William Goode's "The Divine Rule Of Faith And Practice" in three volumes, produced between 1842-1853. Chapter Three: "View of the Tractators." pp. 78-80. Valuable comments here with respect to "Patristal and Ecclesiastical Tradition" and "Scriptures", the latter being the sole rule of faith and practice. It will be important to keep this distinction in mind as reading Goode.
Goode is building his case that the Tractators view tradition in the same way as Trent. This will go to the heart of "authority" for doctrine, worship and piety.
This is a most thorough refutation of the Roman notion that the Bible cannot stand as the sufficient source of saving truth. The massive case is developed from the early church fathers down to the romanizing Oxford Movement of Goode’s own day.
We believe this work stands alongside the benchmarks of Chemnitz and Gerhard in the Lutheran faith; also William Whitaker and John Jewel in the Anglican tradition; also, Louis Gaussen and B.B. Warfield in the Reformed tradition.
Goode's 3 volumes were the salvoes the Tractarians and Anglo-Catholics never answered. This fact too was noted by Tractarians themselves, as well as many Reformed Churchmen in the Church of England. Again, a little known fact.
Semper Fidelis.
Volume One is free and downloadable at:
http://www.archive.org/stream/divinerulefaith01goodgoog/divinerulefaith01goodgoog_djvu.txt
-----------------------
CHAPTER III.
COMPARISON OP THE DOCTRINE MAINTAINED IN THE WORKS ABOVE MENTIONED ON THE SUBJECT OP PATRISTICAL TRADITION WITH THAT OP THE ROMISH CHURCH.
After the explicit declaration of Dr. Pusey quoted in the preceding chapter that our controversy with Rome on this subject is not a doctrinal but a “purely historical" controversy, i.e. relating only to the validity of some particular traditions, and also some intimations of a very similar kind from Mr. Newman,such as that “we agree with the Romanist in appealing to antiquity as our great teacher" (p. 47,) it may seem almost superfluous to attempt to prove the identity of the doctrine maintained by the writers whose views we have been considering, with that of the Romanists. As, however, in other places they speak as if there was some not inconsiderable difference between their views and those of the Romanists on the subject, and as such an impression is likely to be entertained almost involuntarily by their readers, from the fact of their being ministers of the Church of England, it is desirable to show that the doctrines of the two parties are precisely the
same.
The reader will bear in mind that I am not now speaking of the traditions received by either party, but of their doctrine on the subject of tradition.
The doctrine on this point advocated in the works under the reader will recollect that this chapter was written before Mr. Newman’s secession to the Church of Borne, and refers to the statements made by him as the princpal leader of the Tractarian party.
The consideration may be summed up as we have already observed, in the five propositions which we have given in the preceding chapter; (pp. 36, 37 ;) and these propositions represent precisely the doctrine of the Church of Rome in this matter, as I shall now proceed to show with respect to each of them seriatim.
I. That consentient patristical tradition, or “catholic consent,” is an unwritten word of God, a divine informant in religion, and consequently entitled, as to its substance, to equal respect with the Holy Scriptures.
"We assert,” says Bellarmine, "that the whole necessary doctrine either concerning faith or manners is not contained explicitly (expressly) in the Scriptures ; and that consequently "beyond the written word of God is required also the unwritten “word of God, that is, the divine and apostolical traditions. ”They [i.e. the Protestants] think, that if there were any apostolical traditions, they do not now exist, that is, that there cannot be any certain proof had of any apostolical tradition……We, on the contrary, assert, that there are not wanting certain ways and methods by which apostolical traditions may be manifested. ... If the authority of an apostle when giving an oral precept is not less than when giving a written one, there certainly is no temerity in considering anything unwritten equivalent to the written word.” [Which last observation is of course very true, and its truth is admitted by all, and therefore it answers no purpose except that of leading the reader to misapprehend the views of the Protestants; but I notice it to show how precisely the Tractators have echoed the statements of the Romanists on this subject.] (De Verb. Dei,lib. iv. c. 3.)
The Council of Trent says, — "The most holy synod seeing that the evangelical doctrine and polity are contained in the written books and those unwritten traditions which were received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or, emanating from the apostles themselves, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and delivered down from hand to hand, have descended to us, following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with a like feeling of piety and reverence all the books as well of the Old as of the New Tesament since one God is the author of both, as also traditions themselves, as well those relating to faith as those relating to manners, as either uttered by Christ or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the catholic Church by an uninterrupted succession/' (Conc.. Trid. Sess. 4.) And the rules given by Bellarmine for ascertaining such traditions are delivered by him thus; — "The first rule is, When the whole Church embraces anything as an article of faith which is not found in the divine Scriptures, we must say, that that is derived from the tradition of the apostles…The second rule is. When the whole Church observes anything which none but God could ordain, which nevertheless is nowhere found written, it must be admitted that it was delivered (traditum) by Christ himself and his apostles. The third rule is...That which has been observed in the whole Church, and in all past times, is justly considered to have been instituted by the apostles, although it is of such a nature that it might have been ordained by the Church. The fourth rule is. When all the doctors of the Church declare with one consent that anything descends from apostolical tradition, either when assembled in a general council, or writing individually in their works, that is to be considered to be an apostolical tradition. . . . The fifth rule is. That is to be believed beyond doubt to descend from apostolical tradition which is considered to be such in those churches where there is an entire and uninterrupted succession from the apostles."
It is hardly necessary to say, that he adds the limitation, — We admit no tradition that is contrary to Scripture…we never defend traditions that are at variance with Scripture.”
The first four of these rules for ascertaining what is supposed to remain to us of oral apostolical tradition, are in effect the same as those of Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble. That the fourth accords with the views of our opponents will not be questioned. And so does the first practically. For when Bellarmine speaks of the universal Church holding this or that, he means not merely the present Churchy but the Church as including the Fathers; and both he and I believe I might say all the best writers of the Romish communion hold that the testimony of the Fathers in their writings is necessary for the establishment of anything as having proceeded from the oral teaching of the apostles. The examples given by Bellarmine on this rule show this, being the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord, and the number of the canonical books, for a proof of both which they would send us to the Fathers. And he says, "That is called unwritten doctrine, not such as is nowhere written, but that which is not written by its first author. As, for instance, the baptism of infants. That infants are to be baptized is called an unwritten apostolical tradition, because it is not found written in any apostolical book, although it is written in the books of almost all the ancient Fathers.” And again, “Those rites only we receive as apostolical which we can prove to be apostolical by firm testimonies of the ancients." And one of his notes of the true Church is, “agreement in doctrine with the primitive Church.”
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete