Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book IV: On the Unwritten Word (Tradition)
Chapter 9: The five rules by which we come to the knowledge of true Traditions
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book IV: On the Unwritten Word of God (Tradition). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
It follows now that we show by what ways and grounds it is to be searched out which are the true and genuine Traditions of the Apostles.
The first rule, then, is: When the universal Church embraces something as a doctrine of Faith which is not found in the divine Letters, it must be said that it is had from the Tradition of the Apostles. The reason of this is that, since the universal Church cannot err, being the pillar and ground of truth, 1 Timothy 3, and since of her it was said by the Lord, Matthew 16, The gates of hell shall not prevail against her, certainly what the Church believes to be of Faith is without doubt of Faith; but nothing is of Faith save what God revealed through the Apostles or Prophets, or what is evidently deduced thence; for the Church is not now ruled by new revelations, but remains in those things which they delivered who were the ministers of the word, and therefore it is said Ephesians 2, Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. Therefore all those things which the Church holds by Faith were delivered by the Apostles or Prophets, either by writing or by word. Such is the perpetual virginity of blessed Mary, the number of the canonical books, and the like.
The second rule is: When the universal Church keeps something which no one could have instituted but God, which nevertheless is nowhere found written, it must be said that it was delivered by Christ himself and his Apostles. The reason is like the former: for the universal Church can not only not err in believing, but neither in acting, and especially in rite and divine worship; and Augustine rightly teaches, epistle 118, that it is of the most insolent madness to think that what is done by the universal Church is not rightly done. Therefore those things which the Church cannot rightly keep unless they be instituted by God, and yet keeps, it must be said were instituted by God, even though it be nowhere read. Such is the Baptism of little ones; for the Church would err most gravely if without the command of God it baptized little ones who do not actually believe. Wherefore Augustine book 10 On Genesis chapter 23: “The custom of mother Church in baptizing little ones is by no means to be spurned, nor in any way to be deemed superfluous, nor at all to be believed unless it were an apostolic Tradition.” Such also is that the Baptism of heretics is valid; and therefore Augustine always refers the command of not rebaptizing those baptized by heretics to the Tradition of the Apostles; for the Church cannot give authority to Baptism if she has it not from Christ.
The third rule is: That which has been kept in the universal Church and in all past times is deservedly believed to have been instituted by the Apostles, even though it be such that it could have been instituted by the Church. This rule is Augustine's, book 4 against the Donatists chapter 24. Let the fast of Lent be the example; for it could have been instituted by the Church, if Christ or the Apostles had not instituted it; yet we say and prove that it was instituted by Christ or the Apostles, because, ascending upward and seeking the origin of this institution, we find it no earlier than the time of the Apostles — even though Calvin book 4 chapter 12 of the Institutes section 20 teaches that Lent is mere superstition, and delivered neither by Christ nor by the Apostles, but devised by the later men out of ill-will. Blessed Bernard sermon 3 On Lent: “Hitherto we alone have fasted till the ninth hour; now (in Lent) all shall fast with us alike till evening, Kings and Princes, Clergy and people, rich and poor together in one.” Before Bernard, Gregory homily 16 on the Gospels mentions Lent, giving the reason why we fast forty days. Before Gregory, Leo in sermon 12 On Lent. Before him, Augustine in epistles 118 and 119 and sermon 44 On Lent. Before him, Jerome on chapter 9 of Matthew and on chapter 3 of Jonas, and elsewhere; Paulinus in epistle 6 to Amandus; Chrysostom homily 1 on Genesis, and elsewhere. Before these, Ambrose sermon 8 On Lent; Epiphanius in the Compendium of doctrine; Basil oration 2 On fasting; Nazianzen in the oration On holy Baptism; and Cyril catechesis 1. Before these, Origen homily 10 on Leviticus. Before him, Irenaeus in Eusebius book 5 of the History chapter 24. Before him, Pope Telesphorus in his decretal epistle. Before him, Ignatius in the epistle to the Philippians, and Clement book 5 of the Constitutions chapter 13, and canon 68 of the Apostles.
By like reason Calvin book 4 chapter 19 of the Institutes section 24 says that the minor Orders are a novel invention, of which it is nowhere read save among the inept wranglers, the Sorbonists, and the Canonists. But we show, from the rule laid down, that they are of apostolic Tradition. For before all the Sorbonists and Canonists was Isidore, who book 7 of the Etymologies chapter 12 enumerates the several Orders and explains the reasons of their names. Before Isidore was the Fourth Council of Carthage, in which, from chapter 1 to 10, it is delivered by what rite Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, Subdeacons, Acolytes, Lectors, Exorcists, and Doorkeepers are ordained. And before this Council was Jerome, who on chapter 2 to Titus enumerates all the Orders, except the Acolytes, whom he mentions in the epistle to Nepotian On the life of clerics. Before Jerome was the Council of Laodicea, in whose chapter 24 all the minor Orders are named. Before which Council Pope Cornelius, in his epistle to Fabius of Antioch (as is in Eusebius book 6 of the History chapter 33), asserts that in the Roman Church in his time there were, besides the Bishop, 46 Presbyters, seven Deacons, seven Subdeacons, 42 Acolytes, and Exorcists with Lectors and Doorkeepers 52. But even before Cornelius, Ignatius salutes by name all the Orders in his epistle to the Antiochenes.
The fourth rule is: When all the Doctors of the Church by common consent teach that something descends from apostolic Tradition — whether gathered in a general Council, or writing separately in books — it is to be believed to be an apostolic Tradition. The reason of this rule is that if all the Doctors of the Church, when they agree in some opinion, could err, the whole Church would err, since it is bound to follow, and does follow, its Doctors. An example of the first is the veneration of images, which the Doctors of the Church gathered in the Second general Council of Nicaea, in the last act, asserted to be from apostolic Tradition. An example of the second is scarcely found, if all the Fathers who wrote must expressly say something; yet it seems to suffice if some Fathers of great name expressly assert it, and the rest do not contradict, though they mention that matter; for then it can not rashly be said to be the opinion of all, since, when in a grave matter some of the ancients erred, there are always found many who contradict. By this rule we prove that the rites which are kept in Baptism are apostolic Tradition — namely that he who is baptized be baptized with water first blessed by the priest; that he be bidden to renounce Satan and his pomps; that he be signed with the sign of the Cross; that he be anointed with blessed oil, etc. For this Basil expressly asserts, On the Holy Ghost chapter 27, Tertullian On the soldier's crown, and certain others; and no one ever contradicted, since there is scarcely any of the ancients who does not mention these ceremonies as received by all in the Church. By like reason we could also firmly prove by this rule that Lent is a divine or apostolic Tradition, because Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Jerome, Ambrose, and Leo expressly assert it, and none contradicts, though all mention this observance.
The fifth rule is: That is without doubt to be believed to descend from apostolic Tradition which is held for such in those Churches where there is an entire and continued succession from the Apostles. This rule Irenaeus delivers book 3 chapter 3, and Tertullian in the book On prescription. The reason of the rule is that the Apostles delivered to their successors, together with the office of the episcopate, also the doctrine of religion. If therefore in some Church, ascending through the Bishops succeeding one another, we come to some Apostle, and it cannot be shown that any of those Bishops introduced a new doctrine, we are certain that there the apostolic Traditions are preserved. And indeed of old an uninterrupted succession was found, not only at Rome, but also at Ephesus, Corinth, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and elsewhere; and therefore Tertullian sends men to any one of the Apostolic Churches, that there they may find the apostolic Traditions; and Theodosius (law Cunctos populos, Code On the supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith) bids all keep that Faith which at that time Damasus preached at Rome and Peter at Alexandria, two Pontiffs of the chief apostolic Churches. But now the certain succession has failed in all the Apostolic Churches except the Roman; and therefore from the testimony of this Church alone a certain argument can be taken to prove apostolic Traditions; and that most of all when the doctrine or rites of those Churches dissent from the doctrine and rites of the Roman Church.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX. Explicantur regulce quinque , quibus in cogni : tionem verarum Traditionum devenimus. Sequitur nunc ut ostendamus, quibus viis ac rationibus indagandum sit , quae sint verse ac germanae Apostolorum Traditio¬ nes. Prima igitur regula est : Quando universa Ecclesia aliquid tanquam Fidei dogma am¬ plectitur, quod non invenitur in divinis Lit¬ teris, necesse est dicere, ex Apostolorum Traditione id haberi. Ratio hujus est, quia cum Ecclesia universa errare non possit, cum sit columna et firmamentum veritatis I. Tim. III. et cum de ea dictum sit a Domi¬ no Matth. XYI. Portce inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam (2) : certe quod Ecclesia de Fide esse credit, sine dubio est de Fi¬ de : at nihil est de Fide, nisi quod Deus per Apostolos , aut Prophetas revelavit , aut quod evidenter inde deducitur ; non enim novis revelationibus nunc regitur Ecclesia, sed in iis permanet quse tradide¬ runt illi, qui ministri fuerunt sermonis, et propterea dicitur Ephes. II .Aedificata supra (1) I. Cor. II, 6. — (2) Matth. XVI, 8. CAPUT IX. 217 fundamentum Apostolorum et Prophetarum (1) : . igitur illa omnia quae Ecclesia Fide tenet, tradita sunt ab Apostolis, aut Prophetis, aut scripto aut verbo. Talis est perpetua virgi¬ nitas B. Mariae , numerus librorum Canoni¬ corum, et similia. Secunda regula est : Quando universa Ecclesia aliquid servat , quod nemo consti¬ tuere potuit* nisi Deus, quod tamen nus¬ quam invenitur scriptum , necesse est dice¬ re, ab ipso Christo et Apostolis ejus tradi¬ tum. Ratio est similis superiori : nam Eccle¬ sia universa non solum non potest errare in credendo, sed nec in operando , ac praeser¬ tim in ritu et cultu divino : recteque Augus¬ tinus ep. 118. docet, insolentissimae insaniae esse existimare,' non recte fieri quod ab uni¬ versa Ecclesia fit ; ergo illa quae Ecclesia non potest recte servare nisi a Deo sint instituta, et tamen servat, necesse est dicere , a Deo instituta , etiamsi nusquam id legatur. Tale est Baptisma parvulorum : erraret enim gravissime Ecclesia , si sine Dei mandato parvulos qui actu non credunt, baptizaret. Quocirca Augustinus lib. X. De Genes, cap . 23. a Consuetudo, inquit, matris Ecclesiae in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est, neque ullo modo superflua deputanda, nec omnino credenda, nisi Apostolica esset Traditio. » Tale est etiam , Baptismum hae¬ reticorum esse ratum, et propterea Augusti¬ nus semper mandatum non rebaptizandi ab haereticis baptizatos , ad Apostolorum Tra¬ ditionem revocat : nec enim potest Ecclesia dare Baptismo auctoritatem, si eam a Christo non habet. Tertia regula est : Id quod in Ecclesia uni¬ versa , et omnibus retro temporibus serva¬ tum est, merito ab Apostolis creditur insti¬ tutum, etiamsi illud tale sit, ut potuerit ab Ecclesia institui. Haec regula est Augustini lib. IY. Cont. Donat, cap. 24. Exemplo sit jejunium Quadragesimae : id enim poterat ab Ecclesia institui, si Christus vel Apostoli non instituissent ; tamen dicimus et proba¬ mus, a Christo vel Apostolis institutum, quia sursum versus ascendentes , et quaerentes originem hujus instituti, non invenimus nisi tempore Apostolorum ; etiamsi Calvinus lib. IY. c. 42. Instit. §. 20. doceat, esse Quadra¬ gesimam meram superstitionem, et nec a Christo, nec ab Apostolis Traditam, sed a posterioribus ex x«xo£>At« excogitatam. B. Bernardus sermon. 3. de Quadrag. : « Hactenus, inquit, usque ad nonam jejuna- vimus soli, nunc (in Quadragesima) usque ad vesperam jejunabunt nobiscum pariter universi, Reges et Principes, Clerus et popu¬ lus, simul in unum dives et pauper. » Ante Bernardum Gregorius homil. 16. in Evang., Quadragesimae meminit, rationem reddens cur quadraginta dies jejunemus. Ante Gre- gorium Leo in serm. 12. de Quadrages. Ante eum Augustinus in epistola 118. et 119. et sermone 44. De Quadrages. Ante eum Hieronymus in cap. IX. Matth. et in III. cap. Jonae, et alibi. Paulinus in epist. 6. ad Amandum. Chrysost. homil. i. in Gen. et alibi. Ante hos Ambrosius serm. 8. de Qua¬ dragesima. Epiphanius in compend. doctr. Basibus Orat. 2. de jejun. Nazianzerius orat, in sanet. Lavacr. et Cyrillus catech. 1. Ante hos Origenes hom. 10. in Levit. Ante eum Ireneeus apud Euseb. lib. Y. histor. cap. 24. Ante eum Telesphorus Papa in epist. decreti Ante eum Ignatius in epist. ad Philippen. et Glem. lib.Y. cons. cap. 13. et can.68. Apost. Pari ratione Calvinus lib. IV. c. 19. Instit. §. 24. dicit , Ordines hiinores esse inventum novitium, de quo nusquam legitur, nisi apud ineptos Rabulas, Sorbonistas, et Canonistas. At nos ostendimus ex regula posita, esse Apostolicae Traditionis. Nam ante omnes Sor¬ bonistas et Canonistas fuit Isidorus, quii. VII. Etymol. c. 12. enumerat singulos Ordines, et rationes nominum exponit. Ante Isidorum fuit Cone. Carthag. IV. in quo a c. 1. usque ad 10. traditur, quo ritu ordinentur Episcopi, Presbyteri , Diaconi, Subdiaconi, Acolythi, Lectores, Exorcistae, Ostiarii. Et ante hoc Concilium fuit Hieronymus, qui in cap. 2. ad Titum enumerat Ordines omnes , praeter Acolythos, quorum meminit in epist. ad Ne- pot. de vit. cleric. Ante Hieronymum fuit Concilium Laodi- cenum in cujus cap. 24. nominantur omnes minores Ordines. Ante quod Concilium Corne¬ lius Papa in epist. ad Fabium Antioch., ut est apud Euseb. lib. VI , histor. cap. 33. as¬ serit, in Ecclesia Romana suo tempore fuisse praeter Episcopum, Presbyteros 46 Diaco- cos septem, Subdiaconos septem, Acolythos 42 Exorcistas cum Lectoribus et Ostiariis 52. Sed et ante Cornelium Ignatius salutat nominatim omnes Ordines in epist. ad An- tiochen. (1) Eph. II, 20. 218 LIBER IV. Quarta regula est : Cum omnes Doctores Ecclesiae communi consensu elocent, aliquid ex apostolica Traditione descendere, sive in Concilio generali congregati, sive soribentes seorsim in libris , illud credendum est apos- tolicam esse Traditionem. Ratio est hnjus regulae , quia si omnes Doctores Ecclesiae, cum in aliqua sententia conveniunt, errare possent, tota Ecclesia erraret, quippe quae Doctores suos sequi tenetur, et sequitur. Exemplum primi est, imaginum veneratio, quam esse ex apostolica Traditione asserue¬ runt Doctores Ecclesiae congregati in Conci¬ lio Nicaeno II. generali Act. ult. Exemplum secundi vix invenitur, si debeant omnes pe¬ nitus Patres qui scripserunt expresse aliquid dicere : tamen videtur sufficere, si aliquot Patres magni nominis expresse id asserant, et caeteri non contradicant , cum tamen ejus rei meminerint ; tunc enim illa esse omnium sententia non temere dici poterit, quando enim in re gravi aliquis Veterum erravit, semper multi inveniuntur qui contradi¬ cunt. Hac regula probamus, apostolicam Tradi¬ tionem esse ritus, qui servantur in Baptismo ; quod nimirum qui baptizatur, baptizetur aqua prius a sacerdote benedicta; quod ju¬ beatur abrenuntiare Satanse et pompis ejus, quod signetur signo Crucis, quod ungatur oleo benedicto etc. Id enim diserte asserunt Basibus de Spir. sanet, cap. 27. Tertullia¬ nus de Cor. mil. , et alii quidam : nemo au¬ tem unquam contradixit, cum nullus fere sit Veterum, qui non meminerit harum ceere- moniarum tamquam in Ecclesia ab omnibus receptarum. Pari ratione Quadragesimam esse divinam , vel apostolicam Traditionem, possemus etiam hac regula firmiter probare, quia diserte id asserunt Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Hieronymus, Ambrosius, Leo, et nullus con¬ tradicit, cum tamen omnes hujus observatio¬ nis meminerint. Quinta regula est : Id sine dubio creden¬ dum esse ex apostolica Traditione descende¬ re, quod pro tali habetur in illis Ecclesiis, ubi est integra et continuata successio ab Apostolis. Hanc regulam tradit Irenaeus lib. III. c. 3. et Tertullianus lib. De preescript. Ratio regulae est , quia Apostoli tradiderunt successoribus suis cum officio Episcopatus, etiam doctrinam religionis. Si ergo in aliqua Ecclesia ascendendo per Episcopos sibi invicem succedentes perve¬ niamus ad Apostolum aliquem, et non possit ostendi, quod ullus eorum Episcoporum in¬ troduxerit novam doctrinam ; certi sumus, ibi conservari apostolicas Traditiones. Et quidem olim inveniebatur successio non in¬ terrupta, non solum Romae, sed etiam Ephe¬ si, Corinthi, Antiochiae, Alexandriae, Hiero- solymae, et alibi : ac propterea Tertullianus remittit homines ad quamlibet ex Apostoli- cis Ecclesiis, ut ibi inveniant apostolicas Tra¬ ditiones : et Theodosius 1. Cunctos populos, C. de sum. Trinit. et Fide catholica , jubet omnes servare eam Fidem , quam praedica¬ bant eo tempore Damasus Romae , et Petrus Alexandriae , duo Pontifices praecipuarum apostolicarum Ecclesiarum : at nunc defecit certa successio in omnibus Ecclesiis Aposto- licis, praeterquam in Romana, et ideo ex testimonio hujus solius Ecclesiae sumi pot¬ est certum argumentum ad probandas apos- tolicas Traditiones ; ac tum potissimum, cum doctrina, vel ritus earum Ecclesiarum a doctrina, et ritibus Ecclesiae Romanae dis¬ sentiunt.