of things necessary to be believed were immediately explained. There were therefore other things comprehended in the unwritten word, for it was not Moses’ purpose to write a catechism.
Third, this very word which Moses wrote could neither be read nor understood without tradition, as I showed above, on account of the omission of the points. Fourth, nowhere does God profess that he bound his doctrine only to ink and parchments. Therefore the laws of God are twofold, ἄγραφοι καὶ ἔγγραφοι, unwritten and written.
Fifth, there are many things which the adversaries are even now compelled to believe from the unwritten word: namely, that the word of God which was written has come down to us inviolate, and that the Apocalypse is the word of God. Indeed, the adversaries acknowledge, as Sharp does in column 123, that from Adam to Moses there was Scripture, but not the written word; for writing was not necessary except upon a hypothesis. Finally, many nations possessed no Scriptures for a long time.
§ 3. Second proposition. Sacred Scripture as it is now possessed is not sufficient to decide all controversies, nor was it formerly sufficient. For at the beginning they possessed only the Pentateuch, but it is not sufficient for all dogmas to be declared most openly from it. Likewise, even now the entire body of the canon does not suffice, for nowhere in it is it said that this whole body, and no other book outside it, is canonical; and yet we believe this. Accordingly, those who reject every tradition also cut down the canon of Scripture. This is so true that Sharp this year cast shame upon everyone. For in controversy 9, column 143, he proposed to himself objection 5: “It is not enough to know that Scripture is divine, but it is necessary to know which Scripture it is. But this cannot be known from the Scriptures. Therefore. The assumption is proved: how do we gather from Scripture that the Gospels of Luke and Mark are true, but those of Thomas and Bartholomew false, when reason dictates that a book bearing the title of an apostle ought to be believed more than one bearing the title of one who is not an apostle? And whence shall I gather that the Epistle to the Romans is truly Paul’s, but the Epistle to the Laodiceans is not Paul’s, when in Colossians 4 he says that he wrote to the Laodiceans, but nowhere says that he wrote to the Romans? Therefore.”
He answers himself in this manner: “The proposition is distinguished. It is indeed necessary to know this, but not absolutely necessary for salvation and in the same manner for all, because formerly many doubted concerning various canonical books, at least for a time, whom for that reason we shall not exclude from salvation. Next, those who possess the Holy Spirit, through whom we recognize the canonical books, do not possess him in the same measure. The same must be established concerning the other operations of the Spirit.”
If, therefore, it is not necessary for salvation to
believe that these are divine books, then, according to the opinion of the Jubilarians, neither is it necessary to believe that what is contained in them is divine. For this alone must be believed which is in divine books. Just as, if someone says that he must do only what is commanded by a royal diploma, if he is not bound to believe that the diploma offered is royal, he is excused from executing those things. A little afterward Sharp likewise answers: “It is not necessary to know that this or that book was written by this or that author, provided that I admit the writing itself as divine.” But he is bound more tightly by this. For if I do not know the author—if, for example, the author of the Apocalypse is unknown—whence shall we know, that is, from what Scripture shall we know, that it is divine? This is not established from Scripture; they have nothing else whence they may know it.
§ 4. A dreadful confusion followed contempt for the unwritten word of God in the Church—but in the church of the malignant. For first, when they said that they relied upon Scripture alone and all scattered into contrary parties, they published the Augsburg Confession as though it were a symbol of concord. After that had been changed and deserted, they composed the Book of Concord; but from it the greatest discord deprived all Lutheranism of life.
And certainly in this part also they overthrow all faith in Scripture and altogether deny Scripture. Libavius has these things in his book against Gretser:
I. The written word of God is not that description by characters.
II. Sacred Scripture and the written word are not that word of God concerning which Catholics and Lutherans dispute, but some other thing. For the written word can be changed and indeed burned. But the word of God remains forever, Isaiah 40.
III. If writing, or sacred Scripture, were the word of God, then it would be the word of God not only with respect to human beings but also with respect to angels. But sacred Scripture is not the word of God with respect to angels. Therefore neither is it the word of God with respect to human beings.
IV. If Scripture truly were the word of God, then it would be the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes. But it is not the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes. Therefore this Scripture is not truly the word of God.
V. If sacred Scripture truly were the word, it would be the wisdom and truth of God. But it is not the wisdom and truth of God. Therefore sacred Scripture is not truly the word of God.
VI. If the written word truly were the word of God, then it would be a light shining in darkness. But it is not a light shining in darkness. Therefore the written word is not truly the word of God.
VII. “Finally,” he says, “when I had come to this point, that from the word of God I had learned that the word of the Lord is living, that it is eternal, that it does not perish when the world perishes, that it will judge on the last day, that it is truth—which possesses such kinship with Christ that hence the Son of God is also called the Word and the Truth, and so also the Holy Spirit is Truth, just as the word of Christ is Spirit, John 6—I immediately saw that the written word, or Scripture comprehended in the volumes of the Bible, is not the word of God but something else. For Scripture, insofar as it is Scripture, does not live, is not life, is not truth, and does not remain forever.”
§ 5. If, therefore, Scripture is not the word of God, or it is not necessary to believe that it is the word of God, and yet it is the principle of faith, it follows that faith is uncertain. For that whose principles are uncertain is itself also uncertain; neither is a conclusion more certain, nor assent to that which follows from a principle firmer, than the principle itself upon which alone it depends. But knowledge of Scripture is not certain, because it is neither certain by faith nor certain by natural light. Therefore it is certain in no manner.
But so that the reader may see how great an injury they inflict upon us, and what they themselves say among themselves when they are alone, I shall append the propositions which Adolphus Venator Tectander promises in his Apology against the Dordrecht Men, pages 174, 175, and 176, that he will prove concerning the Counter-Remonstrants:
-
The right, best, safest, and perfect rule, square, and Lydian stone, not only of doctrine in the Reformed Church among the Belgians, but also of the whole Christian faith, is the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.
-
In the Confession and Catechism it is commanded that sects must be reviled and those who differ from us in even a little word in the confession must be condemned.
-
Without insults, sects and errors cannot be refuted.
-
The office of preachers is to indulge in abuse and insults.
-
If anyone does not understand that Scripture is imperfect and that, besides it, human traditions and formulas are necessary, he makes diversity of religion of little account.
-
Purity of doctrine cannot be preserved, sects cannot be averted, nor heresies refuted, without human constitutions and formulas.
-
The word of God by itself suffices neither for salvation nor for the good condition of the Church.
-
Scripture alone, without the statutes and decrees of the Church, is the chaos of all religions, the refuge of all heresies, and the way—if you insist upon it alone—to introduce every liberty into the Christian state.
-
Scripture is obscure and can be understood in various ways, and therefore it has need of the decrees and doctrines of the Church.
-
The Confession and Catechism alone are manifest, but Scripture is not; and these formulas cannot be explained in two or diverse ways.
-
The authors of the Confession and Catechism were wiser and more prudent, indeed more faithful to the Church and truth, and left better and more perfect writings to the Church, than the Evangelists and apostles themselves.
-
Pure doctrine cannot be known certainly from the word of God, but only from the Confession and Catechism.
-
The prophets and apostles left behind imperfect and doubtful writings, which cannot benefit even themselves, as writings from which we cannot recognize the way of truth certainly unless they are strengthened and illuminated by the additions and decrees of a particular church.
-
Scripture by no means comprehends all that must be believed absolutely for someone to be saved or to be a member of the Church.
-
Scripture has twofold meanings and is uncertain and imperfect.
-
Human traditions, decrees of councils, words, and explanations of matters of faith invented long after the times of the apostles must necessarily be believed for attaining salvation.
-
The word of God is not so necessary and useful to Christians as the Confession and Catechism are.
-
We can lack the word of God, provided that we preserve the Confession and Catechism.
-
It is not necessary to convince heretics and erring persons by Scripture or the word of God, or to refute their errors, but only by the Confession and Catechism.
20. It is not necessary to prove the Confession and Catechism by the word of God.
21. The authority of the Church surpasses the authority of Scripture.
22. Certainty of pure doctrine must not be sought from the word of God, but from the traditions and formulas of those human beings who followed long after the times of the apostles.
23. Scripture is not a suitable judge of controversies concerning religion.
24. No one possesses the right faith, nor is a Christian or a member of the Church, who does not receive the Confession and Catechism.
25. One must adhere to the Confession and Catechism further than insofar as they accord with the word of God.
26. The Confession and Catechism ought to be the norm of the meaning of Scripture, and human formulas ought to set the measure for explaining the word of God. But the word of God ought not to establish limits for understanding the writings of human beings.
27. No Christian is free to bind himself to the word of God alone, and one who presumes to do this shows that he departs from the true Christian religion.
28. Although the apostles themselves had made a creed or faith, nevertheless it would not be Scripture.
29. The Christian religion does not consist in a pious life but in much knowledge—not in how far each person lives, but in how far each person understands.
30. The doctrine concerning love of God and neighbor pertains to the law alone, not to the Gospel, and Jesus was a teacher of the law.
31. Those who are gathered to hear divine and spiritual things and who profess God and Christ are not the Church, likewise if they wish to adhere to the words of Christ and the apostles alone and not also to receive the decrees of councils and traditions of human beings.
32. Although some follow Scripture absolutely in all things, they are nevertheless heretics and cannot be the Church of God.
33. Papists and heretics are not Christians.
34. What the first planters of the Reformation confessed, and the martyrs of this land also sealed with their blood—namely, that in matters of faith Scripture alone must be adhered to and human institutions must not be received—is an invention for recalling all heresies from the abyss of hell.
35. One who understands that the word of God alone must be insisted upon proposes a means through which no peace can be possessed with God.
40. Neither Moses and the prophets nor the Evangelists and apostles of the New Testament can be understood in any manner, or be the foundation of doctrine or the square of the doctrine of the Old Testament.
63. Jeremiah, Paul, the Evangelists, and the angel Gabriel are Socinians and heretics.
65. To confess or say something which heretics also say is heretical and erroneous; and thus the prophets and apostles are all heretics.
68. The Evangelist and the angel Gabriel think nothing better concerning Christ than the Turks do.
The same Venator has the following on page 74:
“The Dordrecht brothers are not content with Scripture, but dare to speak of it so contemptuously that they say: ‘If Scripture alone had to be adhered to, everyone in Christianity would dare to say and do whatever he wished; and the Bible would become the manifest hiding place of all heresies, Libertines, and all others.’”
Add to these also the things which our Maximilian Sandaeus most truly reports concerning the preaching synagogue in his secular theme, and Heidelberg theme 11: “It teaches that sacred Scripture, which, insofar as it is the word of God, is the norm, rule, square, and gnomon of believing and living well, is not truly the word of God: 1. because it is not the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes; 2. because it is not the wisdom and truth of God; 3. because it is not a light shining in darkness; 4. because it does not remain forever. 12. It asserts that knowledge for distinguishing divine Scripture from nondivine is not necessary for salvation. 13. It denies that it must necessarily be believed with saving faith that the Scriptures which we possess are divine, or that the Gospel of Matthew which is read in the Church is divine and belongs to Matthew the apostle. 14. It contends that sacred Scripture is not certain of itself, nor free from error or falsehood. 15. It affirms that the writers of the New Testament sometimes knowingly and deliberately wrote contrary to the truth of history. 16. At times they conceded something from charity to a received and common error. 17. On account of public opinion they departed from the truth of history.”