Crowd-sourcing some footnotes!
The Council of Trent is Rome’s theological answer to the arguments of Luther. Martin Chemnitz’s Examination of the Council of Trent is the Lutheran answer to the Council. It is a brilliant work, but pretty pricey.
Last year Dylan Smith found an abridgement of Chemnitz’s Examination, and so far has translated Part 1 (On Scripture, On Tradition, On Original Sin, On Free Will, On Justification, On Faith, and On Good Works). It’s great!
I’m working on preparing this book for publication, but there are a lot of footnotes that I’d like to provide. As I’m working on this, I wonder, “What if my readers would like to help work on this together?” So we’ll try.
Here is the text of the Second Topi: Tradition. Chemnitz outlines the Eight different Classes of Tradition. It’s brilliant. He doesn’t have all the references included. Here’s what I would like to have in the footnotes:
- The reference to the Original Work (i.e. Eusebius, Church History, Bk 4, Ch 14)
- Schaff Church Fathers reference, if available. (i.e. NPNF-2:1, p.187)
- Link to read the text on-line. (https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201/npnf201.iii.ix.xiv.html) I’d prefer CCEL links to New Advent, when possible.
- If the text is not quoted, the please include the original quotation. (i.e. “But Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles, and acquainted with many that had seen Christ, but was also appointed by apostles in Asia bishop of the church of Smyrna. We too saw him in our early youth; for he lived a long time, and died, when a very old man, a glorious and most illustrious martyr’s death, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, which the Church also hands down, and which alone are true.”)
- You don’t need to include all of this information, but only what you have.
- Footnotes are noted in the text with [^#]. You can add your information in the comments.
Even if you are not adding footnotes, this is a beautiful exposition of the Lutheran view of tradition.
Christ is risen! PrBW
The Papal Use of Tradition
[1] This papist commonplace extends the furthest. It encompasses all papal doctrines and customs which are unbiblical. It is the actual Pandora’s box for all the church’s ruin in both error and superstition.
[3] The word “tradition” is not always used by the ancients with the same meaning. The traditions about which they speak are not all alike. The papists deceptively mix these testimonies together and paint all traditions with a single color, in order to adorn themselves with the appearance of antiquity. We must, therefore, analyze the entire substance of tradition in sections and assign them to particular classes.
[4] In the process, it must always be emphasized what is actually crucial in our dispute with the papists on the question of tradition. The papists argue that since all the articles of faith and moral teachings are not contained in Scripture, these articles and teachings are to be created from unwritten tradition; thus, they are to be believed without a scriptural justification, beyond and next to Scripture.
Section One: Traditions of the First Class: The Traditions of Christ and the Apostles
[1] The oral teaching of Christ and the apostles, which were subsequently written down by the evangelists and apostles is frequently called tradition. This is what it means to Cyprian[^1] and Basil[^2] when considering the original form of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But this tradition exists in writing.
[2] Let the reader note how sincerely the papists here proceed. Wherever they find the word “tradition,” they instantly twist it according to their traditions. Thus, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:1, “I remind you of the Gospel that I preached to you.” Here they instantly yell, “Are you listening? Here is tradition!” I am indeed listening, but I read right away in the same passage that Paul explains this tradition with Scripture. In verses 3 and 4 of that chapter, he recalls his proclamation that Christ died for our sins according to Scripture and that he was buried and raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. You thus hear how Paul’s tradition is in a twofold sense “scriptural” in as much as it is taken from the Old Testament Scripture and then committed to writing by Paul himself.
[4] We have a marvelous testimony from Irenaeus about Polycarp (Eusebius bk. 4, ch. 14). His doctrine was nothing other than that which was received from the apostles and preached by the church. Through the purity of his apostolic and ecclesiastical doctrine, he returned many heretics to God’s church. The papists, however, take this to mean that in his preaching of apostolic doctrine Polycarp made use of many apostolic instructions which are not found in Scripture. Nevertheless, the credibility of the papists is suspect for several reasons.
Irenaeus says Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians (in Eusebius, bk. 4, ch. 14)[^3] is written in such a way that the character of faith and the true doctrine can be recognized in it. In fact, the epistle gives no papal traditions, but rather shows us Christ, the incarnate and crucified one, as our righteousness and our life, and treats the resurrection, the judgment, faith, love, hope, good works, patience towards the weak, prayer, and other biblical lessons.
[5] Irenaeus also writes (in Eusebius bk. 5, ch. 20)[^4] that he preserved in his heart the things which Polycarp reported about his interaction with the apostles who have seen the Lord. And this report—so sound the golden words—agrees in all parts with Scripture.
Section Two: Traditions of the Second Class:The Transmission of Scripture in the Church
[1] The preservation of Holy Scripture by the faithful hands of church shows us the second kind of tradition.
[2] We honor this tradition, for the church confesses itself to be bound to this biblical teaching and urges posterity to also bind itself to Scripture. Augustine tells us how he came to faith. He obeyed the call of the Catholics: “Believe the Gospel!” In this context is his often-quoted statement, “I would not have believed the Gospel if the authority of the catholic church did not prompt me.”[^5] But once he had come to faith, in no way does he say he believes the church more than the Gospel. Rather, because he trusted the Gospel, he could not trust Mani.
[3] The papists then say, “If you accept the testimony of the church concerning Scripture, what right do you have to reject the testimony of the papal church concerning the rest of the traditions?” But we answer: There is a tremendous difference between the testimony concerning the Bible since the time of the ancient apostolic church and the lies which the papists issue and impose upon us as apostolic tradition.
From the testimonies of the ancient church the fathers bring the proof for such tradition concerning Holy Scripture as often as they talk about it. In so doing, the church shows us the Scripture it commends simultaneously as both the touchstone and the measure of true and false tradition. What agrees with Scripture is to be accepted; what does not agree is to be rejected.
[4] Christ and the apostles indeed accepted the testimony of the Pharisees concerning the Old Testament canon, but they by no means bound themselves to the articles of the elders. Therefore, we examine all other traditions according to Scripture.
Section Three: Traditions of the Third Class: The Patristic Appeal to Apostolic Tradition
[1] With lofty words Tertullian and Irenaeus celebrate the apostolic tradition. According to Irenaeus (bk. 3, ch. 4), “From the time of the apostles the church has had in rich abundance, as it were, the entire tradition of truth. If the apostles had left us no writings, then we would have had to adhere to the order of tradition which they entrusted to the overseers of the churches. Many Gentile peoples do this, who have the doctrine of salvation written and preserved in their hearts through the Spirit without ink and letter.”[^6] Thus far Irenaeus.
Similarly, Tertullian writes, “Christ had them preach, and only the message of the messengers holds validity, as it went out orally in part, and partly in writing, which needed the authentication of the churches founded by the apostles. Therefore, the doctrine which agrees with the apostolic mother churches in the earliest church is to be recognized as true. Any doctrine which is contrary to this truth must be a lie.” (See Tertullian’s The Prescription Against Heretics).[^7]
[3] These great encomia on tradition seem to speak in favor of the papal position. Moreover, a short dictum of Tertullian’s on this view stands as a papal sign of victory in all the Roman writings. It reads, “One should not appeal to Scripture in disputes; for the victory therein is uncertain.”[^8]
[4] Nevertheless, our conception of Scripture is not refuted by these discussions of Irenaeus and Tertullian, but rather confirmed when their remarks are taken in context. Do Irenaeus and Tertullian intend, for example, to establish articles of faith which are not attested in Scripture? Both quote articles of faith which are summarized almost verbatim in the Apostles’ Creed. So, it is as clear as day that the sum of all of Scripture is most excellently present in these articles.
[6] Why do Irenaeus and Tertullian nevertheless appeal to tradition and not to Scripture? Because the heretics saw that the church’s faith stood in Scripture, with their own error being outside of Scripture; they therefore rejected Scripture or lamented that it was insufficient (see Irenaeus, bk. 3, ch. 1)[^9]. The heretics either did not accept Scripture at all or did not accept it entirely. They complained that Scripture was so ambiguous and obscure that one could not find in it the truth. Therefore, Tertullian states that one should not refer to Scripture nor direct a dispute towards it. For in so doing, he means, there would be not victory, or only an uncertain one, against such heretics.
[7] The heretics tried to place Scripture in the wrong in relation to tradition through these alleged proofs:
1. The canon of Scripture is not the true one; thus it is not completely valid;
2. Given its ambiguity the truth cannot be discerned from Scripture;
3. At the very least one cannot reach it from Scripture alone, but only with the aid of tradition.
Thus, Irenaeus and Tertullian direct the heretics to tradition, namely, to the true apostolic tradition. Irenaeus rightly said at that time: “If no Holy Scriptures were left behind from the apostles, then the true apostolic doctrine could nevertheless be recognized in the apostolic tradition that has been genuinely preserved in the church up to this point.”[^10]
[8] Now this question is important: What did Irenaeus and Tertullian attempt to prove from this tradition, which at this time was not completely uniform in all the apostolic churches? It is certain—even the papists concede this—that these two teachers of the church did not try to advance any teaching from tradition that was contrary to Scripture. For the heretical traditions were rejected by them because they contradicted Scripture.
[9] Both of these teachers of the church explicitly identify the subject that they want to demonstrate from tradition, namely, the articles of faith which are contained in the Apostles’ Creed. Without a doubt these articles of faith are passed down in Scripture through many clear testimonies. Therefore, these two teachers of the church only seek to expound and prove scriptural articles of faith from tradition.
[10] Irenaeus describes in his work (bk. 4, ch. 63)[^11] how the ancient condition of the church and apostolic doctrine have been kept unadulterated through the diligent use of Scripture and its regular, careful interpretation up until his day. Tertullian says of the heretics: “They believe, without consulting Scripture, so that their faith can contradict Scripture.”[^12]
Tertullian states the same in other places as well. For example, he highlights with praise the fact that the church of Rome at his time gathered together the Law and the Prophets with the Gospel and the apostolic doctrine and takes her rule of faith from Scripture. Now concerning Scripture Tertullian writes, “What we are, it is that. We come from it.”[^13] From this it follows that the ancient condition and tradition of the church, according to Tertullian, accord with Scripture’s doctrine. According to him, Scripture and tradition can therefore be used with the same value.
[12] Thus, all the traditions which were claimed to be apostolic were in accordance with Scripture. Such traditions are therefore still in accordance with Scripture today and must be so. We know the ancient apostolic traditions accurately from the rules of faith which are specifically quoted by Irenaeus and Tertullian. For example, see Irenaeus bk. 1, ch. 2; bk. 3, ch. 4;[^14] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics.[^15]
Section Four: Traditions of the Fourth Class: The Ancient Tradition of Biblical Interpretation
[1] The fourth kind of traditions concerns the interpretation of Scripture or the true sense and original foundational concepts in Scripture. As is well known, Irenaeus and Tertullian had to fight the heretics not only about Scripture in general, but also about the way of interpretation and the true meaning of Scripture.
[2] In bk. 2, ch. 46–47, Irenaeus[^16] gives a few rules for interpreting Scripture, thereby expressing the real apostolic tradition. He first says that the sound and certain meaning of Scripture is the one which is evidently and clearly stated according to the very words in Scripture. His second principle is this: “Parables and allegories are not to be interpreted in a way that is contrary to this clear meaning of Scripture.”[^17] Irenaeus’s third principle reads: “Interpretation must agree with the entire doctrinal content of Scripture.”[^18] Fourth, “Some elements of Scripture are obscure. Some of its mysteries we will not be able to solve in the weakness of this life. These obscurities must not rob us of the consolation of proper faith which the clear words of the Bible reveal to us.”[^19]
If we follow these principles, Irenaeus says, then we will preserve faith. Then Scripture shall be to us as a harmonious whole, and we shall hear the same mellifluous sound from all the Bible’s words.
[3] From this it follows that the ancient church’s customary conception of Scripture did not draw anyone away from Scripture.
[5] We adhere to these ancient, genuine, and true apostolic traditions and we treasure them highly. For we confess all the writings of the prophets and apostles, in their original meaning, as expressed in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds.
[6] We likewise profess the views of Irenaeus and Tertullian, derived from apostolic tradition, concerning the proper interpretation and the sound meaning of Scripture. For this reason, we cannot be reproached for neglecting or despising the genuine ancient apostolic traditions of scriptural interpretation.
Rather, we disapprove that the papists wish to force upon us their unbiblical interpretation of the Bible derived from the power of their supreme authority. As we said, we are not able to catch sight of the apostolic tradition herein.
Section Five: Traditions of the Fifth Class: Traditions Properly Deduced from Scripture
[1] Gregory Nazianzus rightly says that some things are explicitly stated and contained in Scripture, whereas other things are contained in Scripture without being stated explicitly.[^20] The latter is, for example, the case with the teaching: “The Father is unbegotten.” Though this doctrine is not found in Scripture with the exact same wording, it can, however, be deduced from Scripture. In the same sense Origen states in bk. 5 on Romans, “The church receives from the apostles the tradition to also baptize infants.”[^21]
[2] Certainly it is not explicitly taught in Scripture: “Infants are to be baptized. The apostles baptized infants.” But wherever the fathers speak of baptizing children as a tradition, they seek to do so from certain and clear passages of Scripture.
[3] Lindanus, however, mocks us, as if we had hereby taken an article of faith from tradition without the testimony of Scripture. I desire, therefore, to cite a few testimonies from the ancients to show how much they endeavor to demonstrate scriptural reasons for baptizing infants. Thus, Augustine gives circumcision as a proof for the right of baptizing infants.[^22] Similarly, Origen mentions the natural sinfulness of infants. Irenaeus stresses the universality of salvation in Jesus Christ.[^23] Cyprian argues on the basis of the seriousness of the divine will for salvation.[^24] Ambrose and Augustine emphasize the necessity of rebirth.^25
[4] Let the reader see from this what it means when the ancients spoke of infant Baptism as a tradition, since they substantiate and secure it with many strong and firm scriptural testimonies.
The apostles received the command to Baptism for all people. It is written that entire houses were baptized by them. Doubtlessly there were also infants included therein whom Christ called to Himself.
[5] Our wanton opponents sneeringly refer us to the passages in Augustine where, in reference to infant Baptism, he appeals to the unwritten apostolic custom in the church.[^27] But whoever is more familiar with Augustine also knows how he justifies infant Baptism. Against the Donatists (On Baptism, Against the Donatists e.g. bk. 2, ch. 14; bk. 4, ch. 7; bk. 5, ch. 26) he appeals precisely not to the ecclesiastical custom, but rather to the testimony of Holy Scripture.[^28] From Scripture he does not evidence an actual example, but rather the fundamental right of infant Baptism. Much rests in the fact that the ecclesiastical custom agrees with the testimony of Scripture. This is what the issue is between us and Rome.
[7] To this fifth class of traditions also belong many debates of the ancients about the doctrines of the faith which have the firm basis of Scripture without being expressed in it syllable for syllable. Such an example is the doctrine of the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father. Against this, the Arians maintained that the Son’s equality with the Father is not written in Scripture. But again, Athanasius did not state that the wording is biblical, but that its sense is scriptural.[^29]
[8] Gregory of Nazianzus was not wrong to say (Fifth Theological Oration) that sticking to the syllables is a guise for a lack of conscience.[^30]
Section Six: Traditions of the Sixth Class: The Proper Reverence for the Fathers after Scripture
[1] Here we treat the collective consensus of the fathers. This formula is certainly well known: “The fathers have handed down this or that.” Andrada falsely cries that we do not honor antiquity. That is not the case. Of course, for us the study of Scripture is first. But after that, we have our daily joy in the harmony of that truth-loving and pure past.
[2] The view of our party is that the Word of God itself is the arbiter in questions of religion, and the testimony of the true church joins in secondarily. For there are always some pious to whom the Word of God falls. Through their confession they strengthened those who were yet weaker. For example, Polycarp and Irenaeus brought to the younger generation the knowledge that the “Word” (logos) in the beginning of the first chapter of John’s gospel is to be understood as a person. Therefore, the church, according to Melanchthon, is to be heard as a teacher. But according to him, faith and prayer is based on God’s Word, not the authority of men.
[3] Basil says well in the homily against the Sabellians, “Do not be anxious to hear that which pleases you, but rather what pleases God, what is scriptural, and also what does not contradict the fathers.”[^31]
[4] We also openly disagree with those such as Servetus who establish opinions for which there is not any testimony available at any time from the church.
[5] We do not, however, search the fathers because Holy Scripture is not sufficient for us. On the contrary, we do it based on something Augustine clearly stated from time to time, namely, to show how faithfully this or that doctrine was preserved and employed against error, lest one dare to refute it as seemingly false. [^32]
[6] Thus, Augustine states, “Cyprian’s letters are not my canon. Rather, I test them against the canon. What agrees with it, I gratefully accept. But that which does not agree, I will gladly let go” (Contra Cresconium).[^33]
[7] Julian rejects what Chrysostom had expressed, “Infants do not have sin.”[^34] Augustine says, “Take it to mean ‘No actual sins.’”[^35] Then there is no dispute. Now Julian asks, “Why did Chrysostom himself not need to add ‘actual?’” Certainly because he believed he would be understood properly in the catholic church. Consequently, the difficult passages of the fathers are to be understood from the context of the doctrine of faith. It occasionally happened to the fathers that if they wanted to refute something erroneous, they needed strong expressions and so fell into the opposite error, as happened, for example, with Dionysius of Alexandria, or inaccuracies have slipped out of the fathers in the flow of their speech. Also, they were sometimes milder towards customs of their time, even where they recognized them as corrupt.
Cyprian certainly reminds us: “We ought not to follow human custom, but rather divine truth.”[^36] Therefore, whereas the leniency of the fathers was not well received, they also openly condemned what was contrary to Scripture.
For this reason, Augustine rebukes those Donatists who glossed over the errors of the fathers, stating that it would be like someone wanting to imitate Peter in his denial.[^37] Those who say they would rather err with the fathers than attain what is right with others ought to take this to heart. We state that the fathers would have corrected many things if they would have been reminded.
We have seen how the fathers have taken a free stance on the writings of other fathers. The papists demand from us that we agree with the arbitrary passages from the fathers that they quote against Scripture without hesitation. Moreover, sometimes they quote the passages of the fathers in a completely distorted fashion.
Section Seven: Traditions of the Seventh Class: Traditions of Rites and Customs
[1] Under the traditions of the seventh class we understand the following: When the ancients speak of unwritten traditions, they do not actually mean articles of faith which are to be considered detached from Scripture, rather they are referring to ancient customs and rites which they trace back to the apostles because of their age. Included here are crossing oneself, praying in an eastward direction, baptismal customs such as the threefold immersion, renunciation, the confession of the creed, the manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, etc. If the union between us and Rome could be established concerning doctrine, then the understanding concerning ceremonies would be more easily achievable. That the apostles established some external provisions for the churches is certainly clear from Scripture. Though it cannot be determined with certainty, the apostolic origin of some other customs is also probable.
[2] We do have some firm apostolic perspectives, rules, and methods for assessing all the customs which have been passed down to us.
- Such customs are in accordance with Scripture which contain the implementation and elucidation of the teaching of Scripture, e.g., the proper celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the arrangement of the rite of Baptism, etc.
- Paul gives this characteristic to all apostolic customs: whatever is edifying, orderly, and honorable (1 Corinthians 14:26, 40).
- According to apostolic customs, Christian freedom governs the use of outward forms, so that the utilization of outward forms can be directed, changed, and abolished toward edification according to place, time, person, etc. Doctrine is universally valid for all times, whereas customs are permitted to be freely changed according to the status of the circumstances.
[4] This indeed is the apostolic perspective towards the evaluation of such traditions.
[5] We therefore do not simply reject all traditions of this sort. For what is not against faith or morals, we, with Augustine, consider indifferent, according to this apostolic perspective. Augustine also supports the removal of such customs which, by their multiplicity and appearance of force, exert pressure upon the churches, even when their incompatibility with faith is difficult to prove.
Section Eight: Traditions of the Eighth Class: Traditions without Scriptural Testimony
[2] Now we enter upon uniquely papal ground. It has to do with such traditions of faith and morals which lack any scriptural testimony. Nevertheless, the Tridentine Council wants these traditions to be honored just as much as Holy Scripture.
[3] Or does the council perhaps mean scriptural traditions? Certainly not. Soto puts down the following rule as infallible and catholic: “The Roman Catholic faith, in so far as it is not contained in Scripture, rests upon apostolic tradition. If the originator of an ecclesiastic custom is unknown, then it doubtlessly originates from the apostles.”[^38] Among such traditions he reckons the Roman sacramental administration, the invocation of the saints, good works, papal primacy, and prayers for the dead. In addition, countless other things are derived, such as priestly celibacy, dietary prohibitions, purgatory, and also indulgences, the cult of images, the legends of the saints, and so on.
[5] First, contemplate how dangerous it is for the church and how pernicious it is for faith if unbiblical statutes of man are elevated as tradition just as much as the biblically attested doctrine. For this reason, Paul warned the Thessalonians and Colossians not to be caught up in futile deception and performances of traditions.^39 Similar warnings are found in Irenaeus,[^40] Tertullian,[^41] and Athanasius.[^42]
[6] Second, consider how even excellent men of the church have fallen into snares when they ascribed too much to unwritten traditions. This applies, for example, to the bishop Papias (2nd century), who naively followed the traces of unwritten tradition in oral inquiry into the fates of the individual disciples, but accepted false teachings and fictitious parables as true, even blundering into the view of a thousand-year reign.[^43] Therefore, Eusebius remarks concerning this Papias that he misunderstood the apostolic traditions and did not consider them fairly as he did not possess good judgment.[^44] The errors of Clement of Alexandria also stem from the fact that he overvalued traditions.[^45]
[7] Third, it should be noted that with some of the ancients many passages from apocryphal or pseudepigraphal writings are quoted as though they were genuine traditions. Thus, Epiphanius calls fasting with bread and water a tradition, but it is first found in The Shepherd of Hermas, similitude 5.[^46] Likewise, that Enoch and Elijah will return before the last day to fight with the antichrist has been designated as an ancient tradition. It is taken, however, from the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus.[^47]
[8] Fourth, it is noteworthy that the fathers have attributed apostolic origin to quite a few ancient customs of uncertain age in order to give them more authority. This is known from the disputes about the dating of Easter, as the Romans traced their custom back to Peter and Paul, whereas the Asians ascribed their practice to John. One can see from this how quickly confusion arose in the church through the allusion of tradition. Tertullian mentions how many contrivances were defended without a scriptural basis, first under the name of traditions, then later under the protection of custom. All such contrivances the papists consider apostolic. But Tertullian does not say this, rather, in his own words, “Whoever their originator may have been.”[^48]
[9] Fifth, one needs to consider how many of the moral rules of the Montanists have crept in through the teaching of tradition. Thus, the papal teaching of the celibacy of the spiritual is a piece of rigid strict morality from Montanistic moral teaching. Tertullian’s writing on fasting is enlightening in this respect.[^49] From this we see that the church in the beginning, when she still looked through the perfect law of freedom, seriously condemned and rejected the Montanistic custom of fasting. Only later under the coaxing spell of hypocrisy did this tradition become established in the church with the quiet force of habit. One then unjustly handed a name over to it and spoke of an apostolic tradition.
[10] Sixth, we need to take into consideration that the papists are not able to bring forward from the authentic writings of the ancients any testimonies for their many traditions. For this reason, they invent apocryphal, pseudepigraphal, and spurious writings, or pretend they are the works of the ancients when it is a lie. Thus, there are forged letters allegedly of the most ancient popes. The books ascribed to Clement of Rome, with the exception of the Epistle to the Corinthians, were already recognized as false in the days of Eusebius. This is also the case with the newest invention of this kind, the allegedly ancient “Descriptions of the Life of the Apostles,” which was falsely attributed to Abdias of Babylonia. These descriptions are preserved in an entirely medieval monastic tone.
The letters of Ignatius provide a rich harvest. To be sure, the ancient bishop and martyr Ignatius really did write letters. Under the name of Ignatius letters have come down to us partially in Latin and partially in Greek. Though containing many good things, as they are now available to us, in several places they seem to have been reformulated in favor of papal hierarchy. In any case, even when they were still genuine, Jerome did not accord the letters of Ignatius’s letters any canonical status.
[11] Finally, the papists do not shy away from tracing catholic customs back to the apostles, even where we are able to prove that these customs originate from papal authors. This is the case, for example, with the so-called canon of the Mass. As history shows, the popes have worked on this for approximately 600 years. Therefore, we cannot speak of an apostolic origin of this canon of the Mass. Moreover, in Augustine’s days the opinion about purgatory was unsure and uncertain; now it is stamped as an unassailable apostolic tradition.
[12] In short, our view is as follows: We do not reject traditions which are from and according to Scripture. But we are dealing especially with those traditions which cannot be authenticated with any kind of scriptural testimony. Here it is insufficient to reassure us by saying, “This is apostolic tradition,” for this phrase is a snare. The wicked ones have thereby placed a trap which has caught some otherwise good ones. We have proven and confirmed this many times.
[13] We have seen that unbiblical traditions do not actually concern articles of faith but rather forms and customs. Perhaps Andrada will ask whether we reject the ceremonies altogether. Without developing a complete response to the question of the so-called indifferent things or adiaphora, we reply in short, “We allow the scriptural customs to stand; we reject the unbiblical ones.”
Faith is not bound to form. Faith is free, and it is also considerate to avoid causing offense, as it must bear with those who are weak in faith.
But our opponents are not content with our judicious and scriptural standpoints. When they can do nothing else, they appeal to the antiquity and long existence of custom. We respond from their own law: “Custom, if it does not rest upon the truth, is only an error from ancient time.”[^50]
[^1]:
[^2]:
[^3]:
[^4]:
[^5]:
[^6]:
[^7]:
[^8]:
[^9]:
[^10]:
[^11]:
[^12]:
[^13]:
[^14]:
[^15]:
[^16]:
[^17]:
[^18]:
[^19]:
[^20]:
[^21]:
[^22]:
[^23]:
[^24]:
[^27]:
[^28]:
[^29]:
[^30]:
[^31]:
[^32]:
[^33]:
[^34]:
[^35]:
[^36]:
[^37]:
[^38]:
[^40]:
[^41]:
[^42]:
[^43]:
[^44]:
[^45]:
[^46]:
[^47]:
[^48]:
[^49]:
[^50]:
