the said books entire with all their parts as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the Old Latin Vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid, let him be anathema."- Council of Trent, Sess. IX. others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak breth ren. "Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying." "The other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; Such are these following: [Esdras iii. and iv.: Tobias: Judith: The rest of Esther: Wisdom: Ecclesiasticus: Baruch: Song of the Three Children: Story of Susanna: Bel and Dragon: Prayer of Manasses: Maccabees i. & ii.] Several distinct questions are involved in this branch of the controversy. It will be convenient to treat them under the following sections: (1) The sufficiency of the Written Word, (2) The interpretation of Scripture (3) The Canon of the Old Testament. §i. Sufficiency of the Written Word. I. Roman doctrine of a two-fold Word of God. The Roman Catholic Church holds that there is an unwritten word of God as well as a written: and that the two are of equal value and inspiration. The decree of the Council of Trent which established this doctrine was not passed without opposition. One member of the Council hesitating to concede “equal reverence" to tradition as to Scripture, an unsuccessful attempt was made to substitute the word "similar" or "like." Another, the Bishop of Chioggia, warmly denounced the proposed formula as "impious1." However the dissentients were outvoted by an overwhelming majority, and it was ruled (in the words of Bellarmine) that "besides the written word of God, there is need also of a word of God unwritten, namely the divine Apostolical traditions"." 2. Anglican reply. This decree was passed in 1546, and in 1552 it was answered by the English Church in the fifth of her first series of Forty-two Articles. She implicitly denied the existence of a traditionary revelation; and refused to acknowledge any court of final appeal in essentials of faith and practice excepting the written word. Things not laid down in Scripture might "be sometimes received of the faithful as godly, and profitable for order and comeliness;" but were in no case to be held necessary to salvation. The first book of Homilies labours to impress upon the people of England the conclusion at which the Church had arrived. "In Holy Scripture is fully contained what we ought to do and what to eschew, what to believe, what to love, and what to look for at God's hands at length." "There is no truth nor doctrine necessary for our justification and everlasting salvation but that is or may be drawn out of that fountain and well of truth." 3. Grounds of the Roman Catholic belief. There is reason at first sight in the apology which the Tridentine Fathers offer for the authority of their un1 Waterworth, p. lxxxviii. 2 De Verbo Dei non Scripto, Op. I. p. 204. written Word. The teaching of our Lord and His Apostles, they argue1, must be equally true and important, whether delivered in writing or by word of mouth. It is not essential to a revelation that it should be written: a genuine oral tradition is of the same authority as a genuine written record. This is of course true enough. But the question remains, Is there good reason to believe that any genuine traditions survive—or indeed were ever delivered-of such a nature as to contain essential doctrines or precepts which are not to be found in Holy Scripture?? It is answered, (a) That very many of our Lord's works and words were not recorded by the Evangelists (S. John xvi. 12; xxi. 25; Acts i. 3); (b) That the Apostles speak of "ordinances and traditions" which the Churches had been taught by word of mouth, (1 Cor. xi. 2; 2 Thess. ii. 15) and of a "deposit" of doctrine committed to the Christian Priesthood (1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 13, 14. ii. 2)3. 1 Sess. iv. (decree). Cf. Waterworth, p. lxxxviii. 2 Cf. Usher: (Answer to Challenge of a Jesuit, p. 35.) "We willingly acknowledge that the word of God, which by some of the Apostles was set down in writing, was both by themselves and others of their fellow-labourers delivered by word of mouth, and that the Church in succeeding ages was bound not only to preserve those sacred writings...but also to deliver unto her children viva voce the form of wholesome words contained therein. Traditions therefore of this nature come not within the compass of our controversy....Again, it must be remembered that here we speak of the doctrine delivered as the word of God,...not of rites and ceremonies : traditions of this kind likewise are not properly brought within the circuit of this question." 3 It is also argued that in matter of fact some essentials of faith and practice, admitted to be such by ourselves, cannot be proved by Scripture alone: e.g. the observance of Sunday and of Infant Baptism: the canonicity of Scripture itself. The last point, however, rests not on any Apostolical tradition, but on the gradually-formed judgment of the post 4. Fallacy of the Roman Catholic Argument. But this answer comes short in two respects. It must be shewn (a) that the oral teaching of Christ and His Apostles exceeded the limits of the written revelation and (b) that the existing traditions truly represent this oral teaching as it came from the lips of inspiration. Now with regard to (6) it may be enough to urge the proverbial uncertainty of any report which has passed through the channel of many minds and mouths: "Mobilitate viget viresque acquirit eundo1." And as to (a) there is every reason for rejecting such a belief. For (1) Scripture asserts its own sufficiency, see e.g. 2 Tim. iii. 15-17; “The Holy Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation... All Scripture is. profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2) It solemnly forbids any addition to the written word; "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it." Deut. iv. 2, cf. Apoc. xxii. 18. (3) It condemns in no measured terms the unwritten traditions of the Pharisees (S. Matt. xv. 3, 9; S. Mark vii. 7-13), which claimed to be a virtual supplement to the Canon of the Old Testament; and thus by anticipation and in principle it discourages the attempt to set up a body of traditions external to the Canon of the New2. (4) The Roman doctrine of a supple Apostolic Church, exercising her office as "a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ." The two former observances may be derived from Scripture by fair logical inference. 1 Virg. Æn. IV. 175. The infallibility of the Church may of course be pleaded here: but see Ch. IV. § 2. 2 Dr Döllinger ingeniously urges (First Age of the Church, I. 221) that whilst our Lord rejected certain unauthorised traditions of the Jews, others were as distinctly adopted by mentary tradition is an innovation. The testimony of the Fathers to the perfection of Scripture is most explicit. Let the following quotations serve as examples. S. Irenæus.-"The scheme of our salvation we have come to know through no other persons than those by whom the Gospel was brought to us: which at the time they preached and afterwards by the will of God handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our Faith 1." Tertullian.-"Let the school of Hermogenes shew that it is written: if it is not written, let them fear the woe that is in store for those who add or take away?" Origen." The two Testaments...in which every word which relates to God may be sought for and examined, and from which also all knowledge of (religious) facts may be obtained. Should, however, anything remain which Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third Scripture ought to be received as an authority for our knowledge3." S. Athanasius.-"The holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient for the declaration of truth. These are the wells of salvation. In these alone is the doctrine of godliness taught." S. Basil.-"Believe those things which are written; things that are not written, seek not5." Himself and His Apostles, and worked into the very fabric of Christianity. Possibly so: but traditions so authenticated stand on a widely different basis from those which rely merely upon the judgment of the post-Apostolic Church. Moreover, the Canon of Scripture being in our Lord's day incomplete, there was room for such accretions of revealed truth. Now, it is otherwise. Adv. hæreses, III. I. 2 Adv. Hermog. c. 22. 3 Hom. v. in Levit. 4 Contr. gentes, I. I, and Fest. Epist. XXXIX. 5 Hom. XXIX. |