On the Approval of the Sacred Books and Traditions
Let my reader observe that the sessions of the Council are not here set down according to their consecutive order, from the first to the twenty-fifth, as they followed; for in many sessions nothing in particular was decided, and in others there was no discussion of the dogmas. My intention, on the contrary, as I have said in the preface, is to speak only of those points of faith that were established against the heretics in the Council; and therefore we begin with the fourth session, on the divine Scriptures, because it was from this that the disputed dogmatic articles began to be examined against the innovators.
1. The Church defines no dogma of faith unless it be founded either upon Sacred Scripture or upon tradition. Therefore the first concern of the Council was to establish which were the true canonical Scriptures, and which the true apostolic traditions, pertaining both to faith and to morals. The Council accordingly ordered that the theologians should make an exact discussion, both of the Scriptures and of the traditions—not a public one, to be entered in the acts, but a private one, that an account of it might afterward be rendered to the Fathers. And so, in the congregations that preceded the decree afterward drawn up, three doubts were proposed concerning the divine Scriptures. The first: whether all the sacred books, of the New Testament as of the Old, ought to be approved. The second: whether the books we have of the Bible ought all to be put anew to examination, in order to approve them. The third: whether the Scriptures ought to be divided into two classes—namely, into those that had already been recognized as canonical, and those which it seemed the Church had already accepted as good, but not yet as canonical, such as the books of Proverbs and of Wisdom.
2. Concerning the first doubt, it was said with one accord that all the sacred books should be approved by the Council. Concerning the third doubt, on the contrary, the aforesaid division was rejected by all—the division proposed in the Council by Bertano and Seripando, and before the Council by Cajetan, but already strongly disapproved by Melchior Cano as feeble and untenable. The second doubt, however, met with greater difficulty: whether or not a new examination ought to be made for the approval of the sacred books. Many, with Cardinal del Monte and Cardinal Pacheco, refused this examination, saying that the custom of the Church was not to call again into dispute the definitions already made. Many others, on the contrary, said it ought to be made, in order the more to confirm the truth, for the profit of pastors and theologians, that they might afterward the better refute the errors of the false teachers; for the theologian is bound, as St. Thomas teaches, not only to prove the truths of faith but also to defend them against all objections—adding that, if such an examination were made, the heretics could not say that their arguments had not even been examined.
3. But the bishop of Chioggia objected that, in approving the Scriptures and the traditions, it was not fitting to rely upon the decree alone that bears the name of the Council of Florence; since, said he, that decree was not the Council’s, the last session having already ended in the year 1439, while the decree was made in 1441. But it was answered that it is not true that the Council of Florence ended in 1439; for at that time there ended only the Latin interpretation of Bartholomew Abramo of Crete, since up to that time, of the seventh session, only the Greeks remained, and the acts were composed as registered by the said interpreter. But the Council lasted three years more in Florence, and was thence transferred to Rome; for Eugenius IV, seeing that after the departure of the Greeks the illegitimate Council of Basel still persisted, therefore maintained that of Florence. There afterward, as Baronius reports, Eugenius, with the consent of the Fathers, received the heretical Armenians and the Jacobites; and in the instruction of faith that was given them is contained the approval of the traditions, and also of the Sacred Scriptures, with their catalogue. And that the Council persisted after the said year 1439 appears from the two constitutions reported by Agostino Patrizi in his compendium of the Council of Basel: the one of the year 1440, in which the election of the antipope Felix V was annulled; the other of 1442, in which the transfer of the Council of Basel to Rome was ordered. Pallavicino writes, moreover, that the decree concerning the sacred books was indeed the Council’s, as appears from its acts preserved in the archive of Castel Sant’Angelo, signed by the Pope and the cardinals, the authentic copy whereof came in time from Rome to Trent. Furthermore, Father Giustiniani of the Oratory, afterward cardinal and prefect of the Vatican library, brought to light certain acts of the Council of Florence, from which it is seen that the Council lasted until the year 1445.
4. Besides, a new and exact discussion of the sacred books and of the traditions was indeed made at Trent—not a public one, to be registered in the acts, but a private one, that an account of it might be rendered to the Fathers. At length the decree was issued, wherein the Council, considering (as is there read) that all the truths pertaining to the dogmas were contained in the sacred books and in the traditions—which, having been received by the Apostles from the very mouth of Jesus Christ, or else ordained by them at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, had come down even to our own times—declared that it admitted and venerated, with equal piety and reverence, all the books of the New and Old Testament, and all the traditions dictated by Jesus Christ or by the Holy Spirit and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continual succession: “All the books as well of the Old as of the New Testament, since the one God is the author of both; and likewise the traditions themselves, pertaining both to faith and to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ’s own word of mouth or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continual succession, she receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence”: Omnes libros tam veteris quam novi testamenti, cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor; nec non traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem, tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel oretenus a Christo vel a Spiritu sancto dictatas et continua successione in ecclesia catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur.
5. Some had raised a difficulty over the saying that the Scriptures and the traditions were accepted with the same piety and reverence, objecting that, although both came from God, nonetheless the traditions had not, like the Scriptures, so great a stability, since some of them were seen to have ceased. But this objection was commonly rejected, the answer being that both alike are true words of God and foundations of the faith, with this sole difference, that the one are written, the other unwritten; besides, both alike are immutable truths—as distinguished from the positive laws and rites that are found in the traditions, and also in the Scriptures, which laws are mutable. And therefore in the decree the Council expressed that it received only the traditions concerning faith and morals; for already before the decree it had been agreed that these alone should be accepted without exception, but the others, pertaining to rites, should be accepted according to the custom of the present times. Pietro Soave says that the decree concerning the traditions, as many observed, imposed no strict obligation; since, on the one hand, the Council did not establish which traditions ought to be received, and on the other, the anathema was hurled only against him “who knowingly and deliberately shall have despised the aforesaid traditions”—and so he concluded that one did not contravene it who reverently rejected them all. But Natalis Alexander answers, in his Ecclesiastical History, that such a proposition is rash; for the Council said that the Scriptures and the traditions are “to be received with an equal affection of piety and reverence.” Hence, as the Scriptures cannot be rejected without rashness, so neither can the traditions. Concerning the traditions, let the doctrines be observed that will be noted hereafter, in § VIII.
6. After the aforesaid declaration, there was added in the decree the index of all the books that the Council received as canonical. Soave rashly objects that the Council had approved books apocryphal, or at least uncertain. But it is answered that they were not approved save with a new and diligent scrutiny; and besides, these books had all been already approved by the Council of Florence, as was said above. Soave objects in particular that the book of Baruch was approved as canonical for no other reason than that lessons from it had been read in the Church; besides, it had never been numbered among the sacred books by the other councils. But it is answered that, although by the ancient councils this book had not been placed in the catalogue of the canonical books, nonetheless the ancient councils did not mean to exclude it, but to comprehend it within the book of Jeremiah, of whom Baruch was the scribe, as is read in that same book of Jeremiah (chapter 36), and as St. Basil, St. Ambrose, Clement of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and several Supreme Pontiffs—Sixtus I, Felix IV, and Pelagius I—attest, as cited by Bellarmine. Besides, St. Cyprian and St. Cyril allege this book under the very name of Jeremiah, and other Fathers call it simply divine Scripture. Some objected further that the Psalms ought not to be called generally the Psalms of David, since he is not the author of them all, as many hold; and for this reason they were called by the Council the Davidic Psalter.
7. At the end of the decree it was said: “But if anyone shall not receive these books entire, with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, as sacred and canonical, and shall knowingly and deliberately despise the aforesaid traditions: let him be anathema”: Si quis autem libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt et in veteri vulgata latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, et traditiones praedictas sciens et prudens contempserit: anathema sit.
8. Soave brings forward the discourse of certain insolent men, who concerning the words above, in respect of the traditions, said two things: the first, that the Council had ordered the traditions to be received, but without giving any means of knowing them; the second, that the Council, in the passage cited, had given no precept to receive them, but only forbade them to be despised—and so he did not contravene it who rejected them with reverent words. To the first objection it is answered that in this the Council imitated the sixth general synod, where likewise it was not declared which were the true traditions; the more so since, for just ends, it was not fitting in that decree to declare the traditions to be held of faith, these having to be examined and declared afterward in the future sessions, as the matter should require. To the second objection, that there is no precept to receive them, it is answered that it is one thing to speak of the precept, another of the anathema. As to the precept, it appears clearly already laid down, since it is said beforehand in the decree that the Council received “with an equal affection of piety and reverence” the Scriptures as well as the traditions. As to the anathema, it is said that precepts can be transgressed and not received in two ways, either through weakness or through contempt. This supposed, the Council did not will to impose the anathema against every transgressor of the precept given to receive the Scriptures and the traditions equally, but only against those who should knowingly despise the traditions, as the heretics do.
9. Soave complains, moreover, that the Council, in receiving the traditions, ought also to have received the ordinations of deaconesses and the elections of the ministers of the people, which were apostolic institutions of several centuries; and, what mattered more, the use of the chalice by the laity, practiced for fourteen centuries by all nations save the Latin. But it is answered that the Council spoke of, and received, only the traditions continued down to its own time, as it already expresses in the decree: “which, as it were handed down one after another, have come even unto us”: quae quasi per manus traditae ad nos usque pervenerunt. The two former traditions mentioned had been laid aside eight hundred years before, and the third, of the chalice, two hundred. Besides, speaking of the election of the ministers of the Church, we know that in the first Council of Laodicea, held in the fourth century, it was said (canon 3) that the multitude ought not to be permitted to make the election of those who are to be promoted to the priesthood. And before, St. Paul wrote to Titus: “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee” (Titus 1:5). As to the use of the chalice, it is not true that down to two hundred years before it had been universally used. St. Thomas, who lived three hundred years before the Council, disapproves the custom of all those churches that used it. Moreover, the Council of Constance, in its thirteenth session, asserts that the use of the chalice had been taken away long before. Cardinal Bellarmine demonstrates that eight hundred years before, the use of the chalice had already been abolished, and that such use was always reputed arbitrary, and not of precept, in the Church. But this will be better examined hereafter, in its more proper place.
§ 2. On the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books
10. After the aforesaid decree concerning the acceptance of the canonical books and of the traditions, the Council framed the decree concerning the edition and use of the sacred books. And in the first place it declared and approved the Vulgate edition as authentic: “It ordains and declares that this same ancient and Vulgate edition, which by the long usage of so many ages has been approved in the Church in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, be held as authentic; and that no one dare or presume, under any pretext whatsoever, to reject it”: Statuit et declarat ut haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur; et ut nemo illam reiicere quovis praetextu audeat vel praesumat.
11. Concerning this point of the authenticity of the Vulgate approved by the Council, Soave objects that, according to the opinion of Cardinal Cajetan, the infallibility of the Old Testament was derived from the Hebrew text, and that of the New from the Greek text, but not from the Latin text translated, since the translator was not infallible. But it is answered that, if Cajetan’s reasoning were to hold (he who, moreover, has been much censured for his commentaries upon Scripture), then neither could credit be given to the Hebrew and Greek texts that now exist, but faith would be due only to those first originals of Scripture that were written by the prophets, the evangelists, and the Apostles; for all the other copies are subject to error. So it must be said that, God having disposed that Scripture should be an infallible rule of faith for all, it was fitting that He, by His supernatural providence, should bring it about that there be in the Church an exposition in a tongue understood by many, which should be perpetual and immune from every essential error concerning the dogmas of faith. And therefore God has appointed upon earth a manifest interpreter—namely, the Church and its head—who, using those diligent endeavors that the human condition permits, should determine an exemplar to which credit should be given without hesitation.
12. And because the Vulgate Latin translation (a tongue universally known to theologians) had already begun to have a tacit approval of the Church by the usage of several centuries, even from the time of St. Gregory, and had been embraced by her first luminaries—St. Isidore, Bede, St. Remigius, St. Anselm, St. Bernard, Rabanus, Hugh of St. Victor, Robert the Abbot, and innumerable other doctors—therefore the Council, in virtue of the assistance promised it by the Holy Spirit, declared it authentic and secure from every substantial error; leaving, besides, the Hebrew text of the Old Testament (which is very uncertain, by reason of the deficiency believed to have existed in the originals as to the points, which determine the signification of the words) and the Greek of the New in that credit which they deserve. It is said in the canon Ut veterum, distinction 6, that the Hebrew Scripture is to be had for the understanding of the old law, and the Greek for the understanding of the new; but it must be known that this canon is not in truth of St. Augustine, as Gratian says, but of St. Jerome, in the twenty-eighth epistle ad Lucillum (although St. Augustine also consents to it). But St. Jerome, at the time he wrote this, had not yet prepared the Latin translation, and therefore wrote thus; for in arranging his exposition he must certainly have availed himself of those two originals: yet afterward, in the second prologue to the Bible, he does not speak so, as the gloss already notes upon the aforesaid canon Ut veterum.
13. But if the Vulgate interpretation (says Soave) is good and in probative form, then the others are bad, and it is folly to make use of them. It is answered to Soave: it is enough for us to understand that the Vulgate is free from errors pertaining to faith and morals; and therefore, the other interpretations not having been declared authentic, as the Vulgate has, it would be an error to prefer those to this. Besides, the Council has left the faculty to the learned of explaining the Vulgate exposition, in the obscure passages that occur in it, by the light of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles; though with all this many passages remain obscure and doubtful, and perhaps doubtful they shall remain until the end of the world.
14. At least, Soave resumes, the Council ought to have expressed in the decree that the Vulgate would be revised and corrected. This objection was already made at Trent, and also at Rome, where, the decree having been sent to be considered before publishing it, it was written by the Pope’s deputies that there stood in the way of the approval of the Vulgate the fact that there were in it many errors. But it was answered by the legates that such errors were not about the substance of the dogmas and of morals; so they praised the resolution of the Pope to have it reprinted afterward in a more correct form, but for the present they judged that it was not fitting to declare these inaccuracies, although they were of little moment, lest occasion be given to the heretics to bring forward cavils that might confound the common people. Besides, they said that the Vulgate had never been suspected of substantial errors, since it was approved by the very Hebrew and Greek texts, which were more correct; and that, although there were in it many obscure and barbarous passages, no one was forbidden to declare them or to interpret them in a better manner. It must be reflected, besides, that the authors of the sacred books, who wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, do not always relate the deeds and the sayings with those individual circumstances and words exactly as they occurred (and this makes it appear that at times they are at variance), but, as the holy Fathers and the interpreters observe, they agree in the substance of things. But, even after the correction of the Vulgate, the Church does not condemn one who should say (against others who hold the more pious opinion) that even in the Vulgate there is some accidental error of little moment—for example, one tree or one animal being taken for another; as Melchior Cano, Sixtus of Siena, and others say. Elizalde warns, however, that it is not therefore lawful to depart at pleasure in every word or in every subject from the Vulgate, but only in those passages where our theologians are at variance, and where there is no prohibition from the Church.
15. In the second place, the Council, in the said decree concerning the edition and use of the sacred books, forbade everyone to draw the Sacred Scripture to his own senses, against the sense which the Church holds or against the unanimous consent of the Fathers: “Moreover… it decrees that no one… in matters of faith and of morals… shall dare to interpret the Sacred Scripture… against the sense which holy mother Church has held and holds (whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures), or even against the unanimous consent of the Fathers…”: Praeterea… decernit ut nemo… in rebus fidei et morum… sacram scripturam… contra sensum quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater ecclesia (cuius est iudicare de vero sensu et interpretatione scripturarum) aut etiam contra unanimem consensum patrum… interpretari audeat etc.
16. Soave marvels that the Council should have restricted the manner of understanding the word of God, whereas Cardinal Cajetan, as he asserts, taught that the new senses ought not to be rejected, provided they are not alien from the other places of Scripture and from the doctrine of the faith, even though the Fathers were of contrary opinion. But it is answered that Cajetan, although reproved as licentious in this by Cano, does not, however, say that it is lawful to contradict the uniform sense of the holy Fathers: he says only that there may be given to Scripture an exposition wholly different from all the others of the Fathers who are at variance among themselves, in such manner that everyone remains in doubt, but not when the explanations of the Fathers are uniform. Justly, then, has the Council forbidden the interpreting of the divine word against the common consent of the Fathers; for this has always been the ancient usage of the Church. Thus the Council of Ephesus, with the authorities of the Fathers, condemned Nestorius, reproaching him precisely with his presumption in supposing that he alone understood the Scripture, and that all the others who before him had treated the divine word had been ignorant of it. Thus also St. Jerome condemned the opinion of Helvidius, St. Basil that of Amphilochius, St. Augustine that of the Pelagians and Donatists, St. Leo that of Eutyches, Pope Agatho in the sixth synod that of the Monothelites, and the Council of Florence that of the Greeks.
17. Nor could it be otherwise: for if God had permitted that the first Fathers had ill explained the Scripture, God Himself (so to speak) would have deceived us, in permitting that the sacred doctors should have understood the sense of the divine word otherwise than as He understood it. And therefore we are bound to believe as a dogma of faith that which is approved as such by the common opinion of the doctors of the Church; otherwise everyone might doubt of every saying of the Bible, however clear. Whereas, on the contrary, not only must we believe with certainty of faith that which is defined by the Church, but also that which appears clearly from Scripture: otherwise, before the Church had made its definitions, everyone might have doubted of any truth expressed in the sacred pages. Therefore it must be concluded that, in those matters which pertain to dogmas and to morals, all the Fathers cannot err without the Church erring, which is governed by them, when they are in accord, not opining but determining. And therefore the Council said: Let no one dare to interpret Scripture against the sense which the Church holds and against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. As, then, it is unlawful to expound the Scriptures against the sense of the Church, which is of faith by its very nature, so is it to expound the Scriptures against the consent of the Fathers. Besides, already before the decree the bishop of Chioggia well observed that it is not forbidden to give a new sense to the passages of the sacred books, provided that this be not contrary to the sense of the Church or to the concordant judgment of the Fathers.
18. In the third place, it was forbidden in the decree, under pain of excommunication, to printers to put to press or to sell the Holy Bible, or any book of it, or even annotations or expositions upon the holy books, without the examination or license of the ecclesiastical superiors, or without the name of the author, or else ementito praelo—that is, by putting one place for another. And it was said that the same prohibition should hold for those who should publish such books, or communicate them to others, or keep them by them.
19. By Cardinal Madruzzo it was proposed that it would have been well to permit the Scripture to be printed in the vernacular tongues. But this was not judged fitting, it being enough that they were in Latin; both because, on the one hand, the Latin tongue, in the countries where the Catholic Church flourishes, was understood by the men capable of interpreting the sacred books; and because, on the other hand, many passages of the Bible are so obscure and equivocal that, going into the hands of the common people, they might easily breed errors, or at least pernicious doubts.
§ 3. Various Notices Useful to Readers concerning the Canonical Books of Scripture
20. The word canon signifies a rule, or else a catalogue of things written; and it is taken here in this latter sense, namely, the catalogue of the divine books. The canonical books are divided into protocanonical and deuterocanonical. The protocanonical are those that have always been received in the Church as divine and revealed by God. The deuterocanonical, on the other hand, are likewise divine, but were not always held for divine by all the particular churches, though in the end they were received as such. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the Psalms, Proverbs, the Canticle of Canticles, Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets. The protocanonical of the New Testament are the four Gospels, of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John; the Acts of the Apostles; and the thirteen epistles of St. Paul—one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon; and besides these, two epistles, the first of St. Peter and the first of St. John.
21. The deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are Esther, Baruch, the chapters of Daniel that contain the hymn of the three children, the history of Susanna, and that of the dragon slain by Daniel; and besides these, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the first and second of the Machabees. The deuterocanonical of the New are the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistle of St. James, the second of St. Peter, the second and third of St. John, the epistle of St. Jude, and the Apocalypse. To these is added the last chapter of St. Mark, and the history of the sweat of blood and the apparition of the consoling angel in St. Luke. These books were held for divine by the greater part of the Church, but by some Catholics were not at first received as such; finally, by the Council of Trent, in the fourth session cited above, they were all declared to be divine and revealed.
22. By the Calvinists and Lutherans six books of the Old Testament are refused: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two books of the Machabees. Of the New Testament, the Calvinists reject the epistle to the Hebrews, that of St. James, that of St. Jude, and the Apocalypse. But all the councils and all the Fathers frequently cite the aforesaid books as divine; and the Supreme Pontiffs, who have framed the catalogue of the divine books, have numbered the said books among them—together with Origen (as reported by Eusebius), St. Athanasius, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the Council of Laodicea, the Third Council of Carthage, St. Augustine, Innocent I, and Gelasius I in the Roman Council, St. Isidore, St. John Damascene, and finally with the Council of Trent, as we have seen—which is to say, with the whole Church; and this alone would suffice, since from the protocanonical books themselves it is established that the Catholic Church is infallible in her definitions.
23. Anciently, among the Jews, there were more books placed in their canon than there now are: such as the book Bellorum Domini (in Numbers 21), the book Iustorum (in Josue, chapter 10), the book Verborum (in 3 Kings 11), and others. There were, besides, other books not placed in the canon, such as the book of Eldad and Medad, and the like. But of these St. Augustine says that they were neither sacred nor canonical.
§ 4. Objections Raised by Adversaries against the Deuterocanonical Books
24. Against the book of Baruch it is objected that it is not found in the canon of certain Fathers. But it is answered that this came about (as Bellarmine observes) because these men believed the book of Baruch to be of Jeremiah, since Baruch was the scribe of Jeremiah, as is recorded in Jeremiah at chapter 36. Besides, all afterward received it as divine and have cited its texts under the name of Jeremiah, as may be seen in the place cited of Bellarmine.
25. Against the book of Tobias it is objected that it is not found in the canon of the Jews made by Esdras. But it is answered that by the Catholic Church it has always been recognized as divine, as appears from the councils of Hippo and Carthage and from the canon of Gelasius.
26. Against the book of Judith, Luther and Grotius doubt whether the history there narrated be a fable; but by the holy Fathers it has been received as a true history, as is also gathered from the Council of Hippo in the year 393, and from that of Carthage in 397, and from Innocent I, and likewise from the Roman council under Gelasius I. Against the book of Esdras the Anabaptists say that it is false. But they err, because this book, as to its first nine chapters, was received as divine even by the Hebrews. It is true that, as to the other seven chapters, some have doubted of their truthfulness; but by the holy Fathers the history of Esdras has commonly been held as true. Finally, this book is found in the Vulgate, which has been approved by the Council of Trent. They object that the last seven chapters do not agree with the first. But it is answered that those seven chapters which in our Vulgate are the last are, in truth, not the last, but some of them belong to the beginning of the book, as chapters 11 and 12; others to the middle, as chapters 13, 14, 15, and 16; and others to the end, as chapter 10. And St. Jerome placed these seven chapters at the end because he did not find them in the Hebrew codex, but only in the Vulgate.
27. Against the book of Tobias it is objected, first, that it is not found in the canon of the Hebrews. But it is answered that Esdras did not place in his canon all the divine books; rather, by the Catholic Church this book has always been received as divine, as is established by the councils of Hippo and of Carthage and by the canon of Gelasius. It is objected, secondly, that in the said book of Tobias it is said that Sara, the future wife of the young Tobias, dwelt in Rages, where it is narrated in chapter 4 that Gabelus also dwelt; yet in chapter 6 it is said that, when this same Tobias had come to where Sara was, he sent the angel from there to Gabelus in Rages. It is answered that in that kingdom of Media either there were two cities called Rages, or else that the Rages of chapter 3 was not the same city, but the territory of it—as one is said to dwell in Rome who dwells in the Roman territory.
28. Against the book of Job some have doubted whether it were a true history. But the Church, both Greek and Latin, has held it for true, and has venerated Job as a holy man; and in Ezechiel 14 Job is numbered among the saints Noe and Daniel: “If these three men, Noe, Daniel, and Job, shall be in the midst thereof”: Etsi fuerint tres viri isti in medio eius, Noe, Daniel et Iob. In our martyrology his feast was placed on the sixth of the ides of May.
29. Concerning the book of Psalms there are no objections, but there are two opinions, both weighty and probable: the one, that the book was wholly of David; the other, that it was also of other writers, who are already named in the titles of the psalms.
30. Against the book of Wisdom some have doubted whether it were of Solomon. But without reason, since in the book itself Solomon makes himself known as the author of it.
31. Against Ecclesiasticus it is objected that it is not found in the canon of Esdras. But it has already been said above that not all the divine books were placed by Esdras in his canon. Besides, the chief men of the Church and the principal Fathers have reckoned it in the number of the divine books.
32. Concerning the book of Daniel some have doubted of the canticle of the children and of the histories of Susanna, of Bel, and of the dragon, because they are not read in the Hebrew canon. But the Catholic Church, with the consent of the Fathers, has received them all as true. It is objected that in chapter 6 it is said that Daniel was in the lions’ den for a single night, but in chapter 14 it is narrated that he was there for six days. It is answered that twice was Daniel cast into the den: the first time in Babylon, when he slew the dragon there adored, and then indeed he was there for six days, as is said in chapter 14; the second time he was put there under Darius, because he had prayed to God against the edict of Darius, and then he was there for a single night, as is stated in chapter 6.
33. Against the first book of Maccabees it is objected, at chapter 1, that Alexander the Great is there said to have been the first to reign in Greece, whereas, on the contrary, there had been several rulers before him. It is answered that the Scripture there speaks not of any dominion whatsoever, but of the monarchy of the Greeks, which Alexander was the first to hold. It is objected further that at chapter 8 it is said that the Romans every year gave the magistracy to one man, whom all obeyed, whereas, on the contrary, at that time the two consuls were created who governed. It is answered that the Scripture speaks thus because every month or day (as others will have it) the consuls presided in turn, or else because one of them had the principal authority.
34. Against the second book of Maccabees it is objected that in chapter 1 it is said that Antiochus died in the temple of Nanea, whereas in the first book, chapter 6, he is said to have died in his bed. It is answered that the Scripture, in the second book, chapter 1, speaks not of Antiochus Epiphanes, but of Antiochus Soter—as he is named by Josephus—who in truth was stoned in the said temple of Nanea. But in the said first book, chapter 6, the Scripture speaks of Antiochus Epiphanes, who died in Babylon.
35. It is objected further that in the second book, chapter 2, it is narrated that Jeremiah hid the ark in a cave, whereas Jeremiah remained imprisoned for the whole time, until the temple was destroyed. It is answered that Jeremiah, foreseeing what was to come, concealed the ark in the time of Joachim, at which time he was free and not imprisoned.
36. Against the epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews it is objected that it does not bear the name of Paul, and further that it differs in style from his other epistles. It is answered that the Apostle omitted to set his name to it because he knew that name was not welcome to the Hebrews, though faithful, since he, more than the others, preached the abolition of the old law. As to the diverse style, this arose because St. Paul, writing that epistle in his Hebrew tongue, wrote it elegantly; but not thus did he write the other epistles, since he wrote these in the Greek language, in which he was not very skilled, as St. Jerome observes.
37. Against the epistle of St. Jude it is objected that in it the book of Enoch, which is apocryphal, is cited as prophetic. It is answered that the whole book is not cited, but only a prophecy made by Enoch, which perhaps was written in that apocryphal book, but which to the Apostle, by a particular revelation, was assured to be true.
§ 5. Whether the Divine Scriptures Were Inspired by God as to the Words as Well as the Matter
38. St. Gregory says: “He himself wrote it, and was the inspirer of that work”: Ipse scripsit, et illius operis inspirator extitit. There are three opinions. The first holds that all the Scriptures were inspired by God both as to the sentences and as to the words. The second holds that all the sentences were inspired by God, but not all the words; and this opinion is the more probable. The third holds (but this is erroneous and impious) that many sentences were inspired by God, while others were set down by certain writers of their own choosing. What is certain, then, is this: that at least all the substantial matters, both of the Old Testament and of the New, were inspired by God; otherwise, as St. Augustine says, “the whole authority of the Scriptures would waver, and therewith our faith also”: tota scripturarum vacillaret auctoritas, ideoque et fides nostra. And for this reason St. Paul calls the Scriptures the words of God, and to Timothy he wrote: “All scripture is inspired of God”: Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata. This is confirmed, moreover, by the tradition of the Fathers—by St. Irenaeus, against the heresies, by Tertullian, by St. Athanasius, by St. Basil, by St. John Chrysostom. And this tradition is established by the persevering persuasion of the Christians concerning the New Testament, as well as of the Hebrews concerning the Old, as is seen from what Philo and Josephus write.
39. That the Scriptures, however, were not inspired by God according to all their words, St. Jerome wrote in his epistle to Algasia; and St. Augustine wrote: “If, then, it be asked which words Matthew rather spoke, or which Luke, and so forth, there is no need to labor at all over this”: Si ergo quaeritur quae verba potius dixerit Matthaeus, an quae Lucas etc., nullo modo hinc laborandum—for he says it is sufficient that the matters be true, since some of the sacred writers held to one order, others to another; and therefore by Dionysius of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome, and other Fathers certain texts are seen to be cited with barbarisms that certainly could not have been thus dictated by God. And such the Vulgate is held to be—true in all its sentences, yet without all its words having been inspired by God.
Answer is made to certain principal objections.
40. It is objected, first, that if all the sentences as to their matter were inspired by God, then no writer needed to use diligence and labor. But this appears false from what St. Luke writes, and the writer of the book of the Maccabees. It is answered that not every divine inspiration, but only some, excludes the labor and diligence of the sacred writers; for God did not inspire them all in the same manner. To some, by divine inspiration, the sentences and the words offered themselves of their own accord, so that they needed no reflection in order to write; others, however, the Lord moved to take every care that they might not err, and meanwhile revealed to them the matters forgotten or unknown.
41. It is objected, secondly, that many things in the Scriptures are repugnant to the divine precepts—such as certain imprecations written in the Psalms, as: “Pour out thy wrath upon the nations that have not known thee”: Effunde iram in gentes quae te non noverunt, and the like. But it is answered that these were not imprecations dictated by the desire of vengeance, but predictions of the divine chastisements, as St. Augustine notes, where he wrote: “These things are not said by a wish of malevolence, but are foretold as foreseen in the spirit”: Non malevolentiae voto ista dicuntur, sed spiritu praevisa praedicuntur.
42. It is objected, thirdly, that there are in the Scriptures certain useless things that do not seem inspired by God—such as that which the Apostle writes to Timothy: “The cloak that I left at Troas, with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee”: Penulam, quam reliqui Troade apud Carpum, veniens affer tecum. But it is answered that not all the things in the Scriptures are equally useful, yet none of them is useless, because each either serves the integrity of the narrative or else our instruction; just as these words of the Apostle instruct us that we may meritoriously provide for human necessities. St. Jerome accordingly writes: “Whatsoever things in the Scriptures seem slight and small are no less inspired by God than the vilest creatures are from the Maker of heaven and earth”: Quaecumque in scripturis levia et parva videntur, non minus esse a Deo inspirata, quam creaturae vilissimae sint a conditore coeli et terrae.
43. It is objected, fourthly, that certain things in the Scriptures are related as uncertain, as in John, chapter 2:6, where it is said: “Containing two or three measures apiece”: Hydriae … capientes singulae metretas binas vel ternas. It is answered that the Holy Spirit in some places did not wish to declare certain circumstances, but wished to accommodate himself to the common usage of those who relate some fact.
44. It is objected, fifthly, that the writer of the second book of the Maccabees at the end “asks pardon for his errors”: petit veniam erratorum. It is answered that the writer there speaks not of errors written in the book, but only of the less polished style with which he wrote, saying: “And if indeed well, and as it becometh the history, this is what I myself also would wish; but if not so worthily, it is to be pardoned me”: Et si quidem bene et ut historiae competit, hoc et ipse velim; sin autem minus digne, concedendum est mihi.
§ 6. On the Sense of the Divine Scriptures
45. Diverse are the senses of the sacred books: there is the literal sense and the mystical sense. The literal sense is that which explains the letter as it stands, and the literal sense alone furnishes proof in matters of faith. The mystical sense furnishes no proof of faith except when it is confirmed by another text that so explains it, or else when it is so explained by the common sense of the Fathers.
46. The mystical sense is that which is immediately signified by the thing expressed in the words; so the mystical always presupposes the literal, as in that passage of Exodus (12:46), concerning the paschal lamb: “You shall not break a bone thereof”: Nec os illius confringetis—which text is taken by St. John in his Gospel (chapter 19) in the mystical sense, of Christ. The mystical sense is then divided into the allegorical, which pertains to the mysteries of the faith; into the anagogical, which pertains to the eternal blessedness for which we hope; and into the tropological, that is, the moral, which pertains to morals. There is, besides, the accommodated sense, such as that of the Blessed Virgin, to whom are accommodated the words spoken by Christ to the Magdalene: “Mary hath chosen the best part”: Maria optimam partem elegit. The accommodated sense proves nothing, because it was not the intention of the Holy Spirit. Let it be noted that sometimes the same passage admits two literal senses, since God can well, with the same words, signify several things.
47. It is asked whether the sense of the Scriptures is clear or rather obscure. The innovators say that all the texts of Scripture are clear; but they say this because many texts, although they be obscure, are then drawn by them to their own sense, and therefore they say that all are clear. But the contrary is proved from the Scriptures themselves. In St. Luke (18:34) it is said: “And they understood none of these things”: Et ipsi nihil horum intellexerunt. And in the last chapter it is said: “Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures”: Tunc (Christus) aperuit illis sensus, ut intelligerent scripturas. Moreover, St. Peter, speaking of the epistles of St. Paul, writes: “In which are certain things hard to be understood”: In quibus sunt quaedam difficilia intellectu. The same is held by all the holy Fathers; let St. Jerome suffice for all, who in his epistle to Algasia, speaking of Scripture, says: “Which is wrapped in such great obscurities”: Quae tantis obscuritatibus obvoluta est. And St. Augustine, in his epistle 119 to Januarius, says: “In other innumerable matters many things lie hidden from me; but even in the sacred Scriptures themselves I am ignorant of many things, more than I know”: In aliis innumerabilibus rebus multa me latent, sed etiam in ipsis sanctis scripturis multa nesciam plura quam sciam. And this is made yet more evident from beholding the many diverse interpretations of the Scriptures that the Fathers and the Catholic interpreters have made.
48. There is objected the text: “This commandment, that I command thee this day, is not above thee”: Mandatum quod ego praecipio tibi hodie, non supra te est. It is answered: here it is not said that every precept is clear, but that every precept rightly understood, as the Church explains it, is not impossible to be observed, but possible and easy with the help of grace. There is objected the other text of Proverbs (6:23): “The commandment is a lamp, and the law a light”: Mandatum lucerna est et lux. And in the Psalm (18:9) it is said: “The commandment of the Lord is lightsome, enlightening the eyes”: Praeceptum Domini lucidum, illuminans oculos. It is understood that the divine precepts, rightly understood, enlighten the mind and direct the will to good working; but not that all Scripture is clear.
49. The innovators say that, although some senses of Scripture be obscure, nonetheless the Lord gives to each of the faithful a clear understanding of them. Behold the private sense of the heretics, which brings it about that, as many as they are, so many are the faiths they fashion for themselves; and therefore, for as many congresses and provincial and national synods as they have held among themselves, they have never been able to arrive at forming a uniform formula of faith—so it is everywhere known that among the heretics there are as many formulas of faith as there are heads. And this alone would suffice to show that they err and do not have the true faith.
§ 7. On the Various Versions of Scripture
50. All the books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew; the books of the New were written in Greek, except for the Gospel of St. Matthew and the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews, which was probably written in the Syriac tongue, mingled with Hebrew and Chaldaic words; and except for St. Mark, which was probably written in the Latin tongue at Rome. Of the Old Testament there were many versions—of Origen, of St. Lucian, of Theodotion, of Aquila, of Symmachus, and of others—but the most celebrated was that of the Seventy, which was caused to be made about the year 280 before Jesus Christ by King Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Lagus, king of Egypt and third king of Greece after Alexander the Great, being induced thereto by the philosopher Demetrius Phalereus. The said Ptolemy, wishing to enrich his library, sent to ask Eleazar the high priest to send him the sacred books and, together with them, his Hebrew doctors, to translate them into Greek. Eleazar sent him seventy-two learned men, who made the version that was afterward approved by the Jews and by the Greeks of Alexandria.
51. Concerning this version, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Augustine, with Bellarmine and Baronius, were of the opinion that those interpreters were inspired by the Holy Spirit in translating the divine writings; but St. Jerome denies it. Other learned men say that at the least they were assisted by the Holy Spirit, so that they should not err.
52. Others have written, following the history recorded by a certain Aristeas, a Gentile, that the aforesaid interpreters shut themselves up separately in different little cells, that each one made his own translation, and that at last all those translations, being compared together, were found to be all uniform. But St. Jerome, in his preface to the Pentateuch, wholly rejects this account, saying: “I know not who was the first author who by his own falsehood built up the seventy cells”: Nescio quis primus auctor septuaginta cellulas mendacio suo extruxerit; and he asserts that the seventy-two doctors rendered the sacred texts only by conferring among themselves; and in this Bellarmine and many learned moderns agree. Bellarmine, with others, further observes that the aforesaid version of the Seventy is at the present day so corrupted that it seems altogether different from what it was. Besides, there is no doubt that the Apostles and the holy Fathers in the first centuries made use of that translation; but today it is certain that it is not held to be authentic, whatever Juenin may say, who would have it that the version of the Seventy was, and is even now, authentic.
53. Speaking next of the Latin versions of the same Old Testament, the most common was always the Vulgate, called the Italic by St. Augustine and the Old by St. Gregory. St. Jerome corrected it and rendered it into Latin twice, the first time from the Greek version of the Seventy, and the second from the Hebrew text; except for the Psalter (which he only corrected), and except for the books of Wisdom, of Ecclesiasticus, and of the Maccabees, which are the same as they were in the ancient Latin version. This version of St. Jerome was then universally received in the Western Church, and at last by the Council of Trent, in the fourth session, was declared authentic, as being that which, by means of the apostolic tradition, has been approved as true by the long use of so many centuries.
54. Let it be observed, moreover, that the New Testament was not turned by St. Jerome from Greek into Latin, but was only corrected of certain errors; so Juenin. And Bellarmine writes that the Greek version of the New Testament, made by the saint at the command of St. Damasus, is today not wholly secure, because it is not altogether free from corruption.
55. The heretics object, in the first place, against the Vulgate, that it disagrees with the Hebrew and with the Greek; and that for this reason Clement VIII corrected the Vulgate that had been put forth by Sixtus V. It is answered that it does not disagree as to the substantial sense; and besides, it would matter little if in some place it did disagree, since the learned say that the copies, both Hebrew and Greek, are defective—which has come about through the negligence of the editors. Nonetheless the Greek and Hebrew sources are very useful for discerning the sense of the words; and the Council of Trent, although it has preferred the Vulgate to them, has nevertheless left to the Hebrew and Greek texts the authority that they had. Let it be observed, moreover, that Clement VIII, in his emendation of the Vulgate, did not vary from that of Sixtus as to the sense, but only in certain expressions. Besides, as Clement speaks, the Vulgate is not even today free from every accidental error; but at present it stands already defined that it is exempt from every substantial error against the faith or against good morals.
56. They object, in the second place, that the Council had no reason to prefer the Vulgate to the others. It is answered that a sufficient ground for preferring it was the use of the Church, which for a thousand years made use of the Vulgate; for in the time of St. Gregory the Great the Vulgate alone was employed for the lessons and the definitions, as appears from the books of St. Gregory and from the acts of the councils.
57. They object, in the third place, that the Vulgate contains many errors which in the time of the Council of Trent could not be corrected. It is answered that down to now no error has been able to be ascertained. And if, through the fault of the printers, some errors have by chance crept in, these have been caused to be corrected by the Supreme Pontiffs. And if some few have been left, they are of the very lightest moment, and do not in the least offend against either the faith or good morals.
§ 8. Some More Notable Doctrines concerning the Traditions
58. By tradition is understood the word of God unwritten, which the Church guards and proposes to the faithful to be believed with the same certainty of faith as the divine Scripture. It is called tradition because it comes down not by means of writings, but as it were by hand, ab uno traditur alteri—from one it is handed to another—and passes from ear to ear by narration or common report. The written word of God is preserved upon paper; the unwritten, in the hearts of the faithful.
59. The traditions are of three kinds: divine, apostolic, and ecclesiastical. The divine are those that proceed from God himself or from Christ, such as the institutions of the matter and form of the sacraments. The apostolic are those that proceed from the Apostles; and these are of two sorts. For some are those that the Apostles received from the very voice of Jesus Christ, or that were revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, so that they are merged with the divine; and others are those that the Apostles, directed by the Holy Spirit, have left us to observe, such as the mingling of water with the wine in the chalice, the Lenten fast, the observance of Easter and of Pentecost, and the like. The ecclesiastical, finally, are those customs anciently introduced into the Church by the prelates, or by the peoples with the consent of the prelates, which in time have acquired the force of laws, such as the recitation of the Divine Office with respect to clerics ordained in sacris or holding benefices, the abstinence from flesh on Saturday, and the like.
60. The innovators deny all the traditions; but the Catholics teach that there are true divine traditions which, together with the Scriptures, are the foundation of the faith. So the Council of Trent taught that the Church venerates with equal reverence the Scriptures and the traditions alike, saying in the fourth session, in the decree on the canonical Scriptures: “Seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or dictated by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles themselves, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand: following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, she receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books as well of the Old as of the New Testament, since the one God is the author of both; and likewise the traditions themselves, pertaining both to faith and to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ’s own word of mouth or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continual succession”: Perspiciensque hanc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus, quae ab ipsius Christi ore ab apostolis acceptae aut ab ipsis apostolis, Spiritu sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditae ad nos usque pervenerunt; orthodoxorum patrum exempla secuti, omnes libros tam veteris quam novi testamenti, cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, necnon traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem, tum ad mores pertinentes, tamquam vel oretenus a Christo vel a Spiritu sancto dictatas et continua successione, in ecclesia catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur.
61. The divine traditions existed first of all in the state of the law of nature, that is, from Adam down to Moses. There must certainly have been at that time a sure rule of faith; and this rule could not be had from the Scriptures, since none existed: therefore it was had from the tradition of Adam, who taught his children that which had been revealed to him by God concerning the redemption and the other mysteries of our salvation.
62. Then, in the time of the written law, published by Moses, although there were already several divine Scriptures, nonetheless the Jews still had to make use of the traditions for the regulation of many things of faith and of morals. The Lord said: “And thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying: This is what the Lord did” (Exod. 13:8). David wrote: “How great things he commanded our fathers, that they should make the same known to their children: that another generation might know them” (Ps. 77:6). So that not only the Scripture, but also the tradition of the fathers, served the Jews to make known to them the events that were to befall them.
63. Finally, in the evangelical law, at its beginning, tradition was for several years absolutely necessary; for the Gospel of St. Matthew, which was the first book of the New Testament, did not come forth until eight years after the death of Jesus Christ, and all the other sacred writings came forth many years afterward.
64. In our own times also the traditions are necessary for several reasons. First, to discern the canonical books from the apocryphal: since this is not declared in any sacred book, nor can it be known by the private spirit, as was said above; and therefore the holy Fathers say uniformly that it is from tradition alone that we know which are the true divine books. Origen writes: “From tradition I have learned concerning the four Gospels, that these alone,” etc.: Ex traditione didici de quatuor evangeliis quod haec sola, etc.
65. Second, the traditions are necessary to the Church for judging what is the true sense of those Scriptures by which many dogmas of our faith are proved—such as the Trinity of the divine persons, the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, that the Virgin Mary is the true Mother of God, the existence of original sin in every man that is born, the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist; while the Socinians and other heretics deny that the Scriptures prove what the Catholic Church teaches concerning the aforesaid mysteries.
66. Third, they are necessary for the belief of several dogmas of faith that are common to the Catholics as well as to the Lutherans and Calvinists against other heretics: such as that the divine Mother was ever a virgin, against Helvidius; that the baptism given to infants is valid, against the Anabaptists; that likewise the baptism given by heretics is valid, against the Donatists. And of this nothing is expressed in the divine Scriptures; so that we have these truths from no other source than from tradition.
67. Moreover, the Apostles did not write down all that they preached; and it is certain that they learned many things from the mouth of Jesus Christ, and therefore they commended to the faithful the traditions that they had communicated to them. St. Paul wrote: “Now I praise you… that… you are mindful of me in all things, and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2): Laudo… vos… quod per omnia mei memores estis et, sicut tradidi vobis, praecepta mea tenetis. And in another place he wrote: “Hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15): Tenete traditiones quas didicistis sive per sermonem sive per epistolam nostram. Hence Chrysostom wrote upon this last passage: “From this it is plain that they delivered not all things by epistle, but many things also without writing; and these, no less than those, are worthy of the same faith”: Hinc patet quod non omnia per epistolam, sed multa etiam sine literis; eadem vero fide digna sunt tam illa quam ista.
68. The adversaries object, first, what is said in Deuteronomy, chapter 4, verse 2: “You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it”: Non addetis ad verbum quod ego praecipio vobis, nec auferetis ex eo. And further, what is read in St. Matthew, chapter 15, verse 3, said to the Pharisees: “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition?”: Quare et vos transgredimini mandatum Dei propter traditionem vestram? It is answered to the first text that there Moses did not say, Non addetis ad verbum quod ego scribo vobis, but quod praecipio vobis; so that the speech there is not of tradition, but of precept. Likewise Christ did not say traditionem meam, but vestram—that is, the tradition invented by the Pharisees; and therefore he added: “You have made void the commandment of God for your tradition”: Irritum fecistis mandatum Dei propter traditionem vestram.
69. They object, second, what the Apostle wrote: “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work”: Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum, ad arguendum, ad corripiendum, ad erudiendum in iustitia; ut perfectus sit homo Dei ad omne opus bonum instructus. Hence they say: of what use is tradition, when the Scripture contains all? It is answered that the Apostle says the Scripture is profitable to teach, to reprove, and so forth, but he does not say that it suffices for all. Besides, St. Paul does not speak of all the sacred books taken collectively, but of each one in particular, and says that each book is profitable, yet not sufficient to instruct us in all the things of faith and of morals.
70. We know, moreover, that the councils made use of tradition for the sense of the Scriptures. Theodoret attests that the first Council of Nicaea made use of tradition in the condemnation of Arius. The second Council of Nicaea, as appears from its sixth action, also made use of tradition for the defense of the sacred images against the iconoclasts. Likewise the eighth Council, in its eighth action, declared that the true traditions ought to be observed.
71. Thus also it is uniformly confirmed by the holy Fathers that the traditions are to be held for the true word of God: and so by the Greek Fathers, as by St. Ignatius, by St. Irenaeus, by Origen, by St. Basil, by St. John Chrysostom cited above, and by St. Epiphanius; so also by the Latin Fathers, Tertullian, St. Augustine, and Vincent of Lérins, who throughout his whole book entitled Commonitorium teaches that one must stand by the traditions.
72. But it is objected, first, that St. Cyprian did not believe that the tradition urged against him by Pope Stephen had proceeded from the Apostles, but called it an ancient error, vetustum errorem. It is answered that St. Cyprian denied that tradition urged by Pope Stephen only insofar as he did not believe it to descend from the Apostles; but he well believed that the traditions which truly proceeded from the Apostles ought to be held.
73. It is objected, second, that St. Jerome, on chapter 23 of St. Matthew, said: “Because this has no authority from the Scriptures, it is despised with the same ease with which it is proved”: Hoc quia de scripturis auctoritatem non habet, eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur. It is answered that the saint despised that assertion because it was proved not from the Scriptures, but from a certain apocryphal book, wherein it was said that the Zachary slain by the Jews between the temple and the altar had been Zachary the father of the Baptist.
74. It is objected, third, that tradition cannot be a sure monument, being subject to change—as has happened in the communion of the Eucharist under both species, which for so many centuries was used, and then four centuries ago was abolished. It is answered that we are speaking of the tradition that pertains to faith and to morals, which is infallible and immutable; not of that which pertains to discipline, which may well be changed for just causes.
Here, finally, it is necessary to establish the rules by which the divine tradition is distinguished from the human. The heretics deny the traditions for this very reason, because they say it is impossible to discern the true from the false.
Rules by which it is known that a tradition is human and not divine.
Rule one. That is not a divine tradition which, although it be observed throughout the whole Church, is found to have had its origin in the opinion of some Father, or of some particular council: for in this way we should have to admit, without sure foundation, new revelations concerning faith or morals; which has always been abhorred and impugned in the Church by the men most devoted to religion. “This custom,” says Vincent of Lérins, “has ever prevailed in the Church, that the more religious a man was, the more readily he would oppose himself to new inventions”: Mos iste in ecclesia semper viguit ut quo quisque foret religiosior, eo promptius novellis adinventionibus contrairet. Hence the Supreme Pontiffs, the councils, and the Fathers have had all care to preserve the integrity of religion by banishing from the Church all novelties—that is, new doctrines concerning the things of faith, differing from those already received. This was well declared by the Apostle when he wrote to Timothy: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called, which some promising have erred concerning the faith”: O Timothee, depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum novitates et oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae, quam quidam promittentes circa fidem exciderunt. Vincent of Lérins adds: “What is the deposit? It is that which has been committed to thee, not that which has been invented by thee; that which thou hast received, not that which thou hast devised”: Quid est depositum? est quod tibi creditum est, non quod a te inventum; quod accepisti, non quod excogitasti. With such revealed novelties did Montanus infect the Church.
Rule two. That doctrine which is found in one particular church alone is not to be esteemed divine, but purely human; otherwise, as St. Augustine demonstrated against the Donatists, the whole Catholic Church would have to be reduced to that one corner of the earth. So that in such a case no account is to be made of that particular church.
Rule three. That tradition is not to be held for divine which teaches some dogma by means of one or a few writers, new or ancient, against the common opinion of the others, even though they were learned and holy. The error of the Millenarians—namely, that Christ, after the resurrection of men, was to reign here on earth together with his elect for a thousand years—was held by several Fathers, by Tertullian, by St. Irenaeus, by Lactantius, and others, as reported in Eusebius; but because it was contrary to the common judgment of the others, therefore it was abolished.
§ 9. Rules by Which a Tradition May Be Known to Be Divine and Not Human
First rule. That dogma which is embraced by the whole Church ought to be reckoned a divine tradition, even though it be not found in the divine Scriptures. The reason is that the universal Church cannot err, being herself the stable and infallible pillar of the truth, as the Apostle wrote (1 Tim. 3:15). So Tertullian wrote: “What is found one and the same among many is not error, but tradition”: Quod apud multos unum invenitur non est erratum, sed traditum. The same was written by St. Cyprian, and by St. Jerome against Vigilantius.
Second rule. That doctrine which the whole Church has defended in every age must likewise be held for a divine tradition; for just as the Church of the present age cannot admit as divine that which is human, so neither could she have admitted it in the preceding ages.
Third rule. That practice which God alone could have instituted ought to be believed to derive from apostolic tradition, whenever it is observed by the whole Church. And thus St. Augustine proves that the practice of baptizing infants is by divine tradition: “The custom of mother Church in baptizing little ones is not to be reckoned superfluous, nor at all to be believed unless it were an apostolic tradition”: Consuetudo matris ecclesiae in baptizandis parvulis non est superflua deputanda nec omnino credenda, nisi apostolica esset traditio. And he says the same of the practice of not rebaptizing those baptized by heretics. Of this same kind, says Melchior Cano, are several things that are practiced in the Church which could not be done if the Church had not received the faculty for them from God through the tradition of the Apostles—such as dispensing from vows and releasing from oaths. And the same reasoning holds, as Juenin writes, of the dissolution of a marriage ratified but not consummated, by reason of solemn vows. For it must never be supposed that in this the Church has erred by usurping such a faculty without certain foundation.
Fourth rule. That practice which is seen to be observed throughout the whole Church perpetually in every age, and which is not seen to have been instituted by any council, ought to be reckoned as instituted by apostolic tradition, even though it be of such a kind that the Church could well have instituted it herself. “What the whole Church holds,” writes St. Augustine, “and which has not been instituted by councils but has always been retained, is most rightly believed to have been handed down by no other than apostolic authority”: Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, nonnisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime creditur. By such an argument the theologians say that the Lenten fast is of apostolic institution.
Moreover, Tertullian and St. Irenaeus say that when, in some churches, the tradition of a certain dogma is not found, but is nonetheless found in the others—at least in the principal apostolic churches, in which the succession of bishops has not been interrupted—in such a case it must be judged that this is a divine tradition: so Tertullian and St. Irenaeus, who, in chapter 3, add that among those apostolic churches in which the true tradition has been preserved is the Roman Church, which holds the chief place: “in which the tradition that is from the Apostles has always been preserved by those who are from every quarter”: In qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio. And then, after enumerating all the Roman pontiffs down to his own times, he adds: “By this ordination and succession, the tradition that is in the Church from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, has come down even unto us”: Hac ordinatione et successione ea quae est ab apostolis in ecclesia traditio et veritatis praeconizatio pervenit usque ad nos.