Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

ON THE MONUMENTS OF TRADITION CONSIDERED IN GENERAL.

On the monuments of Tradition insofar as they exhibit the agreement of the guardians of the deposit, and insofar as they serve them as instruments of doctrine.

« Tradition, hitherto considered according to the divinely instituted and prime organ thereof, can further be regarded as it has been preserved in the monuments of ecclesiastical antiquity, especially in written documents; for these monuments 1°. furnish a certain argument of divine Tradition, or rather exhibit Tradition itself, insofar as from them the agreement of the guardians of the deposit in some head of doctrine as pertaining to Christian faith is demonstrated; 2°. in comparison with the ever-living organ, however, these same monuments are intimately bound up with it, and are as it were a connatural aid for preserving Tradition, and instruments of doctrine. »

I. By monuments in general we mean works of antiquity, whether written or other things, from which we are led to knowledge of the ideas and doctrines, morals, condition, and whole history of the ancients, whether of individual men or above all of an entire society. By ecclesiastical monuments, therefore, we mean here works of manifold species and order still remaining from antiquity, from which we come to knowledge of the mind, profession, and faith which then obtained concerning Christian doctrine and discipline, regarded either as a whole or in its individual heads. It is clear, however, that written works hold the first place among these monuments; for these can report ideas and sentiments and the whole compass of doctrine more clearly, distinctly, and explicitly than the rest. Hither belong tables of symbols and public professions of faith, preserved either singly or in the acts of Councils or in the writings of the Fathers; the acts and definitions of Councils; the polemical and apologetic, dogmatic, catechetical and homiletic, exegetical, historical, and ascetic works of individual Fathers; the acts of Martyrs and Confessors; liturgical books and Sacramentaries; penitential books, canons of discipline, collections of ecclesiastical and even civil laws; ecclesiastical history in general, and the history of heresies; obliquely, even the writings of heretics and enemies of the Christian religion.

Other ecclesiastical monuments survive, sculpted, painted, architectural—in crypts, sanctuaries, sarcophagi, chairs, cups, necklaces, furnishings of the most diverse kinds destined for the sacred or profane use of Christians—in which very often some writing also appears in the inscriptions. Although monuments of this kind seem of themselves less apt for exhibiting a distinct notion of doctrine and profession than written books, yet at times they strike minds with even more vivid light, because they exhibit to the eyes not only ideas to the mind by letters in the manner of books, but the very acts, the religious life and worship of the ancient Christians in vivid artistic representation¹.

Figure 1. On a tripod or altar, whereof they that serve the tabernacle have no power to eat (Heb. XV. 10.), bread is set forth together with a fish; a man in the garb of a Greek philosopher stands with hand extended over the gifts set forth; behind is seen a female figure in the garb of one praying, with hands extended to heaven. Opposite there answers, depicted on the wall (but here omitted), another image, in which is seen the sacrifice of Abraham prepared, while the patriarch himself [stands] with hands likewise extended to heaven. You have the eucharistic sacrifice, in which Christ Himself is offered under the species of bread, exhibited to the eyes almost no less clearly and distinctly than it has been described by Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus; provided that the book of Christian art and its ecclesiastical symbols of antiquity do not furnish a certain argument of divine Tradition, unless agreement in the doctrine which they present can be demonstrated; the other [proposition], affirming: they do furnish [it] before Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. At the margin a palm, and on it the phoenix bird, are symbols of the resurrection; for Christ risen from the dead is here exhibited. From the mountain flow seven rivers: namely, the fulness of grace flowing from Christ (in which are contained the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, Is. XI. 2. 3; the seven sacraments as channels, as it were, of the manifold grace of God). There follows the lower part of this remarkable monument. Christ the Lamb on the mountain, from which there spring as from one fount four rivers of evangelical doctrine. On either side two cities, IERUSALE and BECLE for BETLE, from which six lambs hasten under the Holy Spirit in tongues of fire to Christ: namely, the faithful from the Jews (Jerusalem) and from the Gentiles (in Bethlehem Christ was first manifested to the Magi, who were the firstfruits of the Gentiles). Above, IORDANES is the symbol of baptism. All these same things are seen in the mosaic work of the Church of Sts. Cosmas and Damian (Ciampini Vetera monumenta T. II. p. 60. pl. XVI.), and (except for the Jordan) in the Church of St. Mark (ibid. p. 122. pl. XXXVII.); except that in both places, for the ampler space, the lambs, symbol of the faithful, are twelve. In the Liberian Basilica there are likewise two cities, HIERUSALEM BETHELEM; five lambs beside the one, five beside the other (ibid. T. I. p. 200. pl. XLIX.). In the Church of St. Sabina, beneath the effigy of St. Peter is a female figure holding an open book in her hand, with the epigraph below ECCLESIA EX CIRCUMCISIONE; on the other side, beneath the effigy of St. Paul, there answers a like figure, ECCLESIA EX GENTIBUS (ibid. p. 188. pl. XLVIII.). The letters in the margin of our monument, PIE Z, are an inscription often repeated on cups: πἱε ζήσεως (drink, may you live).

Figure 5. Christ with a rod striking the rock in the desert. Christ Himself was the rock, 1. Cor. X. 4; and Christ from this rock pours forth the water of grace. In place of the type, Moses, is substituted the antitype, Christ, signified by him.

Figure 6. Christ, holding in His hand the rod of power, or the antitype of the rod of Moses, turns water into wine. But although the Evangelist expressly names six waterpots, Io. II. 6, nevertheless, as in this so in several other monuments there are seven waterpots. The reason is that it was intended to exhibit to the eyes not so much the history as the thing signified, i.e. eucharistic transubstantiation (Treatise on the Eucharist, p. 216.); this is indicated by the mystical septenary number of the fulness of graces.

Figure 7. Peter, leader and lawgiver of the people of the new Law, is substituted for Moses, leader and lawgiver of the O. T. Indeed, he takes the place of Christ as His Vicar (cf. figure 5.). Concerning the letters often running on the garments, as here you see the letter γ, consult Ciampini Monumenta vetera T. I. c. 13.

Figure 8. The image is taken from a glass fragment in the Borgia museum of the Congr. de Propaganda Fide. The distinguished Fr. Mozzoni, who had received it from the late Fr. Marchi of blessed memory, assigned it to the monuments of the second century. It is certainly most ancient; and together with other like monuments it demonstrates the cult in Christian antiquity toward the Saints, in particular through images, and the cult of hyperdulia above the holy Apostles themselves toward the Virgin Mother of God. The Blessed Virgin in the garb of one praying for us is seen placed between the two holy Apostles Peter and Paul. They furnish a certain argument of divine Tradition, and exhibit Tradition itself, where the agreement of apostolic succession can be demonstrated.

As regards the former, negative enunciation: where agreement—whether antecedent, synchronous, or consequent—cannot be demonstrated directly or indirectly, monuments of this kind exhibit only the private opinion and understanding of individuals, or at any rate it is not established that anything else is exhibited in them. A private opinion, however, regarded apart from agreement, is of no greater authority than is either the private authority of individual Fathers and teachers, or the arguments by which it is proved. It can therefore be a true opinion, it can be weighty, it can be probable; yet by force of such private understanding and testification it is not demonstrated to pertain to divine Tradition, because individual Fathers teaching something apart from the agreement of apostolic succession discharge the office not of witnesses of Tradition but of private teachers (of which we shall speak below); and because the criterion of the assistance of the Holy Spirit is lacking, and through²

Figure 9. Daniel slaying the dragon (Dan. XIV. 26.), type of Christ slaying idolatry, who as the prefigured antitype stands behind holding in His hand the rod of power, as in very many other monuments.

Figure 10. Tobias disembowels the fish: « the smoke of his heart.... driveth away all kinds of devils... and the gall is good to anoint the eyes wherein there is a white speck, and they shall be healed, » Tob. VI. 4. sqq. The fish a symbol of Christ, who expels the demon and enlightens the eyes. Both monuments (9. 10.) belong to the very many which show that the use of the deuterocanonical books was without distinction the same as that of the protocanonical, as sacred Scriptures.

Figure 11. The fish beneath the gourd signifies Christ prefigured in the history of the prophet Jonas, Ion. II. 1; IV. 6; Matth. XII. 40. For where in the Vulgate version is read ivy, in the Itala was gourd (LXX. κολοκυνθη heb. קִיקָיוֹן). What the septenary number in the plant symbolic of fecundity signifies is clear from what was said on figure 4. Even in other monuments, where Jonas is represented sleeping beneath the plant in human figure, the septenary number of gourds is kept (op. cit. Fr. Garrucci, pl. IV.). This infallible understanding—the criterion which, when the guarding of Tradition in and through the universal Church is at issue, we have seen to lie in agreement itself (above, th. VIII.)³. But if the opinion reported in the monuments were not only apart from agreement but even against it, it is clear that it would be a testimony not of divine Tradition but of an ancient error.

No less established is the truth of the second proposition, which was affirming: for where monuments exhibit the opinion of antiquity in such a way that from them the agreement of the guardians of the faith and of apostolic succession in some dogma of faith is demonstrated, by that very fact they exhibit doctrine under that character which is the certain criterion of divine Tradition. For then, by those monuments the guardians of the faith are set before us as present, not as private teachers but as agreeing witnesses of Tradition from diverse ages and diverse Churches, and there are reported not their private opinions but the unanimous testimony of Tradition. Therefore, just as by the agreeing testification of the living apostolic succession, so by monuments which report the agreeing testification of apostolic succession obtaining in an earlier age, divine Tradition is demonstrated and exhibited. Read Augustine, against Julian, b. I. n. 30-34; b. II. n. 31-37; Unfinished Work, b. II. n. 37.

II. In the second part of the thesis we compare the monuments and documents of ecclesiastical antiquity with the perennially living magisterium itself.

1°. These documents, regarded in general, we say to be an aid for preserving Tradition, intimately bound up with the prime organ and as it were connatural to it. For as the apostolate was instituted by Christ of itself not for writing books but for promulgating the Gospel of the kingdom by the authority of preaching, for founding Churches, for preserving the faithful in faith through the living magisterium itself and the authentic ministry—yet nonetheless some of the Apostles and of the disciples of the Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to embrace preaching in part in written documents as well, in aid of preaching and of the living magisterium (th. IV.)—so apostolic succession was instituted by Christ of itself and directly for preserving and propagating Christian doctrine and discipline by a magisterium and ministry ever living in perpetual succession; yet from this very divinely enjoined office there follows, as it were connaturally, according to the condition and necessity of things and times, a more or less ample writing down of Christian doctrine and discipline and its consigning in monuments. For since the Holy Spirit preserves the deposit not apart from human ministry, nor by a continual immediate revelation breathed into the guardians of the faith while they do nothing, but accomplishes it through a diligent, helping, error-preventing assistance, therefore human work also and the human element under this assistance of the Spirit is required (th. IX.). To this human work, placed under the direction of the Holy Spirit, it also belongs—and from the very nature of a society constituted of men and for men, it follows according to the wisdom and providence of God—that public professions of faith, solemn judgments and definitions of apostolic succession in Councils, vindications and declarations of handed-down doctrine against arisen novelties, catecheses and instructions of the Catholic people, expositions of the Scriptures, the liturgy, rites of sacramental administration, in sum all the chief acts of ecclesiastical life, be also consigned to writing, and that all these things, expressed in documents and monuments, be handed down to posterity. This writing and consigning is indeed not inherent in the office itself of apostolic succession from Christ's institution, as the personal magisterium and ministry is essentially inherent in it; nevertheless, of the magisterium—not indeed in individuals but regarded in general—some function, from the nature of things and men morally necessary and therefore consonant with the gentle providence of God, this too is: to provide for the integrity and perpetuity of doctrine and discipline also by documents and monuments⁴.

Moreover, for the very human action of the ever-living magisterium, for the same reason—because it is ruled not by ever-new revelations but by the assistance of the Holy Spirit—inquiry into the faith and profession of its predecessors and of Christian antiquity is often necessary: where either the present agreement is not sufficiently perspicuous, or the connection of the present profession with antiquity is to be vindicated against opposed errors, or, for the faithful, for their more lucid confirmation and declaration, the perenniality of doctrine and unity of faith through all ages is to be demonstrated. But this appeal to the mind and agreement of antiquity cannot be instituted directly except from the monuments and documents which survive. It is established, therefore, that the monuments and documents of Christian profession and discipline, both by origin and by moral necessity from the very nature of any society whatsoever and in particular of Christian society, are intimately bound up with the magisterium of perpetual apostolic succession, and are for Christian society as it were connatural bulwarks for preserving the integrity of Tradition. Cf. Bellarmine, De verbo Dei l. IV. c. 12.

2°. Although this be so, yet if ecclesiastical monuments are regarded formally—i.e., speaking not of the authors insofar as most of them, bishops or pontiffs, whether singly « dispensed through the distances of times and places » or gathered in Councils, constituted for their age the living magisterium, but considering the monuments in themselves insofar as they are monuments of antiquity—they cannot be reckoned the prime organ of Tradition, but are for the prime organ itself an aid and instrument of doctrine, however morally necessary and connatural in the manner declared.

For a) in the order of origin, the successors of the Apostles succeeding one another in perpetual series under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and « under the certain charism of truth which they received with the episcopal succession » (th. VIII.), are, from what has been demonstrated, the organ of preserving Tradition instituted simply and immediately by Christ; whereas this other bulwark for preserving Tradition has its origin, in its chief elements, from the prime organ itself, not from the immediate institution of God, although it be from God's special providence toward His Church. In one word it can be said: the perpetual, ever-living apostolic magisterium is the very substance of the thing instituted by God for preserving Tradition; preservation through monuments is a certain mode consequent upon the thing instituted by God.

b) Hence, in the order of necessity, the one is from God's institution simply necessary and essential; the other has been given to it for rightly discharging its office under God's gentle providence, and in a manner for its better being.

c) In the order of teaching, the one stands to the other as the inanimate instrument of teaching stands to the living teacher who uses it and is its authentic interpreter. Just as Sacred Scripture contains the written word of God, and thus constitutes a part of the deposit or objective revelation, whose guardianship, exposition, and preaching has been divinely entrusted to the ever-living apostolic succession under the direction of the Holy Spirit—and accordingly it belongs to this same succession authentically to declare the true sense of Scripture—so in nearly the same way all ecclesiastical monuments, insofar as they exhibit the agreement or definitive judgment of the apostolic successors at any past time whatsoever, contain the word of God, and accordingly pertain to the deposit to be guarded and expounded by the continuous and living apostolic succession. If, therefore, at any time doubt or controversy arise either about the existence of the agreement to be demonstrated from these monuments, or about the true sense of the doctrine exhibited in them, the living apostolic succession itself is the authentic interpreter and judge of the sense and of the agreement.

The word of God, whether contained in Sacred Scripture or in ecclesiastical monuments, is without doubt the rule and norm of believing for the whole Church; but the word of God to be expounded is the norm as in first act, the word of God expounded the norm in second act. Authentic exposition, however, so pertains to the ever-living magisterium of the guardians of revelation that individuals, in understanding the word of God whether contained in the Scriptures or in the other monuments, must always depend on the authority and preaching of this same magisterium, and understand and believe the word of God according to its catholic understanding. This is what is commonly said: Scripture and Tradition (objective, comprised in monuments and documents) is the remote rule of faith; the Church (the living magisterium and preaching of the Church) is the proximate rule of faith. Cf. Gregory of Valentia, de Fide disp. I. q. 1. point 7. §. 12.⁵; Suarez, de Fide disp. V. sect. 5; Stapleton, b. XII. c. 15-17.

On the Direct or Indirect Demonstration of Agreement from the Documents of Antiquity.

«The agreement of the witnesses of which we have spoken can be demonstrated from the monuments in two ways: 1°. by direct testimonies, which either, drawn from diverse ages and Churches, exhibit the common and universal profession immediately by their very agreement, or contain a solemn and authentic judgment concerning doctrine addressed to the universal Church; 2°. it can be demonstrated by inference, when the testimonies even of a few are understood, from the character of the witnesses, of the cause, and of the circumstances, to report nothing but the common faith.»

I. In the first part of our proposition we treat of the direct demonstration of agreement among the witnesses of Tradition to be drawn from the monuments, and thus we say that the existence of Tradition can be established in two ways, namely by the conspiracy of testimonies or by solemn judgment.

1°. If from the monuments there are adduced express testimonies of all ages from the apostolic age onward, or at least from that time when the doctrine in question first began to be impugned by heretics and for that reason to be treated more diligently by doctors persevering in Catholic union and agreement, and if these testimonies belong to diverse and nearly all provinces, this is plainly the same as if the whole Church with all her pastors and doctors, martyrs and faithful people in her connection with the Apostles and through the Apostles with the preaching of Christ Himself, were set before our eyes through the course of the ages in ever homogeneous progress, testifying to her faith and her understanding of the faith (cf. Augustine, Against Julian, bk. II, n. 37; see above, p. 86). Yet no more illustrious demonstration of the agreement of the guardians of the faith can be found. Therefore the worth and evidence of such a demonstration is established.

2°. A solemn and authentic judgment concerning some doctrine as revealed and apostolic of itself demonstrates the truth of what it enunciates, when it is the judgment of one who by authority received from Christ teaches the universal Church — whether the judge be immediately the apostolic succession in unity and agreement, as in the ecumenical Councils, or be the Pontiff by himself, who is the origin and centre of unity and agreement ¹ (cf. above, p. 114 ff.). Such a judgment, therefore, always either exhibits in itself and authentically manifests, or effects, the agreement of all persevering in Catholic unity, and it is the clearest and most solemn expression of the agreement of the guardians of the faith at least of that age in which the judgment was delivered, and of all subsequent ages. Therefore the monuments from which such a judgment becomes known thereby exhibit the consentient doctrine and Tradition in apostolic succession.

This mode of demonstrating agreement excels the other which we mentioned in the first place, because it is easier, suited to all, and fitter for excluding every doubt concerning the existence of agreement. Hence often, where the agreement of witnesses «dispensed through the distances of ages of times and places» is ambiguous or called into doubt, its declaration by an authentic judgment becomes necessary. «In antiquity itself, as St. Vincent of Lérins admonishes, ch. 38, to the rashness of one or of a very few let (the sons of Mother Church) first of all prefer the general decrees, if any there be, of a universal Council; then next, if that be lacking, let them follow what is nearest to it, the consentient sentences of many and great masters.»

II. Very often the condition of the Fathers, of the controversy, of the circumstances, and of the whole cause is such that from the testification even of a few eminent doctors the agreement of apostolic succession and the common doctrine is readily understood. If there be question of Fathers, though few, who in some controversy against heretics stood forth as leaders as it were for the Catholic cause and fought for it with the whole Church beholding and applauding — as Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary, Augustine for the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity against the Arians and Semi-Arians; Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, Agatho, Sophronius for the mystery of the incarnate Word against the Nestorians and Monophysites and their offshoots; Augustine, Fulgentius for the grace of God against the Pelagians and their remnants, etc. — the doctrine, I say, of these Fathers as to the very matter which they defended against heretics in the name of the whole Church (prescinding even from the authentic judgments which some of them delivered as pastors and doctors of the universal Church) is without doubt the expression of the common faith and profession of the whole Church. The same, however, cannot be said of all the questions which the Fathers, on the occasion of defending the common faith, happened to treat from their private opinion. «The deeper and more difficult parts of the questions that arise, which those who resisted the heretics treated more at large, as we dare not despise, so we are not bound to assert» — Indiculus of the authorities of the Apostolic See in ep. 21 of Pope Celestine to the Bishops of Gaul.

In general, if Fathers, even though fewer, whose authority in the Church of God was great both in their lifetime and after death (cf. Augustine, Against Julian, bk. I, nn. 11, 29), teach something as pertaining to the Catholic faith, or testify to doctrine publicly received and handed down by their forebears, whether they betray it in express words or by their manner of treating it; if they bear this testimony in such circumstances that it could not have escaped the notice of contemporary doctors, or at least of subsequent ones, and it was received with none contradicting — such testimony even of the fewer, so circumstanced, is of a kind that, considering the economy, unity and communion of the Church (th. IX), the agreement of the guardians of the faith is legitimately and certainly inferred from it. Thus St. Augustine, from the assertive manner of speaking even of individual Fathers, from the authority, renown, and merits by which they shone in the Church, infers that what they propose as Christian faith cannot but be drawn from the rule of faith and the common profession — for otherwise neither would they themselves have so taught, nor would they, so teaching, have been received by the Church with such celebrity. In this way he appeals to Cyprian: «you see with what confidence so great a man speaks from the ancient and undoubted rule of faith» (On the Merits and Remission of Sins, bk. III, n. 11); to Gregory Nazianzen: «he is indeed so great a personage that neither would he say this except from the Christian faith known to all, nor would they hold and venerate him as so illustrious, unless they recognized these things said by him as from the rule of the best-known truth» (Against Julian, I, n. 16); to Hilary, «so illustrious with such praise among Catholic bishops, so conspicuous with such renown and fame» (ibid., n. 9); to Ambrose, «whose grace, constancy, labours, perils for the Catholic faith, whether in works or in words, I have myself experienced, and with me the Roman world does not hesitate to proclaim» (ibid., n. 10); he denies that Chrysostom could in common dogma think otherwise than the whole Church, for otherwise he would not excel with such glory: «far be it that you (John) should think otherwise, and should excel so eminently in her (the Church)» (ibid., n. 22); by this reasoning, finally, he demonstrates inferentially the agreement of the Eastern bishops with the Westerners in the dogma of original sin: «for they too are Christians, and the faith of both parts of the world is one, because this faith is Christian» (ibid., n. 14).