Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura
Johannes Baptist Franzelin (1816–1886)
First published 1882
Franzelin's Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura (Romae, Ex Typographia Polyglotta S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1882, editio tertia): the prolegomenon, the treatise on divine tradition with the scholion, the treatise on Scripture, and the dogmatic appendix. Latin from the 1882 edition, with a new English translation.
Prolegomenon: On the Objective Principles of Christian Knowledge and of Theology in General
Treatise on Divine Tradition
§ I: Section I
Caput I: Chapter I
The manifold notion of tradition is explained
On the stricter meaning of tradition, by which it is distinguished from doctrines handed down through Sacred Scripture
On the order between tradition actively considered and objective tradition in the method of treatment
On the mode and organ of propagating doctrine according to the divinely instituted Christian economy
The living magisterium is shown to be the perpetual organ of Christian tradition from the express evangelical and apostolic words
On the intimate connection of the principle of tradition with the necessary properties of the Christian religion
On the unchangeable perdurance of the same economy after the books of the New Testament were written
Caput II: Chapter II
The formal nature of tradition is demonstrated from the constitution and principles of the Church
On the visible constitution of the organ of tradition, most suited to the office enjoined on it
On the distinction between historical and dogmatic authority in the attestation of tradition
By synthesis from what precedes, the proper concept of tradition is gathered and confirmed from the sayings of the Fathers
On how the consensus of the faithful in the doctrine of faith is a criterion of divine tradition
Scholion I: Principles on the subject and object of the infallible magisterium
Scholion II: On the meaning of the various censures by which propositions are wont to be condemned
§ II: Section II
Caput I: Chapter I
On the monuments of tradition insofar as they exhibit the consensus of the guardians of the deposit, and insofar as they are instruments of doctrine for them
On the direct or indirect demonstration of consensus from the documents of antiquity
Caput II: Chapter II
On the authority of the holy Fathers taken singly
The opinion on the millennial kingdom of Christ among the Fathers before the fourth century compared with the opposite consensus of later Fathers
On how the consensus of the schools can exhibit divine tradition
§ III: Section III
Ecclesiastical preaching is the supreme norm of the interpretation of Sacred Scripture
The sufficiency of Scripture is preached by the holy Fathers not by excluding but by presupposing tradition and the ministry for guarding the deposit
On the existence of divine traditions not contained in Scripture
In manifold ways tradition precedes Scripture
§ IV: Section IV
Catholic revelation was completed through Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit in the Apostles
On how the doctrine of faith could at some time be proposed more obscurely, to be later explained and declared
On the true sense of the Vincentian canon
On the conjoined office of the guardians and teachers of the faith and on the mode of explaining the deposit
On the different way of explaining the deposit of faith before and after completed revelation
Dogmatic Treatise on the Divine Scriptures
§ I: Section I
Caput I: Chapter I
From the divine tradition of the Old Testament and from the doctrine of Christ himself and the Apostles, all the books and parts of books pertaining to Sacred Scripture must be believed with equal divine authority
The books of Scripture are inspired in such a way that God is the author of the books
The notion of inspiration is more distinctly declared through analysis of the dogmatic formula: God is the author of the books of Sacred Scripture
The notion of inspiration by mere divine assistance, called subsequent inspiration, is refuted
Caput II: Chapter II
On the inefficacy of internal arguments for demonstrating the inspiration of the books
On the necessity of the testimony by which inspiration becomes known
On the twofold way the divine testimony on the inspired books has been preserved to us
The principles of Protestantism are repugnant to the proof of the canon of Scripture retained by the Reformers
§ II: Section II
Caput I: Chapter I
The apostolic tradition on all the books of Scripture was declared by the Council of Trent
The apostolic tradition on the canon of the sacred books is demonstrated from the constant and universal use of the Church
The canons and express doctrine of Christian antiquity exhibit the apostolic tradition on all the divine books of the Old Testament
On the origin of the controversy on the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament
The Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries exhibit deficient catalogues of the books of Scripture not as closed canons but as to be supplemented
The difficulties wont to be drawn from writers of a later age are resolved
Caput II: Chapter II
All the canonical books of the New Testament were handed down by the Apostles
The origin of doubts on the deuterocanonical books of the New Testament is explained
What Saint Jerome said on the custom of not receiving the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse is explained
It is declared what St. Jerome said concerning the custom of not receiving the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse.
« What St. Jerome says, ep. to Dardanus, n. 3: « if the custom of the Latins does not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews among the canonical Scriptures, neither do the Churches of the Greeks receive the Apocalypse of John with the same freedom »; neither did the holy doctor himself say it, nor can it, the monuments inspected, be understood of a common and public custom, but both as regards the epistle and as regards the Apocalypse it must be taken in a restricted sense, of private doubts. »
I. The « Latin custom » in the time of St. Jerome — or as he has it in Is. VIII, 18, the « Latin custom » — which did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews, a) cannot be understood as common and public; but it was a private doubt of some. Nay b) among these very men most are to be thought to have disputed rather concerning the writer than concerning the divine authority of the epistle.
1°. As regards the extent of that negative custom, a) Jerome himself, in the same place, ep. ad Dardan., where he mentions the contrary custom of the Latins, at the same time testifies that the same epistle « is daily celebrated by the reading of the Churches. » The holy doctor therefore opposes the public custom of the Churches to the private custom of certain Latins. b) Jerome does not simply affirm that it is the custom of the Latins not to receive the epistle among the canonical Scriptures; but he speaks as it were conceding and transmitting an argument drawn from the Latin custom, which Eusebius first asserted (bk. III, 3; VI, 20), if it in any way exists. That both things we say are evident from a plain inspection of Jerome's passage. « This must be said to our men, that this epistle which is inscribed to the Hebrews is received as Paul the Apostle's not only by the Churches of the East but by all the ecclesiastical writers of old of the Greek tongue, although most judge it (as to diction) to be Barnabas's or Clement's; and that it matters not whose it is, since it is of an ecclesiastical man, and is daily celebrated by the reading of the Churches. But if the custom of the Latins does not receive it among the canonical Scriptures, neither do the Churches of the Greeks receive the Apocalypse of John with the same freedom; and yet we receive both, by no means following the custom of this time (which, if it in any way exists, was neither perpetual nor is universal), but the authority of the ancient writers, who for the most part employ the testimonies of each — not as they sometimes do concerning apocrypha... but as canonical and ecclesiastical. » c) Among so many Latin ecclesiastical writers of the 4th and early 5th century down to the year 414 in which Jerome wrote the ep. to Dardanus, none is found who doubted concerning the Ep. to the Heb.; all the notable writers and Bishops of diverse Latin Churches, Pontiffs, Councils cite it undoubtingly as the epistle of Paul and as Holy Scripture, and in catalogues place it with the rest of Paul's epistles among the canonical Scriptures. So Lucifer of Cagliari (de non conven. cum haeret. Bibl. Max. PP. T. IV. p. 224.); Hilary of Poitiers (in Ps. 129. n. 7.); Marius Victorinus Afer (contra Arium l. I. B. M. PP. T. IV. p. 264; l. II. p. 272.); Ambrose of Milan (de Poenitent. l. II. c. 2.), even treating against the Novatians; Pacian of Barcelona (ad Sympron. ep. 3. n. 13.); Faustinus the Roman presbyter (contr. Arian. often Bibl. Max. T. V. p. 645. sq.); the same Faustinus and Marcellinus, Roman presbyters (in libello ad Theodos. ibid. p. 659.); Philastrius of Brescia (Haeres. 61.); Gaudentius, Philastrius's successor (de Pasch. B. M. T. V. p. 945.); Chromatius of Aquileia (de octo beatitud. ib. p. 979.); Rufinus of Aquileia (in Symbol. n. 37.); Augustine and Jerome himself most frequently; the Councils of Hippo and Carthage III; Innocent I the Pontiff. Among these monuments the Council of Hippo and that of Carthage, St. Innocent I, Rufinus, Augustine describe ex professo the catalogue of the canonical Scriptures received from the elders, and among these Scriptures either simply place 14 epistles of Paul, or distinctly testify that the Epistle to the Hebrews is among the rest of Paul's and is read in the Church (the African Councils). Evidently, therefore, that « Latin custom » of not receiving the Ep. to the Heb. must be said to have been restricted to few. In the same way, or rather as a version and report from Eusebius, must be taken what Jerome has in the book de viris illustr., article Caius: « but even among the Romans to this day it is not held as Paul the Apostle's. » Eusebius said it a little more mildly: « down to now by certain of the Romans 1 it is not believed to be the Apostle's » bk. VI, ch. 20.
2°. Among those doubters themselves at least most must be said to have raised the question not so much concerning authority as concerning the writer. For a) although St. Jerome and St. Augustine sometimes mention also doubts concerning reception among the canonical Scriptures, yet in other places the same (Hieron., de vir. illustr., articles Paulus and Caius; Aug., Civ. Dei XVI, 22) and several other writers — Philastrius, Primasius, Isidore — make mention only of the controversy concerning the writer (in the places cited above p. 493). Further b) the reasons the Westerners brought forward, from Paul's name not being prefixed, from the more ornate style, and the writers of the epistle they conjecturally proposed, agree entirely with what the Alexandrians Clement and Origen had already said (above p. 493). But those Alexandrians were certainly in doubt not concerning authority, but concerning the writer alone. Therefore the same must be thought concerning at least most of the Latins who followed in their footsteps.
II. What St. Jerome seems at first sight to say concerning the custom of the Greek Churches as regards the Apocalypse must also be greatly restricted. That down to Origen there was no doubt concerning this book neither in the East nor in the West has been demonstrated above (p. 493 sq.). Concerning the consensus of the Western Church even St. Jerome himself confesses there can be no question. Indeed, just as before the age of Dionysius of Alexandria, in which the first mention of any controversy occurs, so also after it no one was found in the West who raised a doubt. The Fathers of the Roman and other Churches of Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, the Councils and the lists of the holy books continued to testify that the Apocalypse is among the divine Scriptures and is John the Apostle's. From the age of Dionysius to that of Jerome we have as witnesses Cyprian, synchronous with Dionysius (ad Quirin. and often elsewhere), the Roman Confessors (ep. 26 among Cypr.), Victorinus of Pettau (Galland., T. IV, p. 52), Hilary (Prolog. in Pss.; comment. on Ps. 1 and 140, etc.), Pacian (Galland. VII, pp. 264, 270, 273), Ambrose (de Poenit., bk. I, ch. 9; de Virgin., bk. I), Faustinus the Roman presbyter (contr. Arian., ch. 3), Augustine and Jerome (often), Orosius (Apolog. cont. Pelag.), all the Latin canons of the Scriptures, as many as are extant.
But even in the Eastern Church, of which we now treat, at the same time not only did no contrary custom prevail, but on the contrary the weightiest Fathers from diverse Churches no less persevered in agreement with their predecessors. Among the Eastern PP. who after St. Dionysius down to the times of St. Jerome use the Apocalypse as a divine book, even with the express name of John the Apostle, are to be reckoned Methodius (Conviv. virg., Galland. III, p. 677; apud Phot., codd. 234, 237; apud Andrew of Caesarea, B.M.T.V., p. 590); Gregory Nazianzen (or. 29, al. 35, n. 27, and apud Andr. of Caesarea, l. c.), although he himself in the catalogue, where his set purpose was to describe only the ὁμολογούμενους books, omits the Apocalypse; Caesarius, Gregory's brother (dial. I, n. 29, Galland. VI, p. 19, if Caesarius be the author); Basil (cont. Eunom., bk. II, n. 14; bk. IV, n. 2) 2; from the Alexandrian patriarchate, whence the first mention of any controversy concerning this book was heard, Athanasius (more frequently, e.g., cont. Arian., or. II, n. 23; or. IV, n. 28; ad Serapion., ep. II, n. 2; in the festal letter he places the Apocalypse with the rest of the books of the N. T. among the canonical Scriptures without sign of controversy arisen); Didymus of Alexandria (Trin., bk. I, ch. 15; and in Corderius's catena on 1 John and on Ps. 50); Marcus Diadochus (cont. Arian., Galland., T. V, p. 243); Macarius of Egypt (hom. 27 and 30, ibid., T. VII, pp. 103, 117); not to be omitted, although later than Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria (de ador. in spiritu, T. I, p. 188; Glaphyr. in Exod., ibid., p. 233, and apud Andr. of Caesarea, l. c.); then from the island of Cyprus Epiphanius (Haeres. 51, n. 32 sq., refuting ex professo the Alogi who rejected the Apocalypse; Haeres. 76, confut. 5, T. I, p. 941, where he places the Apoc. in the canon with the rest of the books of the N. T.; he has frequent citations with the express name of John); in Syria St. Ephrem (T. II, syr., p. 332; T. II, graec., pp. 194, 252, 253, etc.).
From this series of witnesses it is manifest that the Apocalypse, even after the age of Dionysius and Eusebius, remained expressly in the Alexandrian Church among the Scriptures received by common consensus as a canonical book and written by John the Apostle; and likewise in the other Eastern Churches continued to be in public use, nor did witnesses of apostolic Tradition ever fail even in the Churches of the Greeks. Nevertheless we confess that some Eastern Fathers after Eusebius both thought the doubt arisen in places should be indicated in catalogues, and therefore did not place the Apocalypse among the books admitted by universal consensus (above p. 495), and on account of the controversy raised and for polemic reasons abstained from its citations — among whom are St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. John Chrysostom. Only under this qualification can be understood the freedom with which the Churches of the Greeks, before an express definition of the question had been given or had become known to them, are said not to have received the Apocalypse of John.