318. Once the existence and divine origin of Christian revelation have been demonstrated, the question spontaneously arises: “where is it found?” This question would be satisfied more fully if we inquired into the medium instituted by Christ for propagating, conserving, and proposing His doctrine as truly credible. But we carried out this investigation according to our powers when treating of the rule of faith (On the Infused Virtues, disputation 4, article 1 ff.); and therefore here we inquire only generally into the sources from which Christian doctrine can be drawn. Indeed, not all sources of this sort must be treated here; since we completed the dogmatic questions pertaining to the written word of God in the same treatise On the Infused Virtues (same place). Therefore here only this is asked: “whether, besides the written word of God, oral traditions must be admitted.”
319. But it is useful first to present the genuine concept of tradition and to define the true state of the question. And: 1) The name of tradition, according to a certain very broad acceptation, signifies any doctrine or institution received from the elders and transmitted to posterity, whether by writing, or by voice, or by practice. In this sense it is said (Exodus 17.14): “Write this for a memorial in a book, and hand it down to the ears of Joshua”; and the Apostle says (2 Thessalonians 2.14): “Hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” But tradition of this sort can be considered objectively, and it is the very doctrine which is transmitted or communicated to posterity; actively, and it is the complex of acts and means by which it is communicated; comprehensively, and it is the transmitted object together with the means by which it was transmitted. Comprehensively, as is clear, tradition must be taken in order that its full concept may be had. 2) In a less broad sense, tradition means any doctrine or institution transmitted from the elders to us as if from ear to ear, or without writing. In this sense Tertullian wrote (On the Crown, chapter 4): “If you demand the law of the Scriptures for these disciplines, you will find none: tradition is set before you as author, custom as confirmer, and faith as observer.” Yet thus far tradition abstracts from sacred and profane, true and false, pious and impious, and so forth. 3) Taken in the strict and theological sense, tradition is a doctrine or institution pertaining to religion, or to faith and morals, transmitted not by writing but by living voice, as if from ear to ear, and coming down even to us. The object of tradition accepted in this way is sacred, true, pious; and concerning it we are treating here.
320. But the division of this tradition is manifold. For: 1) By reason of object, tradition is divided into dogmatic and moral. The first presents unwritten doctrine either to be believed properly by divine faith, as is, for example, the divinity of the whole of Sacred Scripture which the Catholic Church uses, the fourfold number of the Gospels, etc.; or necessarily connected with the doctrine of faith, or even revealed, but not yet sufficiently proposed to be explicitly believed by divine faith. The other presents unwritten doctrine pertaining to forming the morals of the Church; and this either is properly of morals, insofar as it precisely contains good to be done or evil to be avoided; or is of discipline, insofar as it contains those things which regard the external governance of the Church and of the faithful, as is, for example, public penance; or is of rites, insofar as it contains those things which pertain to the external worship of God, as are, for example, the rubrics to be observed in the sacrifice of the altar. 2) By reason of subject, one tradition is universal, another particular. The first regards the universal Church, or all the faithful everywhere, as is, for example, the authenticity of the four Gospels, the celebration of Easter, the Lenten fast, etc.; the other regards only one or a few particular Churches. Such was, for example, the fast which was observed at Rome on the day of Saturday, and concerning which St. Ambrose, as St. Augustine reports (to Januarius, epistle 118), used to say: “When I come to Rome, I fast on Saturday; when I am here” [at Milan], “I do not fast.” 3) By reason of duration, tradition is divided into perpetual and temporary. The first is said to be that which was instituted from the beginning so that it would always endure in the Church, without being able to be changed by any authority; such are, for example, the things which pertain to the matter and form of the Sacraments, the precept concerning water to be mixed with the chalice, concerning which St. Cyprian wrote (book 2, epistle 3): “But know that we have been admonished that, in offering the chalice of the Lord, the Lord’s tradition be observed, and that nothing else be done by us than what the Lord first did for us, so that the chalice which is offered in commemoration of Him be offered mixed with wine.” The other is said to be that which either was instituted so that it would endure for a certain time, or is of such a nature that it can be changed by the Church; such, for example, was the tradition concerning abstinence from things strangled, concerning baptism by triple immersion, concerning the communion of the faithful under both species, etc. 4) By reason of obligation, necessary and free tradition are distinguished. Necessary is said to be that which, instituted by way of precept, must be observed; such are, for example, first of all dogmatic traditions, the observance of some greater feasts, the time of celebrating Easter, etc. Free is that which indeed is commended or proposed to the faithful by way of counsel, but is left to their judgment, insofar as it has not been instituted by way of precept; such is, for example, the use of the sign of the cross, of holy water, etc.
321. But the principal division of tradition, which ought especially to be of use in the present controversy, is into divine, apostolic, and ecclesiastical. This division is taken on the part of the author; hence that tradition is called divine which has God as author, and therefore is doctrine or an institution divinely revealed and transmitted from elders to posterity from mouth to mouth. That tradition is called apostolic which has the Apostles as authors and comes down even to us by a similar means. Finally, ecclesiastical tradition has the Church as author after the times of the Apostles. But divine tradition is subdivided into dominical and apostolic; or apostolic is subdivided into simply apostolic and apostolic-divine. The Council of Trent furnishes the foundation for this division (session 4), saying that “all saving truth and discipline is contained in written books and unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles with the Holy Spirit dictating, as if handed down by hands, have come down even to us.” Dominical is the tradition which was proposed by the mouth of Christ Himself; apostolic is that which the Apostles received from the Holy Spirit and of which they themselves were the first heralds (compare On the Infused Virtues, n. 486 ff.). Likewise, simply apostolic tradition is that which first emanated from the Apostles, who proposed it not in the name of God, but in their own name; namely, as rulers and pastors of the Church, but not as heralds of divine utterance. Of this sort is the institution of Lent, the observance of the Lord’s day in place of the Sabbath, the Symbol which is called that of the Apostles, etc. But divine-apostolic tradition is that which the Apostles first proposed, but in the name of God Himself, and therefore as His heralds; this tradition therefore is truly divine. Yet it must be noted that apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions are sometimes called divine by the Fathers, either because they were received by authority divinely accepted, or because they were instituted with the Holy Spirit assisting; and conversely, divine traditions are sometimes called apostolic or ecclesiastical because the Apostles and the Church promulgated them and transmitted them to us. Compare Bellarmine (On the Word of God, book 4, chapter 2).
322. Moreover, equal force is in dominical and divine-apostolic traditions, since they are equally divine and are distinguished only by reason of the first visible herald; and therefore it is not necessary always to be able to discern them. But so far are Catholics from attributing the same force to divine traditions and to simply apostolic or ecclesiastical traditions, as the Innovators calumniously charge, that they assign rules accurately for discerning them. Certainly: 1) That some tradition is merely ecclesiastical can be established from the later epoch in which it was instituted; from the document from which it has its origin, and which can be assigned; etc. But if it is doubtful whether it is ecclesiastical or apostolic, the rule handed down by St. Augustine must especially be employed (Against the Donatists, book 1, chapter 24): “What the universal Church holds, and which was not instituted by councils but always retained, is most rightly believed to have been handed down by no authority except apostolic.” 2) But in order that it be discerned whether it is simply apostolic or divine: a) the very matter of the tradition must be inspected. For if it is a doctrine which the universal Church holds as a dogma of faith, and yet it is not contained in the Scriptures, it is to be referred to divine tradition; for neither can the universal Church err in these things, nor is divine faith possible in an object not divinely revealed. Such is, for example, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. If the institution is such that it altogether requires divine power, and yet is not found in the Scriptures, it must be referred to divine tradition; examples are had in the matters and forms of the Sacraments, in sacramental confession to be put before eucharistic reception, etc. b) It must be inspected by whom and how some doctrine or institution is proposed. For if most of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church so propose something that they condemn the contrary as heretical, with the rest not contradicting; if an ecumenical Council, etc., teaches something in the same way, that certainly pertains to divine tradition. Of this sort, for example, is the tradition concerning the veneration of holy images. If a doctrine or institution is guarded as divine in a Church certainly apostolic, it is most rightly judged divine; you have an example in the deuterocanonical books, in the baptism of heretics, etc. If the Church by her practice shows that she cannot change some institution, or dispense in it, it is rightly judged divine. c) But the supreme and safest rule is the judgment of the Church; this is sufficiently established from the things disputed elsewhere concerning the office of the Church in the matter of faith, and it will be confirmed from the things to be said concerning the infallible magisterium of the Church. Compare Bellarmine (same place, chapter 9).
323. These things having been laid down concerning the nature and divisions of tradition, it must be known that the question between us and the Innovators here properly turns around divine traditions, whether dominical or divine-apostolic; around dogmatic traditions, or traditions of faith, and moral traditions, or traditions of morals; around unwritten traditions. But traditions of this sort are called unwritten so that this source of Christian revelation may here be distinguished from Sacred Scripture. Wherefore all writing is not excluded (for traditions can be found, for example, in the writings of the Fathers); but divinely inspired writing is excluded. “But unwritten doctrine,” says Bellarmine (On the Word of God, book 4, chapter 2), “is called not that which is written nowhere, but that which is not written by the first author” [herald]. “Let the baptism of infants be an example. That little children are to be baptized is called an unwritten apostolic tradition, because this is not found written in any apostolic book, although it is written in the books of almost all the ancient Fathers.”
324. Now the Innovators do not deny that divine traditions, if they exist, have the same authority as the Scriptures; but from the principle established by them, that Scripture contains the whole Word of God and therefore is the sole rule of faith, they first denied the existence and necessity of any divine tradition. It is read in the Formula of Concord (p. 570): “We believe that the only rule and norm according to which all dogmas and all teachers ought to be estimated and judged is absolutely no other than the prophetic and apostolic Scripture of both the Old and New Testament.” And in the Second Helvetic Confession, chapter 2: “We sustain no other judge in the cause of faith than God Himself pronouncing through Sacred Scripture what is true, what is false, what is to be followed or what is to be avoided.” And in article 6 of the Anglican Church: “Sacred Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation, so that whatever is not read there, nor can be proved by it, ought not to be required of anyone to be believed as an article of faith, or to be judged necessary for salvation.” Compare Bellarmine (the cited book, chapter 3).
325. But later certain men softened this doctrine. For they introduced the distinction of tradition into inhesive and declarative. They called inhesive tradition that which exhibits altogether the same dogmas which are found in the Scriptures; of this sort, for example, they said is the doctrine concerning Christ’s Resurrection, which the Scriptures and the common sense of the faithful equally report. But they called declarative that tradition which has more expressly the doctrine which the Scriptures teach more briefly or less clearly. They thought of this sort the doctrine concerning the Eucharist not being necessary for little children, which restricts the words of Christ, “Unless you shall eat, etc.” (John 6), to adults alone. They acknowledged each of these traditions; but they always denied traditions exhibiting doctrine by no means contained in the Scriptures. Hence they attributed no force to tradition as distinct from Scripture, which they retained as the sole rule of faith. Compare Shuttleworth (Not Tradition, but Scripture).
326. The Council of Trent declared the Catholic antithesis (session 4), teaching that “saving truth and discipline of morals” are contained “in written books and unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, with the Holy Spirit dictating, as if handed down by hands, have come down even to us.” It adds that the Holy Synod “receives and venerates, with equal affection of piety and reverence,” the Scriptures, “and also those traditions themselves pertaining both to faith and to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Spirit, and conserved in the Catholic Church by continuous succession.” It concludes: “But if anyone knowingly and deliberately contemns the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.” Indeed the Holy Synod declares that it will use both Scriptures and traditions “in confirming dogmas and restoring morals in the Church”; and it decrees “that no one dare interpret Sacred Scripture itself against that sense which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even against the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” Compare the Vatican Council (Dei Filius, chapter 2).
327. From these documents it is clear: 1) that two sources of divine revelation are admitted, plainly distinct as to the mode by which it is communicated and transmitted, namely Sacred Scripture and oral tradition; and that equal force is asserted for this latter, even apart from Scripture. 2) That not only inhesive or declarative traditions are admitted, but also traditions by no means contained in the written word of God. The Innovators especially denied these, and therefore the Council asserted the same. Nor did the Fathers of the Council, asserting the twofold foundation of faith, Scripture and tradition, not know that several things are held in the Church which rest upon tradition alone. But if Theologians sometimes undertake to show truths of this sort also in the Scriptures, this is because they are intimated from the Scriptures, not because they are demonstrated apodictically. Indeed, as we shall see, there are some which the Scriptures do not even intimate. 3) Wherefore tradition is necessary not only for establishing truths contained in Scripture, but also for having the whole deposit of revelation. But if sometimes all truths of faith and morals are said to be exhibited in the Scriptures, this must be understood insofar as some are immediately exhibited in the Scriptures, but others only mediately, or through tradition, which the Scriptures themselves proclaim must be admitted.
328. Therefore, these things having been noted beforehand: Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved. PROPOSITION XV. Christian revelation is contained not only in written books, 1. but also in unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves with the Holy Spirit dictating, as if handed down by hands, have come down even to us. 2. Indeed, so great is the breadth of Christian tradition that it both exhibits dogmas contained in the Scriptures, and exists as the sole source of several others. Therefore tradition, when the order of comprehension is considered, extends more widely than Scripture.
329. The first part is proved. I. From the economy instituted by Christ. 1) Certainly Christ the Lord announced His doctrine by living voice, nor did He leave anything written. He imposed upon the Apostles the duty that they should teach, preach, and be witnesses; but nowhere is it read that the duty of writing was imposed as an apostolic duty. Hence not all the Apostles wrote, although all rightly discharged their duty. But He wished the imposed apostolic duty to be exercised everywhere on earth, among all nations, even to the consummation of the age; therefore the duty of teaching, preaching, and testifying, from Christ’s institution, must be perpetual. But just as Christ, once His divine mission had been proved, required faith, so also He wished that faith be given to the preaching of the Apostles, so that those who did not believe would be condemned. All these things are established historically from the Gospels. 2) Nor can it be said that this economy would endure only until the Scripture of the New Testament, and therefore ceased with the Apostles. For there stands against this: a) the very perpetuity of the instituted apostolic ministry. b) “If Christ and the Apostles,” says Bellarmine (same place, chapter 4), “had proposed to limit and restrict the word of God to Scripture, first Christ would openly have commanded a matter of such great moment” [the sole means of propagating His doctrine], “and the Apostles somewhere would testify that they wrote from the mandate of the Lord, just as from the mandate of the Lord they taught in the whole world; but we read this nowhere. Then, the Apostles did not wait for an offered occasion or necessity to preach by living voice, but went forth voluntarily and from their own institution; but they applied their mind to writing only when compelled by a certain necessity.” 3) But the argument increases if we recall in mind that Christ willed universality and unity of faith, which certainly cannot be obtained by the help of Scriptures alone, with tradition excluded. Especially since the Scriptures themselves are so constituted that they are often obscure and excite questions, they necessarily require another medium by which the doctrine contained in them may be rightly understood, communicated to all, and be one and the same among all. But that medium is tradition. “When the Church,” writes St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 10, n. 2), “has received this preaching and this faith, as we have said before, although scattered throughout the whole world, she diligently guards it as if inhabiting one house; and she believes these things similarly, namely as if having one soul and one heart, and constantly preaches and teaches and hands down these things as if possessing one mouth. For although languages in the world are dissimilar, nevertheless the power of tradition is one and the same.” 4) Therefore, just as in the time of the preaching of Christ and the Apostles Christian doctrine was drawn from oral tradition, so also after the Scriptures of the New Testament have been completed, full force remains at the same time in oral tradition as a source of Christian revelation. We have scarcely sketched here this argument, plainly distinguished in the present controversy, because we unfolded it according to all its parts in the treatise On the Infused Virtues (disputation 4, articles 2, 3, 5).
330. II. From the ancient, perennial, unanimous persuasion and profession of the prevailing Christian society. This argument has manifold force. For, first, what the doctrine and constitution of some society is cannot be known better than from the society itself; just as we learn from the very societies themselves the constitution and laws by which any empire, kingdom, or commonwealth is ruled. Secondly, if in the first centuries themselves of Christian society tradition was admitted unanimously and publicly, we cannot deny it unless by asserting that that society immediately fell away from its own institution, and consequently that Christ was not a prudent architect, since He would have built His house not upon rock but upon sand (Matthew 7.24). Thirdly, who could persuade himself that the medium for propagating Christian doctrine was better known in the sixteenth century by the Innovators than it was known by the Fathers in the first times of the Church? To this point belong the words of Tertullian (On Prescription, chapter 28): “Come now, let all have erred; let the Apostle also have been deceived in bearing witness; let the Holy Spirit have had regard to no Church, so as to lead it into truth, though sent for this by Christ and asked for this from the Father, that He might be the teacher of truth; let the steward of God, the vicar of Christ, have neglected His office, allowing the churches meanwhile to understand otherwise and believe otherwise than what He Himself was preaching through the Apostles. Is it at all likely that so many and such great churches should have erred into one faith?… In whatever manner the error occurred, certainly error reigned for so long as heresies did not exist. Was the truth waiting to be freed by some Marcionites and Valentinians? Meanwhile the Gospel was being wrongly preached, it was being wrongly believed, etc.” Fourthly, finally, the force of the argument is greatest, once the infallibility of the Church has been supposed, which we shall demonstrate in its own place. Now: 1) The Fathers establish certain general principles which suppose or construct tradition. For a) institutions which cannot be proved from the Scriptures they call Tradition, Apostolic Tradition, Dominical Tradition: thus Tertullian (On the Crown, chapter 4), St. Cyprian (Letter 63, to Caecilius), St. Augustine (On Baptism, book 2, chapter 7, and book 5, chapter 23). b) They distinguish the Scriptures from traditions by reason of the mode in which doctrine is to be propagated: thus St. Irenaeus (book 3, chapter 4), Tertullian (On the Crown, chapter 3), Vincent of Lerins (Commonitorium, n. 32). c) They join tradition and Scriptures together, as two sources of Christian revelation: thus St. Irenaeus (book 3, chapter 5, n. 1), Tertullian (On Prescription, chapter 19), St. Basil (On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27), St. John Chrysostom (on 2 Thessalonians, homily 4, n. 2). d) They teach that the doctrine of Christ is to be drawn from the apostolic churches: thus Tertullian (On Prescription, chapter 21). e) They exhort us to learn the faith from the successors of the Apostles: thus St. Irenaeus (book 4, chapter 26, nn. 2, 5). f) They establish that ecclesiastical preaching is the norm according to which revealed doctrine is to be judged: thus Origen (On Principles, preface, n. 2), Athanasius (Letter to Epictetus, n. 3), Vincent of Lerins (Commonitorium, chapters 29, 31). 2) I. The Fathers expressly affirm, as it were theoretically, that traditions are to be admitted. Thus in the first century St. Ignatius (in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chapter 36) exhorted the faithful “to beware for themselves of the depraved opinions of heretics… and he exhorted them to cling tenaciously to the traditions of the Apostles.” Hegesippus (ibid., book 4, chapter 22) comprised the apostolic traditions in five books. St. Polycarp (ibid., book 4, chapter 14) reported words which Christ had uttered and which he himself had heard from the Apostles concerning His virtues and doctrine. Papias (ibid., book 4) and Dionysius (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 1) may be added. II. St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 3) reproves the craftiness of the Valentinians and Gnostics, who, while they were pressed by the Scriptures, had recourse to traditions, and conversely returned to the Scriptures while they were constrained by traditions. On this occasion (chapter 3) he writes: “Therefore the tradition of the Apostles, manifested in the whole world, is present in every Church for all who wish to see rightly to behold.” Then (chapter 4) he adds: “To this ordering many nations of barbarians assent, who believe Christ, having salvation written without paper and ink by the Holy Spirit in their hearts, and diligently guarding the ancient tradition.” Whence (chapter 5) he concludes: “Therefore, since the tradition which is from the Apostles so stands in the Church and remains among us, let us return to the demonstration which is from the Scriptures.” Tertullian, as all know, discusses many things concerning this matter. We shall report what he has (On Prescription, chapter 37): “If these things so stand, that truth is adjudged to us, whoever we are who walk in that rule which the Church handed down from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God, the reason of our proposition is established, defining that heretics must not be admitted to entering upon an appeal concerning the Scriptures, whom without the Scriptures we prove not to belong to the Scriptures.” III. Besides Tertullian, who could also be referred to this century, we have Clement of Alexandria, who could be referred to the preceding one. He writes (Stromata, book 7, chapter 16): “They are held by the desire for glory who voluntarily elude, by other arguments, those things which agree with the divinely inspired words, handed down from the blessed Apostles and teachers, resisting by human doctrines the divine tradition, so that they may establish heresy.” Origen (On Principles, book 2, n. 2): “Since there are many who think that they understand the things that are Christ’s, and some of them think things diverse from those before them, while the ecclesiastical preaching handed down from the Apostles through the order of succession and remaining in the churches down to the present is preserved, that truth alone is to be believed which in nothing disagrees from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” St. Cyprian (Letter 63) and Serapion (in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 12) proclaim the same. IV. We have Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Epiphanius, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzen, whose testimonies, and very many others, Bellarmine reports (On the Word of God, book 4, chapter 7). V. St. Jerome (Dialogue against the Luciferians, chapter 4): “Even if the authority of Scripture did not lie beneath it, the consent of the whole world on this side would obtain the force of a precept. For also many other things which are observed through tradition in the Churches have usurped for themselves the authority of written law.” St. Augustine (Letter 118, to Januarius): “But those things which we guard not as written but as handed down, which indeed are observed throughout the whole world, are given to be understood as retained either as commended and established by the Apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority is most salutary in the Church.” Compare the Walenburgs (On Testimonies or Traditions, chapter 6). 3) The Fathers practically assert the same doctrine, constantly opposing to rising heresies not only the Scriptures, but also tradition. First of all it should be noted that, just as the prevailing Christian society constantly adhered to traditions, so heretics, separating themselves from that society, rejected traditions; this is surely a very grave presumption against the Innovators of the sixteenth century. Certainly St. Clement of Rome opposed tradition to the rebellious Corinthians (First Letter to the Corinthians); St. Irenaeus opposed the same to the Valentinians (book 3, chapter 3, n. 2); by the same means Tertullian refuted Marcion, who mutilated the Scriptures (On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 2); with the aid of tradition Serapion rejected the Gospel of Peter (in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 12); St. Cyprian objected tradition to schismatics (On the Unity of the Church), Pacian to the Novatians (Against the Novatians, letter 3); St. Athanasius, disputing with the Arians, Nazianzen with the Apollinarians (to Cledonius, letter 2), Nyssen with the Eunomians, St. Basil with the Pneumatomachi (On the Holy Spirit, chapters 9, 25, 27), Cyril with the Nestorians (Defense against the Orientals, anathema 8), Optatus with the Donatists (Against Parmenian), St. Augustine with the Pelagians (Against Julian), Nicephorus with the Iconoclasts (Shorter Apology for the Holy Images, n. 2), had recourse to tradition. Wherefore Canus rightly writes (On Theological Places, book 3, chapter 6): “Since all the saints confidently objected unwritten traditions to the adversaries of the Catholic faith, and by their force, just as if they had been written, each overthrew the heresies of his own time, certainly with no lesser efficacy shall we be able through traditions of this sort to refute and overthrow whatever dogmas of heretics, whether they now exist or even shall exist in the future.” 4) The Fathers draw the same doctrine from the Scriptures themselves. For a) the Apostle writes (1 Corinthians 11.2): “I praise you, brothers, because in all things you are mindful of me, and as I delivered to you, you hold my precepts.” On this place St. Basil (On the Holy Spirit, chapter 29) says: “I judge it to be apostolic to persevere also in unwritten traditions. ‘I praise you,’ says [the Apostle], ‘because you remember all my things, and as I delivered to you, you hold the traditions.’” St. John Chrysostom, Theophylact, St. Epiphanius (heresy 61), and St. John Damascene (book 4, chapter 17) teach the same concerning this place. b) The Apostle himself writes (2 Thessalonians 2.15): “Therefore, brothers, stand, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” On this place St. John Chrysostom says: “Hence it is plain that they did not hand down all things by epistles, but many things also without letters. But the former and the latter alike are worthy of the same faith.” And Oecumenius and Theophylact use the same words; Damascene (book 4, chapter 17) agrees with them, saying: “That the Apostles handed down very many things without writing, Paul writes: Therefore, brothers, stand, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by epistle.” c) The same Apostle writes (1 Timothy 6.20): “O Timothy, guard the deposit, avoiding the profane novelties of words and the oppositions of knowledge falsely so called”; and (2 Timothy 1.13-14): “Have the form of sound words which you have heard from me in faith and in love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us”; and (2 Timothy 2.1-2): “You therefore, my son, be strengthened in the grace which is in Christ Jesus. And the things which you have heard from me through many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men, who will be fit to teach others.” These words, sufficiently clear in themselves, St. John Chrysostom and Theophylact explain in such a way that they comprehend not Scripture alone, but the understanding of dogmas, the sense of the Scriptures, other dogmas also, or the whole treasury of doctrine which the Apostle wished to be propagated through tradition. And St. Irenaeus alludes to these things (book 3, chapter 4), writing: “The Apostles most fully deposited in the Church, as into a rich depository, all things which belong to truth”; and (book 4, chapter 43): “It is necessary to obey the Presbyters of the Church, who have succession from the Apostles, who with the succession of the Episcopate have received the certain charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father.” Compare Bellarmine (same place, chapter 5). 5) Finally, Christian society professed the same doctrine in Synods. St. Athanasius (On the Decrees of Nicaea) says: “Therefore with this understanding the Fathers who assembled at Nicaea wished to use those words [homoousion]. But that they did not fashion these terms from themselves, as the adversaries object, but received them long ago from others, let us now declare in the present matter.” When he has supplied this, he adds: “Behold, we demonstrate that a sentence of this sort was handed down from Fathers to Fathers as if by hands. But you are new Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, etc.” The Council of Chalcedon (Act 2): “This is the faith of the Fathers; all the Apostles so taught; so we believe; anathema to him who does not so believe.” The Fifth General Council concludes its definitions thus: “Since therefore we have rightly confessed these things, which have been handed down to us both from the divine Scriptures and from the doctrine of the holy Fathers, and from those things which were defined concerning one and the same faith by the aforesaid four Councils, etc.” The Seventh General Council, in the definition of faith, says: “Walking the royal road and standing upon the doctrine of our holy and divine Fathers, and observing the tradition of the Catholic Church, in which the Holy Spirit dwells, we define, etc.” To these may be added the Synod of Ariminum and Seleucia (Letter of St. Anastasius on the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia, nn. 3-5), the Synod of Sardica (Letter to Julius the Roman Pontiff, letter to the Church of Alexandria, and to all the churches), the First Council of Constantinople (in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 9), the Synod of Ephesus (in Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, penultimate chapter). From these things it is manifest that the Councils of Trent and the Vatican innovated nothing by declaring oral tradition to be a source of revelation, but confirmed the ancient doctrine of the Church.
331. III. From analogy and induction. Certainly, 1) men were led to salvation before the written law by traditions alone. Hence it is said (Genesis 18.19): “For I know that Abraham will command his sons and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord and do judgment and justice”; and (Job 8.8-10): “Ask the former generation, and diligently search the memory of the fathers; and they themselves will teach you, they will speak to you, and from their heart they will bring forth sayings.” 2) After the written law also, traditions had force. Thus it is read (Psalm 77.5 ff.): “What great things He commanded our fathers to make known to their sons, that another generation might know them, the sons who will be born, and they will arise and tell them to their sons”; and (Sirach 8.11 ff.): “Let not the narration of the elders pass you by; for they themselves learned from their fathers; because from them you will learn understanding, and in the time of necessity to give an answer.” 3) The same economy was in force in the first promulgation of the Gospel, as we have seen and as all acknowledge. 4) All human commonwealths have unwritten laws, or customs. Pericles, for example, in Thucydides, divides the law of Athens into written and unwritten; Aristotle (book 3 of the Politics, chapter 11) establishes that the city is to be ruled not by written laws alone, and (chapter 4) calls judgment living law, to indicate that besides it there exists written law, which is as it were dead. To these may be added what Plutarch reports concerning the Lacedaemonians; what Tullius has (On Laws, book 1); what Caesar writes concerning the wise men of the Gauls (Gallic War, book 6); and finally what is read in the Civil Law (l. diuturna, Digest, On Laws) and in Canon Law (distinction 1, canon Consuetudo), where the same force is attributed to written law and to unwritten custom. 5) Must this not be admitted for a stronger reason in the Church of Christ, in which the charism of infallibility is the guardian of immovable tradition? Compare the treatise On the Infused Virtues (n. 706 ff. and 979). Hence it is not wonderful if several of the more distinguished Protestants have at last proclaimed the existence and necessity of tradition; Benedictus Bachinius reports their testimonies at length (in Polemical Letters, tome 1, letter 2, section 12).
332. The second part is proved. I. Since it has already been established that divine traditions exist, if they are to be restricted to those things alone which are contained in the Scriptures, so that they exhibit nothing to be believed besides that which is in the Scriptures, this certainly must be demonstrated. But this can in no way be demonstrated; indeed, the contrary is easily demonstrated. Therefore. The minor is proved. And: 1) From the nature of the thing it cannot be demonstrated that all things to be believed by divine faith are contained in the Scriptures. For from the nature of the thing, in the present matter, only that is necessary which is required for believing by faith the revealed word of God. But for this it is not necessary that the revealed word be written. For a) for this it is only necessary that the revealed word be sufficiently proposed as prudently credible and to be believed by divine faith. But this, as is plain of itself and as we demonstrated in the treatise On the Infused Virtues (n. 700 ff., 934 ff.), can be obtained without the Scripture of revelation. b) Before the Scriptures existed, there was divine faith in the world; before the Scriptures of the New Testament existed, there was faith concerning those things which were proper to Christian revelation; therefore divine faith is possible without the Scriptures. 2) Nor is it shown from the ordinary providence of God that tradition does not extend more widely than the Scriptures. For a) all with whom the matter is here being conducted admit that from the origin of the human race there existed a revelation concerning God the Creator and Sanctifier; concerning the future life; concerning good and evil angels; and especially concerning the future restorer (compare On the Infused Virtues, n. 493 ff.). But these things were known through tradition, not through Scripture. Revelation was renewed and increased in the Patriarchs; yet we saw in the preceding part of the thesis that it had to be transmitted to sons by fathers without Scripture, for indeed there was no written word of God at all until Moses. b) In the written law, many things were possessed through tradition alone. For first, Suarez says (On Laws, book 9, chapter 6, n. 21): “The law taken properly did not promise eternal rewards… and nevertheless it is also most true that men placed under the law had the promise of eternal life and of spiritual goods, and faith in them… The Jews did not have this promise from the law, but from the Fathers, so to speak, certainly through their tradition; for from the beginning of the Church it was made to faithful men, and in them faith in it remained through tradition, and in Abraham it was renewed and made more express … Thus therefore it came to the Israelite people.” Bellarmine adds (same place, chapter 4): “In the time of the Old Testament, without doubt women no less than men had some remedy by which they would be cleansed from original sin, and yet circumcision was instituted for males according to the opinion of many; but what there was for women, Scripture nowhere has. Then, in the same time, it is in no way credible that there was no remedy for males dying before the eighth day, on which alone they could be circumcised; and yet nothing stands forth concerning this matter in Scripture. Thirdly, many Gentiles could be saved, and were saved, in the time of the Old Testament, and truly belonged to the Church… and yet there is absolutely nothing in Scripture concerning their justification from original sin and other sins.” c) The Christian Church in its beginning believed all things which Christ and the Apostles preached; therefore it believed several things which were not yet written until the death of the Apostles. Concerning this time not even Protestants raise any question. 3) Therefore, if, once the Scriptures of the New Testament had been completed, nothing outside them was any longer to be believed from tradition alone, this certainly would have happened outside ordinary providence. But an event of this sort cannot be admitted unless it is demonstrated. But again, whence is this proved? Is it from the very fact that the word of God was written? But a) could God not institute a twofold medium of transmitting revelation, Scripture and oral Tradition? b) Certainly in preceding times Scriptures existed, and yet several things by no means written were an object of faith. c) If the Scriptures without tradition were sufficient, this would have to be understood either of individual books, or of some books, or of the whole canon of the Scriptures. “It cannot be said,” says Bellarmine (same place), “that individual books are sufficient; for then what Chemnitz says would be false, that the use of tradition was in the Church until the completion of the whole canon of the Scriptures. Besides, we see that the Evangelists do not each contain all things [which, exactly, would anyone designate?]… They themselves openly say that the whole canon is necessary for this, that sufficient doctrine may be had. But neither can this truly be affirmed. For many books truly sacred and canonical have perished; therefore we do not have… sufficient doctrine, if it is wholly situated in the Scriptures.” Finally, Scripture does not suffice for determining the whole canon with certainty. 4) Therefore it remains that the Innovators prove their assumption from the Scriptures. For the positive will of God, establishing something beyond the course of ordinary providence, cannot really be established except from revelation. But revelation, according to the Innovators, is not had from tradition; if they consulted tradition, it would be against them, as we shall immediately see. Therefore they could prove their assumption only from the Scriptures. But: a) the Scriptures already cited, especially according to the interpretation of the Fathers, teach the contrary. b) The testimonies which the adversaries bring forward by no means establish the matter, as will be clear in the solution of the objections. Therefore.
333. II. Christian society, or the Church, has theoretically and practically always proclaimed the principle that there are some revealed truths, to be believed and believed in fact, which are not written. In reality, 1) explicit testimonies on this matter are present. Eusebius, after saying that Christ inscribed His doctrine in the minds of men, adds (Demonstration of the Gospel, book 1, chapter 8): “His disciples… committed things to be observed partly by letters, partly without letters, as by a certain unwritten law.” St. Epiphanius (Heresy 71): “There is also need of tradition. For not all things can be sought from the Scriptures. Therefore the most holy Apostles left some things written, others by tradition, which very thing Paul affirms thus: as I delivered to you.” St. Basil (On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27, n. 66): “Of the dogmas preserved in the Church, some indeed we have from doctrine handed down in writing; but others, handed down to us in mystery, we received from apostolic tradition. Both of these have the same force for piety.” St. Augustine (Letter 54, to Januarius): “But those things which we guard not as written but as handed down, which indeed are observed throughout the whole world, are given to be understood as retained, commended and established either by the Apostles themselves…” To this point belong several things which we gave above, and other testimonies may be seen in Bellarmine (cited chapter 7). Whence the Seventh Council (Act 7) has: “East and west and north and south, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we consent into one… receiving all things whatsoever the Holy Catholic Church received of old, written and unwritten.” The Eighth Council (Act 10, canon 1): “If anyone makes ecclesiastical tradition, whether written or unwritten, void, let him be anathema.” 2) In establishing several dogmas, the Fathers confess that they are had only from tradition. And a) regarding the canon of the Holy Scriptures, the matter is plain from its very demonstration, which all hand down to a man (compare On the Infused Virtues, n. 915 ff.). Hence Serapion (in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 12), considering the Gospel of Marcion thrust upon him, says: “We receive both Peter and the rest of the Apostles just as Christ Himself; but the writings which falsely bear their name inscribed upon them, these we reject as knowledgeable and experienced men, since we have ascertained that we by no means received them from our elders.” And Origen (ibid., chapter 25): “As I received by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are admitted without controversy in the whole Church of God.” b) In the same way they establish the baptism of little children. “The Church,” says Origen (on chapter 6 of the Letter to the Romans), “received by tradition from the Apostles the practice of giving baptism even to little children.” And St. Augustine (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, book 10, chapter 25): “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing little children is in no way to be spurned, nor in any way to be reckoned superfluous, nor to be believed at all unless it were an apostolic tradition.” c) So also they establish the value of baptism conferred by heretics. “If they do not have baptism,” says St. Augustine (On Baptism, book 5, chapter 23), “who think depraved things concerning God, that this can happen also within has already been sufficiently discussed. But the Apostles indeed prescribed nothing concerning this [in the Scriptures]; yet that custom which was objected to Cyprian must be believed to have taken its beginning from their tradition, just as there are many things which the universal Church holds, and on this account are rightly believed to have been prescribed by the Apostles, although they are not found written.” And (On the Unity of the Church, chapter 19): “Here perhaps you say: read to me how Christ ordered those to be received who wish to pass from heretics to the Church. This, openly and evidently, neither do I read nor do you… Since this is nowhere read, the testimony of the Church must be believed, which Christ testified to be truthful.” d) Tertullian (On the Crown, chapters 3-4) enumerates several things, pertaining either to faith and morals or to discipline; and then concludes: “If you demand the law of the Scriptures for these and other disciplines of this sort, you will find none. Tradition is set before you as author.” St. Basil also enumerates several things (On the Holy Spirit, chapters 27-29). Compare Becanus (Manual of Controversies, book 1, chapter 2).
334. III. We can use the testimony of the adversaries themselves. For… 1. They admit several dogmas together with us which cannot be proved from the Scriptures. Certainly: a) those who have not yet slipped down into rationalism acknowledge the divinity of Scripture; but this, like the canon, is had only from tradition. Hence Brentius (in the Prolegomena) admits this one tradition; and Chemnitz (Examination of the Council of Trent, session 4) says: “This tradition, by which the books of Sacred Scripture are put into our hand, we have reverently received.” b) They admit the baptism of little children; but Chemnitz himself says (in 5. gen.): “Origen and Augustine affirm that the baptism of little children is an Apostolic Tradition. This we receive.” The Anabaptists were asking the other Protestants to demonstrate from the Scriptures that baptism was to be conferred on infants. Since they could not accomplish this, Luther replied that infants by a miracle elicit an act of faith, and therefore no one is an infant with respect to receiving baptism. But where is this miracle read in the Scriptures? Hence Krummacher, preacher of the King of Prussia (in the year 1855), confessed: “It is wholly admitted that infant baptism cannot be demonstrated from Scripture.” c) Likewise they acknowledge the value of baptism conferred by heretics; that the day following the sabbath is to be celebrated; that sometimes an oath is lawful; that abstinence from blood and from what has been strangled is not necessary; and so forth, all of which are not had from the Scriptures. 2) They believe many things against the faith of the Catholic Church; these certainly are not contained in the Scriptures. Thus, for example, they admit a distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles. Let them prove this from the Scriptures, and from them define which articles are fundamental (compare On the Infused Virtues, n. 358 ff.). They admit that faith alone, or trust that God does not regard sins, justifies. Let them prove this from the Scriptures. Certainly Luther, in order to accomplish this, corrupted the Scriptures, and especially inserted the particle “alone” (“by faith alone”) into the text of the Apostle (Romans 3.28); he rejected the epistle of St. James, which expressly hands down the contrary dogma, as by no means evangelical, not apostolic, and truly straw-like (compare Bayle, Dictionary, article Luther, note O. P.). Compare Becanus (work and place cited). Section III. The Principal Objections Are Answered.
335. It is useful to reply to at least the principal objections, so that especially from the solution of those which the adversaries bring forward from the Scriptures, it may be evident that they in no way prove their doctrine from the Scriptures. The testimonies, however, which they object are reduced to three classes: 1) the Scriptures teach that nothing is to be added to the word of God; 2) they expressly teach that the Scriptures are sufficient; 3) they openly condemn traditions. And with regard to the first class:
336. They object 1) the words of Deuteronomy (4.2): “You shall not add to the word which I speak to you, nor shall you take away from it.” 2) Likewise the words (12.32): “What I command you, this only shall you do; neither shall you add anything nor diminish.” 3) Finally the words of the Apocalypse (22.18-19): “If anyone shall add to these things, God shall add upon him the plagues; and if anyone shall take away, God shall take away his part from the book of life.” The reply is: The first and second testimonies are not to the point. For first, the matter concerns a word which is handed down by living voice (“which I speak,” “which I command”); but even passing over this, the sense cannot be that it is not permitted to add new precepts. Otherwise it would not have been permitted to add evangelical precepts either. Therefore the sense of the first testimony is that the Mosaic precepts had to be kept integrally and perfectly, just as they had been commanded, without corruption or false interpretation. Becanus rightly concludes (work and place cited, n. 47) that “the testimony of Deuteronomy has nothing to do with the matter, unless [the adversaries] wish to argue thus: The Jews had to keep the Mosaic precepts perfectly and integrally. Therefore Christians must not admit Apostolic Traditions, but must be content with Scripture alone. This consequence surely is absurd and ridiculous, as all see. Yet that the matter may become clearer, I ask the adversaries whether they think this testimony pertains to Jews alone, or also to Christians? If it pertains to Jews alone, why is it brought forward against Christians? Or why do Lutherans and Calvinists wish that we be obliged to observe it? If it also pertains to Christians, why do the adversaries not keep the Mosaic precepts? Why do they not circumcise themselves? etc.” But the true sense of the second testimony, as is clear from the context, is: “When you come into the land of Palestine, toward which you are tending, and offer sacrifice to the Lord your God, for this is the precept under discussion here, you will not imitate the Gentiles, but will offer only this which I command you.” With regard to the objected testimony from the Apocalypse, first it can be noted that it condemns Lutherans, who not only diminish from the words of this prophecy, but reject the whole book. Certainly it does not prohibit anything else besides the Apocalypse from being admitted; otherwise the Gospel of St. John himself, together with his epistles, would have to be rejected. Therefore the sense is that that prophecy is not to be depraved, neither by addition, namely by appending something as a part of it, nor by diminution, namely by taking away something which belongs to it.
337. They especially object the words of the Apostle (Galatians 1.8): “Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you besides what we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” Therefore, they say, besides the Gospel, traditions must not be admitted. The reply is: 1) The Apostle teaches that nothing is to be preached besides what the Apostles had preached; but from what has been demonstrated, the Apostles did not preach all things in writing, but partly in writing, partly by living voice. Therefore. Certainly after the Epistle to the Galatians, St. John wrote the Apocalypse and his Gospel. Are these also excluded by the Apostle? 2) The word “besides” in the objected passage signifies “against”; and therefore the Apostle forbids dogmas and precepts contrary to those which the Apostles were announcing to be proposed. Moreover the particle “besides” often among Latin writers has the force of “against”; hence something is said to be beside, that is, against hope, custom, law, dignity. The particle para among the Greeks often has the same force; you have examples in Acts 18.13, Romans 1.26, 4.18, 11.24. Hence also the Arabic and Ethiopic version reads: “If we or an Angel from heaven should announce to you anything different.” This very thing is manifest from the context; for it is read (verse 6): “I marvel that you are so quickly being transferred from Him who called you into the grace of Christ, into another Gospel.” Hence St. Augustine (Tractate 98 on John) says: “Therefore let the admonition of the Apostle not recede from your hearts: if anyone has preached besides what you have received, etc. He did not say, more than you have received; for if he had said that, he would have prejudiced himself, because he desired to come to the Thessalonians, that he might supply what was lacking to their faith… But he who supplies what was lacking adds; he does not remove what was present. But he who goes beyond the rule of faith does not advance on the way, but withdraws from the way.” St. Ambrose and St. Jerome agree (on this place), as also St. John Chrysostom and Oecumenius. But if Theophylact observes that the Apostle did not say “if they preach contrary things,” this is in order to teach that not only those are anathematized who openly teach things contrary to the whole doctrine, but also those who even obliquely undermine anything from the handed-down doctrine. In reality St. John Chrysostom (homily 1 on Galatians), whose words Theophylact is accustomed either to recite or to report in summary, says: “Nor did he say, if they should announce contrary things, or should overturn the whole Gospel; but if they should preach even a little besides what you have received, even if they should undermine anything whatever, let him be anathema.” “Contrary,” therefore, is used for what totally destroys.
338. With regard to the second class, they object 1) the words of John (20.30-31): “Jesus indeed did many other signs which are not written in this book; but these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” Therefore, they say, the things which are not written, or traditions, are not required for eternal life. 2) The words of the Apostle (2 Timothy 3.16-17): “All Scripture divinely inspired is useful for teaching, for arguing, for correcting, for instructing in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished for every good work.” Therefore, they say, traditions are superfluous. The reply to the first is: 1) St. John is speaking not about the whole of Scripture, but about his Gospel, as is evident from the objected words. Therefore, if the interpretation of the adversaries were true, not only traditions, but all the remaining sacred books, besides the Gospel of St. John, would have to be rejected. 2) St. John speaks not about doctrine, but about the miracles of Christ; and he says that those miracles which he wrote in his Gospel suffice for persuading the world that Christ is the Son of God. This indeed is one of those things which are required in order that we may obtain eternal life, but not the whole. For, believing that Christ is the Son of God, we must believe all things which He taught, and fulfill all things which He commanded. But all these things, as is clear from the demonstration given, are contained in the word of God, both written and orally handed down. To the second: 1) It is at least very probable that the Apostle is speaking of the Scriptures of the Old Testament alone, since he is speaking of the sacred letters which Timothy knew from infancy, as is said in the same place. Therefore not only traditions would be superfluous, but also the Scriptures of the New Testament. 2) The praise which Paul attributes to all Scripture, in the judgment of all who know Latin, must be attributed to the individual books of Sacred Scripture. Therefore, according to the interpretation of the adversaries, once one book is assumed, the others would be superfluous. 3) When the Apostle wrote the Second Letter to Timothy, the writings of St. John did not yet exist, and perhaps neither the Second Letter of Peter, nor the letters of James and Jude. Therefore, in the opinion of the adversaries, all these writings together with traditions would have to be rejected. 4) The Apostle teaches that Scripture is useful, so that the man of God may be perfect; and the adversaries infer: “therefore traditions are superfluous.” But the Apostle says (2 Timothy 4.11): “Take Mark, and bring him with you; for he is useful to me for the ministry.” Therefore it would have to be concluded that Timothy, Titus, Onesimus, etc., are superfluous. 5) And so the Apostle does not say that Scripture alone suffices for teaching, arguing, etc.; but that it is profitable for all these things and is a great aid, which we readily concede, without the exclusion of traditions following from it.
339. With regard to the third class, they object that passage of Isaiah (29.13): “In vain do they worship Me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men”; and Matthew 15.6: “You have made void the commandment of God because of your tradition”; and Galatians 1.14: “Being a zealot for the traditions of my fathers”; and Colossians 2.8: “See lest anyone deceive you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men”; and 1 Peter 1.18: “You were redeemed from your vain manner of life of paternal tradition,” etc. Hence, they say, just as the traditions which the Jews boasted they had received from Moses and the Prophets are reproved, so the traditions which we say we have received from Christ through the Apostles must be reproved. The reply is: as is clear from the objected testimonies themselves, traditions which the Jews received from Moses and the Prophets are not reproved; but either traditions received from certain more recent men, some of which were empty, others pernicious and contrary to Scripture (St. Jerome, Letter to Algasia, question 10, reports the authors of these traditions); or Jewish traditions now useless in the Christian law; or the institutions and corruptions of Gentile philosophers. But what does this have in common with true traditions, which have God as their author? Compare Bellarmine (On the Word of God, book 4, chapter 10).
340. They object several things from the Fathers. Thus, they say, according to Origen (homily 1 on Jeremiah), “our meanings and explanations without these witnesses [the Scriptures] do not have faith”; according to St. Athanasius (Letter 39, on the canonical books), “in these [Scriptures] alone the school of piety is blessedly announced”; according to St. John Chrysostom (homily on Psalm 95), “if anything is said without Scripture, the thought of the hearers limps”; according to Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechesis 4), “not even the least thing ought to be handed down without Scripture”; according to St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 2, chapter 47), “the Scriptures are perfect”; according to Tertullian (Against Hermogenes, chapter 22), we must adore the fullness of Scripture; according to St. Athanasius (Oration against the Gentiles), “the Sacred Scriptures suffice by themselves for the indication of truth”; according to Tertullian again (On the Flesh of Christ), “I do not receive what you [he is addressing Marcion] bring in from your own, outside Scripture”; according to St. Jerome (on Matthew 23), “what does not have authority from Scripture is contemned with the same facility with which it is proved.” Finally, the Fathers seem to censure the use of tradition. Thus St. Irenaeus (book 3, chapter 2) says concerning heretics: “When they are refuted from the Scriptures, they turn to an accusation of the Scriptures, as if truth could not be found from them by those who do not know tradition”; and Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechesis 16): “We shall say concerning the Holy Spirit only those things which have been written; but if anything is not written, we shall not search into it curiously.” The reply is: From the testimonies adduced in the proof of the thesis, it is clear that the Fathers admitted divine traditions, both theoretically and practically, so unanimously and plainly that they cannot reject them without manifest contradiction. Therefore, unless we wish to portray the Fathers as shamefully contradicting themselves, it is impossible to admit the adversaries’ interpretation in the objected testimonies. In reality, that this may be positively established, Origen (homily 1 on Jeremiah) does not treat all dogmas, but a singular figure of the Old Testament to be applied to Christ. Hence he adds: “That I may strengthen the word of my understanding, I shall take two witnesses from the Old Testament; I shall take three from the Gospel, from the Prophet, from the Apostle: for thus every word shall stand.” St. Athanasius (Letter 39) does not exclude divine traditions, but apocryphal books thrust forward by heretics. Hence he begins that letter thus: “Since some have undertaken to describe apocrypha for themselves and to confuse them with divinely inspired Scripture, etc.” St. John Chrysostom (homily on Psalm 95) does not oppose Scripture to traditions, but to the thought of the mind alone, as the entire text reads. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechesis 4) does not speak of every dogma, but of dogma comprised in the Apostles’ Creed, and excludes only apocryphal books. Hence in the same place he says: “Learn also zealously from the Church which are the books of the Old Testament, and which are those of the New; and do not read anything apocryphal to me.” St. Irenaeus (book 2, chapter 47) says that Scripture is perfect with regard to establishing the unity of God, and excludes the fictions of the Valentinians repugnant to Scripture. Tertullian (Against Hermogenes, chapter 22) adores the fullness of Scripture in order to the origin of the world without pre-existing matter. St. Athanasius (Against the Gentiles) teaches that Scripture suffices for showing the vanity of idols and the divinity of Christ; and in the same place he acknowledges traditions: “Indeed,” he says, “both the Sacred Scriptures suffice by themselves for the indication of truth, and very many books concerning that matter have been written by the most holy teachers; if anyone reads these, he will understand in some way the mind of the Scriptures, and perhaps will obtain the knowledge which he desires.” Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ) rejects traditions contrary to Scripture and apocryphal traditions, not true traditions. Hence he reproves Marcion as one who “dared to destroy the original instruments of Christ and to bring in something from his own.” The testimony of St. Jerome (on Matthew 23) has a similar sense; hence he premises: “Others wish Zechariah the father of John to be understood, approving this from certain dreams of the apocrypha… because this does not have authority from the Scriptures, etc.” The Fathers censure spurious traditions, or the illegitimate use of authentic tradition. Thus St. Irenaeus (book 3, chapter 2) attacks the Valentinians, who, after excluding apostolic traditions, thrust forward their own; hence he continues: “But when again we provoke them to that tradition which is from the Apostles, which is guarded in the churches through the successions of Presbyters, they oppose tradition, saying that, since they are wiser not only than the Presbyters but even than the Apostles, they have found the sincere truth.” Cyril (in the objected place) rejects only useless questions concerning the mode of divine generation and concerning the names of the Holy Spirit, without nevertheless rejecting the useful and right use of traditions; for in the same place he brings forward many things by no means written concerning both mysteries. Compare, for Cyril’s opinion, Touttee, editor of his works, disputing against Rivet.
341. From these things certain general rules can be established for rightly understanding and explaining sayings of the Fathers which, according to appearance, are repugnant to the doctrine asserted by us. And: 1) The Fathers frequently oppose the Scriptures not to divine traditions, but either to the inventions of philosophers which were being substituted for divine authority (Tertullian, On Prescription, chapter 7; St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 27, etc.), or to traditions, indeed to apocryphal writings (St. Irenaeus, book 3, chapter 2; St. Jerome on Haggai, chapter 1, etc.). 2) They leave aside traditions, with attention to the nature of the adversaries, who would acknowledge nothing except the Scriptures, from which alone they could be convicted in their errors. Such, for example, were the Arians denying the divinity of Christ; and thus are understood the words of Constantine (in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, as printed), on which nevertheless Bellarmine makes several observations. Or they also contend that certain dogmas, but not all, can be established from the Scriptures. 3) Phrases denying “what is not written” they often use concerning that which is opposed to Scripture; just as phrases affirming that “Scripture is the rule of faith” by no means exclude traditions. 4) The Fathers, affirming the sufficiency of the Scriptures, do not separate them from traditions and from the interpretation of the living and authentic magisterium; rather, they suppose these things. In the same way they also teach that the Scriptures contain all things, immediately or mediately; for they require and teach that those things which the Scriptures themselves do not immediately exhibit are to be received from tradition through the authentic magisterium. “Although,” says St. Augustine (Against Cresconius, book 1, n. 39), “certainly no example of this matter [the value of baptism conferred by heretics] is brought forward from the canonical Scriptures, nevertheless the truth of those same Scriptures is held by us even in this matter, when we do what has now pleased the universal Church, which the authority of those Scriptures commends; so that, since Sacred Scripture cannot deceive, whoever fears being deceived by the obscurity of this question may consult concerning it that same Church, which Sacred Scripture demonstrates without any ambiguity.” Compare Bellarmine for the individual objections (same place, chapter 11).