Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

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.