Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

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

The formal character of Tradition is shown from the constitution and from the principles of the Church.

« In keeping with the form and institution which we have shown from the Gospel and apostolic writings, the Church of the apostolic age and of the ages successively following is exhibited in the other suitable records as constituted, both by express profession and by a constant manner of acting, always and everywhere resting on this principle: that they are the successors of the Apostles who, holding together in perpetual series and in mutual communion, guard the deposit of faith through the charism of truth, so that “nothing can be taken away from, nothing added to the heavenly dogma, which it suffices to have been revealed once.” »

I. When the very principles and foundations of the Christian religion are at stake — principles which are not only in theoretical profession, but which come into daily practice in such a way that on them universally depend the law of believing, the whole Christian faith and life — it is utterly evident that it could not have happened that the constitution of the Churches, the norm of teaching and believing, handed down and appointed by the Apostles throughout the whole world according to Christ’s mandate, should in all the Churches spread far and wide have been corrupted and changed into another plainly opposite, when, as the Apostles gradually died, the same Churches founded by them passed into the following successions — not indeed with another generation suddenly substituted for the former, but with the pastors and peoples of the former and of the following generation linked to one another in a continuous series, and with generations as it were intermingled one with another. Wherefore, if in these following successions the Churches are found everywhere constituted and governed by that principle of Tradition which we have shown from the Gospel and apostolic writings to have been instituted by Christ and put into use by the Apostles according to Christ’s disposition, it will be proved by the inescapable argument of the whole of history that the true sense of the institution of Christ and of the Apostles is that which we set forth above from the Scriptures themselves. If therefore our thesis be considered polemically against the Protestants, we do not appeal to the testimonies and doctrine of Christian antiquity as to an authentic setting-forth of revelation concerning the principle and organ for preserving the integrity of the deposit — an authenticity which they deny; but we appeal to the unanimous judgment of antiquity as to a historical testimony of faith, which both they and all men of sound mind acknowledge and cannot deny; from which testimony, namely, we may understand what the whole of antiquity believed to be the institution and doctrine of Christ and of the Apostles, and professed always and everywhere. From this attestation, in turn, we infer that the sense of the word of God which they too acknowledge in the Scriptures, concerning the principle of Tradition, cannot be other than that which the whole of antiquity professed in theory and in practice always and everywhere, and which the Catholic Church still professes; and this we infer not on account of the supernatural authority of the witnesses, denied by our adversaries, but on account of the historical impossibility of the change and corruption which would have to be supposed to have been introduced, immediately after the Apostles, into the very fundamental principles of the Church of Jesus Christ. This force of the testimony of Christian antiquity not even the Protestants themselves deny, at least in practice, insofar as they have not cast off reason along with faith; hence their solicitude to scrape together testimonies of the ancients which, torn from their contexts, they twist to their own opinion, and the same art of evading those that demonstrate the Catholic principle. For the rest, neither the sole nor the chief determining reason of the manner and worth of our theological treatment is the polemical one, since the distinct understanding of the doctrine of faith — and here, of the foundations of faith — is of far greater moment, from which, once rightly understood, the refutation of errors follows of itself. With these declarations made, we proceed to the demonstration of the thesis.

1°. Among the Fathers of the first, second, and third succession, and thereafter in all the Churches of East and West, there is a constant judgment, as it were axiomatic, that the continuous succession of pastors and doctors, divinely ordained, cohering with the Apostles in an unbroken series, is the visible organ for keeping and propagating the doctrine of Christ whole and undefiled; and that it is therefore to be received from the Tradition which is from the beginning. For the apostolic Fathers — Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp — and a little later Hegesippus attest that the Apostles, according to Christ’s mandate, ordained bishops as their future successors in the ministry in perpetual series¹; and so, that heresy may be avoided and true doctrine kept, union with the bishops is necessary, who are to be followed as Christ Himself; and that in this way the Tradition received from the beginning is to be held. Through this succession, then, perpetual and coherent from the Apostles, one and consentient doctrine was to be kept in all Churches however distant². St. Ignatius is solicitous about nothing more in his letters than agreement and union with the bishops, that the integrity of doctrine and the divinely appointed constitution of the Church be preserved. “I first admonished you to be unanimous in the judgment of God (γνώμη thought made manifest, word, doctrine); for Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the judgment³ of the Father, just as the bishops constituted throughout the ends of the earth are in the judgment of Jesus Christ; whence you ought to be unanimous in the judgment of the bishop. … For whomever the master of the house sends to govern his household, him we ought to receive as the one who sends him. It is manifest, therefore, that the bishop must be regarded as the Lord Himself. And Onesimus himself praises your good order in God, that you all live according to the truth and that there is no place among you for heresy,” to the Ephesians nn. 3–6. See to the Philadelphians nn. 2, 3; to the Trallians n. 7; to the Smyrnaeans n. 8; to the Magnesians nn. 6, 7. Eusebius (H.E. III, c. 36) sums up the scope and principal matter of the letters of Ignatius in these words: “He admonished the Churches of the several cities first of all to beware especially of the heresies then first breaking out and gaining strength, and exhorted them to cling tenaciously to the Tradition of the Apostles, to which, bearing witness, he judged it necessary for security’s sake to consign already even in writing.” Polycarp, in his letter to the Philippians n. 7, hands down this canon for avoiding heresies: “forsaking the vanity of the many and false doctrines, let us return to the doctrine handed down to us from the beginning.” Although, mentioning it only in passing, he does not indicate the mode of Tradition, it is no other than that declared by Ignatius in the letters written to Polycarp’s Church (of Smyrna) and to other Churches, the collection of which Polycarp himself gathered (see Polycarp’s letter n. 13 and Eusebius III, 36)⁴.

About the same time, still in the second century, Irenaeus — and a little later Tertullian — disputing against the heretics, had of set purpose to declare and defend at length the whole doctrine of Tradition and of the organ of Tradition. Irenaeus agrees with the Gnostics on the common principle that besides the Scriptures there is also a Tradition received from Christ and from the Apostles. But the heretics boasted of a hidden Tradition derived to the Gnostics alone through a succession of generations; Irenaeus on the contrary shows that Tradition is public in the universal Church, and that its organ is the succession of bishops from the Apostles, by which the integrity of doctrine is always preserved. “When they are refuted from the Scriptures, they turn to accusing the Scriptures, … because the truth cannot be found from them by those who do not know Tradition; for it was handed down not by letter, but by living voice. … But when we refer them again to that Tradition which is from the Apostles, which is guarded in the Churches through successions of presbyters, they oppose Tradition. … The Tradition of the Apostles, therefore, manifest in the whole world, is available in every Church for all to behold who wish to see the truth; and we can enumerate those who were instituted bishops in the Churches by the Apostles, and their successors down to us,” l. II, c. 2, n. 2; c. 3; l. IV, c. 26, nn. 4, 5; c. 33, n. 8. The same concerning the mode of Tradition is attested against the heretics by Tertullian. “Moreover, if any (heresies) dare to insert themselves into the apostolic age, so as to seem handed down by the Apostles because they existed under the Apostles, we can say: let them then produce the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops running down thus through successions from the beginning, so that that first bishop have as his author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of apostolic men who yet persevered with the Apostles. For in this way the apostolic Churches bring forward their registers. … If these things are so, so that the truth is adjudged to us, we who walk in that rule which the Church handed down from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God, the reasonableness of our proposition is established, which defines that heretics are not to be admitted to a joinder of issue on the Scriptures, whom without the Scriptures we prove to have no part in the Scriptures,” Prescription cc. 32, 37; against Marcion l. I, c. 21; l. IV, c. 5. This same foundation Origen supposes for the Christian theology which he expounded in his books on First Principles. “Since there are many who think they hold the things of Christ, and some of them hold things diverse from their predecessors, let the ecclesiastical preaching, however, handed down through the order of succession from the Apostles and remaining in the Churches to the present, be preserved: only that is to be believed as truth which in nothing departs from the ecclesiastical and apostolic Tradition,” on First Principles, preface, n. 2.

See also Cyprian. epp. 27. 69; Athanas. de decret. Nicaen. n. 27; Epiphan. haeres. 27. n. 6. (Carpocratianorum); haeres. 56. n. 3. (Melchisedechian.); Optatum contra Parmen. l. II. n. 2. 3. August. de utilit. credendi c. 17; contr. epist. fundamenti c. 4; ep. 53. al. 165. n. 2. ad Generosum; ep. 118. al. 56. n. 32. ad Dioscorum; Vincent. Lirin. Communit. c. 9. 33.

Hence all the Fathers — who were for the most part themselves pastors, or at least present witnesses of the principles by which the Churches were governed — repeat and inculcate that this is the office, this the chief solicitude of bishops: to hand down whole, as a deposit to their successors, the doctrine received from their forefathers. “True knowledge (γνῶσις ἀληθης) is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient state of the Church (το ἀρχαιον της ἐκκλησίας συστημα) in the whole world, and the character of the body of Christ according to the successions of bishops, to whom they handed down the Church that is in each place: a treatment most full, reaching down to us by the guarding of the Scriptures, receiving neither addition nor diminution, and a reading without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition according to the Scriptures, without peril and without blasphemy,” Iren. IV, c. 33, n. 8; cf. l. I, c. 10, n. 2. “For us, says Tertullian, it is lawful to introduce nothing from our own judgment, nor even to choose⁵ what anyone may have introduced from his own judgment: we have the Apostles of the Lord as authors, who themselves chose nothing to introduce from their own judgment; but they faithfully assigned to the nations the discipline received from the Lord,” Tertull. Prescription c. 6; cf. c. 9. Augustine, appealing against the Pelagians “to the holy prelates of God, illustrious in the holy Church,” proves their authority chiefly by this reason: “what they found in the Church, they held; what they learned, they taught; what they received from the Fathers, this they handed down to their sons,” against Julian l. II, n. 34. See the Clementine Recognitions l. VIII, n. 37 (Galland. T. II. p. 298.); Athanas. ad Serapion. ep. I. n. 28; Basil. ep. 145. T. III. p. 233; Epiphan. haeres. 56. n. 3; Lirinens. Commonit. n. 12. 14. 26. 27. 32.

2°. The communion and agreement of the Churches with one another, with the apostolic Churches, and by name with the Church of Peter, was always held to be the criterion of the integrity of apostolic doctrine in the Churches derived by perpetual succession; in which last, even alone and considered by itself, is contained, and was always believed to be contained, the demonstration both of sincere apostolic doctrine and of communion with the universal Church.

The celebrated testimony is that of Irenaeus, l. III, c. 3, who, to demonstrate the “Tradition of the Apostles manifested in the whole world in every Church,” testifies that it suffices to indicate “that of the greatest and most ancient and known to all, the Church founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, the Tradition which it has from the Apostles and the faith announced to men, reaching down to us through the succession of bishops,” since, namely, “to this Church, on account of its more powerful principalship⁶ every Church must agree⁷, that is, those who are faithful from every quarter, in which there has always been preserved by those who are from every quarter⁸ the Tradition which is from the Apostles.” The unity of preaching and the agreement of the whole Church may be seen excellently described by Irenaeus l. I, c. 10, n. 2; l. V, c. 20, n. 1. Most effectively Tertullian: “The Apostles founded Churches in each city, from which the other Churches thereafter borrowed and daily borrow the offshoot of faith and the seeds of doctrine, that they may become Churches; and on this account they too are reckoned apostolic as offspring of apostolic Churches. … While all are one, they prove unity, while they have communion of peace and the name of brotherhood and the pledge of hospitality, which rights are ruled by no other reason than (profession of faith) the one Tradition of the same sacrament. … What they preached (the Apostles), that is, what Christ revealed to them, I shall prescribe here too must be proved in no other way than through those same Churches which the Apostles themselves founded, themselves preaching to them, as they say, with living voice as well as afterward by letters. If these things are so, it follows that every doctrine which conspires with those apostolic Churches, the matrices and originals of faith, must be reckoned to the truth, without doubt holding what the Churches received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God. … We communicate with the apostolic Churches, in that none has a diverse doctrine: this is the testimony of truth,” Tertull. Prescription cc. 20, 21; cf. 32, 36.

Consult Cyprian. de unit. Ecclesiae p. 195; ep. 42. p. 57; ep. 52. p. 73. (ed. Baluz.); PP. Antiochen. contr. Paul. Samosat. ep. synod. (inter Opp. Dionys. Alexand. ed. de Magistris p. 280. 281.); Athanas. de decret. Nic. Synodi n. 4; Episcoporum Aegypti ep. apud Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. l. IV. c. 3; Basil. ep. 251. al. 72. n. 4; Epiphan. haeres. 31. p. 202. (ed. Petav.); Optat. l. VII. n. 5; August. cont. litt. Petiliani l. II. c. 51; Cassian. de Incarnat. l. I. c. 6; Lirinens. Commonit. n. 4. 8. 23. 38. 39; Leontius cont. Nestor. l. I. (Galland. T. XII. p. 667.); Episcopi orientales ad extinguendum schisma Acacianum et postea Photianum in VIII. Synodo subscribentes professioni fidei a Pontificibus Hormisda et Hadriano II. propositae Hard. T. II. p. 1017. 1030; T. V. p. 773. 785. 786. coll. 1029; Agatho Pontifex ep. ad Impp. Hard. T. III. p. 1080. 1081.

That unity and agreement of bishops, instituted by Christ Himself and effected and preserved through union and agreement with the successor of Peter, the holy Fathers further declare to be the criterion of the integrity of doctrine, when they describe the same in the Apostles themselves as representing their whole succession (see above, p. 32 sq.). “You cannot deny,” says Optatus to the Donatist Parmenian, “that you know that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, in which sat Peter, head of all the Apostles, whence he was also called Cephas: in which one chair unity was to be kept by all, nor did the other Apostles each defend single (separate) chairs for himself, so that he would now be schismatic and a sinner who should set up another chair against the singular chair,” Opt. l. II, n. 3 (Galland. T. V. p. 471.). Cf. Tertull. contr. Marcion. l. IV. c. 2; Hieronym. ep. 112. n. 8. (ed. Vallarsi); August. contr. Faust. l. XXVIII. c. 4; Theophil. Alexandrin. ep. ad Episcopos Aegypti (Galland. T. VII. p. 617.); Sophron. ep. synod. ad Serg. CP. lecta in Synodo VI. (Harduin. T. III. p. 1260).

The solicitude of the holy Fathers in enumerating and demonstrating the perpetual apostolic succession in the Roman Church — “to which, on account of its more powerful principalship, every Church must agree” — proceeded from the same zeal and was directed to the same end: namely, that they might directly demonstrate the truly apostolic succession of the guardians of the faith, and indirectly, from the communion of the Churches with one another and with the Roman Church, containing the unity of all the members and of the whole body, show the integrity of the apostolic faith. For this purpose they expressly profess to have consigned the continuous series of Peter’s successors: Irenaeus l. III, c. 3; Ephraem Syrus apud Asseman. Bibl. Orient. T. I. p. 129; Optatus l. II, n. 3; Epiphanius haeres. 27. n. 6; Augustinus ep. 53. al. 165. n. 2. cf. Tertull. Praescript. c. 32. “Let no one wonder,” says Epiphanius after describing the names of all the Pontiffs, “that I have run through each so diligently; for through these the truth is shown ever manifest.”

For the rock upon which Christ built His Church, so that the gates of hell may not prevail against it — Peter, namely, in his perpetual succession according to Christ’s institution (Matth. XVI. 18) — is the principle of the visible unity by which the whole Church is one in communion and agreement of faith; and thus the rock laid by Christ is understood to be the formal cause by which the teaching Church is one body, infallible in its definitions through the assistance of the Holy Spirit as through the efficient cause, for preserving and expounding the deposit of faith. The body, namely, of the teaching Church is not simply the teaching Church, to which the assistance of the Spirit of truth and the guardianship of Christ in teaching is promised, except insofar as it is as it were informed by its visible head, so as to be simply the teaching Church, and constituted under the assistance of the Spirit of truth, through which it is infallible. Therefore I have said that the formal cause, or as it were the constitutive form, of the infallible body is the visible head of that body; the cause, indeed efficient of infallibility, neither is nor can be other than the assisting Spirit of truth.

But that Peter, in his perpetual succession, may be the active principle in confirming his brethren unto agreement of faith and in holding together the unity of the Church in the rock, to this end Christ prayed that the faith of Peter, ever permanent, might not fail in this divinely enjoined office and charge, and conferred upon the rock considered in itself a firmness on which the firmness of the Church might perpetually rest — the Church which, in this union with the rock and through the rock, is constituted by Christ God the pillar and ground of truth. Therefore in the successor of Peter considered in himself, the infallibility for proposing and deciding doctrines of faith by his definition is of the same character as in the whole body of the teaching Church united to its head. But these things demand another place and a far ampler treatment.

3°. That this principle — that the apostolic succession thus united and consentient is under the assistance of the Holy Spirit — has from the very beginnings of the Church constituted the sum and crown of the whole doctrine of the authentic organ of Tradition. Always and everywhere there flourished the explicit profession that the efficient cause through which whole doctrine is preserved in the perennial succession and in the unity of the guardians of the faith, according to the promise also consigned in the Scriptures, is from Christ’s donation the very Spirit of truth. For they say that this is done “through the certain charism of truth,” Iren. IV, c. 26, n. 2; “through the working of the Spirit,” id. III, c. 24, n. 1⁹; “through the teacher of truth, who does not suffer the Churches to understand otherwise or to believe otherwise” than they received from the Apostles, Tertull. Prescription c. 28¹⁰; “through the Lord dwelling in the Church, lest speculation, however most zealous, go into error,” August. on Ps. 9, n. 12; “through the suggestion of the Holy Spirit (ἐνηχοῦντος του πνευματος ἁγιου), lest they fall away from the truth,” the bishops in agreement with Cyril of Alexandria, letter to the monks (T. V, among the letters, p. 4); “through the charism received for teaching in the same Spirit, and through the Spirit of the Father who speaks in them,” Leontius against the Aphthartodocetae (Galland. XII, p. 682). The disjunction of mountains and seas in no way impedes the agreement in one truth, because one Spirit Himself effects that agreement, and while they remain in unity, “all have been taught by the one grace of the Spirit”¹¹, Theodoret, dialogue on Immutability (T. IV, p. 32). Wherefore “whosoever shall have despised the doctors and pastors dispensed by God in the Church through times and places, who hold one thing in Christ in the sense of Catholic dogma, despises not man but God,” Lérins c. 40. That “in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion is always kept inviolate” — the reason of this privilege is “that the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be disregarded, saying: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church” (the profession proposed to the Orientals and subscribed by them in the time of Hormisdas and in the Eighth Council, ll. cc. above). Cf. Basil. contr. Eunom. l. I. n. 3; Hieronym. in Amos IX. 15. (in fine); Augustin. sermon. de symbolo ad Catechum. n. 14. (T. VI.).

4°. From the chapters set forth follows what the most ancient Fathers no less inculcate: that the first of all things to be sought is where the Church instituted by Christ and propagated by the Apostles is; for in it the whole doctrine of Christ is necessarily found, and by the Church it is sincerely preached. “We must therefore flee their opinions. … but take refuge in the Church, and be brought up in her bosom and nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures,” Iren. l. III, c. 4; c. 24, n. 1; l. V, c. 20, n. 2. There may be read Ignatius ad Magnes. n. 7; Theophil. Antiochenus ad Autolyc. l. I. n. 14; Clemens Alexand. Strom. VII. p. 755; Tertull. Praescript. c. 19. 37; Origen. de Princ. praefat.; Cyrill. Hierosol. cateches. XVIII. n. 26. 27; Hieronym. dialog. contr. Lucifer. (ad finem); Augustin. de util. cred.; contr. ep. fundamenti c. 4. 5.

II. If abstraction is made from the constant and universal doctrine hitherto expounded, the manner of acting and of judging in practice concerning the truth or falsity of dogmas and opinions which were called into question, observed always and everywhere, evidently demonstrates the very thing we have said: namely, that the whole of Christian antiquity was informed by this principle and rested on this foundation — that revelation is integrally preserved and handed down through the consenting pastors and doctors of the Church given by Christ (Eph. IV. 11); that therefore this agreement in doctrine as revealed is the certain criterion of the divine Tradition derived from the Apostles; and consequently that any new doctrine repugnant to such agreement by that very fact is repugnant to revelation and to divine Tradition.

1°. As the chief argument, against which no exception could avail, for demonstrating revealed doctrine and for convicting the opposed error, there ever availed this: “thus believes the Catholic Church which is under heaven, and all the bishops agree with us,” Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata (Mansi T. I. p. 1033.); the Nicene Council at the end of the Creed; the subsequent Councils. See Athanas. de Synodis n. 5; ad Epictet. 3; Augustin. de Baptism. l. II. c. 9. n. 14; l. VII. c. 5; Cyrill. Alex. ep. synodica 3. ad Nestor. n. 5. 7. (in ed. Garner. Opp. Marii Mercator. T. II. p. 71.).

Hence, for proving the orthodoxy of individuals, whether bishops or faithful, appeal was made to communion with the consenting bishops of the Catholic Church, or with the apostolic Churches, and chiefly with the center and bond of unity and agreement, the Roman Pontiff. So against the Gnostics, Irenaeus and Tertullian in the places cited above (Iren. III. c. 4. n. 1; cf. l. I. c. 10. n. 2; Tertull. Praescript. cc. 20. 21. 32; contr. Marc. l. IV. c. 5.); against the Novatians, Cyprian, Epistle 52 to Antonian, and elsewhere; against the Semi-Arians, Basil, Epistle 204, al. 75, to the Neocaesareans; against the Apollinarists, Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistle 1 to Cledonius, T. II, p. 84 (Maurist edition); in the Antiochene schism, Jerome, Epistle 15, n. 2 (Vallarsi edition), al. Epistle 57; against the Donatists, Optatus l. II, nn. 3, 5, 11 (Gallandi V, pp. 471–473) and Augustine, Epistle 43, al. 162, nn. 1, 7, 19; Epistle 44, al. 163, nn. 3, 6; against the Monophysites, the Eastern bishops in the profession of faith prescribed by Pope Hormisdas, and against the Photians in the Eighth Synod (Hardouin, Collection of Councils, ll. cc. above).

2°. Since the doctrine of faith was handed down by God to the Apostles, by the Apostles to the Church, and continually preserved by the subsequent pastors and doctors, appeal was ever made to the antiquity of the doctrine impugned by heretics; antiquity, moreover, was demonstrated from the testimony and agreement of the preceding Fathers. Conversely, by the same reason the novelty of the opposed doctrine was demonstrated, and on account of that very novelty it was condemned, because it was repugnant to the faith received from forefathers. Hence the further principle: that antiquity, of which there is evidence from Tradition, is to be followed; that all opposed novelty of doctrine is to be barred. “What is true is what is first; what is first is what is from the beginning; what is from the beginning is what is from the Apostles,” Tertull. against Marcion IV, c. 5. “Let nothing be innovated, unless what has been handed down,”¹² Stephen I, Pontiff (in Cyprian, Epistle 74).

“Let novelty cease to assail antiquity,” Celestine I, Pontiff, Epistle 21, n. 2. “Let nothing be allowed to novelty, for nothing may be added to the old,” Sixtus III, Pontiff, Epistle 6, n. 7; cf. Vincent of Lérins c. 43. In this way were condemned the Gnostics and sundry ancient heretics (Iren. III, 4; V, 20; Clem. of Alexandria, Miscellanies VII, pp. 762, 764; Tertullian, Prescription 8, 9, 10, 23, 26; against Praxeas c. 2; against Marcion IV, 5); those dissenting on the value of the baptism of heretics (Stephen, Pontiff, in Cyprian, Epistle 74 to Pompey, and Lérins nn. 9, 10); the Novatians (Pacian, Epistle 3, nn. 1, 2); the Arians in the Nicene Council (Athanasius, on the Synods nn. 4, 9; Hilary to Constantius

For the rest, if Stephen’s words are considered in themselves, they directly do not define a question of faith; but they contain a precept of handed-down discipline to be inviolably kept, which has for its foundation the doctrine of faith defined directly and in itself “after Cyprian’s passion.” Stephen’s words are: “if anyone shall have come to you from any heresy whatever, let nothing be innovated, unless what has been handed down, that hands be imposed on him for penance” (in Cyprian, Epistle 74 to Pompey). Namely, as Augustine says, “the question of baptism had not yet been diligently treated; but yet the Church kept the most salutary custom of correcting in schismatics and heretics themselves what is wrong, not of repeating what has been given” (on Baptism l. II, n. 12). This most salutary custom the Roman Pontiff commanded to be kept, yet without directly and explicitly defining the doctrine itself concerning the minister of baptism on which it rests. Therefore Cyprian was not cut off from the unity of the Church, and in this sense it may be said that the controversy was not directly and immediately of faith, but disciplinary. II, n. 4); the Apollinarists (Gregory of Nazianzus to Cledonius, Epistle 2, T. II, p. 97); the Nestorians in the Ephesine Council (Cyril, to his clerics n. 10, Garner’s edition, Works of Marius Mercator T. II, p. 51; Lérins n. 42); the Eutychians in the Chalcedonian Council (Hard. II, p. 650); the Pelagians and Nestorians by Popes Celestine and Sixtus (Celestine, Epistle 21 to the Gauls; Lérins n. 43); the Monothelites in the Lateran Council under Martin I (Hard. III, 887). In these and in all others there was ever “the wonted and customary issue of the affair: antiquity, namely, was retained, novelty exploded” (Lérins n. 9). Cf. Stapleton T. I, l. VII, c. 4.

Further, in the appeal to preceding Fathers, the purpose was not so much to demonstrate historically the derivation from the Apostles of the doctrine in question, as rather by a theological argument to infer from the preceding agreement the absolute antiquity and apostolicity of the doctrine; since it was held settled and beyond controversy among Christians that the consenting Fathers never handed down as doctrine of faith anything but what they themselves had received, nor taught anything but what they had learned from their predecessors (cf. above, p. 69). Therefore, in the appeal to predecessors, the consenting attestation even of the proximately preceding was judged sufficient, while it was not judged necessary to adduce the direct testimonies of the most ancient Fathers, that it might be established concerning the judgment even of the most ancient and concerning the apostolicity of the doctrine. So in the fifth century the Fathers of the Ephesine Council appeal, as to irrefragable witnesses of apostolic doctrine, to ten preceding Fathers, among whom only two (Cyprian and Pope Felix) are of the third century, all the rest of the fourth or even of the fifth (see Lérins n. 42). Leo the Great, in his letter to the Emperor Leo, appeals to six Fathers, of whom three of the fourth century, the other three of the fifth (Hard. II, p. 65). Among the 25 Fathers cited by Augustine in his first book against Julian, only two (Irenaeus and Cyprian) are older than the fourth century. Likewise in the seventh century, in the Lateran Council under Martin I, among the 20 Fathers cited, no more than two or three were, or at least were thought to be, earlier than the fourth century (Justin, Hippolytus, Dionysius the Areopagite) (Hardouin III, p. 858). In the sixth synod — both in the letter of Agatho there recited and by the Council itself — 15 Fathers are appealed to, none of whom flourished before the fourth century (Hard. III, pp. 1094, 1202 sq.).

We conclude with the confession of a Protestant man, Münscher, who, compelled by the evidence of the matter, at least acknowledges the fact (History of Dogmas T. III, p. 132). “Even if,” he says, “no express testimonies were at hand concerning the authority and use of Tradition, its force and moment would yet betray itself from many indications. For thence arose that solicitude in every opinion, nay in every theological term, to remove the suspicion of novelty; thence the protestation, so frequent and express, of bishops, synods, and creeds, that nothing is set forth but the doctrine received from holy predecessors; thence the zeal in controversies of faith to confirm doctrine by the authority of the ancients, and to arraign the opposed doctrine of novelty; thence the diligence in Councils to collect the testimonies of antiquity to which they might conform their definition. … These things, namely, demonstrate that it was held as the criterion of true doctrine, as Athanasius says (on the Decrees of Nicaea n. 4), when all agree with one another, and differ neither among themselves nor from the Fathers.”

On the visible constitution of the organ of Tradition, most perfectly fitted to the office enjoined upon it.

« Although the supreme reason from which the perennial preservation of the integrity of doctrine and certitude and security concerning this preservation arises is the promise and the bestowal by Christ of a perpetual charism of truth; yet the visible constitution itself and communion of the guardians of the faith at every time has been such that, in accordance with the sweet providence of God, it fully corresponds to the office of perpetually preserving Tradition. »

Without doubt the adequate cause by which, through the successors of the Apostles, the preservation of revelation long since consummated is effected and rendered infallibly certain is the Spirit of truth, who assists the successors of the Apostles perpetually according to the promises of Christ, which — both clear in themselves and understood in this sense by the whole Christian name from the Apostles onward — we have demonstrated in the preceding theses. But since the Holy Spirit is present to the successors of the Apostles not as to heralds of a new revelation but as to guardians of the deposit (th. V.), nor is He present through continual revelations but through assistance, direction, and protection, lest « however most zealous speculation » and human diligence ever « go into error »; therefore the human element — human action, I say, inquiry, solicitude, and diligence — is not excluded, but rather is required in accordance with the sweet disposition of God, and this human element itself, under the action and direction of the Holy Spirit, is as it were the visible body informed by the invisible spiritual charism. Hence it will be worthwhile to have considered more distinctly the visible subject itself of the ministry instituted for the custody of the faith, that we may understand with what perfection this ministry itself, even according to its visible element, has at every time corresponded to its office.

We say, then, that a) the visible union and communion of the guardians of the faith, and b) their character and conduct taken universally together with the principles on which they relied, are of such a kind that the suspicion of defection from the doctrine originally handed down and of innovation introduced into the universal ecclesiastical preaching is utterly excluded.

I. That we may understand that an innovation contrary to apostolic Tradition is repugnant even to the human element itself, considered historically and philosophically in itself, the chief place is surely held by the hierarchical union and communion of the Bishops and faithful of the whole Church.

1°. Not only was the apostolic institution always observed, that no Bishop be elected unless the sincerity of his faith had first been established by certain testimonies, « lest any unworthy man creep into the sacerdotal place, » as Cyprian says, ep. 68; but also, and especially, the Bishops of the greater sees continually after their election set forth to their other colleagues, and above all to the Roman Pontiff, by synodical letters a distinct profession of their faith. « The apostolic and ancient Tradition has held in the holy Churches of God throughout the whole world, that those who are advanced to the episcopate should sincerely set forth everything to those who before them ruled the chief priesthoods — what they think and how they stand with regard to the faith.... lest they run in vain » St. Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, in his synodical epistle to Honorius the Pontiff and Sergius of Constantinople, in which he comprises a distinct profession of faith (Council VI. Hard. III. p. 1259.). The reason of this holy institution is evident of itself, and is admirably set forth by St. Gregory the Great: « For when we transmit to one another in turn the confession of our faith and show our charity toward one another, what else do we do in the holy Church of God but daub the ark with pitch, lest the wave of error enter? » Gregory, l. VII. ep. 4. to Cyriacus of Constantinople. See the same Gregory, l. IX. ep. 52. to Secundinus; Leo the Great, ep. 69. al. 52. n. 1; ep. 70. al. 54. n. 1; ep. 14. al. 84. n. 1; Hilary the Pontiff, epp. 5. and 6; Gelasius, epp. 1. and 2. By the communicatory or formate letters sent to one another, and namely by the communicatory letters with the Roman Pontiff, all Bishops were secure of communion in faith with the whole world (Optatus, l. II. n. 3. §. 13.). « We communicate with the apostolic Churches, because to none is doctrine diverse: this is the testimony of truth » Tertull. Prescript. c. 21. (cf. th. VIII.). But he to whom communion was denied, « whoever he was, was not a Christian, because he was not in the Church » (Cyprian, ep. 51. to Antonian.).

2°. Just as the Bishops, both individually and all together, were solicitous that the faith of each should be most fully attested as agreeing with the common faith of all, and diligent care was taken lest anyone in any way dissenting from the common faith should seem to share in ecclesiastical communion; from the same reason they with vigilant zeal took care that the one faith of the Bishops succeeding one another in the several sees should be certainly established. Cf. above p. 69. sq. Hence the series of orthodox Bishops inscribed in the diptychs of the several Churches was most diligently preserved, those being rejected who had fallen under suspicion of defection from the faith or from the communion of the universal Church. See Leo the Great, ep. 80. c. 3. to Anatolius; the epistle of the Bishops of Egypt to the same (Hard. T. II. p. 698. 699.). How highly this matter was esteemed appears from the protracted controversies, e.g., over the restoring of the name of St. Chrysostom to the diptychs; over the erasing of the names of Acacius and his successors in the see of Constantinople, a dispute which lasted from the time of Gelasius down to Hormisdas the Pontiff. Cf. Card. Bona, de Rebus liturgicis, l. II. c 12.

3°. If at any time in any Church a novelty of doctrine contrary to the common handed-down faith had begun to creep in, it was the Bishop's duty not only to repress it, but also to inform the other Bishops, and above all the Roman Pontiff, that the error, condemned everywhere by common sentence, might be warded off from the Church. The Bishops of Egypt, against the Monophysite Timothy Aelurus, implore the aid of Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, « to the end that the holy and undefiled faith may be kept immovable and unassailable against all heretical subtlety; and that he make known our groans by synodical letters to Leo, the most holy Pontiff of the Roman Church, as also to the most God-beloved Bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem and Thessalonica and Ephesus, or to such other Churches as shall seem good, since this offense is a common injury, so that all the Bishops of the whole world, learning what has been presumed by Timothy, and that he has practiced novelties, ... may not delay to furnish the fitting form which shall in this matter be pleasing » (Hard. T. II. p. 699.). So the Bishops gathered in the Council of Antioch denounce Paul of Samosata to Dionysius the Roman Pontiff and Maximus of Alexandria (apud Euseb. H. E. VII. c. 25.); Cyprian denounces the schismatics Felicissimus and Fortunatus to Cornelius the Pontiff (ep. 55.); Alexander of Alexandria denounces Arius to all Catholic Bishops (ep. among the Works of Athanasius, T. I. p. 397.). In the cause of Nestorius, of the Eutychians, of the Pelagians, many letters of admonition were exchanged on both sides among the Bishops. Cf. Stapleton, T. I. l. VII. c. 7.

To the same solicitude for guarding the faith and forestalling danger belongs the custom that to clerics as well as to other faithful passing from one Church to another there were given by their Bishops communicatory letters testifying to their sincere faith, lest men deviating from the handed-down faith should anywhere creep into the communion of the faithful. Cf. the Apostolic canons 10. and 26. (in the version of Dionysius Exiguus 13. 34.); Elvira 58; Laodicea 41; Chalcedon 11. (Act. XV.); Apostolic Constitutions, l. II. c. 58; Basil, ep. 191. T. III. p. 284; ep. 203. p. 301; Zosimus, Poecis, ep. 1. n. 1. to the Bishops of Gaul, etc.

4°. Besides these things, an extraordinary indeed, but — where the danger of an impending novelty or the necessity already arisen somewhere seemed to require it — efficacious safeguard of union and agreement, and alike for the more solemn confirmation of antiquity and the condemnation of novelty, were and are the Councils of Bishops, whether from single provinces or from the universal Church of the whole world. Of this, as also of the far chiefest and ordinary bond of unity (as Cyprian calls it) through the communion of all pastors with the successor of Peter as of members with the head (Council of Chalcedon), we cannot treat more distinctly here, since another place is proper to that treatment.

Now this so great communion of all the Bishops of the universal Church among themselves, and this so great common solicitude for the one faith, must be considered together with the fundamental principle on which all relied and on which it was certain among all that the whole economy of faith depended; namely, that the faith once handed down must be retained, and that every novelty opposed to it is the subversion of faith and salvation: « let nothing be innovated, except what has been handed down. » See above, th. VIII. But with these things viewed together, who does not see how fittingly the ministry instituted for preserving Tradition corresponds, even according to its visible constitution, to its office? For with this union and these principles of the united pastors posited, it could never come about that either suddenly and as it were by a single assault, or by creeping in gradually, novelty should prevail against antiquity and infect the whole Church — and this in such a way that neither the time nor the manner nor the history of such an innovation could be designated from certain and manifest facts. This demonstration will be still fuller if there be added the other consideration, of what and how great men they were who in this union were joined both among themselves and with their predecessors through the long series of ages and in all the Churches of the whole world.

II. If we turn our mind first to the age of the holy Fathers, those guardians of the faith, dispensed by divine providence throughout all the Churches from the Apostles through many centuries, were distinguished by a moral universality — all of them by love and zeal for the doctrine handed down from the Apostles and by equal detestation of every novelty; many of them confirmed by the martyrdom of blood or of grievous confession the doctrine which they had received and handed down as apostolic; eminent not only in knowledge of the doctrine which they had received from their predecessors and on which they had been nurtured, but also in holiness of Christian life; many of them illustrious in genius and in the amplest knowledge of things divine and human. These men, so many and so great, all conspiring together in their judgments, united in communion, devoted all their solicitude, all their cares, to that of which we spoke just above: that antiquity should always be preserved and every novelty of doctrine — that is, the subversion of the whole Christian religion — be warded off. There were therefore applied the greatest and fittest resources; they were applied by the fittest men; they were applied in the fittest ways for the preservation of the handed-down doctrine; therefore, if divine providence attends to the greatest things, on which depend the religion and salvation of the Christian people, innovation and corruption of the handed-down doctrine could not come about.

This consideration, moreover, at least as to its essential parts, can be applied to all ages of the Church and of the apostolic succession. If at any time, as regards sanctity and learning, certain clouds have been cast, certainly the same zeal for guarding Tradition always remained, the same horror of novelty, the same agreement in the doctrine received from the holy Fathers; and so, if in the age of the Fathers the apostolic doctrine persevered intact, not less inviolate has it been brought down even to us.

By these reasons, which we have here scarcely indicated in a few words, at every time the most holy guardians of Tradition themselves have vindicated the authority and fidelity of their predecessors in the same office of guarding the deposit. The Fathers of the Lateran Council under Martin I, after the unanimous judgments of the preceding Fathers had been read aloud, exclaimed: « Accomplishing with the utmost devotion the word of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the holy Fathers did not hide the lamp of grace and knowledge given them by Him under the bushel of unfruitful obscurity, but lifted it upon the candlestick of saving doctrine, that it may shine to all who are in the house, that is, to the people of the Catholic Church.... Which things we, discerning through the reading of their venerable discourses, glorify indeed the Father of lights, from whom every good gift and every perfect present was sent down to them for the fulness of His Catholic and Apostolic Church; but we shall deservedly condemn their accusers, who strive to overshadow the true confession of so great a light by the figment of novelty » (Harduin, T. III. p. 886.). Augustine in many places commends, in the manner we have described, the authority of the preceding Fathers most eloquently. Thus, after he had adduced the judgment of several against Julian the Pelagian: « These are Bishops, he says, learned, grave, holy, most keen defenders of the truth against prating vanities, in whose reason, erudition, liberty — which three things you attributed to a good judge — you can find nothing to despise. If an episcopal synod were gathered from the whole world, it would be a wonder if so many such men could easily sit therein. For neither did these live at one time, but God Himself dispenses His faithful stewards, few and more excellent than many, through the diverse ages of times and distances of places, as it pleases Him and as He judges expedient... They are so much the more terrible to you, because you assail the Catholic faith, which they sucked in with their milk, which they took in with their food, whose milk and food they ministered to small and great... After the Apostles, the holy Church grew through such planters, waterers, builders, pastors, nourishers; therefore she shuddered at the profane voices of your novelty... You will seek judges, where you accuse so many holy, eminent, and memorable doctors of Catholic truth... and moreover the whole Church of Christ, to whom, faithfully ministering the Lord's provisions to the divine household, they shone with immense glory in the Lord » August. cont. Julian. l. II. n. 37. See the same, against Julian, l. I. n. 30-34; l. II. n. 31. 34; Op. imperf. l. II. n. 37; Clement Alex. Strom. VII. p. 762; Tertull. Prescript. c. 29; Athanas. de Synodis n. 4. 43. 47; Basil contra Eunom. l. I. n. 3; Gregor. Naz. to Cledonius, ep. 2. Works, T. II. p. 97; Hilar. to Constantius, l. I. n. 5; Lerinens. n. 33.

Now if all the things we have said in this thesis be taken together — the manner and scope of the communion of all pastors, the solicitude and safeguards for guarding Tradition, the ardent zeal for one and ever the same doctrine with detestation of novelty, the sanctity and learning of the same pastors — the fullest aptness of the apostolic succession, according to its visible element, for guarding the integrity of the handed-down doctrine is evident, so that, these things being considered in themselves, under even the common providence of God change and corruption appear morally impossible. But since all these gifts, this perpetual preservation of unity and agreement, are according to the promises of Christ and are shown to be the effect of the guardianship of Christ abiding with the successors of the Apostles all days even unto the consummation of the age, and of the Spirit of truth abiding with the same forever (th. V.), there arises a theological, supernatural, and absolute certitude.

First corollary to the two preceding theses. When the existence and authority of the ever-living magisterium and ministry for preserving Tradition, according to the manner demonstrated in the preceding theses, is established; it suffices to have demonstrated, at some time obtaining, the agreement of faith in the apostolic succession, whereby the divine revelation and apostolic Tradition of any head of doctrine may be vindicated. The inquiry into revealed truth, therefore, and disputation with the heterodox must begin not from single heads of doctrine, but from the demonstration of the universal principle of knowledge, namely, from the authority and office of the apostolic succession for preserving and propagating revelation whole. « The order of things required that this first be set forth which is now alone to be disputed: to whom the faith itself belongs, whose are the Scriptures, by whom and through whom and when and to whom that discipline has been handed down by which men are made Christians... There will be the truth of the Scriptures and of the expositions and of all Christian traditions » Tertull. Prescript. 19. See above, th. VIII. cf. p. 5. sq. 21.

Nevertheless, that there may be demonstrated historically, for the fruit of theological science, and vindicated polemically, against those who deny the principle of authority, the apostolic origin and revealed truth of single dogmas, a mere appeal to the present agreement does not suffice; yet it suffices to demonstrate agreement in the same truth of a dogma some centuries past, those times which are called the times of the Fathers, without its being always necessary to exhibit by express testimonies the agreement of the apostolic age or of that immediately following from the scanty monuments which survive to us. For scientifically, even against those who deny the authentic magisterium, the derivation of a doctrine from apostolic times can be inferred from the agreement of Christian antiquity, albeit somewhat later, and the present agreement can be shown connected with the doctrine of the apostolic age through the demonstrated agreement of the intermediate time, provided the doctrine which we now profess be demonstrated identical with the doctrine of the Fathers, say, of the fourth or fifth century from express testimonies, and this same doctrine be shown identical with the doctrine of the apostolic age from the impossibility of change and innovation.

Second corollary. Although in the handed-down doctrines which must be believed explicitly by all there has always been full agreement (Aug. contr. Julian. l. I. n. 31.); yet there can be contained in objective revelation heads of doctrine in which at some time agreement either was not sufficiently discerned or in fact did not obtain (August. ibid. n. 22.). Hence it can indeed never come about that in the apostolic succession, after an agreeing affirmation and explicit profession of some doctrine of faith, there should follow within the bounds of the Church a denial of the same doctrine, or conversely, after an agreeing denial and condemnation of it, an affirmation; it can happen, however, that after discordant opinions there should follow the fullest agreement.

Therefore a) a discordant opinion concerning some doctrine among guardians of the faith persevering in mutual communion is not of itself a sufficient argument for proving that the doctrine is not divinely handed down; although it proves that concerning its divine Tradition, at least unto the obligation of faith for all, that is, of Catholic faith, it is not yet sufficiently established. But on the other hand b) in whatever communion a change introduced after an antecedent agreement of profession of faith can be demonstrated — from affirmation to denial or conversely — that communion is not the Church of Christ.

On the distinction between historical and dogmatic authority in the testimony of Tradition.

« The distinction between the principles of the Church before the Council of Nicaea and of the Church of the following age, asserted by certain Protestants — namely that the Church at one time was accustomed to vindicate the apostolic origin of her doctrine by merely historical testimonies, and at another time by the authority of her own magisterium — must be judged entirely fictitious. For in every age the historical element in the antiquity and agreement of the testimony, and the divine element of authority through the assisting Spirit of truth, were understood as distinct, yet never separated one from the other. »

Protestants affirm (as Twesten, Dogmatic, Vol. I, p. 117) that the more ancient Church appealed to Tradition only historically — namely by demonstrating that in the apostolic Churches, to which the Apostles themselves had preached, through the continuous succession of bishops down to their own times of the second and third century the faith handed down by the Apostles had not yet been corrupted, but was still intact; whereas in later time the Church "strove to supply by the authority which she claimed for herself what was lacking to the testimony of Tradition considered historically." Others teach (Lessing, Delbrück) that the ancient Church before Nicene times judged the handed-down rule of faith sufficient for herself, but that after the Council of Nicaea she held the inspired Scriptures as the sole source and norm of the doctrine of faith. Most others invert this comparison of times, affirming that down to the fourth century, or even later down to the seventh century, the Scriptures were the sole norm, and that from that time appeal began to be made also to Tradition (cf. the celebrated Fr. Perrone, on Tradition, n. 381).

I. How all these things are not only false but utterly absurd is evident to anyone who compares the doctrine of the holy Fathers set forth in the two preceding theses, where under each head we cited testimonies both of the Fathers who flourished before the Council of Nicaea and of those who flourished after that time, from the second to the sixth and seventh century. Those older and more recent Fathers with one mouth fully agree both in the use of Tradition as a historical demonstration from the perpetual succession of bishops, from connection with the Apostles and from communion and universal agreement; and in proclaiming the infallible security and divine authority of Tradition, which is derived from the Spirit of truth dwelling in the Church; and in asserting this authentic Tradition as the norm of interpretation of the Scriptures — although on this last point we still have to treat expressly below.

Indeed, if the apostolic Fathers and those following of the second and third century — Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc. — appeal to the doctrine handed down from the beginning, to the Tradition which is from the Apostles through the successions of presbyters, to the registers of the apostolic Churches, the same is no less frequent in the Fathers after the Council of Nicaea — Athanasius, Epiphanius, Optatus, Augustine, Vincent of Lérins and the rest — who commend the holy predecessors, because "what they received from the Fathers, they handed down to their sons," as Augustine says; and before him Athanasius: "we indeed demonstrate, he says, that the sentence has passed from Fathers to Fathers.... you assail the council, because namely it defined not your views but those things which from the beginning the eyewitnesses handed down, who were also ministers of the word," On the Decrees of Nicaea, n. 27. And no less than Irenaeus and Tertullian do the later Fathers also appeal to the continuous succession in the Church, especially the Roman Church as the centre and bond of unity, "since through that succession the ever-manifest truth is demonstrated," as we saw Epiphanius testifying; and Augustine: "there holds me in the Church the succession of priests from the very See of Peter down to the present episcopate," Against the Fundamental Epistle, n. 5. See above p. 69 ff.

Conversely, the later Fathers indeed lay the chief foundation in agreement, insofar as it is both the effect and the criterion of the Spirit of truth remaining for ever with the apostolic succession, and thus appeal to the authority of the magisterium derived from the promised assistance of the Holy Spirit. But no less expressly do the most ancient Fathers — Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian — trace back at last to the divinely derived authority from Christ to the Apostles and from the Apostles to their successors the supreme reason why it is forbidden to dissent from the common doctrine of the Church, and whereby it is established that the divine doctrine has been preserved sincerely and integrally through the order of succession: to the "charism of truth communicated with the episcopal succession," to the "communication of Christ, that is, the Holy Spirit," to the promised and sent "teacher of truth, the Holy Spirit." See p. 74 ff.

In the doctrine of the Fathers concerning the ministry of Tradition, then, a twofold discussion is distinguished: concerning the visible element, namely, and the invisible charism; these two are indeed connected, since the visible depends on the invisible, is constituted in its proper character by it, and is in a certain way informed by it; yet they are considered by the Fathers, and ought to be considered, both distinct. That is, to demonstrate the preservation and derivation of doctrine from the Apostles, the most ancient Fathers distinguish three things: apostolic succession, agreement, and the perpetual charism of the Holy Spirit. The succession of bishops from the Apostles is necessary, yet in the individual Churches it does not of itself suffice to demonstrate the apostolicity of doctrine; negatively, therefore, from its defect they prove that the apostolic doctrine is not held by the sects that arose later. For the apostolic succession to be not only material but formal, there is required in the perpetual succession of persons (the bishops) at once kinship and succession of doctrine; the criterion of this, moreover, is agreement and communion with the universal Church¹, the bond and at once the criterion of which communion is again communion with the Roman Church, which is the root and centre of unity (above, p. 69 ff.). Now from this succession and agreement the Fathers draw an argument in two ways: a) more historical and philosophical, because it is historically established that the bishops succeeding one another, whose memory and names are preserved in the veneration of the Church, were faithful guardians of the faith; for the name of one who had adulterated the deposit would not have been tolerated in the series of bishops (cf. above, p. 82). Moreover the unanimous agreement of all the Churches constituted throughout the whole world is itself an argument, even philosophical, of truth; for error is manifold, truth one. "Is it at all likely, says Tertullian, Prescription, c. 28, that so many and so great Churches should have erred into one faith? Among many outcomes there is no one issue; the error of the Churches' doctrine ought to have varied. But what is found to be one among many is not error but tradition." This historical and philosophical consideration is carried out chiefly polemically and in opposition to the varieties and dissensions of the manifold heresies. b) They draw the proper and supreme argument, as we have seen, from the theological consideration of succession and agreement, insofar as it has its origin from Christ for the custody of the deposit, and for its infallible preservation the protection of Christ and the assistance of the Holy Spirit are promised to it and ever present (th. VIII, n. 3).

It is not, therefore, in the manner of considering the ministry of Tradition and in the method of demonstrating the integrity of the handed-down doctrine that there is any difference between the most ancient Fathers and the more recent ones. But those who fabricated this considered only the historical argumentation in the older Fathers, concealing the theological argumentation, which is the most powerful and no less explicit in the same authors; whereas in the more recent Fathers they selected only the theological part, when they appeal to the abiding authority from the promised and conferred charism of truth, neglecting their historical and philosophical argumentation. By this art, indeed, contradictions and diversities of opinions will be found everywhere.

II. From their fundamental principle, the Protestants recognize in the agreeing testimony of Christian antiquity and of the whole Church no authentic proposition of revealed doctrine, but only a historical testimony of faith, as they say — i.e., a testimony from which we learn what was the faith of those attesting; so that not our faith is to be conformed to that testimony, but the testimony itself is to be examined and judged by the sole norm of faith, which is Scripture (cf. above, p. 7). But since even against their will they feel how much weight there is in the sentence and judgment of Christian antiquity, they strive to foist this very principle of theirs upon the ancient Fathers. They say, therefore, that those Fathers appealed to the then-flourishing doctrine of the Churches, and namely of the apostolic Churches, only because or insofar as they saw it actually agreeing with the doctrine of the Scriptures; so that the demonstration of the apostolicity of doctrine from the Scriptures, independently of the sense and agreement of the Churches, comes first and is alone the proper demonstration, while the examination of the Church's profession follows, and if it is found conformable to the Scriptures, furnishes some confirmation of the proper demonstration which was made from the Scriptures alone, independently of the authority and Tradition of the Church.

How shameless a lie this is, I think is sufficiently established from what precedes. See th. VIII. Nevertheless, besides what has already been demonstrated, let us inquire still more distinctly into the opinion of the ancient Fathers on this matter. They unanimously and in the most explicit terms establish that the ecclesiastical preaching and Tradition is the supreme and necessary norm to which the canon, the reading, and the interpretation of the Scriptures must be conformed. Not, therefore, the sense of Scripture elicited by independent interpretation is for them the norm by which they examine and either approve or reject the preaching and Tradition of the Church; but this preaching, as it is proposed by the Church, is for them the object of faith and the norm to which the judgment concerning the very canon of the Scriptures and their true sense must be conformed.

Through the succession of bishops, to whom the Apostles handed over the Church which is in each place, says Irenaeus, "there has come down to us by a guarding without fiction a most full treatment of the Scriptures... and a reading without falsification, and a lawful exposition according to the Scriptures," bk. IV, c. 33, n. 8. In the same way Tertullian: "recourse must not be had, then, to the Scriptures, nor must the contest be established in them... The order of things required that this first be proposed... 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 shall appear that the truth of the Christian discipline and faith is, there will be the truth of the Scriptures and of the expositions and of all the Christian Traditions," Prescription, 19. But to discover where the truth of doctrine is, Tertullian with the rest appeals to the agreement of the Churches (above, p. 71). Hence Irenaeus further admonishes that teachers have been placed in the Church by the Lord Himself: "where, therefore, the charisms of the Lord have been placed, there one must learn the truth, among those with whom is that succession of the Church which is from the Apostles... For these both guard our faith... and expound the Scriptures without peril bk. IV, c. 26, n. 5; cf. ib., c. 32, n. 1. So too Clement of Alexandria: "all things are right before those who understand, i.e., those who, receiving the exposition of the Scriptures declared by Him (the Lord) according to the ecclesiastical rule, preserve it," Stromata VI, p. 676. And he says the true and genuine Gnostic is he "who, having grown old in the Scriptures themselves, preserving the apostolic and ecclesiastical rectitude of doctrines, lives most rightly," Stromata VII, p. 762 (cf. VI, pp. 645, 679; VII, p. 755; Origen, Principles IV, n. 9; Eusebius, Evangelical Demonstration, bk. I, c. 8). Origen, the disciple of Clement, both in the preface to the books on Principles declares the ecclesiastical preaching to be the foundation of all theology and of Christian γνωσεως (cf. above, p. 68), and expressly defines Tradition to be the supreme norm of the interpretation of Scripture. "As often as (the heretics) bring forward the canonical Scriptures, he says, in which every Christian agrees and believes, they seem to say: behold, in the houses is the word of truth (Matt. XXIV, 26). But we must not believe them nor go out from the first and ecclesiastical Tradition, nor believe otherwise than as has been handed down through the succession of the Church of God," Commentary on Matthew, n. 46, Vol. III, p. 864. In the books of the Recognitions, falsely ascribed to Clement of Rome but written at the beginning of the third century, the admonition of St. Peter is introduced. "Many things, as I see, ingenious men take as likelihoods from what they read; and therefore it must be diligently observed that the law of God, when it is read, be not read according to the understanding of one's own ingenuity. For there are many words in the divine Scriptures which can be drawn to that sense which each one has spontaneously presumed for himself, which must not be done. For you must not seek the sense which you have brought in from outside, alien and strange, which you would confirm by the authority of the Scriptures; but from the Scriptures themselves take the sense of truth, and therefore one must learn the understanding of the Scriptures from him who preserves it as handed down to him from his forebears according to the truth," bk. X, n. 42 (Galland, II, p. 322); cf. bk. VIII, n. 37 (ib., p. 298). Not to be more prolix, that is the opinion of all the Fathers from the apostolic age which St. Vincent of Lérins in the fifth century found confirmed "by very many men excelling in holiness and doctrine," that each one "ought to fortify his faith in a twofold way: first, namely, by the authority of the divine law, then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church." The reason, moreover, why to the canon of the Scriptures "the authority of ecclesiastical understanding must be joined," is declared by Vincent: "because namely all do not receive Sacred Scripture, on account of its very loftiness, in one and the same sense; but one interprets its utterances in one way and another in another, so that almost as many men as there are, so many opinions seem possible to be drawn from it." Having named some heretics who defend their heresies from the Scriptures themselves, he concludes: "and therefore it is greatly necessary, on account of the windings of so great and varied error, that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed according to the norm of the ecclesiastical and catholic sense," Lérins, cc. 1, 2, 38; cf. also Augustine, On Genesis According to the Letter, Unfinished Work, n. 15; Rufinus, Church History, bk. II, c. 9. See Stapleton, Controversy 1, bk. XI, c. 3.

By synthesis from the foregoing the proper concept of Tradition is gathered, and is confirmed from the sentences of the Fathers.

« The whole doctrine of faith, insofar as under the assistance of the Holy Spirit in the agreement of the divinely instituted guardians of the deposit and doctors it is preserved in continuous succession, and manifests itself in the profession and life of the whole Church, is in the most proper sense divine Tradition. This the holy Fathers call ecclesiastical preaching, the rule of understanding, the rule of apostolic truth, if doctrine is directly regarded as object, which in apostolic succession is kept and handed down; but it is and is called consciousness of faith, catholic understanding, ecclesiastical sense, faith written in hearts, unwritten wisdom, if directly as subject is regarded the Church constituted under the assistance of the Holy Spirit and imbued with the charism of truth for understanding, guarding, and expounding the deposit of faith. »

I. The first part of the thesis is a mere synthesis of the foregoing. It has been demonstrated that the promulgation of revelation was so disposed by Christ Himself that the Apostles, discharging legation for Christ by their ministry and the authority of preaching with which they were furnished through the Spirit of truth, founded Churches and transmitted to them the whole revealed doctrine as an inheritance; and so it comes about that to the Christian religion, according to the institution of its divine author, «obedience of faith» answering to the supernatural authority of the teachers is essential, and hence an authentic magisterium is essential (th. IV). Moreover it has been demonstrated that Christ in express words instituted that the authentic magisterium, whose authority is from the assistance of the Holy Spirit leading into all truth, first ordained for the infallible promulgation of revelation, be perpetual even to the consummation of the age for the conservation and propagation of the same integral revelation (th. V). Whence it is further established that this economy instituted by Christ is from the nature of the thing connected with the character of unity in the universality of Christian faith (th. VI); nor can the Scriptures be judged substituted for the magisterium of apostolic succession, but they are an instrument of doctrine entrusted to the very guardians of the deposit to be guarded and expounded (th. VII). Then it has been demonstrated that according to this economy, defined and exhibited in the Scriptures, the universal Church has evidently been constituted from Apostolic times, resting on this fundamental principle, that the magisterium and ministry for guarding and preaching the integral revelation was instituted in apostolic succession; and so that to this magisterium, insofar as it is regarded in agreement and communion namely with the visible centre of unity, the supernatural charism of the Holy Spirit was promised and is ever present (th. VIII). To this office, moreover, we have understood that the visible element of the whole constitution and acts of the Church, both in (if it is lawful so to speak) daily life and in solemn deeds, marvellously corresponds; yet that constantly, always and everywhere, the formal rationale of authority and of full security in keeping and expounding doctrine was derived from the invisible charism of the Holy Spirit (th. IX, X). From all which it appears that the universal Church of all ages and all places with her whole history is a great real commentary and a perpetual confirmation of the true sense which in the words of Christ and the Apostles we Catholics believe and demonstrate.

It has therefore been demonstrated that the inborn nature and proper rationale of the Church was so constituted by the divine founder that faith and discipline, divinely handed down first by Christ Himself and, with the Holy Spirit dictating, by the Apostles, is propagated from generation to generation through a ministry and authentic magisterium ever vigorous and living. «And they that are from the west shall fear the name of the Lord, and they that are from the rising of the sun, His glory, when He shall come... This is my covenant with them, saith the Lord: My Spirit that is in thee¹, and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever» Is. LIX. 19-21. «The Tradition of the Apostles, as Irenaeus argues, manifested in the whole world, it is at hand to behold in every Church... and we have it to enumerate those who were instituted bishops in the Churches by the Apostles, and their successors down to us... Since, therefore, there are such demonstrations (var.: since these things are of such demonstration), we ought no longer to seek the truth among others, which it is easy to receive from the Church, since the Apostles most fully poured into her, as into a rich depository, all things which are of the truth, that everyone who will may take from her the drink of life; for this is the entrance of life» Iren. III, chs. 3, 4. But divine doctrine and discipline preserved and propagated from the Apostles, if considered together with the manner and organ of propagation — distinct and diverse from the instruments of Scripture and instituted by Christ Himself — divine Tradition is and must be called in the most proper sense (th. II, III). The point proposed in the first part of the present thesis is therefore established.

II. As to the second part of the thesis, first must be set before our eyes the phraseology of the Saints, where they speak of divine doctrine and discipline as it flourishes and lives through all ages in the faith and profession, in the life and worship of the whole Church, and namely in the agreement of pastors and doctors.

Now St. John says: «The Son of God came and gave us understanding (διανοιαν), that we may know the true God and be in His true Son» 1 John II. 20; and St. Paul: «But we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God, that we may know the things that are given us by God... For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ (νουν Χριστου)» 1 Cor. II. 10-16.

We have heard above (p. 66) John's disciple Ignatius admonishing that all be «unanimous in the mind of God»; to which unity the bond are «the bishops established throughout the ends of the earth, who are in the mind of Jesus Christ»; and since Jesus Christ is the very mind, the very Word of the Father, therefore those who are unanimous in the mind of the bishops (united with the bishops throughout the ends of the earth) are in the mind of God. The mind of the Father, then, is Jesus Christ; the mind of Jesus Christ is in the agreement of the bishops, and through them in the agreement of all the faithful: ep. to the Ephesians, n. 3 ff.

Irenaeus, as we have seen, most distinctly declares Tradition as the integral doctrine which through the successions of the Apostles has come down even to us, with the Holy Spirit working and lavishing the charism of truth (above, p. 74 ff.), and the compendium of which doctrine was comprehended and always handed down to all Christians in the apostolic symbol. Now this faith, handed down in the Church and manifesting itself in her whole life, he calls «the immovable rule of truth,» by which heresies and false interpretations of the Scriptures are discerned, bk. I, ch. 9, n. 4; bk. III, ch. 2, n. 1; «the preaching of the truth» το της ἀληθείας κηρύγμα, III, ch. 3, n. 3; «the preaching of the Church everywhere constant and equally enduring» bk. III, ch. 24, n. 1; «the true and firm preaching of the Church, with which one and the same way of salvation is shown in the whole world» bk. V, ch. 20, n. 1; «the proclamation of the Church, which the prophets indeed proclaimed, but Christ perfected, and the Apostles handed down, from whom the Church receiving throughout the whole world alone well guarding handed down to her sons» bk. V, preface (cf. Council of Trent, sess. IV).

In the same sense Tertullian calls it «the rule of faith, one altogether, alone immovable and irreformable» On the Veiling of Virgins, ch. 1; Against Praxeas, chs. 2 and 3; Prescription, chs. 13, 14; «the rule which the Church handed down from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God» Prescription, ch. 37.

By Clement of Alexandria also it is called the ecclesiastical rule, from which the exposition of the Scriptures is received, and by which the New and the Old Testament are brought into harmony — whereas the Gnostics feign a repugnance between the two Testaments: Stromata VI, p. 676. The very γνῶσις, i.e. the deeper understanding of the mysteries and the Scriptures, he teaches to have been handed down by succession from the Apostles; it is «the unwritten Tradition of the written,» coming from Christ to the Apostles, from the Apostles down to us, and therefore pertaining to the very ecclesiastical rule according to which the Scriptures are to be understood: ibid., pp. 645, 679. This he also calls ecclesiastical wisdom² bk. VII, p. 759; «the truest γνῶσις is in the ancient Church alone,» but not among the heretics, ibid., p. 755; for the heretics «deprave the rule of the Church»: they have, that is, «a false key, and do not enter as we do through the Tradition of the Lord, but digging through the wall of the Church they transgress the truth,» ibid., pp. 764, 765.

There follows Clement's disciple Origen. In the preface to the books On Principles there is set down as the norm to which all opinions must be conformed «the ecclesiastical preaching handed down from the Apostles through the order of succession and remaining in the Churches even to the present;» this he calls «the rule of apostolic truth» on Ps. 36, hom. 4, n. 1, vol. II, p. 671; «the rule of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to apostolic succession»³ (2) On Principles, bk. IV, n. 9, vol. I, p. 166.

The ancient author of the book inscribed against the Artemonites, the «Little Labyrinth,» calls Tradition the ecclesiastical mind and the rule of the primitive faith⁴ in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, bk. IV, ch. 28. Very similar is the manner of speaking of Athanasius, who calls the universal doctrine by which the bishops and the whole Church are informed «the understanding, according to which we think»⁵ Oration II against the Arians, n. 34, vol. I, p. 502; and «the ecclesiastical scope, the anchor of faith,» Oration III, n. 58.

Epiphanius names it «the royal way, which is the Church, and the way of truth,» Heresy 59 (of the Novatians), n. 12, cf. 13; Hilary «consciousness of faith; consciousness of the common faith»⁶, which he opposes to the «impious understanding» of the heretics: On the Trinity, bk. VIII, ch. 1, and On the Synods, n. 65; Rufinus «the rule of understanding received from apostolic succession,» Ecclesiastical History, bk. II, ch. 9; Augustine «the rule of faith, the rule of soundness» on John, tract. 18, n. 1; On Christian Doctrine, bk. III, ch. 2; «the rule of piety,» Literal Meaning of Genesis I, ch. 21, n. 41 (so too Pseudo-Augustine, On Predestination and Grace, ch. 1); «the canonical sense;» «the catholic understanding,» serm. 294, ch. 20 ( elsewhere serm. 14 on the words of the Apostle); Against the Epistle of Parmenian, bk. II, ch. 10, n. 20; cf. Against Faustus, bk. IV, ch. 2; Vincent of Lérins «the authority of ecclesiastical understanding;» «the norm of the ecclesiastical and catholic sense,» Commonitorium, ch. 2; cf. ch. 38; the Council of Trent «the universal sense of the Church,» sess. XIII, ch. 1.

That all these locutions can be distributed into the twofold class indicated in the thesis is clear from the very signification of the names; for by some — and these the most excellent — is more directly designated the consciousness and understanding of Catholic doctrine which is in the Church, and namely in the teaching Church under the charism of the Holy Spirit, when it is called «the consciousness of the common faith, the ecclesiastical sense, the catholic understanding, ecclesiastical understanding, the ecclesiastical scope;» by others is directly signified the handed-down doctrine and objective faith itself informing the understanding and consciousness of the Church, where it is called «ecclesiastical preaching, the proclamation of the Church (τὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κήρυγμα), the rule of faith, the rule of piety, the rule of apostolic truth, the rule of understanding.» It is clear, however, that this is not one thing and another; but one and another consideration of one thing — namely of Tradition regarded in the complex (see above, p. 12).

I do not think doubt can befall anyone whether what is designated by these names is really the handed-down faith and the profession of the Church; for this is most manifest in all the places cited. I shall adduce, however, for each class of locutions an example in its full context. Vincent of Lérins, chs. 1 and 2, after saying that faith must be fortified «first by the authority of the divine law (Scripture), then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church,» immediately adds: «here perhaps someone will ask, since the canon of the Scriptures is perfect and of itself more than sufficient for all things, what need is there that the authority of ecclesiastical understanding be joined to it?» He answers: on account of the difficulties and the various interpretations by which the Scriptures are expounded, it is greatly necessary «that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed according to the norm of the ecclesiastical and catholic sense.» Here the Tradition of the Catholic Church, ecclesiastical understanding, the ecclesiastical and catholic sense evidently signify one and the same thing and are promiscuously used.

Augustine, on John, tract. 18, n. 1, perceiving the difficulties in the interpretation of chapter V of John, thus admonishes his hearers. «Nor have heresies arisen... except while good Scriptures are understood not well, and what in them is not well understood is also rashly and boldly asserted. Therefore, dearly beloved, we must hear these things very cautiously, for the grasping of which we are little ones, and with a pious heart and trembling, as it is written, holding this rule of soundness, that what according to the faith wherewith we are imbued we shall have been able to understand, we rejoice in as food; but what according to the sound rule of faith we have not yet been able to understand, let us remove doubt, let us defer understanding... Let vain presumption be far even from me, dearly beloved, if I wish to dwell sound in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.» The faith, therefore, wherewith we are imbued is called the rule according to which we are to interpret the Scriptures, so that if the words of Scripture seem to present a sense contrary to that rule of faith, we do not waver in faith, but confess that we do not understand the Scriptures. But that faith wherewith we are imbued and that rule of faith, objectively considered, is in the Church, from which we received it, so that the security of our faith is through the Church — the pillar, that is, and ground of truth.

On the way in which the agreement of the faithful in the doctrine of faith is a criterion of divine Tradition.

« The consciousness and profession of faith in the whole body of the faithful is always preserved immune from error by the Spirit of truth through the authentic magisterium of apostolic succession. Although, therefore, neither to individuals of the believing people nor to whole peoples belongs the power of teaching authentically, but the duty of learning, nevertheless the « catholic sense » and agreement of the whole Christian people in the dogma of Christian faith must be reckoned one of the criteria of divine Tradition. »

I. In the first part of this proposition two things are said: namely, that the integrity of faith is always preserved unharmed in the body of the faithful by the Holy Spirit, and further that the Holy Spirit accomplishes this not by His immediate operation alone and without visible ministry, but through the authentic magisterium of apostolic succession. This, which by some is called the passive infallibility of the Church¹, is easily understood from the mutual relation between authentic pastors and teachers on the one side and the flocks of the faithful on the other, as it is exhibited, disposed and instituted by Christ Himself, both in the evangelical and apostolic writings and through all subsequent ages in the other documents.

1°. It is proved, then, in the first place by a general but evident argument. When Christ, God and Lord, instituted the authentic magisterium and, with His legates—when He commanded them to baptize and teach all nations and to keep those initiated in the integrity of faith—promised that He would be with them all days even unto the consummation of the world, and that the Spirit of truth would remain with them as they bore witness for ever, the end of this institution was the very conservation of the doctrine and testimony received and the integrity of faith in the faithful; for these charisms were promised and conferred for the utility and necessity of the whole body, 1. Cor. III. 22. coll. Eph. IV. 16. Hence to this perpetual, indefectible, and infallible magisterium there answers, from Christ's very institution, a perpetual « obedience of faith » in believers (th. IV.). Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit always preserves the preaching and testification free from error in the unity of pastors and teachers, so through this very infallible testification of those who teach He always preserves free from error the faith of those who learn, who by obedience of faith remain in agreement and communion with the agreeing pastors: Christ the mind of the Father, the bishops throughout the world (joined by the bond and cement of unity) in the mind of Christ, the faithful in the mind of the bishops (th. VIII. n. I.).

2°. The argument drawn from the end of the charisms in apostolic succession and from the relation of the authority of those who teach to the obedience of faith in those who learn, taken in general, we can consider more distinctly from the very words of Christ and the Apostles. Of the apostolate and the divinely committed office of preaching and teaching, Christ and the Apostles never speak without at the same time regarding the faith and profession of believers corresponding to it as the scope and effect to which it is ordered; just as, conversely, they exhibit this faith and profession in connection with preaching as with its condition and cause (partial, to be sure, ministerial and external; cf. 1. Cor. III. 4-9.). When they regard faith and profession in connection with interior grace as the principal cause, such testimonies do indeed prescind from the exterior grace of preaching, but they do not exclude it, since according to the universal and ordinary economy instituted by Christ invisible interior grace is connected with the visible exterior grace of the hearing of faith. Here there is a divine, as it were, sorites: salutary profession and invocation, faith, the hearing of faith, preaching, the divine mission of the Apostles and their successors, and finally the revealed word of Christ. « The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart; this is the word of faith which we preach.... For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed, or how shall they believe Him whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher, and how shall they preach unless they be sent?... Faith then cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ, » Rom. X. 8-17. Thus the nations are taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded, but only insofar as on the other side there are those sent by Christ to preach and teach, with whom Christ is all days, Matth. XXVIII. Christ prays with a prayer that cannot lack effect that they all be one in the Father and in the Son; but that they be one as believers through the word of the Apostles, Io. XVII. 20. 21. One body and one Spirit, in one hope of the calling; as there is one Lord so there is one faith, one baptism; but for perpetually effecting and preserving this unity, « for the perfecting (καταρτισμὸν) of the saints in articulated order and perfection, for the building up of the body of Christ, that we may now be no more little children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, » for this end, I say, He Himself instituted offices both extraordinary, in the first revelation of the faith, and ordinary, for the conservation and propagation of the faith. « And He gave some apostles... and others pastors and teachers... until we all meet in the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ, » Eph. IV. 4-14. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church; but this Christ effects by building her upon the rock, and insofar as she rests wholly upon the rock and is held together by the rock, Matth. XVI. 18.

There is no need for us to confirm this same operation of the Holy Spirit upon the whole Church through the ministry of apostolic succession from the unanimous doctrine of the very guardians of the deposit from the apostolic age onward, since this demonstration can easily be transferred hither from what was said above. See th. VIII. IX. n. II.

The Spirit of truth, therefore, is present to the whole body of the faithful, « not allowing the Churches to understand otherwise, to believe otherwise than what He Himself had preached through the Apostles; » but this He carries out by a gentle providence through the visible ministry of pastors and teachers. To the pastors regarded in communion and agreement the Spirit of truth is present, leading into all truth as the immediate principle for the conservation of the catholic understanding; and through their ministry, as through an exterior grace—with which unction and interior grace is joined as by far the chief element—the same Spirit of truth is the principle of infallibly forming and preserving the « consciousness of faith » in the flock gathered to its pastors. Hence it is understood that the divine promises by which the charisms and offices proper to pastors are declared, in particular the office and charism of teaching infallibly (cf. th. V.), are referred indeed immediately and as to their subject to the Apostles alone and their successors, but mediately and as to their end they pertain to the utility and fruit of the whole Church.

3°. Hence, moreover, the Holy Spirit, insofar as He is the principle of interior grace and unction for believing the word and keeping the commandment of God proposed by the authentic magisterium, is promised to the faithful no longer according to the diversity of hierarchical offices but indiscriminately, « dividing to every one as He will ».

If, therefore, this interior grace is at times called doctrine, revelation, testimony, such expressions are to be understood not to the exclusion of exterior grace and authentic preaching, but rather as connoting it. So is that passage of 1. Io. II. 20-27 to be understood: « Now there are become many antichrists... they went out from us but they were not of us... But you have the unction from the Holy One and know all things. I have not written to you as to them that know not the truth, but as to them that know it... Let that which you have heard from the beginning abide in you... These things I have written to you concerning them that seduce you. And as for you, let the unction which you have received from Him abide in you, and you have no need that any man teach you; but as His unction teacheth you of all things, and it is truth and it is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in Him. » He who teaches is Christ Himself; but He teaches in two ways: namely, through the unction of interior grace, and through the exterior word proposed by those who discharge legation for Christ, among whom is John himself, who to be sure preached the Gospel in order to teach, and made this very epistle in order to teach². Hence in this very passage the Apostle joins the exterior ministry with that interior grace: « let what you heard from the beginning abide in you; » and in the opening of this very epistle: « that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes... we declare and announce to you, » I. 1-5. That is, with exterior preaching presupposed, the faithful have the unction from the Holy One, and are taught and know all things; and these all things are that very thing which they heard from the beginning and in which they are bidden to abide. Hence John indeed wrote both this epistle and the Gospel as to those already knowing the truth (see above, th. VII. n. II. 3io), yet he wrote in order to teach, and as it were in aid of preaching. But the teachers by whom the faithful « have no need » to be taught are those who teach novelties contrary to what they had heard from the beginning; these, therefore, the faithful are bidden to flee and repel, that they may preserve the unction which they received through interior grace together with the exterior preaching of the Apostles. « These things have I written to you concerning them that seduce you. And as for you, let the unction which you have received from Him abide in you, and you have no need that any man teach you. » In one word it can be said: in the unction the apostolic preaching is included; heretical preaching is excluded.

In a way not dissimilar are those prophetic words to be understood: « And I will make... all thy children taught of the Lord »³ Is. LIV. 13, which Christ the Lord Himself, Io. VI. 45., explains of the necessity of interior grace to be joined with exterior preaching, even when the latter proceeds from His own divine mouth. « No man can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draw him... It is written in the prophets: and they shall all be taught of God (διδακτοι θεου); every one that hath heard of the Father and hath learned cometh to Me. » That is, interior grace and theological sanctity is declared as the proper character of the New Testament in comparison with the Mosaic economy, which, insofar as it was peculiar to the one people of Israel, was exterior and ordered to legal justice. Not for that reason, however, is the exterior ministry excluded in the New Testament, nor is revelation promised to individuals immediately from God apart from ministerial causes set before them; just as, conversely, in the exterior economy of the Old Testament interior grace and sanctification was not excluded, but is rather to be understood as presupposed and included⁴.

So too, according to the analogy of faith and of the whole new economy, elsewhere most manifest, must the other oracle of Jeremias be explained. « Behold, the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make to the house of Israel and to the house of Juda a new covenant; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, that I might bring them out of the land of Egypt, the covenant which they made void... But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give My law in their bowels and I will write it in their heart, and I will be their God and they shall be My people; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying: know the Lord; for all shall know Me from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord, » Ierem. XXXI. 31-34. Here there is compared what prevails in the ancient covenant—namely, writing on tables of stone, and the exterior and temporary economy—with what prevails in the New Testament: namely, writing in hearts through grace (preaching through the legates of God not excluded but included)⁵, together with the economy of interior sanctification, never to cease. Thus the last words also—« no man shall teach any more his neighbour... for all shall know Me »—are to be understood by comparison with the Old Testament, and not to be pressed apart from it and absolutely, if they are restricted to this stage in which the Church still « walks by faith and not yet by sight. » But since often in the prophetic Scriptures the same words in a less full sense refer to the beginning not yet perfected, while in the fullest sense they signify the perfect consummation, the closing clauses of the prophecy can, with Augustine, be extended to the Church consummated in beatific vision, to the ἐπίγνωσιν in which all « shall know even as they are known, » 1. Cor. XIII. 12. « Now indeed, says Augustine (on the Spirit and the Letter, n. 37-41), is the time of the New Testament, of which promise was made through the prophet in these words which we have recalled from that prophecy. Why then does each one still say to his fellow citizen and his brother, know the Lord?... Since, then, this preaching is now spread abroad everywhere, how is it the time of the New Testament... unless because He has joined to it the eternal reward of this same New Testament, that is, the most blessed contemplation of God Himself? »

The comparison, then, for the stage of faith in the New Testament has a threefold term: a) knowledge will be more universal in extension and far ampler in intensity; b) teaching will be more interior through grace than exterior: « neither he that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase » (1. Cor. III. 7.); c) this exterior teaching itself will not have a mere man as its first promulgator, and, as instituted by him (though by divine authority), men as its further propagators; but its first visible promulgator will be the God-man, who through the ministry of those discharging legation for Him will continue the preaching all days even unto the consummation of the world. « God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers in the prophets, last of all in these days hath spoken to us in the Son, » Heb. I. 1. « And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be said; but Christ as the Son in His own house, » Heb. III. 5. Moreover, « what is Apollo, and what is Paul? Ministers of Him in whom you have believed... For we are God's coadjutors (συνηργοί); you are God's husbandry, God's building, » 1. Cor. III. 4. 5. 9. To these there can be added d) a fuller sense: that the very vision of God face to face pertains to the promise and reward of the New Testament.

II. The second part of the thesis follows from the first, now demonstrated. For the agreement of the faithful in some doctrine as a dogma divinely revealed is itself an argument and criterion of revelation and divine Tradition, for the very reason that the Spirit of truth always preserves the whole body of the faithful immune from error adverse to faith, although He accomplishes this through the ministry of those who authentically teach. Moreover, that such agreement cannot contain error in faith is also clear from this: that the whole Christian people cannot believe some doctrine as revealed without its being the catholic sense and understanding of the whole Church—as is both evident of itself and clear from the conjunction of the peoples with the bishops (p. 66.), and from the by far chief office of pastors of providing for the integrity of faith. « For the Church of God, set amidst much chaff and much cockle, tolerates many things; and yet what is against faith or good life she neither approves nor keeps silent nor does, » Aug. ep. 55. n. 35. al. 119. to Ianuarius. Hence the holy Fathers are wont to assume the absurdity of the hypothesis that the whole Christian people should have erred in matters of faith as a most well-known argument for demonstrating the truth of the ancient doctrine and the falsity of the new doctrine. If novelties introduced by heretics and contrary to antiquity are received, « it must be declared (so argues Vincent of Lerins from the absurd) that all the faithful of all ages, all the saints, all the chaste, continent, virgins, all clerics, levites and priests, so many thousands of confessors, so great an army of martyrs, the celebrity and multitude of so many cities and peoples, so many islands, provinces, kings, nations, kingdoms, tribes, at last well-nigh the whole circle of lands incorporated through the catholic faith into Christ the head, for so long a tract of ages have been ignorant, have erred, have blasphemed, have not known what to believe, » Commonit. c. 33. In almost the same words this same argument is turned by Tertullian (Praescript. c. 29), Athanasius (de Synodis n. 4), and Gregory of Nazianzus (ep. 2. to Cledonius, T. II. p. 97.). Hence the Supreme Pontiff Pius IX himself, as the proximate preparation for the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception of the B. V. M., asked among other things of the bishops of the whole world that they indicate « what was the piety and devotion of their faithful toward the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God; » and among other [evidences] of divine tradition the same Most Holy Our Lord numbers the « singular conspiracy of the Catholic bishops and faithful » (in the Bull « Ineffabilis »). Cf. Gregory of Valentia de Fide disp. I. q. 1. P. 7. §. 47; Analys. Fidei l. VIII. c. 9; Bellarmine de Ecclesia l. III. c. 14; Suarez de Fide disp. V. sect. 6.

It is clear of itself that the agreement of the Christian people must be certain and clear, if the argument for Tradition is to obtain its whole force from it. If agreement in a doctrine as in a revealed dogma be doubtful, account can and indeed must be taken of it more or less, yet of itself alone it does not suffice for a certain judgment to be passed. Likewise it is manifest that appeal to such agreement of the Christian people can be made only in those heads which either turn upon the explicit knowledge of the faithful or at least are contained in some public and constant practice and custom; for how could agreement be demonstrated in other, subtler doctrines, which are believed by the multitude of the faithful only implicitly, in the faith of pastors and teachers⁶? But in establishing doctrines which do not escape the catholic and explicit understanding of the multitude of the faithful, appeal was made with great confidence even in controversies against heretics to that agreement and to the strength of custom. So, e.g., Basil (de Spiritu Sancto c. 29.) says of Origen: « he does not in all things hold sound opinions concerning the Holy Spirit, nevertheless even he, fearing the strength of custom, uttered pious words concerning the Holy Spirit. » Augustine proves from the agreement of the multitude, against the Pelagians and their remnants, the effect of the Eucharist (de Peccator. merit. et remiss. l. I. n. 34.); the effect of baptism in infants (serm. 294. n. 14. 17.); original sin (ibid. and contr. Iulian. l. I. n. 31. 32.); the necessity of grace for the beginning of faith and for persevering (de Dono persever. n. 63.). When Julian had complained that against the Pelagian doctrine there was opposed only the « murmur » of the people, Augustine (against Julian, l. c.) showed the weight of this testimony. « And the people itself murmurs against you for this reason, because this is not such a question as can escape even popular knowledge. Rich and poor, high and low... know what in baptism is remitted to each age... As though the assertion of this truth were a small thing, in that upon this most firm and most ancient foundation of the faith the multitude spread through the whole world does not disagree with itself! » See Stapleton l. XI. c. 4.

Corollary. The celebrated saying of St. Hilary (against Auxentius, n. 6. T. II. p. 597.): « holier are the ears of the people than the hearts of the priests, » has only that most holy and most desirable sense: that the people prefer communion and agreement with the priests who remain in the unity and agreement of the Church to the doctrine of priests fallen from unity and the common faith; it would, however, be most absurd if the hearts of the priests were taken without qualification, or if the peoples were constituted judges of the priests. For, in an order altogether inverted, the hearts of the priests—the consciousness of faith and catholic understanding of the pastors who remain in the unity of the Church—are the ministerial cause and organ by which the Spirit of truth forms the holy ears of the people, that is, the catholic mind and understanding of those whose part it is to hear and learn and render the « obedience of faith, » ὑπακοὴν τῆς πίστεως, Rom. I. 5. It can indeed happen that even many bishops, even those of entire provinces, fall away from the faith, and yet the greater part of the faithful flocks, constant in orthodox profession, prefer communion and agreement with the apostolic succession which remains in agreement and communion with the centre of unity, i.e. with the See of Peter; yet it cannot happen that the whole episcopate fail, and that there not remain under the assistance of the Holy Spirit the organ of preserving Tradition, through which, as through the ordinary exterior magisterium, the same Spirit holds together and preserves the communion and faith of the Catholic people. For this to be true, however, it is not necessarily always required that the whole episcopate defend and uphold the orthodox profession against adversaries with signal ardour and zeal; but there can suffice its constancy in the doctrine once handed down, by which very constancy it remains the living directing norm and bond of union for the Catholic people. This alone is what could at most be suggested by the facts of ecclesiastical history, in particular from the history of Arianism gaining ground in the fourth century—not, however, what the anonymous author of the dissertation « on consulting the faithful in matters of Christian doctrine »⁷ thought could be deduced from that history: « that the teaching Church is not at every time the active instrument of the infallibility of the Church. » On the contrary, the exiles of so many Catholic bishops, their constancy against the Arians, the flight of the faithful people from intruded bishops and their communion with the exiles; the report of Sozomen that the people persevered more steadfastly in those cities whose bishops were braver and more constant in the faith (Soz. VI. 21.), the threat of the Antiochene people to expose the frauds of the Arian bishop Leontius to the Western bishops (Theodoret, H. E. II. 24.), and other facts—all of which the anonymous author of the dissertation himself relates—demonstrate that even at that time « the teaching Church was the active instrument of the infallibility of the Church ».

What we have so far disputed concerning the magisterium and the ministry of preserving Tradition seems to require that we at least indicate more distinctly the principles concerning the subject and the object of the power of infallibly teaching and judging. For the fuller exposition and demonstration of this most weighty argument belongs to another treatise proper to it, on the Church and on the Roman Pontiff.

Principle I. Indefectibility in the truth of the faith which is one in catholicity, or infallibility in believing, has been divinely promised and conferred on the universal Church, which is « the house of God, the pillar and ground of the truth » 1. Tim. III. 15; « built upon a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it » Matth. XVI. 18. Whatever therefore the universal Church believes with faith is established by the promise and institution of Christ to be infallibly true. Of this infallibility in believing, which is also called passive, the subject is the universal Church herself.

The Church is preserved by the Holy Spirit in the indefectible truth of the one faith through the authentic ministry and magisterium, through the pastors and doctors whom Christ gave for the building up of the body of Christ (Eph. IV. 11. 12.), to teach the Church of God with authority, to which there must answer as an effect, on the part of all the faithful, agreement and the « obedience of faith » (cf. th. IV. n. 2°.). Therefore to this magisterium instituted by Himself Christ promised and conferred infallibility in teaching ¹ all things which Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit had taught.

The subject therefore of this infallibility in teaching is all those, and they alone, to whom the right and duty of authentically teaching the universal Church has been divinely committed.

1°. Thus infallible is the teaching Church, i.e. the body of pastors and doctors in union, agreement, and subordination to the visible head of the Church; and this a) in the universal and consentient preaching of doctrine concerning faith or morals; b) in the solemn judgments or definitions of the same doctrine. For to the teaching Church thus constituted it was said: « All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth; going therefore teach all nations; baptizing them... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world » Matth. XXVIII. « And I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth... He will teach you all things and bring to your minds all things whatsoever I have said to you » (ἀ εἴπον ὑμῖν) Io. XIV. 16. 26. See th. V. cf. Zaccaria Antifebron. dissert. II. c. 12.

For these promises do not pertain to the individual successors of the Apostles, since individuals do not succeed the Apostles in the office of authentically teaching the universal Church, which in the Apostles (with the sole exception of Peter, the head of the Church ever to abide in his successors) was not ordinary but extraordinary and personal to them; but the promises were made to the body of the apostolic succession in common, insofar as they are the teaching Church. But they are not the teaching Church except insofar as they remain united, consentient, and subordinate to the visible head of the whole Church.

Wherefore the efficient cause of the infallibility of the teaching Church, whether in its universal preaching or in its solemn definitions and judgments, is indeed the promised assistance of the Spirit of truth; but the condition without which the successors of the Apostles are not the teaching Church, and the formal cause by which they are constituted in the character of the teaching Church, to which the protection of Christ and the assistance of the Spirit of truth in teaching has been promised, is the visible head of the Church instituted by Christ and the union and agreement of the members with this head, just as in general the form of visible unity is the visible head of the Church itself. Hence it is that the ordinary office of infallibly teaching, i.e. to be propagated to successors, instituted in the Apostles, was declared by Christ the Lord in words which were never directed to individuals, but always to the whole college in union with Peter. Cf. th. V. VIII.

2°. By opposite reason the words of Christ by which the primacy, and the infallibility of the magisterium comprehended in the primacy, is promised and conferred to Peter, designate him alone, not only expressly distinguished from the rest, but also in relation to the rest, to be confirmed and fed by him. « Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona... and I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it » Matth. XVI. « Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you... but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted (ἐπιστρέψας) confirm thy brethren » Luc. XXII. « Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou Me more than these?... He saith to him: feed My lambs... feed My sheep » Io. XXI.

Peter therefore received from Christ in an ordinary office, for himself and for each of his successors, the power and duty of feeding and teaching the universal Church in faith and morals, so that this very power conferred on Peter demands for each of his successors by divine institution the « obedience of faith » and the agreement of the whole Church; and consequently the infallibility of the whole Church in believing cannot stand, except insofar as to the head of the Church, the successor of Peter, together with such a right of exacting agreement in faith, there has at the same time been conferred infallibility in teaching; namely when he proposes doctrine concerning faith or morals by a definitive sentence binding the whole Church to the « obedience of faith. » The subject of infallibility, therefore, is the successor of Peter himself through the divine assistance promised to him considered in himself, insofar as he teaches the Church, and not under the condition of a concurrent judgment or agreement of the other pastors and doctors, who, over against the Pontiff thus teaching the Church, are the noblest part of the Church built upon this rock, so that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, are brethren to be confirmed, are sheep to be fed; although there remains before the faithful the office of the pastors and doctors of authentically proposing, teaching and defending to them the very doctrine defined.

« It is a revealed dogma of faith that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, discharging the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church » (Definition of the Vatican Council, Constit. I. on the Church of Christ, ch. 4.).

Corollary 1. The subject of infallibility promised by Christ for the definitions of doctrine concerning faith or morals is not twofold adequately distinct; but it is both the visible head of the Church considered in itself, and this same visible head as composing and informing the body of the teaching Church, which itself thus constituted (the body with the head) is infallible through the assistance of the Spirit of truth. This inadequate distinction in the subject of infallibility is indicated by the Vatican definition itself described a little above. For there the infallibility of the Pontiff defining ex cathedra is compared with the infallibility of the defining Church ²; the former is declared directly and expressly by the Council, the latter is supposed as certain, and assumed as the term of comparison. If indeed the question be asked concerning the object, how far that infallibility of the Pontiff extends, as a general norm is established the infallibility of the defining Church: « the Roman Pontiff... enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. »

Corollary 2. Whatever is to be believed with Catholic faith or held with theological certainty concerning the extension in respect of the object of infallibility, if it be considered in the defining Church or in a general Council; that same is in the same way to be believed and held concerning infallibility, if it be considered in the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra. From what has been said it is clear that this very thing has been defined by the Vatican Council.

Corollary 3. An antecedent agreement of the Church can indeed be an objective means by which the Pontiff arrives at knowledge of a doctrine as definable; but it is not of itself and from the nature of the case the sole and necessary means of knowledge; for doctrines concerning faith or morals can also be known as definable from other sources and means, and questions hitherto doubtful and controverted even within the bounds of the Church can be defined. In no way, however, is such an agreement of the Church or of the Bishops, whether antecedent or concomitant or subsequent, necessary by way of an authentic judgment concurrent with the judgment or definition of the Pontiff. The Gallican opinion demanding this agreement of the Church as necessary for the infallibility of the definitions of the Pontiff, so that the sole subject of infallibility would be the body of the teaching Church, namely the Pontiff with the Bishops, is already a heresy directly and explicitly condemned by the Vatican Council. A subsequent agreement of the whole Church is nevertheless always an effect of the definition of the Pontiff.

Corollary 4. According to the declaration of the Vatican Council itself the Pontiff is said to speak ex cathedra, « when, discharging the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church. » For the apostolic chair is nothing else than the supreme authentic magisterium, whose definitive doctrinal sentence obliges the universal Church to agreement. This intention of defining doctrine, or of teaching by a definitive sentence and with authority obliging the universal Church to agreement, must be manifested and knowable by clear signs. No determinate form, however, is essential, which the Pontiff must employ to manifest this will of his. For although there are certain solemn modes which of themselves express speaking ex cathedra, and which therefore the Pontiff never uses except when speaking ex cathedra, of which sort are dogmatic Bulls; yet this form is not essential and exclusive, so that without it the Pontiff, as pastor and doctor of all Christians, could not define a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church and condemn in the same way the errors opposed to it, and render this will of his manifest.

Corollary 5. In the very documents of Councils and Pontiffs in which it is most certainly the intention to issue definitions of doctrine, there can and usually do occur many things whose definition is not intended; such as things said by the way or incidentally, which they are wont to state indirectly, and for the most part also the arguments adduced in proof of the definitive sentence itself, etc. These, although they carry grave authority, are nevertheless not infallible definitions.

Likewise there can be and are documents of Pontiffs, not only private but wholly proceeding from the pastoral office, in which, concerning doctrine of faith or morals, the intention is to admonish, persuade, command, rebuke, or prohibit the propagation of some opinion or error, without intending to issue a definitive sentence by which the whole Church would be bound; and by that very fact there is no speaking ex cathedra. « For the Pontiffs often answer private questions of this or that Bishop, explaining their opinion on the matters proposed, not passing sentence by which they would wish the faithful to be obliged to believe » Melch. Canus l. VI. c. 8. ad 7. To this class are rightly referred e.g. the two letters of Honorius I. to Sergius of Constantinople ³. Among many others a most manifest example stands forth in the decree of Stephen I., concerning which we spoke in th. VIII. n. II. In a question which of itself was of faith, the command was indeed: « Let nothing be innovated, but what has been handed down. » But in no way can it be said that it was a definition ex cathedra; otherwise the Pontiff would not have retained in Catholic communion Cyprian and the other African and Eastern Bishops who persisted in the same error, nor would there have been need for the question to be brought to a clear settlement after the passion of Cyprian at last, concerning which Augustine often treats in excuse of Cyprian against the Donatists.

We do not deny that doubt can arise concerning certain documents of Pontiffs, whether they contain a speaking ex cathedra and a definition of doctrine; but this same thing sometimes happens also concerning documents of Councils, an example of which we have in the diverse opinions, which existed and among some still exist, concerning the Instruction for the Armenians issued in the Council of Florence, whether the things taught there expressly concerning the matter and form of the sacraments are dogmatic definitions or only instructions to be observed in practice. If ever doubts of this kind occur, the theologian rightly holds that « in judging this matter the judgment of wise men avails much, and (much more) the sense and agreement of the Church » Tanner de Fide q. 4. dub. 6. n. 262.

Let these things concerning the subject of infallibility suffice for our purpose; for the doctrine concerning the object of infallibility pertains more to our present treatment.

Principle II. The deposit of the Christian faith taken in the strict sense comprises all those things and those alone which have been revealed by God to the human race to be believed, done, and followed, explicitly or implicitly; or which have been manifested by Catholic revelation (in distinction from private divine revelations) for the eternal salvation of the human race.

Corollary 1. In the deposit of faith are contained both theoretical doctrines concerning mysteries and dogmas (among these also truths which, insofar as knowable by reason, are usually said to pertain to natural religion); and practical laws (and among these also the natural law written in the hearts of men using reason); and certain fundamental constitutions, such as the Church, its power, its form of government; and institutions of sanctification, consecration and divine worship (the sacraments, the sacrifice and many others): the revealed and supernatural order dogmatic, ethical, juridical (τὰ τῆς πολιτείας), liturgical.

Corollary 2. Only truths revealed by God, when they have been sufficiently proposed, can and must be believed with divine faith; because this is assent on account of the authority of God revealing.

Corollary 3. In the deposit of faith there can objectively be contained, and are contained, truths which were not always, or even now still are not, sufficiently proposed. Such truths, therefore, always indeed, from the time they were revealed, and for all the faithful, were the object of implicit faith, which extends to the whole deposit of revelation; before sufficient proposal, however, they were not, or are not, the object of explicit faith, whose obligation depends on that sufficient proposal itself. Although therefore after the Apostles there is no increase of Catholic revelation; there is nevertheless room for progress in the explication and proposal of revelation long since completed. Of this matter it will be said elsewhere.

Corollary 4. Whatever is contained in the deposit of revelation, all of it is to be believed and has been believed always, everywhere, by all the faithful, with at least implicit faith; yet not all of it has thus been believed or must necessarily be believed with explicit faith. Although therefore all those things which have been believed always, everywhere, by all with explicit divine faith must most certainly be reckoned revealed; yet it is absurd and contrary to the whole economy of faith to say that those alone are contained in the deposit of revelation (below, th. XXIV.).

Principle III. With revealed truths are connected, and referred to them, other truths not in themselves revealed, without which the deposit of revelation itself could not in its full plenitude be duly guarded, expounded, and defended.

Many things pertain of themselves to philosophy, to philology, to human experience, without whose infallible certainty neither could revealed truth itself be infallibly proposed and expounded, nor could it be understood what is to be believed: « unless we had rational souls, we could not believe. » Moreover facts in themselves nowise revealed are frequently so presupposed either to the very explication of revelation or to the errors opposed to it, that in certain circumstances revealed dogma cannot be guarded, defended against erroneous distortions, or applied without danger, unless the judgment concerning revealed dogma or the opposed error also embraces such facts in themselves unrevealed. Hither belong the facts usually called dogmatic, when the question concerns the genuine sense of human texts in determinate books, insofar as in that context they agree with or are opposed to the deposit of faith; the hagiographic facts of the true sanctity and eternal glory of deceased men who by solemn judgment are proposed to the universal Church to be honored with religious worship; then facts in themselves historical, e.g. the legitimate celebration of a determinate Council; moreover certain special dispositions of divine providence, and in general « matters pertaining to the general good of the Church » (Encyclical Quanta cura), e.g. if the question concerns the opportuneness or moral necessity of the political independence of the Supreme Pontiff and relations to kingdoms and nations in regard to the government of the Church.

Corollary 1. The deposit of faith is violated, as far as in it lies, not only by denial of revealed truth and by heresy; but it can also be assailed and exposed to dangers in the minds of the faithful through errors against truths in themselves unrevealed, yet connected with revealed ones and to that extent theological.

Corollary 2. Although the deposit of faith strictly taken comprises only revealed truths, nevertheless the deposit to be guarded in its whole amplitude with all its bulwarks and modes of application extends more widely: « O Timothy, keep the deposit, avoiding profane novelties of words » 1. Tim. VI. 20.

Principle IV. To whom Christ has committed the office of infallibly guarding the deposit and defending it against assailing errors, his infallible authority under the promised assistance of the Holy Spirit avails in the first place for guarding, proposing, and expounding the truths which in the strict sense constitute the deposit of faith itself, namely revealed truths, and consequently for warding off errors directly opposed to them or for condemning heresies. This infallibility pertains to the very revealed dogma fundamental to the Catholic faith; and hence its denial is not only heresy but also the root of all heresies.

In this is contained, and thence immediately follows, that the infallibility promised for guarding the deposit extends to the whole amplitude of guarding the deposit, i.e. to truths even in themselves unrevealed, insofar as they cohere with revealed ones and are required for their custody, proposal, explication, and defense. This extension of infallibility, with all theologians agreeing, is a truth theologically so certain that its denial would be a most grave error or, in the opinion of many, even heresy, although hitherto it has not been explicitly condemned as heresy. See Card. de Lugo de Fide disp. XX. n. 106-114; Bañez 2.2. q. 11. a. 2. concl. 2; Suarez de Fide disp. V. sect. 6. n. 4. 5. 8; sect. 8. n. 4.

Corollary 1. Not only of revealed truth but also of connected truth insofar as it is referred to revealed truth can an infallible definition be given by the infallible magisterium; and by the same reason not only can heresies be condemned, but even lesser censures can be inflicted by infallible authority under the assistance of the Spirit of truth. That therefore a doctrine is not defined as in itself revealed, or that errors are not individually condemned with the note of heresy, but are proscribed either with no determinate censure or with lesser censures or in globo with several censures: for these reasons considered in themselves it cannot without grave error be denied either the fact of a canonical definition or of a speaking ex cathedra, or consequently the infallibility of the definition itself.

Corollary 2. That the dogmatic Constitutions of the Council of Constance against the articles of Wycliffe and John Hus, with Martin V. confirming; of Leo X. against Luther (« Exsurge »); of Clement XI. against the Jansenists (« Unigenitus »), etc., where under diverse censures in globo propositions are condemned, and likewise the Constitution of Pius VI. against those of Pistoia (« Auctorem fidei »), where individually very many propositions are proscribed with lesser censures, are infallible definitions — no Catholic may deny. This corollary, itself certain from elsewhere, in turn demonstrates the truth of the principle laid down, because without it the consequent itself could not stand.

Corollary 3. The quality which is defined to belong to a proposition belongs to it infallibly in the sense and manner intended in the defining. Whence those who think e.g. that a proposition is called rash which is asserted against grave reasons and grave authority without sufficient foundation, also say that this quality, and not falsity of the proposition in itself, is defined in the censure of rashness. The same, that not falsity but another damnable quality of the proposition is defined, they equally affirm concerning the censures by which are branded propositions that are scandalous, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears. See Card. de Lugo de Fide disp. XX. n. 114; Canus l. XII. c. 11. at the end. Certainly when the Council of Vienne « deemed the opinion (concerning the infusion of grace and the virtues in infants) to be chosen as more probable, » this in itself is not a definition of truth but only of greater probability (cf. de Lugo l. c. n. 115-129.).

Corollary 4. The infallibility of the Church and of the Roman Pontiff is believed with divine faith on account of the authority of God revealing; a sentence proposed as true, but not as revealed, through an infallible definition of the Church or of the Pontiff, is believed on account of the revealed authority of the one proposing. Whence this, which some call ecclesiastical faith, we may call mediate divine faith.

Principle V. If the Church is infallible in guarding the deposit of faith at least strictly taken, and consequently in declaring the true sense of revealed dogmas; by that very fact it is infallible in judging concerning the true sense, the intension and extension of its own authority and infallibility, or, what is the same, in judging concerning the conditions and the objects in which authority belongs to it by divine right and the assistance of the Spirit of truth has been promised to it. For this authority and infallibility is itself indeed a revealed dogma.

Corollary. It involves a contradiction to admit the infallibility of the Church in revealed dogmas, and at the same time to deny the authority of a definition supposed to actually exist, on the ground that the thing defined does not pertain to revealed dogmas. For if the Church or the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra actually defines a truth not in itself revealed, by that very act it also defines in exercise the extension of its infallibility to such truths. It therefore defines the force and true sense of a revealed dogma, of which sort certainly is the infallibility of the Church and of the Pontiff. But the adversary himself admits infallible authority for defining the true sense of revealed dogmas. Therefore, on the hypothesis of an existing definition, from his own principles he must admit the extension of infallibility also to truths not in themselves revealed; yet at the same time he denies it. Therefore the contradiction between principle and conclusion is manifest ⁴.

Principle VI. Just as it is certain, from the very principles of revelation as understood and declared by the Church, that to its infallible magisterium pertain truths, and to its infallible judgment are subjected errors, only in order to guard the deposit of the Christian religion, and to protect and promote it in the faithful; so it is equally certain that in most sciences as cultivated and to be cultivated by men from merely natural principles and from unrevealed sources — in philosophy above all, both theoretical and practical, in jurisprudence, in history, geology, ethnography — there are found truths which are at the same time revealed or connected with revealed ones. The reason is that revelation contains not only superrational truths, but many knowable also by reason and from natural sources; or in other words, that revelation and the natural disciplines have in many things a common (material) object. Likewise it is evident that in these disciplines, not indeed by right use but by abuse of reason and by ignorance ⁵ hypotheses can be set up as principles, and conclusions can be reached, which are opposed to the truths of revelation, whether rational in themselves or superrational, either simply or in some respect, and which consequently (since truth cannot contradict truth) contain errors knowable and damnable from revealed principles.

The magisterium of the Church therefore teaches such truths and can judge infallibly concerning such errors, not by teaching the human sciences from their own principles, but by judging from its own principles ⁶. Wherefore the infallible Church never judges, nor by force of the promised infallibility could the Holy Spirit ever permit it in defining to judge, whether concerning truths or concerning errors, except in order to guard the deposit and from the divinely enjoined office of custody of the deposit.

Corollary 1. Although philosophy and the other natural disciplines rest on their own proper principles, which are known, or insofar as they are known, not from revelation and from the authentic magisterium of the Church, but by reason and from natural sources; nevertheless the magisterium of the Church can and indeed must from the principles of revelation point out in advance the errors to be avoided which are opposed to the integrity and safety of the deposit to be guarded. Catholic cultivators of the sciences must therefore keep this norm before their eyes by prescription of reason, lest they fall into errors; by prescription of faith, lest they fall into errors contrary to the truths of faith.

Corollary 2. Those who profess themselves Catholics and therefore acknowledge the authentic magisterium of the Church, and nevertheless affirm that philosophy in the manner declared is not subject to this norm, that through it the progress of science is impeded, that the Church must leave it to philosophy to correct its own errors (Syllab. Pontific. prop. X. XI. XII. XIV.); these demand liberty to embrace errors through abuse of philosophy, and deny to the Church the right and duty of providing for the integrity and health of the doctrine of faith. See the Vatican Council, Constit. on Faith, ch. 4, can. 2.

Principle VII. The Holy Apostolic See, to which the custody of the deposit has been divinely committed, and the office and duty enjoined of feeding the universal Church unto the salvation of souls, can prescribe theological opinions, or insofar as they are connected with theological ones, to be followed, or proscribe them as not to be followed, not solely with the intention of infallibly deciding the truth by a definitive sentence, but also without it, from the necessity and intention, either simply or for determinate circumstances, of providing for the security ⁷ of Catholic doctrine (cf. Zaccaria Antifebronius vindicatus T. II. dissert. V. c. 2. n. 1.). In such declarations, although there is not infallible truth of doctrine, because by hypothesis there is no intention of deciding it; there is nevertheless infallible security. By security I mean both the objective security of the declared doctrine (either simply or for such circumstances), and the subjective, insofar as it is safe for all to embrace it, and it is not safe, nor can it be done without violation of due submission toward the divinely instituted magisterium, to refuse to embrace it. Whoever denied this distinction between the final definitive sentence of the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra and other doctrinal provisions and prohibitions would be compelled to reckon all edicts of the Holy See in any way pertaining to doctrine in one and the same class of definitions ex cathedra, which is proved manifestly false from ecclesiastical history, from the practice of the Holy See, and above all from the most careful declaration of definition ex cathedra issued by the Holy Vatican Council. But let the distinction between infallible truth and security of doctrine be diligently noted, for according to it as laid down in the principle are to be understood the things said in the deduced corollaries ⁸.

Corollary 1. The authority of the magisterium instituted by Christ in the Church, as regards the matter of which we now treat, must be considered twofold: a) as in its individual acts it is under the assistance of the Holy Spirit for the infallible definition of truth, or as it is the authority of infallibility; b) as extensively, as the same magisterium acts with the pastoral authority divinely committed to it, yet not with its whole intension (if it be lawful so to speak) nor by ultimately defining the truth, but as much as shall have seemed necessary or opportune and sufficient for the security of doctrine — which we may perhaps call the authority of doctrinal providence.

Corollary 2. The authority of infallibility cannot be communicated by the Pontiff to others as his ministers acting in his name. If therefore an infallible definition is said to have been issued through some sacred Roman Congregation, this manner of speaking is not proper; for in this hypothesis the Congregation stands only by way of counsellor, while the one defining is the Pontiff alone. There must therefore occur here those signs by which, as we said above, the intention of the Pontiff of defining ex cathedra must be rendered manifest.

The inferior authority of doctrinal providence, as we have called it, not indeed independent but with dependence on the Pontiff, is communicable and is communicated by the Pontiff himself with greater or lesser extension to certain sacred Congregations of Cardinals. Whence also the decisions of the sacred Congregations can rightly be called, and by ecclesiastical use are usually called, decrees of the Holy See.

From what has been said it is clear that every definition ex cathedra is indeed a definition of the Holy See, inasmuch as acting with the whole intension of the supreme magisterium it « defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church »; yet not every decree of the Holy See, though pertaining to doctrine, is a definition ex cathedra; finally, that a definition ex cathedra, which belongs to the Pontiff alone insofar as divine assistance has been promised to him in blessed Peter, can never in the proper and genuine sense be called a decision of a Pontifical Congregation.

That the Supreme Pontiff ratifies the sentences of the sacred Congregations and confirms them even with his supreme authority does not effect a definition ex cathedra, unless he makes the decree his own and issues it of himself with the necessary signs of the intention of defining doctrine to be held by the universal Church, so that the sentence is no longer that of the Congregation as judging but only by way of counselling. Only in this sense, especially after the declaration of the Vatican Council, can and must be admitted the doctrine of those theologians who, like Cardenas and Lacroix, also cited historically by Zaccaria (delle Proibizioni de' libri Append. §. 2. n. 6.), said that the doctrinal decrees of the sacred Congregations, if specially approved by the Pontiff, are definitions ex cathedra. But lest stress be laid on that expression, that the sentence of the Congregation has been confirmed with the supreme authority of the Pontiff, note that authority may be called supreme either by intension of exercise or in its substance; in this second way the Pontiff e.g. grants indulgences, privileges, dispensations, and decrees the beatifications of servants of God (short of the final definitive judgment) with supreme power, without its therefore always being the supreme intension in the exercise of this power. So therefore neither can there be a Pontifical confirmation of a doctrinal decree without its being from supreme authority, which namely is Pontifical; but it can be without the supreme intension of this authority and magisterium, which is found in definitions ex cathedra alone.

Corollary 3. It is false that the authority on account of which assent of the intellect can and sometimes must be rendered is only the authority of God revealing or of the Church or Pontiff infallibly defining; for there are manifold grades of religious assent. At present must be distinguished the assent of faith properly and immediately divine on account of the authority of God revealing; the assent of the faith which above we called mediate divine, on account of the authority infallibly defining doctrine as true though not as revealed; the religious assent on account of the authority of universal doctrinal providence in the sense which we declared a little above in the exposition of the principle.

Namely, in this assent which we call religious there is no question of doctrine to be held by force of the decree as infallibly true or to be rejected as infallibly false or branded by another censure of infallible authority; for this would be against the hypothesis. Nevertheless by force of the supreme and universal magisterium the authority is so sacred that to it, though not defining ex cathedra doctrine to be held by the universal Church, but without such a definition prescribing some doctrine to be followed or not to be followed, obedience is due. This obedience the adversaries do not indeed deny to be due, but they restrict it merely to the omission of external acts, and thus to reverential silence, « lest anyone teach some doctrine, nay even write on some matter or proffer his judgment »; but, they say, never except through a definition ex cathedra can be exacted « the submission of the mind, so that one lay aside his opinion and embrace the contrary with so firm a certainty as to profess by oath his adherence to it » (dissert. Traiectensis p. 134.). But if ever a sacred Congregation, where no definition ex cathedra as yet existed, demanded such submission of the mind, as in the case of Galileo, « the sacred Congregation of the Inquisition exceeded the limits of its power » (ibid. p. 133. citing D. Bouix de Papa T. II. p. 194.). We however judge that such judgments even short of a definition ex cathedra can be so framed as to demand obedience including submission of the mind, not indeed so that doctrine be believed infallibly true or false (as the adversary seems to have understood our opinion); but so that it be judged that the doctrine contained in such a judgment is safe, and is to be embraced with submission of the mind by us not indeed from the motive of divine faith (on account of the authority of God revealing or of the Church infallibly teaching), yet from the motive of sacred authority ⁹, whose undoubted office it is to provide for the health and security of doctrine — the safe doctrine to be embraced and the contrary to be rejected. For here there is no question of those decrees by which sometimes nothing but silence is enjoined (as e.g. we know was done by Paul V. in the doctrine concerning the aids of divine grace), but the discourse concerns decrees by which some doctrine is prescribed to be followed or not to be followed ¹⁰. These therefore are proposed to those whom they concern not only to be kept silent about, but, in the sense and to the extent in which it is prescribed, to be taught and defended — in which very thing submission of the mind is included. Since further in theological doctrine, which rests upon or coheres with the word of God, the proper locus and hence the proper and chief reason on account of which assent is rendered is not inwardly discerned truth but the authority proposing the truth, that sacred authority of doctrinal providence by force of its office is a most sufficient motive from which the pious will can, and if the form of the decree exacts it, must command the religious or theological consent of the intellect (cf. below in the Appendix on the relation of reason to faith, ch. II.). I think the opinion hitherto expounded rests on valid arguments.

a) This doctrine the Supreme Pontiff Pius IX. embraced in most clear words in the letter written 21 December 1863 to the Archbishop of Munich, whose beginning is « Tuas libenter accepimus ». « We wish to persuade Ourselves that they (who were present at the literary congress of Munich) did not wish to restrict the obligation by which Catholic masters and writers are altogether bound to those things alone which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church to be believed by all as dogmas of faith. And We also persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adherence to revealed truths... can be obtained if only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church faith and submission be applied. For even if it were a question of that subjection which is to be rendered by the act of divine faith, it would nevertheless not be to be limited to those things defined by the express decrees of oecumenical Councils or of the Roman Pontiffs, and of this Apostolic See; but to be extended also to those things handed down by the ordinary magisterium of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world as divinely revealed, and therefore by universal and constant consent retained by Catholic theologians as pertaining to faith. But since it is a question of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who devote themselves to the speculative sciences, to bring by their writings new benefits to the Church, therefore the men of that same congress must acknowledge that for Catholic scholars it is not enough to receive and venerate the aforesaid dogmas, but there is also need to submit themselves both to the decisions pertaining to doctrine issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and to those heads of doctrine retained by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions so certain that opinions adverse to those same heads of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, yet merit another theological censure. »

The author of the Utrecht dissertation (p. 136 ff.) thought this argument could be evaded by substituting for the words an unheard-of sense repugnant to the very context. The Pontiff, he says, first speaks of definitions of revealed dogmas; then, treating of the decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations, he meant « only those decrees which, promulgated in his own name as his own definitions issued ex cathedra, every Catholic must venerate with absolute assent, » so that in the first part of the passage cited by us the discourse concerns definitions of dogmas ex cathedra under the censure of heresy against opposed errors; while in the second part, by « decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations » are to be understood only definitions of the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra, but under other lesser censures. The disputer thinks this sense is further confirmed by the fact that in the Pontiff's letter the decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations are joined with « those heads of doctrine retained by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths, » in which (as our opponent testifies) « Suarez with others teaches that the consentient Church is infallible. » Thirdly, he holds that the sense which we take to be the most clear sense of the letter to the Archbishop of Munich is not genuine, because theologians on the one hand teach that submission of the mind cannot be exacted except through an infallible definition (p. 136), while on the other Cardinal Gotti altogether denies our very principle, as (p. 156) the adversary cites: « the decrees of the Congregations in matter of faith and morals, of themselves and as proceeding from the Congregation itself, are indeed to be much esteemed, but afford the theologian no firm argument, » yet « all are bound to obey in the external forum, notwithstanding any probability of opinions. »

But the doctrine of the Pontiff in the letter in question is altogether manifest. a) Who, pray, would take it into his mind that by the name « decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations » are comprised no decisions issued by the Congregations themselves, but only definitions issued by the Pontiff himself ex cathedra? The decisions of the Congregations can indeed be called, and are often called, issued from the Holy See, from which into those sacred assemblies themselves is derived jurisdiction and participated magisterium (in the sense explained above), and whose organs and as it were members they are, assumed unto universal pastoral and doctrinal providence; the same, although they remain judgments issued by the Congregation and by no means by the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra, are also sometimes called decisions of the Pontiff, insofar as he ratifies and confirms them with his supreme authority; but it is certainly unheard of, in the style of the Curia (as they call it) and by the Pontiff himself, for a definition ex cathedra to be given the appellation of a decision issued by a Pontifical Congregation.

β) Let us inspect the context. The learned men had said in their congress held at Munich that « all Catholics in their learned dissertations must in conscience obey the dogmatic decrees of the infallible Catholic Church. » The Pontiff indeed praises this profession of the truth, « which necessarily arises from the obligation of Catholic faith »; but he declares partly in what sense it is to be understood, partly that it alone does not suffice. For first, « the obligation by which Catholic masters and writers are altogether bound is not restricted to those things alone proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church to be believed by all as dogmas of faith. » It is therefore necessary, but does not suffice, to adhere to those things proposed to be believed with Catholic faith immediately divine, whether by a formal or by an equipollent infallible judgment of the Church, as revealed dogmas. The Pontiff adds, secondly and in a distinct clause, that for that perfect adherence to revealed truths which is altogether necessary for attaining true progress of the sciences, neither does it suffice « if only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church faith and submission be applied. » This second sentence of the Pontiff would not be distinct and altogether diverse a priori, as exhibited in the letter, if here dogmas defined by the Church were understood in the same sense as above dogmas of faith proposed by the judgment of the Church. In this second clause, therefore, there is question also of those dogmas which are not defined as in themselves revealed, of which sort are e.g. those against those of Pistoia and in many other Constitutions, defined not under the note of heresy but under lesser censures, to which, from the motive of the infallibility of the Church or Pontiff, faith is to be rendered mediate divine; and this very thing is sufficiently indicated by that phrase, « faith and submission be applied. »

If for the due cultivation of the sciences (for of this the Pontiff treats) it is not enough to keep before one's eyes both the dogmas of faith proposed by the judgment of the Church, whether formal (through definition) or equipollent (through consent), to be believed by all, and those dogmas to which faith and submission must be applied on account of an express definition of the Church, although they are not defined as in themselves revealed; what further remains to be rendered by Catholic men « who devote themselves to the speculative sciences »? This the Pontiff declares in the words from which, cited above, we drew our argument. « But since it is a question of that subjection (diverse from the act of faith whether immediately or mediately divine) by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who devote themselves to the speculative sciences... they must acknowledge that for Catholic scholars it is not enough to receive and venerate the aforesaid dogmas of the Church (which are either proposed by the magisterium of the whole Church as divinely revealed, or have been defined, whether concerning faith or in a lower grade, by express decrees of oecumenical Councils or of the Roman Pontiffs); but there is also need to submit themselves both to the decisions pertaining to doctrine issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and to those heads of doctrine retained by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions so certain that opinions adverse to those same heads of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, yet merit another theological censure. » Clearly therefore the decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations are distinguished from all those things defined by express decrees of the Roman Pontiffs. Consequently those are understood not to be definitions ex cathedra, and yet that to them (as the adversary p. 143 confesses) subjection through assent of the mind is due, the Pontiff declares. And indeed if the adversary's interpretation were admitted, then the Constitutions of the Council of Constance against Wycliffe (with Martin V. approving), of St Pius V. against Baius, of Innocent XI. against Molinos, of Innocent XII. in the case of Fénelon, of Clement XI. against Quesnel, of Pius VI. against those of Pistoia, and that very one afterwards issued by Pius IX. (Quanta cura) would either by no means or at least not wholly be comprehended among the « express decrees of oecumenical Councils or of the Roman Pontiffs »; but all those would in the letter to the Archbishop of Munich be called « decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations » — than which, pray, what more absurd could be imagined?

γ) Against this clear text and context of the letter nothing is gained from the fact that the decisions issued by the Congregations are named together with the theological truths retained by Catholics with common consent, the denial of which would therefore merit some theological note. But mark well, I ask, that here in the Pontiff's letter there is in no way question of censures of doctrines already pronounced through the judgment of the Church, but only of religious adherence, by which Catholics retain those doctrines not as dogmas of faith but as theological truths with a consent so common and constant that (by the consentient judgment of theologians) they could not be denied without the note of error or rashness or other such notes. Now since the adversary affirms that Suarez teaches such a consent of Catholics to be infallible, it will be worth the labor to describe his doctrine. Concerning the infallibility in believing of the Church Suarez (de Fide disp. V. sect. 6.) teaches three things: first, that the Church cannot fail from faith through heresy; second, that neither can it err through ignorance « in those things which it believes as certain of faith »; third, in those things which it believes not as of faith, but in such a way that the contrary opinion would merit some censure, it is to be held that it does not err; concerning infallibility, however, in all these things it is not so certain; but according to the diverse grades by which doctrine touches faith more nearly or more remotely, it will be more or less certain that the Church does not err in these things ¹¹. Concerning the authority of the consent of theologians what we think will be indicated below, th. XVII.; meanwhile it is established that Suarez and very many doctors who judge such a consent of Catholics, although they do not acknowledge infallibility in it, nevertheless to suffice for the security of doctrine and for an argument of truth so grave that to oppose it without the note of rashness would not be lawful — that these doctors, I say, all held our principle, by which we affirm that for religious assent (distinct from assent of faith immediately or mediately divine) in theological matters an infallible authority is not required, but there suffices (as Suarez speaks) « in the human manner the highest authority »; for it is one thing to judge that an authority does not err in the proposed doctrine, and another that the authority is infallible. But as to the matter of which we now treat, from what has been said everyone sees how aptly there is joined in the letter to the Archbishop of Munich the obligation in conscience « that those who devote themselves to the speculative sciences submit themselves both to the decisions pertaining to doctrine issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and to those heads of doctrine retained by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths. »

δ) These things cited from Suarez sufficiently show what is to be thought of the disputer's affirmation that all theologians whom he knows (as he says) conspire in the contrary opinion, namely that submission of the mind cannot rightly be demanded except by an infallible authority. He cites Bellarmine (de Eccles. l. III. c. 14. argum. 3.), Suarez (de Fide disp. V. sect. 6. n. 8; sect. 8. nn. 7. 8.), then recent men, D. Bouix, Murray, Knox, Weninger, him who under the assumed name Rudis wrote on the Petra Romana, and finally D. Ward, who he thinks contradicts himself in defending our principle. Distinguishing nothing, of course, between the assent of faith (whether immediately or mediately divine) and the religious assent answering to an authority specifically diverse, not only D. Ward but also Suarez and all those old theologians who follow the doctrine of Suarez just described will easily be accused of contradiction. But Bellarmine and Suarez and generally the old theologians, wherever from the obligation of assent they infer the infallibility of the obliging authority, speak of the assent of faith immediately or mediately divine. And indeed both the old and the more recent theologians Murray, Weninger, Rudis, Ward, when they treat either of those things which the whole Church believes of faith, or of definitions whether of Councils or of the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra, rightly argue that such assent as must be rendered by the whole Church to this doctrine of faith or to these definitions necessarily supposes the infallibility of the authority proposing and defining. Thus Bellarmine in the cited place first declares the state of the question: « The Church cannot err, that is, what all the faithful hold as of faith is necessarily true and of faith, and likewise what all Bishops teach as pertaining to faith is necessarily true and of faith. » Then he proves this truth with several arguments, the third of which runs thus. « We are obliged under pain of anathema to believe the Church in all things, as is clear from Matth. XVIII. 17; and all Councils pronounce anathema on those not assenting to the decrees of the Church. But it would be unjust to be obliged under so grave a penalty to assent to things uncertain and sometimes false. » He says, therefore, that to impose the obligation of believing of faith, so that the recalcitrant is to be held a heretic cut off from the Church, cannot without injustice be committed except to an infallible authority. But how, pray, do these things conflict with our opinion, for refuting which there is produced in the Utrecht pamphlet only the last clause of Bellarmine, with the whole text and context set aside?

A twofold fallacy of citation has also occurred in the text of Cardinal Gotti, who in the words as described in the dissertation seems to enunciate a principle directly repugnant to ours. Cited thus: « the decrees of the Congregations in matter of faith and morals, of themselves and as proceeding from the Congregation itself, are indeed to be much esteemed, but afford the theologian no firm argument. » « If the special confirmation of the Pontiff is lacking, all are bound to obey in the external forum, notwithstanding any probability of opinions. » But the most learned Cardinal merely asserts what all concede, that the decisions of the Congregations pertaining to doctrine do not have that firmness which is founded in infallibility; nor can articles of faith be constituted through them. Nor does the Cardinal say, as the sense is exhibited in the citation, that obedience is due only in the external forum; but he says: « all are bound to obey at least in the external forum. » The obedience, therefore, which Card. Gotti with all others denies and excludes as to be rendered to such decrees, is none other than the obedience of divine faith. And this doctrine not only does not conflict with our principle, but is admirably reconciled with it ¹² As to the two other cited men, I freely concede that the adversary rightly appeals for his cause perhaps to D. Knox, certainly to D. Bouix, whose doctrine in this chapter I cannot follow. For I cannot reconcile these two things which he asserts: a) that the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition can « inflict theological notes, even that of heresy, as shall seem just » upon some opinion or doctrine; b) yet that no one « can rightly be compelled inwardly and from the heart to adhere to that judgment. » I say I cannot reconcile these, if the discourse concerns (as I have often said) adherence not of divine faith precisely by force of the judgment of the Congregation, but religious adherence of a lower order. Nor shall I concede to D. Bouix that in the case of Galileo the Sacred Congregation « exceeded the limits of its power. »]

But whatever you say of the opinions of these theologians, the genuine sense of the letter to the Archbishop of Munich is demonstrated from the very text and context; which I trust has already been sufficiently accomplished by us.

b) A not dissimilar demonstration is drawn from other letters of the Supreme Pontiff, 15 June 1857, to the Archbishop of Cologne, Card. Geissel, concerning the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Index by which the books of Anton Günther had been proscribed. Decrees of this kind issued to proscribe doctrine do not become definitions ex cathedra by the fact that they are confirmed with the supreme authority of the Pontiff and ordered to be published ¹³, as is wont to be expressly noted in them. Nevertheless the Pontiff in the commemorated letter declares that the decree itself ought to have sufficed so that all Catholics not only held it persuasively that henceforth it is lawful for no one to defend and champion the doctrine handed down in those books; but also understood « that the doctrine contained in Günther's books cannot be held sincere » ¹⁴.

c) To these may be added, for confirming our principle, an argument drawn from the doctrine of Benedict XIV., acting indeed as a private theologian, but in a matter in which, by the confession of all with almost no exception, his authority is greater. Our principle, which we have long defended, is this: for obliging internal religious assent in a theological matter the infallibility of the proposing authority is not necessarily required. Now Benedict XIV. teaches these two things. α) In the beatification of servants of God the judgment of the Pontiff is not infallible, as his final judgment in the canonization of the blessed must be reckoned infallible (de Canonizat. SS. l. I. c. 42.). β) Nevertheless whoever asserted that in this or that formal beatification the Pontiff actually erred, and therefore that he is not blessed who was declared blessed, or that worship is not to be exhibited to him according to the Pontifical concession, « would be to be branded with the note of rashness or of a graver theological censure » (ibid. n. 10.). But in these two propositions of Benedict our very principle is contained. Moreover the same is the doctrine of very many theologians, and I think after Benedict XIV. it is common; therefore our principle, at least considered in itself, and prescinding from its application in special cases of ecclesiastical judgments pertaining to doctrine, is not against (as is said in the learned dissertation) but according to the common opinion of the doctors. In general Bellarmine (de R. Pontif. l. IV. c. 2.) testifies: « All Catholics agree among themselves that the Pontiff alone or with his particular Council, deciding something in a doubtful matter, whether he can err or not, is to be obediently heard. » Expressly concerning the decrees of the Congregations and of the Pontiff himself, though they are not definitions ex cathedra, the opinion which we have hitherto expounded is defended by Franc. Antonius Zaccaria ¹⁵, citing also the letters of Alexander VII., 7 Aug. 1660, to the Rector of the University of Louvain, most similar in this chapter to the letters of Pius IX. to the Archbishop of Munich which we described above (Zaccaria Storia delle proibizioni de' libri l. II. dissert. II. cc. 2. 3.).

d) But if these things are so, does not the theological argument collapse by which the doctors commonly prove the infallibility of the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra? Could not « in such a way the pernicious system of Gallicanism, its head cut off, lift it up again? » Of this danger the Dutch dissertation gravely warns us; for because we distinguish between infallible definitions ex cathedra and other documents of the Holy See to which religious submission of the mind is due, although they cannot be reckoned definitions ex cathedra, « such distinctions (says the adversary pp. 155-156) are apt to render the infallible authority of the Pontiff void in the concrete, and to furnish occasion for denying in some particular decree the infallibility of the decision... And by what signs can it be established that the Pontiff pronounced a doctrinal sentence as the infallible Doctor of the Church, and not merely as a fallible governor, unless perhaps by the reception and sense of the Church? » ¹⁶

Things most like insults should not have been written by a theologian! No Catholic has ever denied, nor can deny, the necessity of distinguishing between definitions ex cathedra and other declarations, even doctrinal ones, whether of the Pontiffs themselves or of the Pontifical Congregations. Only the enemies of the Holy See and the impugners of infallibility have always attempted, and now the Neo-Protestants (Old Catholics) especially attempt, to eliminate this necessary distinction contained in the very decree of the Vatican definition. Whence it would follow that infallibility is effected and ruled not by divine assistance, as the Council declared, but as it were by habitual inspiration. Of this artifice of the enemies Maurus Cappellari (Gregory XVI) treats at length in his « Triumph of the Holy See » ch. 24, although he himself in all documents which ought not be held definitions ex cathedra calls the Pontiff a private doctor, not in the sense in which e.g. Innocent IV. or Benedict XIV. in their commentaries are private doctors, but only in opposition to the supreme intension of authority by which he defines doctrine to be held by the universal Church, or by which he speaks ex cathedra; and so in those documents he is a private doctor, i.e. not defining ex cathedra, in such a way that « to contradict him would be intolerable rashness » (ibid. n. 6.), whereas on the contrary it is altogether lawful without any rashness to contradict the private opinions of Pontiffs in their books no less than those of other doctors — a liberty which Benedict XIV. grants most fully to all (Preface, 2nd ed., de Synodo dioeces.). Since therefore the question concerns a distinction not between private lucubrations, in which the sacred authority of the Pontiff has no place, but between documents proceeding indeed from the office of the supreme magisterium, in which however the Pontiff does not propose with a final definitive sentence doctrine to be held by the universal Church, and such definitions as oblige the Church to the assent of faith immediately or mediately divine; therefore the most learned author of the « Triumph » so anxiously insists on the necessity of certain notes by which definitions ex cathedra may be discerned, lest by confounding the former with these latter documents « confusions and perturbations be introduced into the Church » ¹⁷.

And indeed Frederick Schulte, doctor of the Neo-Protestants, to defend heresy and impugn the dogma of the infallibility of the Pontiff, strains all his forces principally on this and constructs sophisms, to prove vain the distinction of definitions ex cathedra from other public documents and

This doctrine concerning the necessity of distinguishing definitions ex cathedra, and consequently concerning the necessity and certainty of the distinguishing notes, is clear of itself and common among Catholic theologians, at least when the question is which notes certainly suffice, although there is some diversity among them more in manner of speaking than in the thing itself when they declare which notes do not suffice. In this matter we do not follow the manner of Maurus Cappellari where he assigns (l. c. n. 5.) the notes of definition, internal and external; yet I think they hold good, provided a) the faith which the author says is exacted through definition from the universal Church be understood also as mediate divine, and β) in this sense too be taken what is there said concerning anathema and condemnation of the contrary heresy, or else, by sufficient judgment, « that whenever the Pope omits this formula, despite such omission he intends and wills to define as supreme hierarch and judge of the faith; » provided γ) the phrase addressed to the Church be understood not of the external accidental form of the document, but of the thing itself which the Pontiff sufficiently signifies to be defined by him as to be held by the universal Church. declarations of the Pontiffs, and so that all declarations which by force of his pastoral office have in any way been issued or are issued by the Pontiff must after the Vatican Council be held by Catholics to be infallible definitions ¹⁸. Since indeed Catholic truth stands in the middle between errors opposed to each other, as the Fathers often explain, heretics have always been accustomed to distort Catholic dogmas into the extreme sense of the opposite party; for in this way they see that the unskilled can be deceived and what the Catholic Church by no means teaches can easily be impugned as though Catholic dogma.

This distinction, therefore, of definitions whether of Pontiffs speaking ex cathedra or of oecumenical Councils from other documents of the Holy See, since no one can deny it without confusion of things — how, pray, does the adversary dare object the danger of Gallicanism from the fact that we affirm that to these latter declarations religious submission of the mind itself can be exacted, and how does he himself, to avert this danger, commend to us toward those same declarations only reverential silence? Gallicanism consisted in this, that they denied that the assent of divine faith is due to definitions ex cathedra, since they acknowledged no subject of infallibility but the universal Church alone, whether dispersed or represented in oecumenical Councils — which they understood apart from its informing head, the Roman Pontiff. But if some Gallicans, with assent of faith excluded, admitted a religious assent due to definitions ex cathedra; with so much more vehemence did they deny that to other documents which are not definitions, and expressly to doctrinal decrees of the Congregations, submission of the mind is due — yet they did not exclude reverential silence. Let the disputer see, then, to what his ill-omened distortions reduce.

Finally, as to the theological argument commonly adduced most effectively by the doctors, nay already comprehended in revealed doctrine itself, for demonstrating the infallibility of the Pontiff defining ex cathedra — it is not as the adversary imagines; but it is that by which above, p. 116, we demonstrated the infallibility of definitions from the Gospel testimonies. Suarez with the other theologians proposes the argument in this way. « It is Catholic truth that the Pontiff defining ex cathedra is a rule of faith which cannot err, when he authentically proposes something to the universal Church as to be believed of (immediately or mediately) divine faith... It can be proved in the first place from the testimonies just cited (Matth. XVI; Io. XXI.). For Christ gave to Peter and his successors the power of feeding the Church, above all in doctrine... and in a singular manner, through the power of jurisdiction, of interpreting or proposing truths to be believed, and under the obligation of believing them (with divine faith, namely, as he had already said, and as this word in theology is always understood of itself): therefore this power has necessarily annexed infallibility, and the assistance of the Holy Spirit lest it err. The consequence is proved, because this is necessary on account of the infallibility of the Church in believing; for if the Pontiff teaching in that manner could deceive it, it too could be deceived, nay would be compelled to error, because it would be bound to believe. »

But this argument, with the distinction made between definitions ex cathedra, to which is due the assent of faith immediately or mediately divine, and other decisions, to which religious assent is rendered (in the sense often explained), is not only not shaken, but rather presupposes and rests upon that very distinction of definitions from other authentic documents even of the Pontiffs. That this power of exacting from the whole Church assent to truth through an act of faith — which manner of teaching is and is called definition ex cathedra — is comprehended in the Gospel words so as easily to be deduced from them by analysis, Frederick Schulte, master of the Neo-Protestants, refused to understand; and therefore he said that the distinction of definitions ex cathedra from other public documents of the Pontiffs is nothing but a « scholastic figment » of the sixteenth century (Schulte l. c.).

If the theological argument is constituted in this principle: that every act of authority exacting not only reverential silence and external obedience but internal assent (without distinction of grade and quality) must necessarily be infallible; this is certainly rejected by us, but we deny it to be a theological argument, i.e. contained explicitly or implicitly in revelation, or deducible from revealed truths, or at least founded in the consent of the old theologians. If that principle be admitted, how, pray — e.g. the edict of Stephen I., « let nothing be innovated, but what has been handed down, » those very many things which theologians deny to be definitions strictly so called, both in the acts of Councils and in the Constitutions of Pontiffs, and which nevertheless, « without intolerable rashness » (as Maurus Cappellari speaks), the same theologians agree it was or is not lawful to contradict or to hold the contrary — how, I say, will all such documents still be distinguished from definitions ex cathedra, and not altogether, after the Schultean assertion, be confounded with them? But such « confusions and perturbations in the Church » I myself, with that same most blessed author of the « Triumph, » think are above all to be guarded against.

Corollary 4. The authority of universal ecclesiastical and doctrinal providence of itself primarily resides in the sole pastor of the whole Church and in no other singular person. Yet just as to individual Bishops it was said, « feed the flock of God which is among you, » so to them without doubt in the flocks subjected to them belongs, also as regards the pastures of sound doctrine, the authority of particular providence, in subordination and union with the supreme and universal pastor, the Roman Pontiff. From the necessity of this subordination and unity in doctrine it comes that their authority refers only to preaching and defending doctrine already proposed either by explicit definition or by the consent of the Church or through decisions of universal providence, and not to deciding of themselves controversies among Catholics. For the same reason, since the authority of the Bishop, even as regards its own proper object, is not supreme, the supreme magisterium of the Holy See is always at hand, whenever against the doctrine of one or of several Bishops suspicion should deservedly arise. Cf. Antifebron. dissert. II. c. 12.

Nay, in the internal forum and in regard to the direction of the spiritual life, sacred authority, i.e. by force of the sacred office instituted by Christ, and not only scientific authority, belongs in its own manner also to directors of souls, so that the faithful in doubtful matters touching conscience can and sometimes (where no other safe way lies open) are bound to conform their practical judgment to the authority of the ministers of God (cf. St Alphonsus l. I. nn. 12. 13.). Namely, the whole Church and its individual parts Jesus Christ the head disposes and rules in internal and external life, but not without His visible vicars through all orders from the highest to the lowest, so that the principle of spiritual authority and obedience with diverse grades, forms and modes pervades the whole body and all members.

In general the evangelical counsel of obedience, not only of the will but also of the intellect, most clearly demonstrates that the infallibility of the one commanding is not a necessary condition for the subjection and obedience of the intellect to be able to be rendered ¹⁹. Nay, from the common doctrine of the Saints, which Suarez describes at length (de Religione T. IV. tract. IX. l. IV. c. 15. cf. T. III. l. X. c. 8. n. 2.) and St Alphonsus in compendium (l. IV. n. 47.), « a subject doubting whether the thing commanded be lawful or not is bound to lay aside the doubt, and thus can and must obey. » For Sts. Bernard, Bonaventure, Ignatius, the Blesseds Humbert of the Order of Preachers, Denis the Carthusian and the rest with one consent teach: « whatever man commands in God's stead, which yet is not certain to displease God, is to be received as though God commanded it » (St Bonaventure Specul. disciplin. P. I. c. 4.). But all these things would be utterly false unless in such doubts the subject were bound to submit his intellect, not indeed in speculative opinion but in the practical judgment concerning the honesty of his action, to authority, though it be infallible neither speculatively nor practically. This doctrine of the Saints, therefore, which St Alphonsus calls common and certain, if it be true, it is false that the intellect cannot or must never submit itself to a superior authority unless infallible.

Corollary 5. The authority of infallibility and the supreme magisterium of the Pontiff defining ex cathedra had altogether nothing ever to do with the case of Galileo Galilei and with the abjuration of opinion enjoined on him. For not only did no shadow of a Pontifical definition intervene there, but in the whole decree of the Cardinals of the Holy Office, and in the formula of abjuration, not even the name of the Pontiff is ever found pronounced either directly or indirectly. The documents described in John Baptist Riccioli's Almagestum Novum, P. II. l. IX. sect. 4. c. 40. pp. 496 ff. can be read. Yet in that state of the question, with the matter not yet sifted, since the truth of the astronomical system, by no means yet proved, afforded no foundation for interpreting the places of Scripture in other than the obvious sense, and since even men most learned for that age in physics and astronomy, as Tycho Brahe, Alexander Tassonus, Christophorus Scheiner, Antonius Delphinus, Justus Lipsius (see Riccioli l. c. p. 495.), judged Galileo's opinion contrary to the Scriptures, it pertained altogether to the authority of ecclesiastical providence to take care lest the interpretation of Scripture suffer harm through conjectures and hypotheses then seen by most as by no means likely ²⁰. No examination of doctrine was instituted for its definition for the universal Church ²¹, of which no one thought; but a criminal process was held in 1633, according to which for those circumstances nothing else could be judged than what is in the final judgment.

In the same opinion in Galileo's time were at Rome other theologians and astronomers, as Fr. Scheiner, Fr. Riccardi Master of the Apostolic Palace (Nelli in the life of Galileo T. II. p. 449). From the letters of Mario Guiducci, disciple of Galileo, dated 6 and 13 Sept. 1624, Nelli l. c. reports this. « In this meantime he (Galileo) had news that the Jesuit Fr. Orazio Grassi, his antagonist (Professor of astronomy in this Roman College), had said that whenever a demonstration should be found proving the motion of the earth, Sacred Scripture would have to be interpreted otherwise than has been done in the places where it speaks of the stability of the earth and the motion of the heavens, and this from the opinion of Cardinal Bellarmine. » This exposition of doctrine, worthy of the genius and piety of Bellarmine and Fabri, admirably shows both the genuine sense and the equity of the sacred tribunal and the reason by which Galileo not only could but had to acquiesce in the sentence, so that there is no need with D. Bouix and with the Utrecht writer to opine that « the Holy Inquisition exceeded the limits of its power, » and that fictitious eppur si muove, above all in the manner in which without certain author the rumor spread, seems to have been invented not to the praise but to the disgrace of a wise man. The sentence runs. « Lest that grave and pernicious error and transgression of thine ²² remain altogether unpunished, and thou become more cautious in future and be an example to others to abstain from such offences, we decree that by public edict the book of the Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited, but thee we condemn to the formal prison of this Holy Office for a time to be limited at our discretion, and by title of salutary penance we prescribe that for the coming three years thou recite once a week the seven penitential psalms, reserving to ourselves the power of moderating, changing, or wholly or partly removing the aforesaid punishments and penances » ²³. See the Revue des sciences ecclesiastiques 2ª. serie T. III. pp. 105 ff.; 217 ff.

After we have spoken of the subject and object of the authentic magisterium for the infallible custody, exposition, and defence of the deposit against assailing errors, we shall here briefly declare the meaning of the censures by which propositions repugnant to the truth of doctrine are wont to be condemned either authentically by ecclesiastical power or scientifically designated by the doctors. In the Council of Constance, sess. VIII and XV, and in the confirming Bull of Martin V, 45 articles of John Wyclif and 30 of John Hus were condemned under these censures: the articles «notoriously heretical and reprobated by the holy Fathers, others not Catholic but erroneous, others scandalous and blasphemous, some offensive to pious ears, several rash and seditious.» These censures, however, were not attached one by one to the individual propositions, but added to the whole list (as they say) in globo, so that there was no proposition to which none of the enumerated notes applied, and no note was set down which did not pertain to some of those propositions. This form the Supreme Pontiffs, when many propositions had to be condemned at once, generally kept thereafter: thus Leo X in his Bull «Exsurge» against Luther, Gregory XIII and Pius V against Baius, Innocent XI against the pseudo-mystic Michael de Molinos, Alexander VIII against 31 Jansenist propositions, Innocent XII against 23 propositions from Fénelon's book (of which, however, none was condemned as heretical), Clement XI against the 101 propositions of Quesnel (in the Bull «Unigenitus»), etc. In the dogmatic Bull «Auctorem Fidei», to cut off the frauds of the Jansenists, Pius VI attached to the several doctrinal heads of the Pistoians their several censures one by one.

As to the meaning of the different notes, first must be considered what propositions are called heretical, erroneous, rash, since these censures occur most frequently, and once they are determined the others are more easily understood.

a) Heretical is a proposition which certainly is opposed (whether contrarily or contradictorily) to a truth of whose revelation, sufficiently proposed in the Church, there is certain evidence. Two things are therefore required, both revelation and sufficient proposition in the Church, for the opposed doctrine to be heretical. For it does not suffice that the truth be contained in objective revelation, so long as it has not been sufficiently proposed; otherwise a proposition calling into doubt e.g. the supreme authority of several deuterocanonical books would always, even in the fourth century, have had to be called heretical, as would one denying the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin even before its solemn definition. This manner of speaking, both because it is odious, is prudently avoided, and in reality is not true, since heresy includes the notion of opposition to a profession of which there is certain evidence in the Church. Although if such a proposition, contrary to a revealed but not yet sufficiently proposed truth, were called materially but not formally heretical, the whole dispute would be almost entirely about the manner of speaking. It is not required, however, for this censure of a proposition that revelation be evident to the author himself. For here it is not a question of the sin of heresy but of a proposition heretical in itself, to whose character the good faith of the author is irrelevant. Hence propositions can be and often are condemned as heretical which did not then first begin to be such but already were such before, without the author thereby necessarily being guilty of the crime of heresy or being declared to be. Conversely, one to whom the revelation of a truth is sufficiently evident, though it has not yet been so universally proposed that all are bound to believe it, can by denying commit a sin against faith, without the proposition enunciating the denial in its declared sense being heretical in the external forum and subject to the censure of heresy (cf. Treatise on God, Prolegomena, n. III).

It is evident of itself and established from what precedes that it belongs to those who are the authentic doctors and judges in doctrine of faith for the universal Church — to the Supreme Pontiff and to an ecumenical Council — to define doctrine contained in revelation which nevertheless has not hitherto been sufficiently proposed. In such a definition there is indeed contained the sufficient and altogether most clear proposition of faith for the universal Church, and in this very fact is contained, or (generally) explicitly added, the censure of heresy against the opposed doctrine, which hitherto, in the formal sense we have stated, had not been heretical.

Concerning the stated rationale of that first censure all agree, at least as to the substance of the matter; but there is some diversity of opinions where not only the generic but the strict and specific notion of the remaining censures must be declared. Generically every false proposition is erroneous, and so in theological matter, of which there is question in censures, every proposition repugnant to a sufficiently established theological truth — and hence heresy too, even in the highest degree — contains error; and every heretical proposition, being erroneous in the stated sense, is also at least in itself rash. But by the usage of the Pontiffs, and hence by the usage of theologians, each of the two latter censures is distinguished from heresy, and a rash proposition from an erroneous one, as the lower degree from the higher. Hence further, a proposition is damnable both as erroneous and as rash, and is condemned under these notes, insofar as it is in some way opposed to theological truth, but not so that it is certainly opposed to a truth which certainly is or is defined to be a truth of faith, but in some lower degree; and the censure of a rash proposition is in turn lower and less grave than the note of error. Now in determining the proper specific notion by which each censure is distinguished from all the others — comparing at once the diverse theories of theologians and above all their practice, as they employ them, and as they have been employed above all by the Supreme Pontiff himself in the Bull «Auctorem fidei» — the following points hold with sufficient constancy.

b) An erroneous proposition is one repugnant to theological doctrine which is either defined or universally taught and retained in the Church as certain and at least intimately connected with doctrine of faith, but is not proposed as doctrine revealed in itself and hence of faith. The proper rationale of error is thus taken from the proper rationale of the opposed truth. Of this note there are two marks: one positive, namely certitude from universality of consensus as in a theologically certain proposition, and from at least an intimate nexus with doctrine of faith; the other negative, that the doctrine is not proposed and preached as certainly revealed and of faith. The positive note serves to distinguish this censure of error from the lower ones, as will later be established; the negative note distinguishes it from the higher, i.e. from the censure of a heretical proposition¹. The reason, moreover, why a doctrine, though universally held as certain, is yet not judged to be simply of faith, can be twofold: either because it is not sufficiently established that the consensus is not only as in a true proposition but also as in a revealed proposition to be believed by faith, and therefore, before a definition of the Church concerning it exists, theologians generally confess that it cannot be called simply of faith; or because it is a theological conclusion deduced from one revealed proposition indeed, but from another certain only elsewhere, whether theologically or by the light of reason. The censure of an erroneous proposition thus embraces both one which, as stated, is opposed to a certain theological conclusion — of which sort, besides others, e.g. XXII condemned in the Bull «Auctorem fidei» can be judged — and one which is opposed to doctrine to be held indubitably as true from universal agreement and preaching, but which is not proposed simply and certainly as of faith, as would be e.g. X, which in the same Bull is called at least erroneous. Doctrine proposed in the manner last stated is generally proximate to faith, and a proposition opposed to it is called proximate to heresy. Hence it appears that every proposition proximate to heresy is also erroneous, but not every proposition visited with the censure of error is also proximate to heresy; for the censure of an erroneous proposition extends more widely than that of one proximate to heresy.

c) The note of temerity, as we said, is of a lower degree than the preceding censure of error. A proposition rash in its direct sense must be repugnant to some theological doctrine not merely probable but common, so that to deny it is not lawful. Since it is a censure of lower degree than error, a rash proposition compared with an erroneous one will be in less direct opposition to the truth, or opposed to a truth less strictly connected with doctrine of faith. Since this more and less must be discerned by moral estimation and theological prudence, it is no wonder that theologians, unless the Church herself has defined the degree, generally fluctuate between these two censures, calling the same propositions erroneous which others call rash, and being also wont to join the two, saying that a proposition is erroneous or at least rash. A proposition rash in its direct sense will therefore be one which either is repugnant to theological doctrine universally and constantly received among the pious and learned as to be held on grave grounds of authority and of the analogy of faith (to which e.g. XLI of the Pistoians belongs), or affirms something contrary to institutions approved in the Church and to custom, though not revealed in themselves (as would be XXVII, XXXI, LIV ibid.). Moreover a proposition can be rash modally in that it unjustly condemns a probable or more probable doctrine; thus rash was declared proposition XXVI of the Pistoians, by which they explode the doctrine of the «limbo of infants» as a «Pelagian fable».

Since one proposition can be opposed to truth in several ways, hence the same one can be and usually is visited with several distinct censures. If at any time sentences are condemned as rash and at the same time erroneous (as several propositions in the cited Constitution «Auctorem fidei» X, XLVII, LXIV, LXXVII, LXXVIII), it must be noted what we admonished above concerning the more generic meaning of temerity, by which indeed a heretical and erroneous proposition can at once be called rash. Finally it is evident of itself that, where theological censures are in question, temerity is not understood as merely subjective, opposed to prudence and counsel — in which sense whatever is said tumultuously, without necessary consideration and proportionate reason, is said to be rash.

d) Far more easily is determined the proper meaning of the other censures, which are connected with the aforesaid and are as it were intermediate. A proposition is said to savour of heresy which affords grave ground for judging that it coheres with a heretical principle and has proceeded from a heretical opinion of the author; suspect of heresy, which has something amiss in it so as to beget a reasonable suspicion of implicit heresy. It is readily evident that with these two notes of savour and suspicion of heresy there can be joined a stricter determination of the manner in which the sentence is opposed to truth; thus both Pistoian XXII and XXVIII are called suspect of heresy, savouring of it, and erroneous. A proposition is evil-sounding which, though in a less usual signification of the words it admits some harmless sense, yet in the common signification of the words contains something contrary to sound doctrine, without being determined to the harmless sense by context and the circumstances of time, person, and things. Hence anyone sees that an evil-sounding proposition can readily be at the same time subject to other censures (see Pistoian XLIV, LXV); and it is further understood that a proposition which at one time, the signification of terms not yet fixed or another signification attaching to the words, was harmless among the ancient Fathers, can now, uttered without explanation, be evil-sounding — of which sort would be e.g. a proposition now simply affirming three substances in God, just as to blessed Jerome «poison seemed to lurk beneath honey» (ep. 15, n. 4, to Damasus) if three divine hypostases were said simply «without their interpretations». A proposition offensive to pious ears is «one repugnant to the common estimation of the faithful, into which they have been led by piety conformed to sacred doctrine» (so Kilber, Treatise on Faith, n. 228). The other notes — a proposition schismatic, inducing to schism, seditious; blasphemous, impious; scandalous, pernicious; injurious, captious, etc. — if they need any explanation, can be read as declared among the theologians. See Cano I, bk. XII, ch. 11; Suárez, On Faith, disp. XIX, sect. 2; Card. de Lugo, On Faith, disp. XX, sect. 3; Henr. Kilber (among the Würzburg Theologians), On Faith (at the end), and others.