Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

Tradition precedes Scripture in manifold ways.

« If a comparison be instituted universally between Tradition and Scripture, Tradition must be judged to precede both in chronological order, and in logical order and that of knowledge according to the economy instituted by Christ, and in order of comprehension and amplitude, in that Tradition can be regarded as the whole containing under itself, as it were a part, the doctrine » of Scripture and concerning Scripture. »

It is plain that here the question is not, in the sense of the two preceding theses, of Traditions insofar as they are not written; but that by the name of Tradition is signified the whole revealed doctrine and discipline, insofar as there is regarded as the medium or instrument of its preservation not the written letter of the sacred books but the perpetual series of witnesses and guardians of the faith through whom the deposit of revelation has been preserved entire and transmitted from its first promulgation down to us. For although there exist heads of revealed doctrine not written, which were transmitted through Tradition alone (th. XIX. XX.), yet there exists no written doctrine which has not also been preserved through Tradition, since the Scriptures themselves, and consequently the contents in the Scriptures, have come down to us through Tradition. Whence abstraction can be made from Scripture as a partial instrument of preservation, or rather Scripture itself can be regarded as a thing handed down, and thus the whole revealed doctrine can be considered insofar as it is Tradition (see th. I. and II.). So the Fathers call the whole doctrine, although in part consigned in the Scriptures, abstraction being made from the mode of preservation through the Scriptures, Tradition in the proper sense. « But what, » says Irenaeus, bk. III. ch. 4, « if the Apostles had not even left us the Scriptures, ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the Churches? To which appointment assent many nations of barbarians ... having salvation written in their hearts without paper and ink, and diligently guarding the ancient Tradition. » In this declared sense, therefore, we compare divine Tradition with divine Scripture.

I. Tradition precedes the Scriptures in chronological order. No one surely understands this as if first the whole revelation had been completed and propagated through Tradition, and then the truths handed down had also been consigned in the Scriptures; for long before the completion of revelation some Scriptures already existed — indeed, in the progress of revelation the antecedent Scriptures were presupposed and appealed to, as was most frequently done by Christ Himself and by the Apostles. Nor is this the sense of the proposition, that every revelation was always first handed down by preaching without the Scriptures and only afterwards written in the sacred code; this indeed often, but not always, happened thus (cf. Jer. XXXVI. 32; Apoc. I. 3. 19; XXII. 7. 10. 19, to say nothing of the psalms and certain other books both moral and historical). The sense, then, is that first indeed, in the old economy, revelation — which in its own way implicitly contained the whole revelation gradually to be explicated and completed (St Thomas 2. 2. q. 1. a. 7.) — preceded, preserved down to Moses by Tradition alone; and that only in its further explication were holy men of God inspired to write books. Moreover, also in the New Testament the institution and formation through handed-down faith of the Church of Jesus Christ took place through preaching before any book of the New Testament was written; but in progress of time we know the doctrine was in part also written, and to the same Church, long since constituted and imbued through apostolic preaching with the mysteries of faith, the Scriptures of the New Testament together with the books of the Old Testament were handed down as an instrument of doctrine « profitable for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice, » 2 Tim. III. 16. These things are established from the above, th. VII. n. II.; th. XX. n. I.

II. We said in the second place that Tradition precedes as regards us in the order of knowledge according to the economy instituted by Christ. Here must be distinguished Tradition regarded as merely historical, insofar as it is the foundation of critical and philosophical demonstration, and Tradition in the theological sense, formally as religious and divine. It is of this divine Tradition that we speak. In the other term of the comparison, on the other hand, we distinguish knowledge concerning Scripture as a monument preserved to us, and knowledge of the doctrine which is in Scripture. Each of these knowledges, we say, depends in some sense, according to the Christian economy, on divine Tradition, and thus Tradition is prior to the Scriptures in logical order.

1°. In knowledge concerning Scripture there can be regarded genuineness, integrity, veracity, divinity of doctrine, inspiration of the sacred books.

Genuineness is here understood as the origin of a work from the writer to whom it is attributed, or at least (if the writer is perhaps not ascertained) that the work was written at the time (broadly taken) and in the circumstances in which it is asserted to have been. This genuineness can now, at least for most books of Scripture, be fully demonstrated historically and critically from tradition, which we called merely historical, no otherwise than the genuineness of other ancient books is demonstrated. I said that this can be demonstrated at least for most books, not because I deny that it can be done for all, but because in some cases the difficulties are greater as long as Tradition is regarded in the non-theological but merely historical sense.

Integrity, if not as regards every several point, at least as regards the substance of the matter, can be demonstrated in the same way.

Veracity follows from demonstrated genuineness in most cases, and divinity of doctrine from veracity in some. For when, e.g., the genuineness of the books of Moses, of most of the historical books, of the Gospels, the Acts, the apostolic epistles, is established, then likewise veracity will also be established, at least as regards all the chief points. Moreover, from the veracity, e.g., of the Gospels, the divinity of the person will be established, and consequently the divinity of the doctrine and promises of Christ which are read in the Gospels; and from this divinity of the doctrine and promises of Christ there will follow, at least as regards the substance of the matter, the divinity of the doctrine of the Apostles consigned in their epistles.

But veracity, and much more divinity of doctrine, as regards each and every point cannot be demonstrated except from the inspiration of the books (or at least from the charism of infallibility in the writing of each and every sentence).

Inspiration (and the same would have to be said of infallibility) cannot become known certainly and as it ought except through divine testimony. This testimony, however, although concerning the inspiration of some books it is also preserved to us in the apostolic Scripture, yet as regards the whole complex of books which are to be believed inspired was transmitted by Tradition alone. But this Tradition of the divine testimony is not merely historical, but is the Christian Tradition preserved and defined through the divinely instituted ministry and through consentient ecclesiastical preaching; of these there will be a more distinct place to speak below.

These things had to be premised that it may be understood how our knowledge concerning the Scriptures depends, and how it does not depend, on Tradition taken in the theological sense. We say, then, that genuineness, integrity, veracity, divinity of doctrine in the books of Scripture can indeed, abstraction being made from authentic Tradition understood in the Christian sense, be demonstrated historically and critically, but not as regards all the texts of Scripture which are to be believed distinguished by these properties; not for all who are bound to believe, since the greatest part of men are not fit sufficiently to grasp such a demonstration; not for the state of controversy, so that once controversy is raised it could be settled historically and critically to the grasp of all. Likewise the inspiration of the sacred books, and the consequent absolute veracity and divinity of doctrine, can indeed also be demonstrated by the testimony comprised in the apostolic Scripture, but under the same threefold limitation: not as regards all books, not sufficiently for all, and especially not to the grasp of all for the state of controversy (cf. above th. XVIII. XIX.).

Moreover this scientific demonstration, pertaining to the apologetic discipline, without doubt contributes and is hypothetically necessary for the defense of the faith; but it is certainly not that economy immediately instituted by Christ Himself for safely and without danger of error preserving the integral faith, and namely the doctrine concerning the instruments of faith as regards each of their parts, for all, for every condition. For Christ and the Holy Spirit through the Apostles, just as they handed down the whole revealed doctrine, so also handed down these instruments of doctrine, together with the revelation concerning their inspiration, to the apostolic succession to be preserved and employed in such a way that their preservation, and the authentic judgment and definition concerning genuineness, integrity, inspiration, pertain to the very ministry and magisterium of the apostolic succession under the assistance and direction of the Spirit of truth, just as there pertains to the same magisterium universally the custody, explication and definition of the deposit of faith, and of all things necessary for the custody of the deposit. Therefore, according to the economy instituted by Christ, the principle of the knowledge concerning the Scriptures to be had and had in the Church is this very custody and authentic preaching under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and this principle, one and alone, is universal, accommodated to all, as regards all books and parts of books, for settling all controversies according to Christ's institution to the grasp of all, as far as is needed for the end of the Church. No other demonstration is here required besides that by which we showed the whole revealed doctrine to have been committed to the custody of the apostolic succession; since the doctrine concerning the Scriptures is but a part in the whole handed-down doctrine. See especially th. V. VIII. XI. n. II. But that custody of the deposit and perpetual ecclesiastical preaching under the direction of the Holy Spirit is Tradition in the most proper theological sense (th. XI.). Therefore, according to the ordinary economy instituted by Christ, Christian knowledge concerning the Scriptures — universal as to subject (as regards the universality of the faithful) and universal as to object (as regards all the books), but especially knowledge concerning the Scriptures formally as divinely inspired — depends on Tradition, and consequently the latter is logically prior, in the order of knowledge.

2°. In what order of knowledge the doctrine in the Scriptures and Tradition follow upon each other is established from thesis XVIII., collated with theses VII. n. II; X. n. II; XIX. Ecclesiastical preaching, namely, is the norm for understanding the doctrine in the Scriptures, in the sense demonstrated in those theses. But it has also been declared that this character of norm is not to be so taken as if, abstraction being made from Christian Tradition, nothing certain could be understood concerning the Scriptures, or the true sense in the Scriptures could nowhere be defined with hermeneutical certainty.

But for this reason — because, abstraction being made from Christian Tradition and from the authentic magisterium, many things can be understood concerning the divine authority of at least some books and concerning the true sense in the Scriptures, or because polemically the divine authority and even the inspiration of the Scriptures can be supposed from the concession of the adversary — for this reason, I say, and under this respect, Scripture can be assumed as logically prior in the order of knowledge, and thus from the Scriptures themselves the authority and the other properties both of the Church and of Tradition are demonstrated.

But a) in that abstraction from Christian Tradition, the knowledge concerning the Scriptures resting on merely historical and critical supports will itself be historical rather than properly theological. b) When the inspiration of the Scriptures is polemically assumed from what the adversary concedes — the second thing we mentioned — this is not an absolute logical priority of Scripture from the objective order of things, but from a certain hypothesis. c) Neither in this polemical hypothesis is assumed, nor in that abstraction from Christian Tradition of which we spoke, can there be obtained as it were an antecedent knowledge of the authority, and much less of the inspiration, of all the books, and of the true sense of the whole doctrine which is in the Scriptures; but either from historical demonstration there is presupposed, or from the concession of the adversary there is assumed as prior, the knowledge of the divine authority of some books, and the demonstrable true sense of some particular heads of doctrine which are clearly consigned in the Scriptures. Thus, without begging the question and without thereby subverting the logical priority of Tradition established in this thesis, we have in the foregoing used the authority of Scripture to demonstrate the authority of Tradition. See the Scholion to th. VII.

III. The last part of the thesis, where we say that the doctrine concerning Scripture and the doctrine which is in Scripture are comprised by Tradition as by a whole, as a part, is established from the very definition of Tradition. For the whole revealed doctrine — and consequently both unwritten doctrine and written doctrine — is also preserved through the ever-living magisterium and through the preaching of the apostolic succession ¹. Now doctrine regarded according to this mode of custody and propagation through the course of ages is and is called Tradition in the proper sense. Since, therefore, the doctrine concerning the Scriptures and the doctrine consigned in the Scriptures (th. XX.) are a part of this whole doctrine thus propagated down to us, we rightly say that in the order of comprehension Tradition is the whole, and the doctrine concerning the Scriptures and in the Scriptures is the part of the whole.