Point 7: Of Traditions
Traditions are doctrines delivered from hand to hand, either by word of mouth or by writing, beside the written word of God.
Our consent.
Conclusion 1. We hold that the very word of God has been delivered by tradition. God first revealed his will to Adam by word of mouth, and renewed the same to the patriarchs not by writing but by speech, by dreams, and other inspirations. Thus the word of God went from man to man for the space of two thousand four hundred years, until the time of Moses, who was the first penman of holy Scripture. For the space of this time, men worshipped God and held the articles of their faith by tradition, not from men but immediately from God himself. The history of the New Testament, as some say for eighty years and as others think for twenty years and more, went from hand to hand by tradition, till penned by the Apostles, or being penned by others was approved by them.
Conclusion 2. We hold that the prophets, our Savior Christ, and his Apostles spoke and did many things good and true which were not written in the Scriptures, but came either to us or to our ancestors only by tradition. As 2 Timothy 3:8 says, Jannes and Jambres were the magicians that withstood Moses — yet in the books of the Old Testament we shall not find them once named, and therefore it is likely that the Apostle had their names by tradition or by some writings then extant among the Jews. So Hebrews 12:21 records of Moses that when he saw a terrible sight in Mount Sinai, he said, I tremble and am afraid — words not to be found in all the books of the Old Testament. In the Epistle of Jude, mention is made that the devil strove with Michael the Archangel about the body of Moses, which point, not being found in holy writ, it seems the Apostle had by tradition from the Jews. That the prophet Isaiah was killed with a fuller's club is received for truth, but yet not recorded in Scripture. Likewise, that the Virgin Mary lived and died a virgin. Many worthy sayings of the Apostles and other holy men are recorded in ecclesiastical writers and received by us for truth, though not set down in the books of the Old or New Testament. Many things we hold for truth not written in the word, if they are not against the word.
Conclusion 3. We hold that the Church of God has power to prescribe ordinances, rules, or traditions touching time and place of God's worship, and touching order and comeliness to be used in the same. In this regard, Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2 commends the Church of Corinth for keeping his traditions. In Acts 15, the Council at Jerusalem decreed that the churches of the Gentiles should abstain from blood and from things strangled. This decree is termed a tradition, and it was in force among them so long as the offense of the Jews remained. This kind of traditions, whether made by general councils or particular synods, we take care to maintain and observe — with these caveats: first, that they prescribe nothing childish or absurd to be done; second, that they not be imposed as any parts of God's worship; third, that they be severed from superstition or opinion of merit; and lastly, that the Church of God not be burdened with the multitude of them.
The difference.
Papists teach that beside the written word, there are certain unwritten traditions which must be believed as profitable and necessary to salvation. These they say are twofold: Apostolical, namely such as were delivered by the Apostles and not written; and Ecclesiastical, which the Church decrees as occasion is offered. We hold that the Scriptures are most perfect, containing in them all doctrines needful to salvation, whether they concern faith or manners. Therefore we acknowledge no such traditions beside the written word which shall be necessary to salvation — such that whoever believes them not cannot be saved.
Our reasons.
Testimony 1. Deuteronomy 4:2: You shall not add to the words that I command you, nor take anything therefrom. Therefore the written word is sufficient for all doctrines pertaining to salvation. If it be said that this commandment is spoken as well of the unwritten as of the written word, I answer that Moses speaks of the written word only — for these very words are a certain preface which he set before a long commentary made of the written law, to make the people more attentive and obedient.
Testimony 2. Isaiah 8:20: To the law and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Here the prophet teaches what must be done in cases of difficulty. Men must not run to the wizard or soothsayer but to the law and testimony, and here he commends the written word as sufficient to resolve all doubts and scruples in conscience whatsoever.
Testimony 3. John 20:31: These things were written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, and in believing might have everlasting life. Here is set down the full end of the Gospel and of the whole written word, which is to bring men to faith and consequently to salvation. Therefore the whole Scripture alone is sufficient to this end without traditions. If it be said that this place must be understood of Christ's miracles only, I answer that miracles without the doctrine of Christ and knowledge of his sufferings can bring no man to life everlasting. Therefore the place must be understood of the doctrine of Christ and not of his miracles alone, as Paul teaches in Galatians 1:8: If we or an angel from heaven preach to you anything beside that which we have preached, let him be accursed. And to this effect he blames those who taught a doctrine different from what he had taught in 1 Timothy 1:3.
Testimony 4. 2 Timothy 3:16-17: The whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, and to instruct in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, being made perfect for every good work. In these words are contained two arguments to prove the sufficiency of Scripture without unwritten doctrines. First: that which is profitable for these four uses — to teach all necessary truth, to confute all errors, to correct faults in manners, and to instruct in righteousness — is sufficient to salvation. But Scripture serves all these uses, and therefore it is sufficient, and unwritten traditions are superfluous. Second: that which can make the man of God — that is, prophets and apostles and the ministers of the word — perfect in all the duties of their callings is sufficient to make all other men perfect in all good works. But God's word is able to make the man of God perfect. Therefore it is sufficient to prescribe the true and perfect way to eternal life, without the help of unwritten traditions.
Testimony 5: The judgment of the Church. Tertullian says, Take from heretics the opinions which they maintain with the heathen, that they may defend their questions by Scripture alone, and they cannot stand. Again, We need no curiosity after Christ Jesus, nor inquisition after the Gospel. When we believe it, we desire to believe nothing beside — for this we first believe: that there is nothing more which we may believe. Jerome on Matthew 23, writing of an opinion that John the Baptist was killed because he foretold the coming of Christ, says: This, because it has not authority from Scriptures, may as easily be contemned as approved. In these words there is a notable argument against all unwritten traditions. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 2, chapter 9: In those things plainly set down in Scripture are found all those points which contain faith and manners of living well. Vincent of Lerins says: The canon of Scripture is perfect and fully sufficient to itself for all things.
Beside these testimonies, other reasons serve to prove this point. First, the practice of Christ and his Apostles, who for the confirmation of the doctrine they taught always used the testimony of Scripture. It cannot be proved that they ever confirmed any doctrine by tradition. Acts 26:22: I continue to this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses said should come. By this we are given to understand that we must always have recourse to the written word as being sufficient to instruct us in matters of salvation. Second, if the believing of unwritten traditions were necessary to salvation, then we must believe the writings of the ancient fathers as well as the writings of the Apostles, because Apostolical traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their books. Yet we may not believe their sayings as the word of God, because they often err, being subject to error. For this cause their authority, when they speak of traditions, may be suspected, and we may not always believe them upon their word.
Objections for Traditions.
Objection 1. 2 Thessalonians 2:15: The Apostle bids that Church keep the ordinances which he taught them either by word or by letter. Hence they gather that beside the written word, there are unwritten traditions that are indeed necessary to be kept and obeyed. Answer: It is very likely that this Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that Paul ever wrote to any church, though in order it does not have the first place. Therefore at the time when this Epistle was penned, it might well fall out that some things needful to salvation were delivered by word of mouth, not being as yet written by any Apostle. Yet the same things were afterward set down in writing, either in the second epistle or in the epistles of Paul.
Objection 2. That Scripture is Scripture is a point to be believed, but that is an unwritten tradition — and therefore there is at least one tradition not written that we are to believe. Answer: That the books of the Old and New Testament are Scripture is to be gathered and believed not upon bare tradition, but from the very books themselves. Let a man endued with the spirit of discerning read the several books, and let him consider the professed author thereof which is God himself, and the matter therein contained, which is a most divine and absolute truth full of piety, and the manner and form of speech which is full of majesty in the simplicity of words. The end at which they wholly aim is the honor and glory of God alone. He shall be resolved that Scripture is Scripture even by the Scripture itself, and by this means he may discern any part of Scripture from the writings of men whatsoever. Scripture proves itself to be Scripture. Yet we do not despise the universal consent or tradition of the Church in this case, which though it does not persuade the conscience, yet is a notable inducement to move us to reverence and regard the writings of the prophets and Apostles. Not in any one particular place or book of Scripture, but in every line and page of the whole Bible — to him that can read with the spirit of discerning and can discern the voice of the true pastor, as the sheep of Christ can do.
Objection 3. Some books of the canon of Scripture are lost, as the book of the Wars of God (Numbers 21:14), the book of the Just (Joshua 10:13), the books of Chronicles of the kings of Israel and Judah (1 Kings 14:19), and the books of certain prophets, Nathan, Gad, Iddo, Ahijah, and Shemaiah. Therefore the matter of these books must come to us by tradition. Answer: Though it be granted that some books of canonical Scripture are lost, yet the Scripture still remains sufficient because the matter of those books, so far as it was necessary to salvation, is contained in these books of Scripture now extant. Again, I take it to be a truth that no part of the canon is lost — for Paul says in Romans 15:4: Whatever things were written beforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. Where he takes it for granted that the whole canon of holy Scripture was then extant. For books that are lost serve neither for learning nor comfort. Again, to hold that any books of Scripture should be lost calls into question God's providence, and the fidelity of the Church, which has the books of God in keeping and is therefore called the pillar and ground of truth. Touching the book of the Just, and the books of Chronicles — these were but as the Chronicles of England are with us: political records of the acts and events of things in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, from which the prophets gathered things necessary to be known and placed them in holy Scripture. As for the books of Iddo, Ahijah, Shemaiah, Gad, and Nathan, they are contained in the books of Kings and Chronicles, and in the books of Samuel. As for the books of Solomon which are lost, they did not concern religion and matters of salvation, but were concerning matters of philosophy and such like things.
Objection 4. Moses in Mount Sinai, beside the written law, received from God a more secret doctrine which he never wrote, but delivered by tradition or word of mouth to the prophets after him — and this the Jews have now set down in their Kabbalah. Answer: This indeed is the opinion of some of the Jews, whom in effect and substance sundry Papists follow, but we take it for no better than a Jewish fantasy. For if Moses had known any secret doctrine beside the written law, he would never have given this commandment of the said law: You shall not add anything thereto.
Objection 5. Hebrews 5:12: God's word is of two sorts — milk and strong meat. By milk we must understand the word of God written, wherein God speaks plainly to the capacity of the rudest; but strong meat is unwritten traditions, a doctrine not to be delivered to all but to those who grow to perfection. Answer: We must know that one and the same word of God is milk and strong meat, in regard of the manner of handling and propounding of it. For being delivered generally and plainly to the capacity of the simplest, it is milk; but being handled particularly and largely, fitted for men of more understanding, it is strong meat. For example, the doctrine of creation, of man's fall, and of redemption by Christ, when taught broadly and plainly, is milk — but when the depth of the same is thoroughly opened, it is strong meat. Therefore it is a conceit of man's brain to imagine that some unwritten word is meant by strong meat.
Objection 6. Sundry places of Scripture are doubtful, and every religion has its several exposition of them — the Papists have theirs, and the Protestants theirs. Seeing there can be but one truth, when question is of the interpretation of Scripture, recourse must be had to the tradition of the Church, that the true sense may be determined and the question ended. Answer: It is not so, for in doubtful places Scripture itself is sufficient to declare its own meaning — first, by the analogy of faith, which is the sum of religion gathered out of the clearest places of Scripture; second, by the circumstances of the place and the nature and signification of the words; third, by conference of place with place. By these and like helps contained in Scripture, we may judge which is the truest meaning of any place. Scripture itself is the text and the best commentary. And Scripture is falsely termed the matter of strife — it being not so of itself, but by the abuse of man.
Thus much for our dissent concerning traditions, wherein we must not be wavering but steadfast, because notwithstanding our renouncing of popery, popish inclinations and dispositions are rife among us. Our common people marvelously favor human traditions — yes, man's nature is inclined more to be pleased with them than with the word of God. The feast of the nativity of our Savior Christ is only a custom and tradition of the Church, and yet men are commonly more careful to keep it than the Lord's Day, the keeping of which stands by the moral law. Positive laws are not sufficient to restrain us from buying and selling on the Sabbath, yet within the twelve days no man keeps market. Again, see the truth of this in our affection to the ministry of the word: let the preacher allege Peter and Paul, the people count it but common stuff — such as any man can bring. But let men come and allege Ambrose, Augustine, and the rest of the fathers, and he is the man alone for them. Again, let any man be in danger any way, and straight he sends to the wise man or wizard: God's word is not sufficient to comfort and direct him. All this argues that popery denied with the mouth abides still in the heart. Therefore we must learn to reverence the written word by ascribing to it all manner of perfection.
Traditions are doctrines passed down from person to person, either by word of mouth or in writing, outside of the written word of God.
Our consent.
Conclusion 1. We hold that God's word itself was delivered by tradition. God first revealed His will to Adam by word of mouth and renewed it to the patriarchs not through writing but through speech, dreams, and other means of inspiration. In this way God's word passed from person to person for approximately two thousand four hundred years, until the time of Moses, who was the first writer of holy Scripture. During this entire period, people worshipped God and held the articles of their faith by tradition — not from human beings but directly from God Himself. The history of the New Testament, as some estimate for about eighty years and others for twenty years or more, also passed from hand to hand by tradition, until the apostles wrote it down, or it was written by others and approved by them.
Conclusion 2. We hold that the prophets, our Savior Christ, and His apostles spoke and did many things that were true and good but were not recorded in Scripture — things that reached us or our ancestors only by tradition. For example, 2 Timothy 3:8 identifies Jannes and Jambres as the magicians who opposed Moses — yet in the Old Testament books they are never named. It is likely Paul learned their names through tradition or from writings then circulating among the Jews. Hebrews 12:21 also records that when Moses saw the terrifying sight at Mount Sinai, he said, 'I am full of fear and trembling' — words not found anywhere in the Old Testament books. In the letter of Jude, there is a reference to the devil disputing with Michael the archangel over the body of Moses — a detail not in Scripture, which suggests the apostle received it from Jewish tradition. That the prophet Isaiah was killed with a carpenter's club is accepted as true but is not recorded in Scripture. Likewise, that the Virgin Mary lived and died a virgin. Many worthy sayings of the apostles and other holy men are recorded by church writers and accepted by us as true, even though they are not found in the Old or New Testament. We hold many things as true that are not written in God's word, provided they are not contrary to it.
Conclusion 3. We hold that the church has authority to establish ordinances, rules, and traditions concerning the time and place of worship, and concerning the order and decency to be observed in it. Paul commends the church at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 11:2 for keeping the traditions he had passed on to them. In Acts 15, the council at Jerusalem decreed that the Gentile churches should abstain from blood and from things strangled. This decree is called a tradition, and it remained in force among them as long as the Jews found it offensive. This kind of tradition, whether established by general councils or particular synods, we are careful to maintain and observe — with these qualifications: first, that it prescribes nothing childish or absurd; second, that it not be imposed as any element of God's worship itself; third, that it be kept free from superstition or any idea of merit; and finally, that the church not be burdened with too many of them.
The difference.
Papists teach that alongside the written word, there are certain unwritten traditions that must be believed as useful and necessary to salvation. These they divide into two kinds: apostolic traditions (delivered by the apostles but not written down) and ecclesiastical traditions (decreed by the church as occasion arises). We hold that Scripture is fully sufficient, containing all doctrines necessary to salvation — whether concerning faith or conduct. We therefore acknowledge no unwritten traditions alongside the written word that are necessary to salvation in such a way that a person who does not believe them cannot be saved.
Our reasons.
Testimony 1. Deuteronomy 4:2: 'You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it.' Therefore the written word is sufficient for all doctrines pertaining to salvation. If someone objects that this command applies equally to unwritten and written words, I answer that Moses is speaking only of the written word — for these very words are a preface he placed before a long commentary on the written law, to make the people more attentive and obedient.
Testimony 2. Isaiah 8:20: 'To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.' Here the prophet teaches what must be done in difficult cases: people must not run to the medium or fortune-teller but to the law and to the testimony. He presents the written word as fully sufficient to resolve every doubt and question of conscience.
Testimony 3. John 20:31: 'These have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.' Here the full purpose of the Gospel — and of the entire written word — is stated: to bring people to faith and thereby to salvation. Therefore the whole of Scripture alone is sufficient for this end, without traditions. If someone objects that this verse refers only to Christ's miracles, I answer that miracles apart from Christ's doctrine and knowledge of His sufferings cannot bring anyone to everlasting life. The verse must therefore be understood as referring to Christ's doctrine and not merely to His miracles — as Paul teaches in Galatians 1:8: 'Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed.' Paul also rebukes those who taught differently from what he had taught in 1 Timothy 1:3.
Testimony 4. 2 Timothy 3:16-17: 'All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.' These words contain two arguments for the sufficiency of Scripture without unwritten doctrines. First: whatever is useful for these four purposes — teaching all necessary truth, refuting all error, correcting faults in conduct, and training in righteousness — is sufficient for salvation. Scripture serves all four of these purposes. Therefore it is sufficient, and unwritten traditions are unnecessary. Second: whatever can make 'the man of God' — that is, the prophets, apostles, and ministers of the word — complete in all the duties of their calling is sufficient to make all other people complete in every good work. But God's word is able to make the man of God complete. Therefore it is sufficient to prescribe the true and perfect way to everlasting life, without the help of unwritten traditions.
Testimony 5: The testimony of the Church. Tertullian says: 'Take from heretics the opinions they share with the pagans, so that they must defend their positions by Scripture alone — and they cannot stand.' And again: 'We need no searching curiosity after Christ Jesus, and no further inquiry beyond the Gospel. When we believe it, we desire to believe nothing beyond it — for this is what we believe first: that there is nothing more for us to believe.' Jerome, commenting on Matthew 23 regarding the tradition that John the Baptist was killed for foretelling the coming of Christ, says: 'Since this has no authority from Scripture, it may as easily be rejected as accepted.' In these words there is a notable argument against all unwritten traditions. Augustine, in On Christian Doctrine, book 2, chapter 9: 'In the passages set down plainly in Scripture are found all the points that concern faith and right living.' Vincent of Lerins says: 'The canon of Scripture is perfect and fully sufficient in itself for all things.'
Beyond these testimonies, other arguments support this point. First: the practice of Christ and His apostles. They always appealed to Scripture to confirm the doctrine they taught. It cannot be shown that they ever confirmed any doctrine by tradition. As Paul says in Acts 26:22: 'I have had God's help to this day, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place.' This shows that we must always return to the written word as sufficient to instruct us in matters of salvation. Second: if believing unwritten traditions were necessary to salvation, we would also need to believe the writings of the ancient church fathers — since apostolic traditions are found nowhere else but in their books. Yet we may not treat their words as the word of God, because they often err, being fallible. For this reason their authority, when they speak of traditions, may be questioned, and we cannot always take them at their word.
Objections for Traditions.
Objection 1. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 has the apostle telling that church to hold firmly to the traditions they were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter. From this they conclude that, alongside the written word, there are unwritten traditions that must be kept and obeyed. Answer: It is very likely that this letter to the Thessalonians was the first Paul ever wrote to any church, even though it does not hold first place in the collection. When this letter was written, it may well have been the case that some things necessary to salvation had been delivered by word of mouth and had not yet been written down by any apostle. Nevertheless, those same things were afterward set down in writing, either in the second letter to that church or in Paul's other letters.
Objection 2. The fact that Scripture is Scripture is itself something to be believed — yet that is an unwritten tradition. Therefore there is at least one unwritten tradition we are obligated to believe. Answer: That the books of the Old and New Testament are Scripture is something to be gathered and believed not from bare tradition alone, but from the books themselves. Let a person with the Spirit of discernment read through the individual books and consider the declared author — God Himself — and the content, which is a most divine and absolute truth full of piety, and the manner and style of expression, which carries great majesty in the simplicity of its words. The entire aim of these books is the honor and glory of God alone. Such a person will be convinced that Scripture is Scripture by Scripture itself, and by this means he can distinguish any part of Scripture from all merely human writings. Scripture proves itself to be Scripture. We do not despise the universal consent or tradition of the Church in this matter — which, while it does not compel the conscience, is a significant help in moving us to reverence and regard the writings of the prophets and apostles. This is true not in any one particular place or book, but in every line and page of the whole Bible — to the person who reads with the Spirit of discernment and can recognize the voice of the true Shepherd, as Christ's sheep can.
Objection 3. Some books of the biblical canon are lost — such as the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14), the Book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13), the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah (1 Kings 14:19), and books by certain prophets: Nathan, Gad, Iddo, Ahijah, and Shemaiah. Therefore the content of these books must reach us through tradition. Answer: Even granting that some canonical books are lost, Scripture remains sufficient — because whatever content from those books was necessary to salvation is contained in the canonical books that do exist. Moreover, I believe that no part of the canon is actually lost. Paul says in Romans 15:4: 'Whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.' He takes it for granted that the whole canon of Scripture was available to him — because books that are lost serve neither for instruction nor for comfort. Furthermore, to claim that any books of Scripture have been lost calls into question both God's providence and the faithfulness of the church, which has been entrusted with keeping God's books and is therefore called 'the pillar and foundation of truth.' As for the Book of Jashar and the Chronicles of the Kings — these were essentially the equivalent of the chronicles of England: political records of events in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, from which the prophets drew what was necessary and incorporated into holy Scripture. As for the books of Iddo, Ahijah, Shemaiah, Gad, and Nathan — these are contained in the books of Kings, Chronicles, and Samuel. As for the books of Solomon that are said to be lost — these did not concern religion or matters of salvation but dealt with philosophical and similar subjects.
Objection 4. On Mount Sinai, Moses received from God, beyond the written law, a more secret doctrine — one he never wrote down but transmitted by word of mouth to the prophets after him. This, the Jews say, is what they have now preserved in their Kabbalah. Answer: This is indeed the position of some Jews, and in substance a number of papists follow them in it — but we regard it as nothing better than a Jewish fantasy. If Moses had known any secret doctrine beyond the written law, he would never have given the commandment: 'You shall not add anything to it.'
Objection 5. Hebrews 5:12 teaches that God's word comes in two forms — milk and solid food. By 'milk,' we should understand the written word, in which God speaks plainly to the understanding of even the simplest person. But 'solid food' refers to unwritten traditions — a doctrine not to be given to everyone but only to those who are advancing toward maturity. Answer: One and the same word of God is both milk and solid food, depending on how it is presented. When it is delivered broadly and plainly for the simplest person's understanding, it is milk. When it is handled with depth and detail, suited to people of greater understanding, it is solid food. For example, the doctrines of creation, the fall of humanity, and redemption through Christ — when taught simply and plainly — are milk. When their depth is fully opened up, they are solid food. It is therefore a human invention to imagine that 'solid food' refers to some unwritten word.
Objection 6. Many passages of Scripture are disputed, and different groups have their own interpretations — the papists have theirs, and the Protestants have theirs. Since there can be only one truth, when the question is about the meaning of Scripture, recourse must be had to the tradition of the church so that the true sense can be determined and the debate settled. Answer: This does not follow. In disputed passages, Scripture itself is sufficient to declare its own meaning — first, through the analogy of faith, which is the summary of Christian teaching gathered from the clearest passages of Scripture; second, through the context of the passage and the natural meaning of the words; third, through comparing one passage with another. By these and similar helps found within Scripture itself, we can determine the truest meaning of any passage. Scripture is its own text and its own best commentary. It is wrong to blame Scripture for being the cause of disputes — the problem lies not in Scripture itself but in the misuse of it by people.
This covers our disagreement on traditions — a point on which we must be firm and unwavering, because even among those who have rejected Rome, popish tendencies and inclinations remain widespread. Our ordinary people show a remarkable preference for human traditions — indeed, human nature is more drawn to them than to the word of God. The celebration of our Savior's birth is nothing more than a church custom and tradition, yet people are commonly more conscientious about observing it than about keeping the Lord's Day, which is commanded by the moral law. Human laws have not been enough to stop people from buying and selling on the Sabbath — yet throughout the twelve days of Christmas no one holds market. We see this same tendency in how people respond to preaching: if the preacher quotes Peter and Paul, the congregation counts it as ordinary material, such as anyone could find. But if a man cites Ambrose, Augustine, and the other fathers, he is considered the authority. And again: if a person faces some danger, the first thing he does is run to a fortune-teller or wise man — God's word is apparently not sufficient to comfort and guide him. All of this shows that the Roman religion, rejected with the lips, still lives in the heart. We must therefore learn to honor the written word by ascribing to it every kind of perfection.
