Book Four: On the Unwritten Word of God

Chapter Nine: Five Rules are Explained by which we Come to Knowledge of True Traditions

It now follows for us to show by what ways and reasons we can investigate which are the true and genuine traditions of the Apostles.

So the first rule is: when the universal Church embraces something as a dogma of faith which is not found in divine letters, one must say that it is possessed from a tradition of the Apostles. The reason for this is that since the universal Church cannot err, for it is the pillar and ground of the truth, I Timothy ch.3, and since about it the Lord said, Matthew ch.16, “The gates of hell will not prevail against it,” then certainly what the Church de fide believes is without doubt de fide; but nothing is de fide save what God has revealed by the Apostles or Prophets, or what is evidently therefrom deduced. For the Church is not ruled by new revelations but abides in those which those handed on who were ministers of the word, and therefore is it said in Ephesians ch.2, “Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.” Therefore all the things that the Church holds by faith were handed on by the Apostles or the Prophets, in writing or in speech. Of such sort 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 that no one could have established save God, which however is nowhere found written down, one must say that it is handed down from Christ and his Apostles. The reason is similar to the preceding one. For the universal Church can not only not err in believing but neither in working, and especially in divine rite and cult; and rightly does Augustine in epist.118 teach that it is a mark of the most insolent insanity to think what is done by the universal Church is not rightly done. Therefore what the Church cannot rightly keep unless it was instituted by God and yet does keep, one must say was instituted by God, even if it is not read anywhere. Such is the baptism of children. For the Church would err very gravely if without the command of God it baptized children who do not actually believe. Wherefore Augustine in bk.10 on Genesis ch.23 says, “The custom of mother Church for baptizing children must in no way be spurned, nor in any way thought to be superfluous, nor is it to be altogether believed unless it were an Apostolic tradition.” Such also is that the baptism of heretics is valid, and therefore Augustine always refers the command not to rebaptize those baptized by heretics to the tradition of the Apostles. For neither can the Church give authority to baptism if it does not have it from Christ.

The third rule is: what has been kept in the universal Church and for all past time is rightly believed to have been instituted by the Apostles, even if it is such that it could have been instituted by the Church. This rule is from Augustine Against the Donatists bk.4 ch.24. An example is the forty day Lenten fast; for that 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; for by going back up in time and seeking the origin of this institution, we do not find it save in the time of the Apostles; although Calvin Institutes bk.4 ch.12 sect.20 teaches the forty day Lenten fast is mere superstition, and was handed on neither by Christ nor the Apostles, but was thought out by later people through evil zeal.

Blessed Bernard serm.3 on the Lenten fast says, “Hitherto we fast alone up to the ninth hour, but now (in Lent) we will all fast up to vespers with each other, kings and princes, nobles and peasants, clergy and people, rich and poor together in one.” Before Bernard, Gregory in Homil.16 on the Gospels makes mention of the Lenten fast, giving a reason that we fast for forty days. Before Gregory Leo in his twelve sermons on Lent. Before him Augustine in epists.118 and 119, and serm.44 on Lent. Before him Jerome on Matthew ch.9 and Jonah ch.3, and elsewhere. Paulinus in epist.6 to Amandus. Chrysostom in Homily on Genesis and elsewhere. Before these Ambrose in his eight sermons on Lent. Epiphanius in his doctrinal compendium.

Basil in his second prayer on fasting. Nazianzen on holy washing, and Cyril in Catechesis 5. Before these Origen Homil.10 on Leviticus; before him Irenaeus in Eusebius Hist. bk.5 ch.24; before him Pope Telesphorus in his decretal epistle; before him Ignatius in his epistle to the Philippians, and Clement Constit. bk.5 ch.13 can.68 of the Apostles.

For like reason Calvin Institutes bk.4 ch.19 sect.24 says that minor orders are a novel invention which is nowhere read about save in silly advocates, Sorbonists and Canonists. But we show from the posited rule that it is of Apostolic tradition. For before all the Sorbonists and Canonists was Isidore, who in Etymologies bk.7 ch.12 enumerates the individual orders and expounds the reason for their names. Before Isidore was the IV Council of Carthage, in which in chs.1-­‐10 is handed on by what rite Bishops are ordained, and priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, lectors, exorcists, porters. And before this Council was Jerome, who on Titus ch.2 enumerates all the orders, besides acolytes, of which he makes mention in his epistle to Nepotianus on the life of clerics.

Before Jerome was the Council of Laodicea in whose ch.24 are named all the minor orders. Before this Council Pope Cornelius in epistle to Fabius of Antioch, as it is in Eusebius Hist. bk.6 ch.33, asserts that in the Roman Church in his time there were, besides the Bishop, 46 priests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, and 52 exorcists along with lectors and porters. But even before Cornelius Ignatius salutes by name all the orders in his epistle to the Antiochans.

The fourth rule is: when all the doctors of the Church teach by common consent that something comes down from Apostolic tradition, whether gathered in a general Council or writing separately in their books, this is to be believed to be Apostolic tradition. The reason for this rule is if all doctors of the Church, when they agree in some opinion, could err, the whole Church would err, since it is held 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 II Council of Nicea, final act, asserted was from Apostolic tradition. An example of the second can scarce be found, if altogether all Fathers who wrote should expressly say something; yet it seems to suffice if some Fathers of great name expressly assert it, and the rest do not contradict although, however, they make mention of the thing; for then that opinion can be said not rashly to belong to them all. For when in a grave matter one of the ancients erred, always many are found who contradict.

By this rule we prove that the rites observed in baptism are of Apostolic tradition; namely that he who is baptized be baptized with water first blessed by the priest; that he be ordered 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 the same is expressively asserted by Basil on the Holy Spirit ch.27, by Tertullian on the Crown of the Soldier, and by certain others. But no one has ever contradicted, since there is almost no ancient writer who does not mention these ceremonies as received by all in the Church. For like reason that Lent is a divine or Apostolic tradition can also be firmly proved by this rule, because it is expressively asserted by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Jerome, Ambrose, Leo, and non contradicts, although yet all make mention of this observance.

The fifth rule is that that is without doubt to be believed to descend from Apostolic tradition which is held as such in those Churches where the succession from the Apostles is complete and continued. This rule is handed on by Irenaeus bk.3 ch.3, by Tertullian in his book On Prescription. The reason for the rule is that the Apostles handed on to their successors, together with the office of Bishop, also the doctrine of religion.

If therefore by ascending in some Church through the Bishops succeeding each other we come to some Apostle, and if it cannot be shown that any of those

Bishops introduced a new doctrine, we are certain that Apostolic traditions are preserved there. And indeed there was once found an uninterrupted succession not only at Rome, but also at Ephesus, Corinth, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and elsewhere; and for this reason Tertullian refers men to any of the Apostolic Churches to find there the Apostolic traditions; and Theodosius I, all peoples, canon on the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith, commands all to keep the same faith that was preached at that time in Rome by Damasus and in Alexandria by Peter, the two Pontiffs of the chief Apostolic Churches. But now there is lacking a definite succession in all the Apostolic Churches besides the Roman, and therefore from the testimony of this Church alone can a definite argument be taken to prove Apostolic traditions; and then especially when the doctrine or the rites of those Churches differ from the doctrine and rites of the Roman Church.

Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME