Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

ON DIVINE TRADITION CONSIDERED IN ITSELF.

ON THE NOTION OF DIVINE TRADITION, AND ITS FORMAL CHARACTER PROVED FROM THE VERY INSTITUTION OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, AS EXHIBITED IN THE APOSTOLIC WRITINGS.

The manifold notion of Tradition is explained.

« Tradition can be considered either in the objective sense or in the active sense, or at once in both senses taken together. Since sacred Tradition in the objective sense, taken in its wider acceptation, can be called the doctrine or institution pertaining to religion which has been handed down by the forefathers to be guarded by the Church, one must distinguish, on the ground of origin, divine Tradition from Tradition that is simply apostolic and ecclesiastical, to each of which belongs its own authority and firmness, though disparate. Nor is there wanting a sure norm by which divine Tradition is discerned from that of a lower order. »

I. This thesis scarcely needs anything but the declaration of its concepts. In the objective sense Tradition is the very thing that has been handed down, doctrine or an institution transmitted by the forefathers: « the deposit you have received, not what you have devised, a thing brought to you, not put forth by you, » as St Vincent of Lérins says, Commonit. n. 27. But since the manner in which doctrine has been preserved and propagated down to us can be various, it is not of itself defined by the name of Tradition in this objective signification, whence the Fathers sometimes use epithets for some declaration of the manner, and call Tradition written (doctrine preserved for us in the sacred Scriptures) and unwritten. Thus Clement of Alexandria calls the deeper interpretation or understanding of the doctrine of the Scriptures received from the forefathers the unwritten Tradition of the written Tradition (ἡ τῆς ἐγγράφου ἄγραφος παραδοσις) Strom. VI. p. 679. ed. Paris 1641.

The act itself, or rather the whole series and complex of acts and means by which doctrine, whether theoretical or practical, has been propagated and handed down to us, is called Tradition in the active signification. In this sense Tertullian (de coron. c. 4.) says: « Tradition the author, custom the confirmer, faith the observer. »

But it is easily seen that active Tradition includes the object handed down, and conversely that the latter cannot have been preserved to us except with and through the former. If Tradition is taken more fully, therefore, it must always be considered in the complex, the object namely with the manner of Tradition, as matter with its form, because otherwise its preservation, integrity, force and authority cannot rightly be explained and understood, since all these depend on the manner of Tradition or on active Tradition, as will appear in the progress of the disputation. Thus the Tridentine Fathers (sess. IV.) considered the Traditions, i.e. the object handed down, together with the origin and manner of the Traditions, or with active Tradition; and the authority of those Traditions is vindicated from the manner of Tradition most briefly but most effectively, when the synod professes that revealed doctrine and discipline are contained (and it defines this) also in unwritten « Traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or handed down from the Apostles themselves at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have come down even to us as it were by hand; » and that it receives and venerates « the Traditions themselves, pertaining both to faith and to morals, as dictated either by word of mouth from Christ or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in continuous succession in the Catholic Church, with equal affection of piety and reverence (as the sacred books). »

II. The distinctions indicated in the second part of the thesis must also be recalled, because, although a diverse grade of authority answers to the diverse origin of divine, simply apostolic, and ecclesiastical Tradition, the Protestants are wont to disguise this doctrine of the Catholic Church, evident enough of itself, and to accuse Catholics as though they attributed to the word of men an authority equal to that of the word of God, not only because the Protestants themselves take Traditions that are truly divine as though human, but also because they confound Traditions that are merely ecclesiastical with those that are divine, and then calumniously charge us with proposing all of them promiscuously to be believed with equal faith.

1°. Divine Traditions are constituted by doctrines, precepts, institutions which have been immediately revealed and ordained by God Himself, although in their promulgation there intervened the ministry of men discharging the embassy of God who reveals. In particular, as regards the New Testament, God is the author of the divine Traditions in such a way that the first visible promulgator was either God Himself, Christ Jesus, or the first visible promulgators were the Apostles, with the Holy Spirit revealing and dictating. From this difference of the first visible promulgator is drawn no diversity of authority, but an accidental and historical distinction of divine Tradition into dominical Tradition and divine-apostolic Tradition. In this distinction it is presupposed as a foundation that the whole divine revelation of the N. T. was completed, not by Christ Himself visibly abiding on earth, but only by the Holy Spirit, not only by bringing to mind all things whatsoever Christ had said, but also by teaching all (revealed) truth which the Apostles could not yet bear before, and by announcing the things that are to come, Io. XIV. 26; XVI. 12. 13. Whence the Council of Trent also, in the words cited a little above from sess. IV., expressly indicated this distinction, where it names unwritten « Traditiones which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or handed down as it were by hand from the Apostles themselves at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have come down even to us; » and again, « Traditiones dictated either by word of mouth from Christ or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in continuous succession in the Catholic Church. » Vide Stapleton Controvers. l. XII. c. 9.

2°. To make clear the further distinction between divine Tradition (in particular the divine-apostolic) and Tradition that is simply apostolic, one must keep before one's eyes the twofold office of the Apostles. For the Apostles were both promulgators of the divine doctrine and divine institutions which they had received as revealed from Christ or from the Holy Spirit, and rulers and pastors of the Churches, who by the pastoral authority received from Christ and proper to themselves could regulate the discipline of the Churches and enact laws which they judged serviceable to the proposed end of the sanctification and salvation of the faithful. Whatever, therefore, pertains to religious doctrine, by the very fact that it is shown to have been handed down by the Apostles, is thereby established to have been divinely revealed. Hence it was always held in the Church that to inquire into the apostolicity of a doctrine and into its divine revelation was altogether one and the same thing. On the other hand, among the precepts and institutions that proceed from the Apostles, some are divine, of which they were only the promulgators, while others can be and are apostolic in such a way that the Apostles themselves, by their own pastoral power, were not only promulgators but legislators. Cf. 1. Cor. VII. 11. 12.

As regards the doctrine and institutions of divine Tradition, the apostolic power has the right and the duty of teaching and declaring them; but the precepts and institutions of Tradition that is simply apostolic are subject to the apostolic power perpetuated in the successors of Peter, so that this apostolic power extends itself not only, as in a law of a superior, to declaration, but also, as in its own law, to modification, dispensation and, should the circumstances of things require it, to abrogation.

Those former things, belonging to divine Tradition, cannot be diverse in diverse Churches, but hold necessarily the same for all; in the latter things, belonging to merely apostolic Tradition, diversity is not repugnant. A shining example can be the diverse discipline of the first centuries in the observance of the paschal season, when both the Churches of the West appealed to apostolic Tradition for their own custom, and the Churches of Asia for a diverse custom; and in this diversity they long persisted without breaking the peace: « the diversity of the fast (joined with the diversity of the paschal celebration) commends the agreement of the faith, » wrote St Irenaeus to Pope Victor. Vide Euseb. H. E. l. V. cc. 23. 24. But against the doctrine and practice of the Quartodecimans of the other sort, who namely by an Ebionite error contended that both the season and the Jewish rite of the celebration must be observed even by Christians from the precept of the Mosaic Law, appeal had to be made no longer to simply apostolic Tradition of discipline alone, but to divine-apostolic Tradition of doctrine, from which it is established that the legal and typical rites, after their fulfilment through Christ the antitype, are now dead and, once the Gospel is sufficiently propagated, even deadly. More examples of merely apostolic Tradition by law may be seen in Canus (de Locis l. III. c. 5.), who however speaks somewhat confusedly; more distinct are those in Petavius (de Ecclesiast. Hierarch. l. I. c. 1.).

3°. To ecclesiastical tradition belong institutions lawfully handed down by the Church after apostolic times. This can be the Tradition of particular Churches, or it can be universal. From the character of universality it is established that its origin, or at least its confirmation, if it is not from the Apostles, is from the supreme ecclesiastical authority which extends to the universal Church. « But as to those things which we keep, not as written but as handed down, which indeed are observed throughout the whole world, it is given to be understood that they are retained as commended and ordained either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most salutary, » St Aug. ad Ianuar. ep. 54. (al. 118.) n. 1. For although the lack of universality is not a decisive argument for denying the origin of a Tradition either from the Apostles or from the supreme ecclesiastical authority, universality is nevertheless a certain argument for asserting one or the other: ecclesiastical indeed, if it is established, whether from the nature of the institution in question or from history, that such a Tradition arose after apostolic times; apostolic, however, if as far back as Christian memory reaches it is found always to have been observed, and no later origin can be demonstrated or reasonably gathered. Which is the well-known rule handed down by St Augustine: « what the universal Church holds, not as instituted by Councils but as always retained, is most rightly believed to have been handed down by no other than apostolic authority, » de Baptism. l. IV. c. 24.

Although, further, of this threefold order of Traditions only the divine ones are immediately and in themselves the revealed word of God, and therefore the material object of divine faith, nevertheless the merely apostolic and ecclesiastical Traditions have for their foundation the supernatural power and authority which is itself revealed and to be believed with divine faith. Lege Stapleton Controv. l. VIII. c. 16. 17. Just as one who denied assent to dogmatic facts, in themselves nowise revealed yet defined by the Church, would thereby deny the revealed infallibility of the Church, so one who, e.g., rejected the sacred ceremonies in the administration of the sacraments and the celebration of the sacrifice, the signing of the forehead with the cross, the use of holy water, and other Traditions partly apostolic and partly ecclesiastical, would thereby deny the revealed apostolic and ecclesiastical authority and power, which, from the assistance of the Holy Spirit, in these things pertaining to Christian morals and religious worship and intimately bound up with revealed faith, must be believed to be altogether infallible; hence one who denied that rites of this sort are piously and holily observed and to be observed would violate divine faith itself. Rightly, then, does St Basil (de Sp. Sto. c. 27. n. 66.), speaking of unwritten Traditions and observances, among which he enumerates many that are merely apostolic or ecclesiastical, say that if we reject these, « unwittingly we wound the Gospel in its chiefest points; nay rather, we reduce the preaching to a bare name. » Hence in the very profession of the Catholic faith it is pledged: « I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical Traditions and the remaining observances and constitutions of the same Church... I likewise receive and admit the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church in... the solemn administration of all the sacraments. » This is also the reason why the Fathers sometimes call merely apostolic or ecclesiastical Traditions divine Traditions. Thus Cyprian, ep. 68. (to the Clergy and people in Spain, ed. Baluz. p. 119.), says that the form of the election of a Bishop by the neighbouring Bishops of the same province with the people present — a form which most certainly was derived from ecclesiastical Tradition only, or at most from merely apostolic Tradition — says, I say, that it is « of divine Tradition, and apostolic observance. » On these distinctions of Tradition there may also be seen Ioannes Ant. Bianchi (Della Potestà della Chiesa T. III. l. I. c. 4. §. 10.).

III. From what has been said the rules can also be understood by which divine Tradition is distinguished from that which is either merely apostolic or ecclesiastical. First, if it is a question of religious doctrine or of such an institution as can have no author but God, such as the efficacious signs of grace or sacraments of the N. T., there can be no doubt whether it is to be referred to divine Tradition or to Tradition of a lower order; for it is either divinely handed down or not handed down at all. Thus all Catholics now believe the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin to be of divine Tradition; but before it was certain of this Tradition through the definition of the Supreme Pontiff, all the theologians and faithful who asserted this doctrine already understood that it was to be asserted from no other than divine Tradition; others, on the contrary, doubted not what manner of Tradition it was, whether divine or merely apostolic or ecclesiastical, but thought that there was none, or at least that it was not sufficiently established. Likewise all hold that to deny that the dignity of a sacrament in the minor Orders has simply been handed down is the same as to deny that it has been divinely handed down; since, if such a Tradition existed, it could be none but divine, because God alone can be the author of the sacraments.

In precepts and institutions so constituted, however, that from their intrinsic nature they are not necessarily understood to be of divine origin, but may also have proceeded from merely apostolic or ecclesiastical authority, the ecclesiastical Traditions are indeed distinguished from the apostolic ones without difficulty by the rule described above from St Augustine. But when, in institutions of this kind — about which we now inquire — it is established that the origin is apostolic, and not only ecclesiastical of a later date, then, for discerning divine-apostolic from merely apostolic Tradition, there is forthcoming as a rule well-nigh the sole one, and a most safe one: the sense, the practice and (where it exists) the judgment of the Church herself. Vide Bellarm. De verbo Dei l. IV. c. 9; Wireburgens. De Tradition. art. 3.

On the stricter signification of Tradition, by which it is distinguished from doctrines handed down through sacred Scripture.

« Although the Fathers sometimes call by the name of Tradition in a wider sense all dogmas and institutions transmitted from the antiquity of the Church, even insofar as holy Scripture is considered as the medium of propagation; yet in the stricter and specific signification the name Tradition implies a mode of transmission and preservation distinct from sacred Scripture — which signification of the name is so common that it is always presumed, unless the other, wider one is demonstrated in particular contexts. »

We do not deny that this name — evangelical Tradition, Tradition of the Apostles, or, with an express addition, Tradition of the Scriptures — is sometimes used by the Fathers of doctrine transmitted through the sacred Scriptures themselves (see Suicer's Thesaurus under παραδοσις); yet the more restricted signification according to which Tradition is opposed to Scripture, and is so called insofar as a mode of transmission other than Scripture is indicated, is so common that, if the name is uttered simply, it is always presumed to be taken in this and in no other sense. Hence the Protestants unjustly reproach Catholics, as if we took Tradition, as often as this name is found, as distinct from the Scriptures; and they err and deceive much more when they abuse that ambiguity of the word to deny the existence of a Tradition distinct from the Scriptures, and to impugn the arguments which are wont to be brought forward by Catholic theologians from the monuments of antiquity for the truth of Tradition taken in the stricter sense.

1°. Thus in the Scriptures of the New Testament themselves the name Tradition or the verb to hand down occurs in at least twelve places in a sense pertinent here, and only once — 2. Thess. II. 15 — is it certainly used promiscuously both of doctrine handed down through Scripture and of the other handed down by word of mouth; in all the remaining places it signifies, certainly or at least probably, unwritten Tradition: Matth. XV. 2. 3. 6; Marc. VII. 3. 5. 8. 9. 13; Luc. I. 2; Act. XVI. 4; 1. Cor. XI. 2. 23; XV. 3; 1. Pet. I. 18; 2. Pet. II. 21; Iud. 3; doubtful are Gal. I. 14; Act. VI. 14.

2°. The holy Fathers distinguish Tradition expressly from holy Scripture, and in manifold ways. a) Institutions received from the forefathers, which they confess cannot be proved from the Scriptures, they call, in opposition to the Scriptures, simply Tradition, apostolic Tradition, dominical Tradition: Tertull. de corona c. 4; Cyprian. ep. 63. ad Caecil. p. 104; August. de Baptism. l. II. c. 7; l. V. c. 23. b) They distinguish Tradition from the Scriptures expressly, not by reason of the doctrine it contains, but from the mode of propagation. « For what, » says Irenaeus l. III. c. 4, « if the Apostles had not even left us the Scriptures, ought we not to follow the order of Tradition, which they handed down to those to whom they committed the Churches? To which ordination many nations of the barbarians assent ... having salvation written in their hearts without paper and ink, and diligently guarding the ancient Tradition. » See also Tertull. de coron. c. 3. Indeed Vincent of Lérins common. n. 32 distinguishes Tradition even from ecclesiastical writings, regard being had to the principal organ for the preservation of Tradition, which is constituted not by written books but by guardians of the faith perpetually succeeding one another¹. c) The Fathers exhibit Tradition and Scripture as two distinct things, when they join the one with the other as a twofold fount and twofold principle of Christian knowledge, as Iren. l. III. c. 5. n. 1; Tertull. Praescript. c. 19; when they compare the authority of Tradition and call it equal to the authority of Scripture, as Basil. de Spiritu Sancto c. 27; Chrysost. in 2. Thess. hom. 4. n. 2; when finally they compare Tradition and Scripture insofar as the former extends more widely, the latter less widely, as with other Fathers Origen de Princip. l. I. n. 2; Epiphan. haeres. 61. c. 6; Lirinens. commonit. n. 2. Yet all these things partly suppose, partly constitute the common usage of speech, that Tradition be understood as distinct from the Scriptures either in matter together with the mode of propagation or, if the matter is the same, at least according to the consideration of the diverse mode of preservation and propagation. Whence it is also established that this signification of the name is always presumed unless another is demonstrated; for the common signification is presumed, while the rarer and less frequent is not presumed, nor is it to be asserted unless demonstrated from the individual contexts.

On the order between Tradition considered actively and Tradition considered objectively in the method of treatment.

« Where divine Tradition considered in itself and its authority are at issue, the question to be raised is not so much about the truths handed down as about the mode and organ of Tradition; for the former is subordinated to the latter, and once the latter is settled the former too must be reckoned settled. »

In this thesis we inquire into the very method of treatment. For divine Tradition can be spoken of in two ways: a) so that the inquiry is chiefly about Traditions in the objective sense, whether besides the truths set forth in Scripture there exist revealed doctrines, and have come down even to us, either not comprehended in the Scriptures at all, or not so comprehended that they could be understood from the Scriptures alone; to which question there is then subordinated, as it were in second place, the further question of the mode by which they were preserved and propagated down to us. Or b) the primary and principal inquiry can be about the principle itself, whether Christ instituted another mode, another organ besides the Scriptures, by which doctrine and institutes revealed by himself or by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles might be propagated perpetually and preserved in their integrity and sincerity equally safely, indeed in a certain respect even more safely, than by the instrument of writings. Once this has been demonstrated to be so, it will thereby be established that all truths transmitted to us by this divinely instituted mode and organ, regarded as revealed, if viewed according to this mode of transmission distinct from the Scriptures, are divine Traditions in that objective sense, and, if they are not contained in the Scriptures, are the word of God handed down only and not written.

Now if this twofold question is considered in itself, it is evidently prior and more universal to ask whether there exists such an organ and mode of propagation besides the Scriptures, than to ask whether there exist truths propagated in that mode distinct from the Scriptures. Moreover, whichever of the two questions is placed first in the order of treatment, certainly no discourse on the authority of Tradition can be held without demonstrating the divinely instituted mode and organ of Tradition itself, since that authority is derived from the divinely instituted mode of Tradition itself, or rather is identified with it. It is no wonder, then, that the holy Fathers, when they speak of Tradition and its authority expressly, are chiefly concerned to set forth the mode and organ of Tradition and to demonstrate its divine institution. So Irenaeus throughout; Tertullian in Praescript. c. 15. ff.; Augustine, de utilit. credendi; Lérins in the commonit. Cf. Council of Trent, sess. IV.

Furthermore, if we consider the matter polemically, the general and by far the chief controversy with the Protestants concerns the principle itself, whether besides the instrument of the Scriptures there is some mode and some organ by which doctrine first handed down by Christ and the Apostles is safely preserved sincere and entire.¹ It is this very thing that they were compelled to deny, in order to defend their heresy and their denial of many chapters of Catholic doctrine, because they saw, namely, that if that principle were retained it would follow of itself that the doctrine proposed by the Church and rejected by them in the sixteenth century is divine Tradition itself. For if that organ of conservation is the apostolic succession itself of the ever-living and indefectible magisterium of the Church, once this is admitted the revealed truths must now be learned and known from these very divinely instituted guardians of the deposit; and consequently, once that general principle is demonstrated, the particular questions about individual divine Traditions must be reckoned settled. « The order of things required that first be set forth what alone is now to be disputed: to whom the faith itself belongs, whose are the Scriptures, by whom and through whom and when and to whom the discipline was handed down by which men become Christians; for where it appears that the truth of Christian discipline and faith is (that is, the legitimate succession from the Apostles, and the right and authority of preserving Christian discipline and faith), there will be the truth of the Scriptures (the genuine canon) and of expositions (the genuine sense) and of all Christian Traditions » Tertull. Praescript. c. 19.

On the mode and organ of propagating doctrine according to the divinely instituted Christian economy itself.

« When the mode of propagation and conservation of Christian doctrine and discipline is inquired into, it is gathered already from the economy of the institution and of the first promulgation historically considered that the organ of conservation is the authentic magisterium, to which the Scriptures are a certain instrument of doctrine; but that the Scriptures are not the sole means of conserving doctrine, and much less the fount of the Christian religion, which individuals would draw for themselves from them independently of the authentic visible magisterium. »

We consider in this thesis the mode by which Christ the Lord instituted the divine religion and then commanded it to be propagated through the Apostles among all nations, so that from the mode of origin we may gather the mode of conservation: whether it is that which the Catholic Church theoretically teaches and practically exhibits, or whether at least some seed or trace appears of the mode of conservation which all Protestants theoretically teach, but in practice follow — or can follow — against their adversaries only in the negation of dogmas, by logical right, never in the affirmation and defense of what they have still retained.

1°. The Son of God himself, made man and conversing with men on earth, in a manner suited to persuading men first demonstrated himself to be the divine legate promised through the patriarchs and prophets and at last sent by the Father, wielding divine authority, and thus worthy of faith. This he did by irrefragable motives of credibility: by miracles¹, by prophecies uttered by himself and confirmed by the event, and by the searching of hearts², by the prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled in him and by the whole history of preceding ages, which was a preparation and pedagogy for him³, by the Transfiguration and the apparition of the prophets, by the Father's voice fallen from heaven⁴, by the whole tenor of his life, doctrine and death, regard being had especially to the antecedent prophecies and the consequent effects⁵, and then, as the compendium of all demonstrations and their evident confirmation, by his resurrection from the dead, which he rendered manifest by so many ineluctable proofs and apparitions⁶.

Furthermore, once his divine legation and authority were manifested and demonstrated, for each of his doctrines, precepts and institutes he exacted full faith and absolute obedience, with the reward of beatitude and the punishment of eternal damnation set before them. « We see him (Christ), as far as that history teaches which even they (the heretics) themselves believe, to have willed nothing earlier nor more strongly than to be believed, when those with whom he had to do were not yet fit for perceiving the divine secrets. For what else do so many and so great miracles argue, he himself also saying that they are done for no other reason than that he be believed?... Therefore he... by miracles conciliated authority, by authority merited faith, by faith gathered a multitude, by multitude obtained antiquity, by antiquity strengthened religion, which neither the most inept novelty of heretics acting fraudulently, nor even the dotard error of the nations violently opposing, could in any part shake » St. Aug. de utilit. cred. c. 14, n. 32.

Lastly, the economy he chose for implanting his institutes in the human race, for establishing the integral divine faith and religion to endure perpetually, was not that he should comprehend doctrine and precepts in a written book, from which individuals would conform their faith and religion for themselves; but on the contrary by teaching and preaching he formed disciples, and from the disciples he selected teachers and masters, to whom he communicated his authority and the power of magisterium, of rule, and of priesthood, and from these Apostles (that is, men furnished with a legation from himself) and the other faithful he constituted the Church, subject to himself and united to himself as to its head, into which, as into a rich depository, he most fully poured all things that are of the truth (cf. Iren. bk. III, c. 4, n. 1). The authentic book, therefore, which Christ the Lord himself wrote, was the Apostles; written not with ink but with the Holy Spirit⁷, to whom, furnished with the charism of the Holy Spirit, with authority and power, he subjected the rest of the faithful to be taught, ruled and sanctified.

The first origin, therefore, and as it were the first degree of Christian doctrine and discipline, the first and supreme fount of the whole subsequent perpetual succession, is God himself made man, by the word of preaching, by a personal living magisterium. He provides for perpetuity not by fixing doctrine and precepts in written letters, from which letters individual men would derive for themselves the Christian faith and life; but he provides for perpetuity by instituting the Church, and by communicating to the Apostles, together with the charism of the Holy Spirit and the whole doctrine, the authentic magisterium, which is as it were the second degree of the handed-down doctrine and discipline, immediately joined with the first as with its cause. Let us consider this second degree more distinctly.

2°. Just as Christ the Son of God, so long as he lived in mortal life, was by his divine authority revealing truths and handing down divine institutes, so he instituted that after his departure the Apostles, discharging a legation for Christ, should propagate among all nations the Gospel received from him by preaching and teaching with power; that they should teach the observance of all things; that they should be his witnesses even to the uttermost part of the earth; that they should bear his name before nations and kings; that they should preach repentance among all nations; sent with the power with which he himself had been sent by the Father: Matth. XXVIII. 18. f.; Mk. XVI. 15; Lk. XXIV. 47; Jn. XX. 21; Acts I. 8; IX. 15. For this office of teaching and ruling he promised them and sent them the Spirit of truth, who would teach all things (to be revealed), and bring to mind all things whatsoever Christ himself had taught, and lead them into all truth; he promised to be with them as they taught on all days: Jn. XIV. 16; XV. 16; XVI. 13; Lk. XXIV. 49; Acts II; 1 Pet. I. 12; Matth. XXVIII. 20. Whence, by Christ's express asseveration, he who hears and receives the Apostles hears and receives Christ, since their doctrine and their authority is the very doctrine and authority received from Christ: Lk. X. 10. 16 (with parallels).

We see this mode of preaching the Gospel and propagating the Church, prescribed and instituted by the divine master, fulfilled in execution by the deeds themselves on the part of the Apostles. Everywhere they vindicate for themselves the office and authority of legates of Christ God: Rom. I. 5; X. 14. f.; XVI. 18; 1 Cor. II. 16; III. 9; IV. 1; 2 Cor. III. 6; V. 20; 1 Tim. I. 11. By the signs and powers of the Holy Spirit, as seals of their doctrine, they confirm the authority of their mission after the example of Christ himself: Mk. XVI. 20; 1 Cor. II. 4; 2 Cor. XII. 12; 1 Thess. I. 5; Heb. II. 3. 4. Teaching with this authority, they demand faith and obedience for the integral preaching as for the word not of themselves but of God, and thus gather the faithful into the Church, whose faith is one and whose profession is one, because it is the faith and profession, at least implicit, of the integral apostolic preaching: Rom. XVI. 17; Gal. I. 6–9; 2 Tim. I. 13. 14; III. 10. 14; Eph. IV. 15; Matth. XXVIII. 20.

To this authority, therefore, there answers on the opposite side the obedience of faith in believers, not of free option, but necessary with eternal salvation at stake. « Preach the Gospel... he who does not believe shall be condemned » Mk. XVI. 16. The obedience of faith is rendered indeed to the very authority of God revealing: « when you received from us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men but, as it truly is, the word of God » 1 Thess. II. 13. Yet the immediate authority of God the revealer, according to his sweet providence and according to the positive institution of God and Christ, is manifested and applied both to individuals and to all through the divinely bestowed and demonstrated authority of God's legates, who are sent so that through them both the divinity of the utterance and, this supposed, the revealed truths and consequently the legitimate sense of the truths may be received. The obedience of faith, then, regards not only the authority of God considered immediately in himself, which is the motive of faith and (as it is commonly called) its formal object; but it regards also the authority of God's legates, through which the formal and material object of faith is applied. « Through whom (Jesus Christ) we have received grace and apostleship for the obedience of faith among all nations for his name » Rom. I. 5.⁸ « For I dare not speak of any of those things which Christ does not effect through me unto the obedience of the nations⁹, in word and deed » ib. XV. 18. « Destroying counsels (λογισμους) and every height extolling itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ (εἰς τὴν ὑπακοὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ), having in readiness to avenge all disobedience » 2 Cor. X. 5. 6.

3°. From this character and history of Christian origins there easily appears what we said in the enunciation of the thesis was to be inferred from it. Authority, the personal authentic magisterium, the apostolic preaching on the one side, and answering on the other side subjection, obedience, and the duty of receiving from them and through them the faith that is handed down, and the explication of the faith, are not something external to the Christian religion and economy and as it were superadded by accident in certain mutable circumstances; but are something inward and a certain essential property of the economy instituted by Christ. We say that the authentic magisterium, with the answering duty of the obedience of faith, is essential not as it were a priori to any religion whatever, but to the Christian religion according to the form impressed on it by Christ and demonstrated above. For it is not a question of the metaphysical essence of religion in general, but of one of the essential elements and as it were of the physical essence of this Christian religion, that is, instituted in this determinate form by Christ, the incarnate Word.

Now with this relation between the authority of the living magisterium and the duty of the obedience of faith supposed as an essential element in the Christian economy, it evidently follows that the same divinely instituted form is immutable, nor can it pass into another wholly diverse form, by which the notion of a living magisterium and authority is excluded, without subverting the very character impressed by the divine institutor on the Christian religion. But such a diverse and repugnant economy is certainly that by which Scripture is deemed to be the sole fount of Christian doctrine and religion, so that individuals independently of the authentic magisterium draw it from the books alone, and the books are the sole supreme norm according to which individuals judge what and in what sense belongs or does not belong to Christian doctrine and discipline. Therefore the apostolic economy, considered in itself according to its primitive form, demonstrates that that mode alone of conserving and propagating revelation which prevails and always prevailed in the Catholic Church is truly Christian, that is, implanted in the very nature of the Christian religion as it was instituted by the divine founder and as it were incorporated in his Church; but that the mode feigned by the Protestants of conserving doctrine in the written letter alone, from which individuals in the human race are bound to derive and conform for themselves their faith and religion, is antichristian, subverting the very character impressed by Christ on his religion.¹⁰ We conclude, therefore: just as even the Protestants themselves are compelled to confess that the chief organ for the first promulgation of the Christian faith, by the example, mandate and institution of Christ, was the personal authentic magisterium and not the instrument of Scripture alone, so too from the same institution it is concluded that the living authentic magisterium remains the organ of perpetual conservation. Conservation is homogeneous with origin, progress with beginnings — not, as would have to be asserted from the Protestant principle, a wholly diverse order of apostolic origin and subsequent propagation, nor a passage from one economy to another wholly diverse.¹¹

It is self-evident, however, that this divinely instituted relation between the authentic magisterium and the obedience of faith, between teachers and learners, which we have demonstrated, certainly does not prevent the divine doctrine from also being comprehended in written books, destined both for the authentic magisterium itself and for the learners dependent on it. Yet the magisterium itself and the personal authority of the teachers must be deemed the fundamental institution of Christ the Saviour, to which by God's special providence Scripture was superadded and commended as a partial fount and instrument of doctrine. Hence we see that fundamental institution declared expressly and in many ways by Christ and the Apostles (see the cited places above); but no precept of committing doctrine to letters was given by Christ to the Apostles as something essential and proper to the apostolate, nor was it so acknowledged by the Apostles, who all certainly discharged the office instituted by Christ, yet not all wrote books, and much less thought that the whole doctrine had to be consigned by them to books. But of this we shall speak later.

The living magisterium is shown to be the perpetual organ of Christian Tradition from the express words of the Gospels and the Apostles.

« The same perpetuity and authority of the magisterium is shown by a more distinct consideration of the words of Christ and of the Apostles. For 1° by the same words by which Christ the Lord designated the Apostles as His authentic legates, furnished with the supernatural charism of truth, for handing down to the Churches the doctrine received from Himself or from the Holy Spirit, He at the same time instituted a perpetual succession of legates with the promised charism of truth, for integrally guarding the doctrine received from the Apostles and propagating it to posterity; 2° in this sense of a perennial succession the Apostles explained their office; yet 3° in the Apostles must be distinguished the extraordinary office personal to them, and the ordinary office in which alone, from the words recalled, a perpetual succession is understood to be instituted. »

In the preceding thesis, from the very mode of the first revelation and promulgation of the Gospel and from the proper character of the divinely instituted apostolate — and so rather from things and facts than from the analysis of words — we concluded that there is essential to the Christian economy, and therefore immutable, the authority of a personal magisterium, to which corresponds the obedience of faith; and consequently that, as of the first promulgation, so also of its preservation, the organ must be an authentic personal magisterium of the legates of God, and that the Scriptures cannot be regarded as either the sole or the chief organ. Now, from a more careful consideration of the words of Christ and of the explanation given by the Apostles, it must be shown that in the very positive institution of the apostolate as an authentic organ for the first promulgation of the Gospel, there was also instituted a perpetual apostolic succession as the authentic organ of the preservation and propagation of the Gospel. We shall consider first the institution itself by Christ, then its execution insofar as it is exhibited in the apostolic books, and lastly the distinction which obtains between the divine legates for the first preaching of the faith, and the divine legates for the custody of the faith handed down by the Apostles.

I. The Apostles are designated and constituted divine legates, and to them is promised the charism of infallibility for the sincere understanding and unblemished preaching of the whole of revealed doctrine, and consequently to them is conferred the authority of the magisterium, to which corresponds on the part of believers the duty of the obedience of faith. The chief testimonies pertinent here are read in John XIV. 16-18. 26; XVI. 13; Matt. XXVIII. 20. (with Mark XVI. 15. 16; Luke XXIV. 47-49; Acts I. 8.). Christ — as Matthew and Mark expressly note — invoking His supreme power in heaven and on earth, commands those eleven, whom long before, chosen out from the rest of the disciples, He had named His Apostles or legates (Luke VI. 13.), to teach or, as the Greek word has it, to make disciples (μαθητεύσατε) of all nations, to initiate them by the sacraments, and to teach them to observe all His precepts; with power and authority thus conferred He sets them apart from all others, who are made subject to them to be taught. They are ordained witnesses of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and unto the uttermost part of the earth — witnesses not by knowledge alone but by authority and imposed office. Hence those very men who at all times from the baptism of John unto the day when Christ was taken up into heaven had been in company with Him and with the Apostles were not thereby witnesses; but a singular election and ordination into the number of witnesses was necessary, Acts I. 21-26. Moreover, in this office imposed by Christ Himself of teaching with authority, of preaching, of bearing witness, Christ promises that He will be with them: « teach all nations... and behold I am with you » Matt. l. c.; for this very office of bearing witness He promises the Holy Spirit: « you shall receive the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon you, and you shall (that you may be) witnesses unto Me » Acts; Luke, in the cited chapters. The operation of the Holy Spirit is indeed manifold, but insofar as the office imposed by Christ of authentically teaching and bearing witness — which is proper to the Apostles — is regarded, there is immediately promised to them the Spirit of truth, to teach all things and to bring to mind all things whatsoever Christ had said to them; to teach every truth, even that which, while Christ was still visibly conversing with them, they could not yet bear, John, in the cited chapters.

By these promises, by this charism of truth, the infallibility of the Apostles as legates of God for the preaching and testimony of the whole of revealed doctrine is rendered certain.

With this foundation supposed, it is evidently established that, by the same words by which the Apostles were instituted authentic legates, furnished with the charism of truth through the Holy Spirit and through the present guardianship of Jesus Christ, there was also instituted a perpetual apostolic succession furnished with the charism of truth through the Holy Spirit and through the ever-present guardianship of Jesus Christ, in the office of the divine legation for teaching and bearing testimony to the whole of revealed doctrine. For those words of Jesus Christ pertain to the Apostles not only as regarded personally, but insofar as they represent the perpetual series of their successors unto the consummation of the age. « All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth: going therefore teach all nations... and behold I am with you all days even unto the consummation of the age » ¹ Matt. XXVIII. 18. sq. « And I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth... He shall abide with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you » John XIV. 16. sq. Jesus Christ, therefore, and the Spirit of truth, is and abides unto the consummation of the age, forever with the Apostles teaching, baptizing, and keeping the baptized faithful in the faith — i.e., with the Apostles discharging their legation for Christ — lest these words perchance be absurdly twisted aside to the written doctrine abiding in books. But the Apostles regarded merely personally did not abide unto the consummation of the age teaching, baptizing, keeping the faithful in the faith, because they too « were hindered by death from continuing » (Heb. VII. 23.). Therefore the words of Christ, and consequently the legation, the authority of the magisterium, and the charism of truth enunciated in those words, pertain to the whole apostolic succession, which is instituted by these very words.

II. In the execution of this institution of Christ the Lord, we see the Apostles substituting for themselves others, who should be guardians of the deposit received from them and teachers through the Holy Spirit communicated to them and abiding in them. « Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me... keep the good deposit by the Holy Ghost who dwelleth in us » 2. Tim. I. 13. 14. In this and in manifold other ways Paul, with the time of his departure now at hand, repeats to Timothy what Christ before His return to the Father had commanded the Apostles. Read 1. Tim. IV. 13. 14. 16; VI. 13. 14. 20; 2. Tim. I. 6. 8; Acts XX. 28-32.

Moreover, the Apostles bid these their immediate successors in their turn to substitute others under the same conditions, to whom they should commend the received deposit to be further guarded and propagated. « Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus; and the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also » 2. Tim. II. 2; Tit. I. 5. 9. Clement of Rome, disciple of the Apostles and successor of Peter, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, nn. 42. 44., thus describes this succession: « Christ was sent by God, and the Apostles by Christ... And so, going forth with the full persuasive power of the Holy Spirit (received from the Holy Spirit, μετα πληροφοριας πνευματος ἁγιου; cf. 1. Thess. I. 5.), they announced the coming of the kingdom of God. Preaching therefore the word through regions and cities, they appointed their firstfruits, after they had tested them by the Spirit, unto bishops and deacons of those who were to believe... They appointed the aforesaid, and afterwards gave ordinance that, when these should have departed, other approved men should succeed to their ministry » ².

Most luminously do the other ancient Fathers treat of this succession, among whom Irenaeus is to be read, l. III. c. 3. n. 1. But of the Fathers elsewhere.

According to this order of succession, then, which was instituted by Christ in the Apostles themselves as in juridical representatives and in the first stock of the whole series (above, n. I.), the Apostles also bid their immediate successors to keep the commandment « unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, which in His times the blessed and only mighty King of kings shall show » 1. Tim. VI. 14. 15. — just as the Apostles themselves had been bidden by Christ to teach « unto the consummation of the age ». Pastors and doctors, given by Christ Himself for the building up of the body of Christ and for the exclusion of errors, shall endure as long as the body which is the Church shall be in this stage, not yet consummated, namely, in all its members. « And He gave some apostles... and others pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ, until we all come into the unity of faith... unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ » ³ Eph. IV. 11-16. And concerning these men — ...who shall believe — in πιστευειν... κατεστησαν τους προειρημενους, και μεταξυ (cf. Act. XIII. 42.) επινομην δεδωκασιν, οπως εαν κοιμηθωσιν, διαδεξωνται ετεροι δεδοκιμασμενοι ἄνδρες τὴν λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν — « they appointed the aforesaid, and afterwards gave direction that, when these should have fallen asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry ».

Concerning the signification of the word ἐπινομῇ there is dispute among the learned, whether there is to be understood precept, law, disposition (νομος), or the right of pasturing, of pasturing together with another, of pasturing on another's ground (ἐπινεμω). The former signification seems to me more obvious and more probable, both from the context and on account of the particle μεταξὺ, which certainly signifies hereafter, for future time, as is clear from the following period in this very 44th chapter of Clement. For the right of pasturing together the Apostles gave to the bishops constituted by them not for the future but at once; but they are rightly said to have given for future time — for all time, namely, unto the coming of the Lord — the mandate of constituting others and again others as successors in perpetual series. Moreover, even with the other signification admitted, by which some interpret ἐπινομὴν as the right of pasturing, others as the series of succession, the sense of the whole context remains the same for the cause which we now plead: by perpetual succession the office and charism of guarding the deposit passes on; for there were given by Christ pastors and doctors for the work of the ministry, « that we may now be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive. » To the universality, therefore, to the whole body of « pastors and doctors » of which we shall presently speak, unto the consummation of the age, unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, do the words pertain (of Christ and of the Apostles. « O Timothy, keep the deposit... what is Timothy today but either in general the whole Church (in believing) or in particular the whole body of prelates (in teaching) ⁴, who ought either themselves to possess the full knowledge of divine worship or to infuse it into others » Vincent. Lirin. commonit. n. 27.

III. One thing remains: that we show how there can be reconciled with the foregoing the distinction which obtains between the charism of the Holy Spirit as it was in the Apostles, and the charism of the same Spirit as it is in the apostolic succession. For if the last declaration of the will of Christ the Lord — « behold I am with you all days even unto the consummation of the age » — and the promise — « He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth » — pertains not to the Apostles alone regarded personally, but to the whole apostolic succession, it would seem to follow that all the charisms comprehended in these words extend in equal manner to all the successors of the Apostles as to the Apostles themselves. But since the power in teaching and the operations of the Spirit of truth were in the Apostles far ampler than in their successors, the question is asked by what reckoning those promises, forever and unto the consummation of the age, as the words of Christ expressly have it, are to be understood.

That the matter may be explained, first the offices in the Apostles themselves must be considered, instituting a comparison with the offices of their successors from other heads of doctrine, if any are at hand; for in the cited words there is no mention of such a comparison, and so it is in those words, taken by themselves and separately, neither included nor excluded. After this comparison, then, it will easily be understood how, though not all the offices of the Apostles, yet that which is directly expressed in these words is promised as perpetual in a perennial succession.

1°. Three things are to be considered in the Apostles for the present matter: a) as they received revelation immediately from Christ or from the Holy Spirit, and were themselves constituted the authentic organs of new revelations by which the whole revelation should be completed and consummated; b) as they were furnished by Christ with the authority of pastors, doctors, and guardians of the faith each for the universal Church; c) as, to all in communion and unity with Peter and under Peter regarded as one episcopal body, was entrusted the office of feeding and teaching and the custody of the faith committed to them for the universal Church. This last in the Apostles could not be severed from the first and second, as a charism comprehended in that higher one; yet of itself it is separable, and with the first and second ceasing it can endure. In the apostolate the episcopate was included; yet if the former was personal and incommunicable, the latter could be communicable and to be propagated unto the consummation of the age.

a) Now that the first of these three was personal to the Apostles, so as in no way to have been communicable and therefore not promised to successors, is certain from elsewhere. For these receive revealed doctrine from the Apostles as a deposit to be guarded, and are bidden to abide in it. « But thou hast fully known my doctrine..., continue thou in those things which thou hast learned and which have been committed to thee, knowing of whom thou hast learned them » 2. Tim. III. 10. 14.; cf. 1. Tim. IV. 5.; 2. Tim. I. 13. Nothing is commended to the Churches more earnestly than that they abide in the doctrine which they had learned, in the tradition which they had received from the Apostles: Rom. XVI. 17.; 1. Cor. XI. 2.; Coloss. II. 7.; 2. Thess. II. 15.; Heb. XIII. 7-9. Christ through Himself and through the Holy Spirit taught the Apostles all things which He willed to be comprehended in revelation for the unity of faith for His Church: John XIV. 26.; XVI. 12. 13.; XVII. 17-21. But He revealed all these things — i.e., the whole deposit — not only to be believed and known, but to His legates for teaching: Matt. XVIII. 20.; John XVII. 17. 20. Therefore apart from all these things handed down by the Apostles, no other revelation pertaining to the deposit of the Church to come after the Apostles is not only not promised but is excluded. Hence as all the faithful « are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets » Eph. II. 20., so in every Christian age there have ever been held as synonyms not only apostolic doctrine and divinely revealed doctrine to be believed, but also non-apostolic doctrine and doctrine not pertaining to the deposit of Catholic revelation. Cf. Stapleton, Controvers. l. V. c. 7. This head, of revelation completed in the Apostles themselves, we shall demonstrate more carefully in its own place.

b) Moreover, that neither the second prerogative of the Apostles, which we indicated in the second place, passed to the individual successors, is equally manifest. For the authority and the right of pasturing of individual bishops is restricted to individual Churches, or at least is not extended to the universal Church. For the Apostles constituted, and bade to be constituted, bishops through the individual cities (κατα πόλιν) Tit. I. 5. 7., or as Clement of Rome speaks (see above), « the Apostles preaching the Gospel through regions and cities (κατα χωρας καὶ πόλεις), appointed the firstfruits thereof, approved by the Spirit, as bishops of those who were to believe (therein) » ep. I. ad Corinth. n. 42. Whence Peter, himself a « fellow-elder », admonishes the elders and pastors, whose chief prince is Christ Himself, not that each should feed the universal flock of God; but « feed, he says, the flock of God which is among you, exercising oversight » (ἐπισκοποῦντες, i.e., discharging the sacred office, from which already from the Apostles and ever afterwards they have been called Bishops) 1. Pet. V. 1-4. In almost the same way Paul exhorts the « elders of the Church » of Asia: « take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops to rule (ἐπισκοπους ποιμαινειν) the Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood » Acts XX. 28. This passage, especially if it be compared at the same time with the other, of Peter, is most remarkable. While Paul in the last clause names the Church of God with the article (τὴν ἐκκλησιαν του θεου), purchased with the blood of God Himself, assuredly the universal Church is signified, not a particular one merely as a part of the whole. Moreover, the whole clause « to rule the Church of God » depends on the noun « bishops » of plural and indeterminate number, so that « to rule the Church of God » expresses the proper office and charism of bishops in common, and the sense is the same as if it were said: the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, whose — if regarded generically and in common — proper office is to rule the Church of God. But if they be regarded individually, and personally those whom Paul addresses, they are not placed individually to rule the universal Church of God; but each is bidden to feed that flock of his own wherein he has been placed through the charism of the Holy Spirit ⁵. (cf. Zaccaria, Antifebron. dissertat. II. c. 7.; Antifebronius vindicatus, T. I. dissert. III. c. 5. n. 9.). For the clause « wherein He hath placed you » is evidently restrictive, to the particular flock; and consequently the words of Paul — « to the flock wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you » — are parallel to those of Peter — « the flock which is among you ». Whence the epithet « the whole flock » (παντι τω ποιμνιω) signifies not absolutely universal, but that whole flock wherein each one has been placed. On the doctrine and practice of the whole of Christian antiquity see Franciscus Antonius Zaccaria in Antifebronio, l. c. Cf. Conc. Trid. sess. 23. cap. 4.; Conc. Vatican. Constit. I. de Ecclesia, cap. 3.

Therefore the power of the Apostles as regards the universal Church, conferred on them individually by Christ, was personal, in which they were to have no successors. Into the individual successors of the Prince of the Apostles alone passes the power of ruling and authentically teaching the universal Church, because in Peter — not indeed simply the apostolate, but the primacy as the rock and foundation of the whole Church — was instituted perpetual, as long as the Church herself, founded on this rock, shall remain unconquered by the gates of hell, Matt. XVI. 19. But the demonstration of this truth pertains to another treatise.

c) Since from what has been demonstrated in parts I. and II. of this thesis it is established that the office of authentically teaching the universal Church and of guarding the whole deposit of faith under the promised guardianship of Jesus Christ and the assistance of the Holy Spirit was instituted in the Apostles themselves to be propagated by perpetual succession unto the consummation of the age; and since from what has been said in this part III. it is equally certain that this perpetuity was not instituted as regards the apostolate itself of new revelations and of universal magisterium with the charism of truth in individuals — that alone remains: that the Apostles, insofar as in them a perpetual succession was instituted with the charism of teaching and guarding the deposit for the universal Church, must be regarded in that manner alone which we indicated in the third place. Christ the Lord, namely, not only conferred on individuals the charism of the apostolate, but also instituted the whole college in union with Peter and under Peter the head as the first episcopal body, when to this body in this unity He said: « teach... and behold I am with you all days even unto the consummation of the age »; « He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth. » But by this very act He instituted the episcopal body in that unity, with the charism of truth, to abide by perpetual succession unto the consummation of the age.

2°. With these things declared, the difficulty which is wont to be raised against the demonstration given in part I. of the thesis will easily be dispatched. The difficulty runs thus. In the words of Christ the Lord, Matt. XXVIII.; John XIV. — « teach all nations... and behold I am with you; He shall give you the Spirit of truth » — there is conferred or promised to the Apostles power and infallibility in teaching. If therefore those words were spoken to the Apostles insofar as they represented the whole series of their successors, the same power and infallibility in the same manner as to the Apostles has been promised to all their successors. But in the Apostles that charism extended both to new revelations through the Holy Spirit and to universal power and to infallibility in them individually. Therefore the same charisms should be deemed promised to the individual successors of them. But since this is manifestly false from elsewhere, the words cannot be understood as spoken to the Apostles as representing their successors, and therefore no promise for these is contained therein.

The answer is clear from what we have demonstrated both in part I. and in part III. a) In the words of Christ, Matt. XXVIII. and John XIV., there is expressly instituted a universal magisterium with the charism of truth as perpetual, and therefore to be not only in the Apostles but in their heirs, all days even unto the consummation of the age, forever. Therefore the mandate and promise of Christ in these words — « teach all nations, baptizing them, and behold I am with you even unto the consummation of the age, » « that the Spirit of truth may abide with you forever » — directly enunciate only the magisterium and the charism of truth joined with it as ordinary, i.e., to be propagated perennially to successors, and not all the charisms which perchance are established from elsewhere to have been conferred on the Apostles alone as extraordinary. b) The words are directed to the apostolic college in union with Peter — the words of the promise, John XIV., after it had already been promised to Peter that he alone among all the Apostles should be the rock of the whole Church, so that the gates of hell should never prevail against her (Matt. XVI.); the words of the mandate and institution, Matt. XXVIII., after Peter had already been singularly instituted the pastor and ruler of all the sheep of Jesus Christ (John XXI.). Hence the universal magisterium as ordinary, which is conferred by the words « teach all nations; baptizing them, teaching them (the baptized) to observe all things, » and the charism of truth joined with it which is likewise promised as ordinary — « and behold I am with you even unto the consummation, » « the Spirit of truth shall abide with you forever » — can be understood as promised and conferred to the whole college or to the apostolic body in union with its head and under its head Peter, not to individuals by themselves; and it must be so understood, because it is established from elsewhere (as we have demonstrated) that the universal magisterium, and the charism of infallibility joined with it, in the individual Apostles (except Peter the head), was not ordinary, of which there is direct treatment in Matt. XXVIII. and John XIV., but an extraordinary prerogative of the apostolate. c) The same holds altogether of the prerogative of new revelations. The words « teach all nations... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and behold I am with you, » « the Spirit of truth shall abide with you forever, » of themselves promise and institute an infallible magisterium of revelation already made, but do not promise new revelations. When Christ the Lord promised in John XVI. 12. 13. that these should come through the Holy Spirit, He not only said nothing of perpetuity forever, all days even unto the consummation of the age; but He expressly had in view the Apostles personally, who as yet could not bear many things still to be said. At least, therefore, the words of Matt. XXVIII. and John XIV. can be understood of the infallible preaching of revelation already made and of the custody of the entrusted deposit, without being extended to the promise of new revelations; and that they must be so understood is established, because by those words there is instituted a magisterium and charism as ordinary, to endure perpetually, whereas the charism of new Catholic revelation is not perpetual in the Church of Jesus Christ, but was extraordinary, in no way to endure beyond apostolic times — as has already been proved from elsewhere, and shall be demonstrated below at length.

From what has been said it is also clear that the prerogative of universal and infallible magisterium did not stand in the Apostles in altogether the same way as the other prerogative of promulgating new revelation. The former was ordinary to the apostolic college in union with and subordination to its head Peter, as it juridically represented the perpetually future teaching Church — i.e., the Catholic episcopate formed and informed by its head, the perennial successor of Peter; likewise, by force of the primacy, just as the universal magisterium so also the charism of infallibility joined with it was ordinary to Peter, and thus both conferred to be transmitted by hereditary right to his individual successors in the primacy; to the remaining Apostles, by force of the apostolate, in no way hereditary, each was extraordinary in individuals. On the contrary, the other prerogative, of new revelation, was extraordinary to Peter no less than to the other Apostles, whether regarded individually or all together, and to be propagated neither to the successors of Peter nor to the whole episcopate.

If there should still be need to answer in form the difficulty proposed at the outset, take it thus. I distinguish the major: that by those words found in Matt. XXVIII. and John XIV. there is promised to the Apostles that power and infallibility in teaching which shall endure all days even unto the consummation of the age, and forever, that is, the ordinary — and that therefore these words directly refer to the whole apostolic body in union with Peter the head, not to individuals by themselves, and to the infallibly teaching and guarding of revelation already made, not to new revelation — I concede the major. That by these words directly are enunciated all charisms of power and infallibility, even the extraordinary, which are established from elsewhere to have been conferred on the Apostles by force of the apostolate — I deny the major. Whence also I distinguish the consequent of the major: that power and infallibility which by these words has been promised as ordinary to the apostolic college in union with Peter has also been promised in the same manner to the successors — i.e., to the whole body of successors in union with the successor of Peter — I concede the consequent; that any power and infallibility whatever, even the extraordinary, of which there is establishment in the Apostles, whether all or individual, from elsewhere but not directly from these words — I deny the consequent. By the same reckoning I distinguish the minor: that new revelation and universal power and infallibility in individual Apostles pertained to the extraordinary charisms, of which there is establishment not directly from these words but from elsewhere — I concede the minor; that these extraordinary charisms are directly enunciated by these words, by which are promised gifts to endure forever, all days even unto the consummation of the age — I deny the minor. Whence it is clear what of truth and what of falsity underlies the final conclusion.

I have said, however, that by the words of Matt. XXVIII. and John XIV. there is directly enunciated only the ordinary office in the apostolic college, insofar as the office is there joined with the promise of perpetuity; for prescinding from this institution of propagation to successors, I do not deny that the mandate of teaching all nations and the promise of the guardianship of Christ and of the Spirit of truth, in those same words, indirectly and in an ampler signification, can at the same time also extend to the extraordinary charisms of the apostolate.

On the Intimate Nexus of the Principle of Tradition with the Necessary Properties of the Christian Religion.

« The economy of the guardians of the faith, which we have proved from the historical origin of the Christian religion to have been instituted by Christ for the conservation and propagation of integral revelation, 1° coheres by an intimate causal nexus with the universality and unity of faith, so that without that principle of Tradition these properties, even taken alone, insofar as they are evidently understood as necessary postulates of the Christian religion, cannot stand, unless there be conceded, in another order altogether which nowhere exists, a charism of infallibility common to all the faithful. Hence 2° it is understood that universal Protestantism, shattered into mutually contrary sects, repugns an essential property of the divine religion, since this division follows from their very fundamental principle, while none of the sects can by right be excluded from the roll of the Protestant communion; while their so-called orthodox communion cannot stand except by again denying the very principle by which they defend their defection from the Church, and thus entangling their whole cause in manifest contradictions. »

I. In the first part of this thesis we show that the mode of Tradition demonstrated above from the institution of Christ — namely guardians of the faith as the perpetual organ for conserving revelation — coheres intimately, as principle and cause, with the necessary characters of Christian revelation, which are universality and unity.

1°. We take this universality of revelation in the broader sense, in which its necessity, and from this necessity the exigency also of that mode of Tradition, may be more evidently understood. By the name universality therefore we signify a mode of proposing revelation accommodated to all those to whom it is to be proposed, so that without peril of error they can by moral possibility believe, and are bound to believe. That such universality — on the hypothesis that God has revealed something, and much more on the hypothesis that He has destined His revelation for all nations and every creature (Matth. XXVIII. 20; Mark XVI. 15.) — is exacted by the wisdom and goodness of God, is altogether evident. But with revelation made immediately to individuals excluded, there is no mode of conserving revelation long since completed and of proposing it to all nations in a manner, as has been said, accommodated to all, except through the authority of the legates of God, who in this their mission and authority are easily knowable. Therefore upon that economy of the legates of God which was instituted for the perpetual custody and preaching of revelation long since consummated, as upon cause and principle, depends this necessary property of universality. The minor proposition is proved. For with immediate revelation set aside and the easily knowable authority of the legates of God excluded — from whom preaching and doctrine can and must be received as the word of God, not because it is demonstrated by arguments, but because it is authentically proposed by them — no other mode of proposing remains except through demonstration, by which one might be convinced by arguments without peril and without prudent fear of erring, not only in general that revelation and Christian revelation was made by God, in which there would be no insuperable difficulty; but indeed specifically that this determinate series of truths, precepts, institutions, and in this determinate sense, was revealed, and has been sincerely and integrally conserved through the course of the ages down to us; while all those many men, celebrated even by the fame of genius and learning, have erred and do err, who have admitted and admit as revealed either not all these truths, or more than these, or not in this but in another sense. All these things, I say, would have to be so demonstrated to individuals that they could and must be accepted, not on account of the authority of the demonstrator but on account of reasons seen through, with certain persuasion and without peril or fear of erring. In short, with the authority of the Church for conserving and expounding revelation set aside — which is not made immediately to individuals — demonstration of science alone remains. But evidently science is not accommodated to all men, and for so great a burden at least by far the greatest part of men is plainly unequal. I have said at least the greatest part unequal, because this is immediately evident and abundantly suffices for our present thesis; for the rest, if the question concerned universal revelation, moral impossibility could easily be shown universally and as regards all; for as regards matters of faith before faith received, all are foolish, as St. Augustine disputes at length in his book on the utility of believing. Therefore apart from the authority of the legates of God there is no mode accommodated to proposing revealed faith to all nations.

I see a double exception that can be and is wont to be made against this demonstration: first, that the grace of interior illumination supplies the defect of the exterior proposition; second, that provision can be made for the rude and unlearned, who are unequal to an inquiry and demonstration so manifold and difficult, by an authority albeit merely human and scientific, that of the learned.

But in the first place the grace of interior illustration is indeed necessarily conjoined with even the most accommodated exterior proposition of faith, that the assent may be, as it ought, supernatural; while grace which would supply the exterior proposition itself — because this is either null or, what amounts to nearly the same, unfit, and which therefore individuals cannot use — such grace of illustration, I say, is immediate revelation either simply or equivalently. That such illustrations are given even in the present economy as an extraordinary charism, which God sometimes concedes in the supernatural psychological order, there is no doubt; nor do we contend that an economy is absolutely repugnant in which the charism of immediate revelation for individuals would be ordinary, where there would be no further question of the necessity of an exterior proposition; but really and historically it is altogether certain that such an order of revelation has neither been promised nor ever existed nor exists. Of the mode in which the Protestants vindicated to themselves such a revelation as their own, we shall speak below.

To the second proposed difficulty we shall not make use of that answer, that on such an hypothesis faith would be merely human, as resting on merely human authority; for we judge that merely human authority can be the medium by which the authority of God the revealer becomes known to us and is applied to us, so that in the act of faith assent is yielded not on account of human authority but solely on account of divine authority; which controversy belongs to another place. Nor shall I say that, albeit most true, this exception cannot polemically be made in the name of the Protestants; for they reject even the authority of the Church itself in the business of faith from their fundamental principle, for the reason, as they say, that this authority is human, while in matters of faith there can be place for no human but only for divine authority. Although in fact, as will soon be patent, for the divine authority a human authority has been substituted by the authors and doctors of Protestantism, which at least the Protestant masses, insofar as they protest against the divine authority of the Catholic Church, all follow. But now we have not only a polemic against the Protestants but the more general question from the very nature of the thing concerning the necessary and fit proposition of faith, that it may be universal. The answer therefore is another, more general and evident. In the objection it is supposed as foundation that those learned men, of whose scientific authority we speak, have by their scientific inquiry arrived without peril and prudent fear of error at full certitude as to which truths, all and alone, and in what determinate sense are contained in revelation, and moreover have so arrived thither that this their most full science becomes certainly known to the unlearned and rude, nor can these prudently suspect any error of theirs. But each of these suppositions is proved false from the nature and character and difficulty of the truths of faith, from the diversity of genius and erudition among learned men, from the diversity of opinions thence arising among even the most learned in all difficult questions in which the norm of authority is wanting, from the impotence of the rude to judge prudently of the certain science of those men, and much more to discern between true and false in the diversity and opposition of opinions. Whence it comes about that this merely human and scientific authority of the erudite would for the rude be not only no foundation of sufficient certitude but a new crop of doubts, from which the moral impossibility of arriving at what is liquid by their own inquiry would be increased for them, and nothing else certain would remain but this one thing, that what in the business of faith is true and what false cannot be found, and hence ought not to be inquired into. Let it stand therefore, as we have proved, that, prescinding from immediate revelation made to individuals, there is no mode of conserving and proposing revelation accommodated to all nations besides the easily knowable authority of the guardians and doctors of the faith, divinely sent and constituted to succeed one another in perpetual succession; this economy therefore coheres with the essential character of universality proper to divine revelation as cause with its effect¹.

2°. Concerning the unity of faith scarcely anything else remains to be said; for the argument showing the nexus of the authentic magisterium with the necessary universality of faith also shows its nexus with the unity of faith, which indeed can be distinguished from universality but cannot be separated from it. When God reveals truths, in the very fact of revelation there is contained a divine necessary precept to the rational creature for whom revelation is destined, of believing all those truths. This is evident from the very notion of the authority, wisdom and sanctity of God revealing, and from the notion of dependence, indigence, and ordination to the true and the good on the part of the rational creature. Hence from those same notions it is evident that God the revealer necessarily wills with legislative will the unity of faith and profession in its universality. But with this unity of faith the institution of the legates of God, who with infallible authority conserve and teach the integral faith, so coheres that the former spontaneously follows from the latter, and without the latter — prescision made from the manifestly false hypothesis of immediate revelation made to individuals — cannot exist. For if both the authority of the magisterium and immediate, at least equivalent, revelation² be set aside, the whole business is necessarily, from what was shown above, reduced to the proper inquiry of individuals, which, as is likewise certain from what precedes, considering the character and difficulty of the truths in question and considering the variety of genius, science and cupidities, is fit to beget not unity of faith but diversity of opinions.

II. What we have shown from the very natures of things and as it were a priori is most luminously confirmed a posteriori, namely by the patent facts of which the whole history of Protestantism is composed. We have shown from the very natures of things that, with the authority of the legates of God who by continuous succession conserve the deposit of faith removed, no other mode remains by which faith may be proposed to individuals than either formal or equivalent immediate revelation to individuals, or inquiry instituted by individuals after the manner of a school; but with this posited, the unity of faith in its universality cannot be conserved. But the whole history of Protestantism from its origin down to this age constantly, always and everywhere, not only in manifold integral sects but in individual men also, has exhibited and exhibits these same conclusions in the facts themselves, nor can any fact be adduced in which they are not found true.

Indeed the first so-called Reformers, when they denied the authority of the magisterium and custody of faith in the Church, continuously substituted for it the inspiration of individuals who read the Scriptures, at least equipollent to immediate revelation. For they saw that between these three — between the authority of the magisterium, inquiry left to individuals, and the immediate revelation or inspiration of individuals — there is no mean; with the first therefore rejected, since they dared not appeal to the second simply and without tempering, it remained to flee to the third. They taught therefore that sacred Scripture is perspicuous to all by a supernatural clarity, in that the written word of God, when read or heard, by its innate virtue, which is the virtue of the Holy Spirit, illuminates and sanctifies individuals so that they easily understand the true and genuine sense, and thus for individuals the Holy Spirit Himself is immediately interpreter and doctor: « let each be the freest judge of all who teach him, taught inwardly by God alone » (see above p. 9.). The illumination therefore is not only the grace necessary for supernatural faith, which Catholics concede and believe; but it is an illumination which excludes the exterior authentic magisterium, and by which individuals are constituted judges of all teachers — by which name the Church herself is understood before all. Whence Protestant theologians also, e. g. Gerhard (in his Loci, bk. I, On the Interpretation of Scripture), are wont to teach that the sentence by which Scripture is said to be its own interpreter is tantamount to the Holy Spirit being the interpreter of His own proper sense. But when they assert that this interpretation made by the Holy Spirit is an ordinary charism for individuals reading Scripture, so as to exclude the necessity of an authentic magisterium, they evidently assert the inspiration of individuals, or at least equivalent immediate revelation. The mode of this illumination, as the first Reformers themselves conceived it, they thus describe: « as soon as any word of God (in Scripture) exists, the virtue of the Holy Spirit is with it inseparably always conjoined, so that the virtue and efficacy of the word with the virtue of the Holy Spirit is wholly one and the same, truly divine, nor can the word any more than the Holy Spirit Himself be or be conceived without this virtue » (Schmid, Lutheran Dogmatics).

With such a mode of illumination through the Holy Spirit Himself supposed, there would be no need of the authority of the legates of God for a certain and infallible understanding of the revealed word. Each man would suffice to himself, and would be a Church to himself; moreover the unity of faith would spontaneously follow, since to individuals one Spirit of truth, who cannot be repugnant to Himself, would infuse knowledge of divine revelation and of the true sense in the reading or hearing of the word ex opere operato.

But that this immediate inspiration as an ordinary charism of individuals, so efficacious that for the universality and unity of faith an authentic magisterium would not be necessary, is a mere figment, the Reformers themselves and the whole history of Protestantism have most luminously shown by their deeds — not to repeat here the arguments by which we have shown above the divinely instituted economy, that the obedience of faith in individuals unto the consummation of the age corresponds to the authentic magisterium and custody of faith concreted in the apostolic succession. For indeed the falsehood of this kind of charism, which the Reformers vindicated to themselves and their followers, is shown by the contrary and contradictory opinions of these inspired men on the gravest heads of Christian doctrine, and by the diverse judgments at diverse times of one and the same man, e. g. of Luther himself, concerning the sense of revealed doctrine; then universally by the historical fact that the persuasion of this inspiration was not the principle of unity of faith but of innumerable sects, which, all taught by the Holy Spirit, not only have oppugned and do oppugn one another's doctrines and those of the very authors of the Reformation, but also, raging with fire and sword, once filled Germany, France, Belgium, Scotland, England with slaughters.

Now if this inspiration of individuals in fact as an ordinary charism is null, that interpretation independent of any authority is reduced, if not to fanatical frenzy, as happened in many, to private inquiry and to the genius of individuals. But with this posited, we have shown the unity of faith in universality to be impossible. This the Protestants themselves easily understood, when experience had evidently shown the inspiration of individuals to be vain. Hence those who wished to save some positive religion and communion of doctrine revoked postliminiously the principle of authority — by whose negation they defended their defection from the Church — either only practically and in their mode of acting or even theoretically and in doctrine, as Luther himself did³, nowise solicitous about the evident contradiction. But those who wish to be consistent with themselves, from their very fundamental principle of independent interpretation, concede that unity of faith is impossible, and therefore affirm it to be unnecessary for religious communion and salvation⁴. This consequence cannot be denied to be legitimate: but the consequent is wholly absurd and repugnant to all the notions we most certainly have of the wisdom, sanctity and authority of God the revealer and of the absolute dependence of man. But the principle from which an absurd consequent is legitimately deduced cannot itself but be absurd.

Thus in our age matters have come to this, that all Protestants are compelled to concede, and in fact concede at least practically, most also theoretically, that the principle on which rests the whole Reformation of the sixteenth century and the defection from the Catholic Church is of such a sort that, with it applied, no unity of faith and religious communion, in which there ought to be one profession of all, can exist or be conserved. Compelled to agree in this theorem, clear of itself and shown by experience, while dissenting in all else, they are now discerned into the following chief factions: a) those who judge that the fundamental principle of independent inquiry or (as they speak) of free examination is to be sincerely and according to its whole force applied and put into use. These deny that the Scriptures themselves are the norm of believing, and affirm that in matters regarding religion that alone is to be followed which each man by his reason has understood as true, whether from the Scriptures and in the Scriptures or from elsewhere, or has seemed to himself to have understood — or rather as an opinion to be fostered meanwhile, until the elimination of all Christian notions be day by day further promoted. That all and only those who so think are genuine Protestants and sincere defenders of the fundamental principle (Rationalists, who now under diverse forms and names constitute the greatest part among learned Protestants or those tinged with some color of erudition)⁵ b) To these are next joined those who exact I know not what religious sense and confidence in Christ as Saviour, but hold doctrine and dogmas as ἀδιαφορα (Pietists); or postulate a certain general faith in Christ and in the Scriptures as a public instrument of the Christian religion, in other things vindicating full liberty to all who after the fundamental principle wish to pertain to « oecumenical Protestantism » (the so-called universal Unionists)⁶. c) With these are connected others, who postulate unity of profession in those things in which the diverse sects to be crowded into one exterior communion already seem to agree; in the rest, in which they dissent, they permit, in accordance with the fundamental principle, full liberty. These therefore, like the rest hitherto commemorated, wish there to be religious communion among men of most diverse faith and confession (the so-called positive Unionists). To these are now more nearly joined those Neo-Protestants who ἀντιφραστικῶς call themselves old Catholics. d) There follow those who prefer unity of profession of faith to the fundamental principle, and will an ecclesiastical authority to be constituted, from whose interpretation it were impious for individuals to depart. These again are discerned manifoldly. Some hold as objective norm the authority of the first Reformers and of the symbolical books, and hence the tradition derived from the sixteenth century, whence the authors of this tradition first arose precisely through the negation of the principle of Tradition and of all authority distinct from the Scriptures (Lutherans of the old profession); others will the divinely constituted authority of the Church, and say it was first founded by Christ and the Apostles, nowise adverting that by this very fact the schism and heresy of the whole Reformation is condemned (Neo-Lutherans); other fanatical men expect a new advent of Christ and a new more abundant effusion of the Holy Spirit; others seriously affirm that this effusion and new institution of the Church has already most recently taken place, and have their apostles, prophets, bishops etc. (the manifold sects which we comprehend under the name Pseudo-prophets).

From this compendium of the history of Protestantism I think it evident to anyone what I said at the outset, that a posteriori from the whole history of the recent sects, with no fact adducible to the contrary, it is confirmed that, with the principle of the Protestants admitted, the whole business of the proposition of faith is reduced either to the inquiry of individuals, by which unity of faith is rendered impossible, or the very foundation of the whole Reformation must be subverted, and an authentic magisterium for the custody and explication of revelation admitted, which cannot be but instituted by Christ Himself.

Moreover to acknowledge the principle of authority instituted by Christ, which by that very fact is perpetual, and hence before the so-called Reformation and at the time of the Reformation was contained in the very apostolic succession of the Church, yet at the same time not to confess the impiety of rebellion against this divine authority; likewise to acknowledge the falsity of the principle of the independence of individuals from the authority of the Church conserving and expounding the deposit of faith, yet at the same time to approve the Reformation, which rests wholly upon that principle and without its truth cannot but be false — this, I say, is a manifest and huge contradiction. But the so-called orthodox Protestantism must needs admit all these things at least practically and in its mode of acting, when it endeavors to defend itself against indifferentism and rationalism, so that it denies the principle of independence to which it owes its existence, and affirms the principle of authority by transferring the authority of teaching, to which the obedience of faith is owed, from the Catholic and apostolic Church to its Reformers — who by their own confession were or could be Reformers only by denying whatsoever authority of the Church; and further substitutes for the Tradition received from Christ and the Apostles a tradition whose origin in the sixteenth century at last was the negation of the very principle of Tradition. So indeed do the so-called Lutherans of the old profession⁷. But those who, a little more modest and wearied of this authority of the Reformers, concede and defend the divinely instituted authority of the Church, yet at the same time approve the Reformation of the sixteenth century — they deny the authority instituted by Christ in His Church, and at the same time affirm the authority of a Church which either nowhere exists but is still to come, or which arose from the negation of the authority of the apostolic Church. So do those called Neo-Lutherans. The whole of that pseudo-orthodox Protestantism therefore is ruled and sustained by a certain huge contradiction, or rather series of contradictions.

On the Immutable Perduration of the Same Economy After the Writing of the N. T. Books.

« The authentic magisterium divinely instituted for the custody and propagation of the doctrine received from the preaching of the Apostles has been neither changed in its function nor diminished in authority since the books of the N. T. were written and handed to the Churches; which follows both by way of corollary from what precedes, and is also shown specifically from the historical origin itself and the native disposition of the sacred books. »

I. In what precedes we have shown that the magisterium of the apostolic succession was instituted by Christ Himself, the founder, guardian, spouse and head of the Church, for guarding and propagating the integrity of divine doctrine; that it was instituted by express words and promises as perpetual unto the consummation of the age; that it was instituted with a function and authority depending not on changeable circumstances and human endowments, but flowing from the present guardianship of Christ and the charity of the Spirit of truth abiding with the successors of the Apostles forever; that it was instituted not as something accidental, which could at some time be absent with the Christian religion intact, but as the principle and conserving cause of the essential characters of the Christian profession. But an office so constituted is altogether immutable in its function and authority; nor can God contradict Himself by effecting or permitting that an economy founded by Himself under express promises of perpetuity and indefectibility be converted into another essentially different. Therefore under any hypothesis the same economy remains immutable, and hence also under the hypothesis that the doctrine entrusted to the preaching and custody of the legates of Christ should in course of time be consigned, in whole or in part, to inspired books. Indeed from the very described nature of that ever-living divinely instituted organ it is clear that, just as doctrine handed down by preaching alone, so also doctrine consigned to books, and such divine books themselves, would be under the custody and authentic interpretation of the same ever-vigilant apostolic succession.

II. What is shown from the characters of the divinely instituted apostolic succession can also be understood from the consideration of the other term, which is the sacred books of the N. T.

1° Let the circumstances in which the books were written be considered. Before the books of the N. T. existed, much more before all of them, gathered into the canon, were read in all the Churches, the Churches themselves had indeed long since been constituted, in accordance with the mandate and institution of Christ, by apostolic preaching and ordination; in them Bishops had been ordained by the imposition of the Apostles' hands, to whom the preaching and Tradition of the Apostles had been entrusted as a deposit to be faithfully guarded through the charism of the Holy Spirit, and upon the same men had been laid the charge that they too, in accordance with Christ's mandate, should appoint and ordain through cities and regions successors to themselves, furnished with the same authority and the same charism (see thes. V. n. II.). Then therefore both the faithful and those to be received into the Church depended by the obedience of faith upon the authority of the apostolic successors as legates of God, from whom they were to receive Christian doctrine and discipline preached and expounded. This therefore was not merely the dependence of learners upon the knowledge of teachers, because books did not yet exist from which individuals could draw doctrine; but it was an authentic magisterium, upon which by Christ's institution the obedience of faith depended, and by which the unity of the Churches was held together. Therefore when the inspired books containing revealed doctrine were gradually handed by the Apostles to the Churches, the constituted economy of the Church was certainly not destroyed; but documents were added, to be employed in accordance with that divinely instituted economy, and hence to be conserved and expounded by those same Bishops, successors of the Apostles and guardians of the deposit, should any doubt arise concerning the legitimate sense.

2°. It is historically certain and evident from the very disposition of the books that each was written on a presented occasion and from a particular necessity for some particular end, most of them addressed immediately to single Churches or to single persons, accommodated in their manner of treatment to the circumstances then existing. But it was the purpose of none of the sacred writers to consign in any book a complete instruction in the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Christian religion. Hence it comes about that in no sacred book is the whole of Christian doctrine found handed down in order and in didactic connection after the fashion of a catechism, and that in individual books many most weighty heads are either omitted or indicated in passing or can be gathered from them only by deduction, if they have already become known from elsewhere. But such an origin of the books from particular occasions and for a particular end, and such an internal disposition of them, evidently shows that, whether in writing individuals or all together, it was neither the counsel of the Holy Spirit nor ever came into the mind of the Apostles to substitute writings so composed for the ministry of authentic pastors and doctors, whom Christ had commanded to teach all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded, and to teach all nations unto the consummation of the age — as though, with that economy of the living magisterium abolished, henceforth each man would no longer, as had until then been done by Christ's constitution and mission, be taught by the authentic legates of God, but would teach himself from a written book. This would be evident even if it were meanwhile conceded that the whole of revealed doctrine had been consigned to those books; for the argument is drawn not so much from deficiency of matter as from the form of teaching and the mode of proposing and expounding doctrine.

Moreover, with this historical origin of the books posited, and the internal disposition corresponding to that origin, the comprehension of the whole of revealed doctrine can be affirmed only by gratuitous assertion. For since neither did the individual sacred writers have the purpose of comprehending the whole of Christian doctrine in their books, nor did they wish, by counsels taken among themselves, each to contribute his part toward constituting one whole, but each wrote from the most diverse occasions what in those circumstances was necessary or opportune; the Holy Spirit indeed, who is the principal author of the Scriptures, could so direct all things that an integral body of the whole doctrine might be constituted even without the knowledge of the writers and beside their counsel, but that this was so done can be shown by no argument, unless what is in question be already supposed, namely that God willed Scripture to be the sole fount or at least the complete codex from which integral revelation is to be known. From Christ's mandate that the Apostles and their successors teach all nations unto the consummation of the age to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded, and from the promise of the Spirit of truth teaching all truth and abiding with them forever, through whom they are commanded to be witnesses to Christ unto the uttermost part of the earth, it is certain that universal revelation is to be preached through the authentic magisterium in perpetual succession; but of a mandate to consign this same integral revelation to books there is no trace, neither in the words of Christ Himself, nor in the sayings of the Apostles, nor in the manner of acting and writing of those same Apostles and of the remaining sacred writers, nor in the disposition, scope and occasion of the books, nor in the persuasion of Christians down to the sixteenth century. By what argument then, I ask, will it be shown, unless you first posit that credence is not to be given to the word propagated by preaching, which Christ instituted by express and irrefragable mandates and promises and commanded to comprehend all revealed truth; but only to the word in Scripture, which He indeed superadded to preaching, yet never either commanded or promised that all revealed truth was to be comprehended in it?

But whatever may hold concerning this material plenitude of Scripture, of which there will be a place to speak below, the form of the books, both severally and all together, is such that they were evidently not written to teach the whole Christian religion to individual faithful independently of the authentic magisterium¹. Cf. Stapleton T. I. l. XII. c. 3.

3°. In these very books not only is the authentic magisterium supposed in the very manner of writing, from which it appears that they are directed to Christians already imbued with the faith through preaching, and that in them, as in aid of preaching, there are repeated or even superadded instructions, counsels, admonitions, which could neither be understood nor rightly estimated unless the Christian religion were already known beforehand; but the faithful are also expressly sent back to the preaching already received and accepted, and are commanded to abide in it, Rom. XVI. 17; 1 Cor. VII. 17; XI. 23; XIV. 33; XV. 1; 2 Cor. I. 18; Gal. I. 18; Phil. IV. 9; Coloss. II. 6. 7; 1 Thess. IV. 2; 2 Thess. II. 15; 2 Tim. II. 2; Heb. II. 3. Moreover in these same books there are designated guardians of the deposit and authentic doctors succeeding one another in perpetual series, through whom the deposit of faith, and hence also the deposit consigned to those same books, may perpetually be guarded entire and expounded according to its true sense; and these very men, in exercising their ministry and magisterium, are sent back not first or at least not only to the Scriptures, but to the whole doctrine of preaching handed down and received (see thes. V. n. II.). Therefore with the inspired books published, the perpetual and ever-living magisterium divinely instituted has not been abolished or diminished in authority; but to it a divine instrument of doctrine has been handed over, to be conserved, expounded, and employed for the more efficacious preaching and the more apt custody of the whole deposit of faith.

Scholion. It remains to meet a difficulty which to some seems to embarrass the whole preceding demonstration, and which is raised seriously and not without disdain by the doctors of the Protestants, e. g. by Gerhard. a) From Catholic principles it is supposed, and in our argumentation it is at least indicated, that the Scriptures themselves are to be received and the authority of the Scriptures to be known from the authority of the organ of Tradition or apostolic succession; yet this authority of the organ of Tradition has hitherto been proved solely from the Scriptures themselves, which seems to be a vicious circle, as they say. b) It is said that the certain interpretation and understanding of the true sense of the Scriptures are not independent of the organ of Tradition and the authentic magisterium of the apostolic succession, but must be sought from this very organ and magisterium; yet this very authority of the magisterium in interpreting the Scriptures is proved from the Scriptures. Either therefore this sense of the Scriptures is believed to be true and legitimate on the authority of the magisterium; then the authority of the magisterium to be proved is taken as the principle of the proof, which is again a begging of the question: or this legitimate sense is known independently of the magisterium; then independence of interpretation is admitted and supposed true in the premises, that its falsity may be inferred in the conclusion, than which nothing can be more absurd. In form the difficulty on both heads, contracted into one, can be proposed thus: the authority of the organ of Tradition cannot be shown from the testimonies of Scripture, unless a knowledge of the authority and true sense of the Scriptures, antecedent to and independent of the authority of the organ of Tradition, be supposed; but in the theses the authority of the organ of Tradition is shown from the testimonies of Scripture; therefore a knowledge of the authority and true sense of the Scriptures independent of the authority of the organ of Tradition is supposed. But this very thing is what it is proposed in these theses to show false; therefore what it is proposed to show false is supposed true.

I answer, I distinguish the major: that demonstration cannot be instituted from the Scriptures unless knowledge of the authority of all the books, in all places of the sacred text, and in all the faithful, I deny the major; unless knowledge of the authority of certain books in certain places, and in certain faithful, I subdistinguish the major: unless there be supposed knowledge of authority which is from the veracity of the books, I concede the major; unless there be supposed knowledge of authority which is from the inspiration of the books, I deny the major. Further, the demonstration cannot be instituted unless knowledge of the true sense be supposed, I distinguish the major: unless knowledge of the true sense according to the whole amplitude of doctrine be supposed, and unless it be supposed that the integral Christian religion can be derived by individuals from those books independently of the authority of the organ of Tradition, I deny the major; the demonstration cannot be instituted unless knowledge of the true sense of certain particular testimonies be supposed, I subdistinguish the major: unless it be supposed that this knowledge can be obtained by some, who are fit for instituting or perceiving this demonstration, by prescinding from, yet not failing the authority of the organ of Tradition, I concede the major; unless this knowledge of the Scriptures accommodated to all be supposed, I deny the major. Likewise I distinguish the minor: this demonstration in our theses is instituted both theologically, that we may render a more distinct scientific account of our faith, and polemically, that we may defend it against adversaries by assuming certain sacred books from the general Christian demonstration at least as veracious, or even as inspired from a principle admitted by the adversaries themselves, I concede the minor; it is instituted as necessary for all and of itself for acquiring the first knowledge of authority in the apostolic succession, I deny the minor. Finally I distinguish the consequent: there is supposed the authority of veracity of certain books from the general Christian demonstration, or even of inspiration from the principle of the adversaries, I concede; there is supposed knowledge of the authority of all the books, I deny. Moreover there is supposed that the true sense can certainly be understood in these clear determinate places and by those who are fit for perceiving the demonstration, I concede; there is supposed that universal revealed doctrine can be determined by individuals from the Scriptures independently of the authority of the magisterium, I deny. To what is added, I answer: it is proposed to show false that universal revealed doctrine can be determined by individuals from the Scriptures alone independently of the divinely instituted organ, and fit by the charism of truth for the custody and explication of the deposit of faith, I concede; it is proposed to show that there are no clear and evident testimonies in the Scriptures, or that no convincing demonstration can be instituted from them — not indeed excluding the authority of the organ of Tradition, yet prescinding from it — I deny.

Namely our whole preceding treatment can be regarded according to the objective order of ideas, as from their inborn reason they succeed one another and some depend on others, or it can be regarded polemically. In the former way we indeed suppose from the general Christian demonstration that the Gospels and the apostolic writings are genuine; likewise we suppose the veracity of the evangelical narrative demonstrated from the genuineness of these books, and hence further that from the facts and words of Christ consigned in the Gospel there follows the divine authority of the same Saviour (see prolegom. p. 4.). With these posited, the words and facts of Christ are understood to be divine, and His doctrine is understood to be revealed, even if the books be meanwhile assumed only as veracious, but not as inspired. From this principle already our whole demonstration proceeds, and upon this foundation it rests. Whence we suppose nothing but the general Christian demonstration. But if the treatment be regarded in the other way, polemically, against those Protestants who can still be reckoned by the Christian name, we could without begging the question suppose as a foundation common to both sides the divinity and inspiration of the sacred books.

ON THE FORMAL CHARACTER OF DIVINE TRADITION AS EXHIBITED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE.