WELL-FOUNDED IN THE NATURAL LAW TRADITION, Hooker's prior discussions regarding the law of reason or the natural moral law nestle comfortably within the received teaching of united Christendom, even the Catholic Church at the time he penned his work up to the present. In discussing the sufficiency of Scripture, however, Hooker begins to show his Protestant credentials, and it gives us great sorrow that we must part ways with this man who is otherwise so "judicious." Even here, Hooker tries to manage the via media tightrope between "sola scriptura" on the one one hand, and the Catholic teaching that Revelation is contained in Tradition, which is both written Tradition (in Scripture) and oral Tradition (and evidenced, for example, in the liturgical or sacramental practices of the Church, or in the testimony of the Church Fathers, or even in the constant teaching of the Church). Hooker also rejects the role of the ecclesia docens generally, and the Papal Magisterium in particular, in defining doctrinal or moral teaching. Even ignoring how Hooker departs from received teachings, in the light of the modern Anglican Church's wholesale moral capitulation to the Zeitgeist and neo-pagan moral ethos, and its inability to follow even patent aspects of the natural moral law in the area of sexual morality, it is quite apparent that Hooker's formula was errant, and the Catholic Church's was not. Were Hooker with us today, he would most certainly be aghast at his ecclesial communion's easy acceptance of artificial contraception in Resolution 15 of the Lambeth Conference of 1930.* Equally offensive to the natural moral law and divinely revealed law, the Anglican communion's doctrinal and practical tolerance with respect to homosexual activity, even among its clergy, is hardly less edifying.
Be all that as it may, to return to Hooker, Hooker believes the "principal intent of scripture is to deliver the laws of duties supernatural." I.14.1, 124. In times past, when mankind lived those Methuselan spans of time and had presumably similarly long memories, written revelation was not required. However, as human life-spans shortened, the benefits of written divine law became apparent, and so it was that Moses at first, then later the Prophets, even the Evangelists, inspired by the Holy Spirit, came to write down God's Revelation of which we are the beneficiaries. I.13.1, 122.
For Hooker, the fact that divine law is written (as distinguished from orally revealed) is of no moment to whether it ought to be obeyed. In other words, the motive for obedience of divine law is not that law is written, but that law is revealed by God. I.13.2, 122. Nevertheless, there is great benefit to having the divine laws written.
Hooker insists, as related above, that all divine law is found in written form in Scripture.
As principal argument against oral tradition, Hooker cites the difficulties of transmital involved in oral, as distinguished from written, reports. "What hazard the truth is in when it passes through the hands of report, how maimed and deformed it becomes; they [the advocates of oral Tradition] are not, they cannot possibly be ignorant." I.13.2, 123. Entirely gone from Hooker's assessment is the role of the ecclesia docens, the teaching Church. Hooker also ignores the problems associated with written report, and that its problems are nothing other than a difference in degree from oral report. He also appears to ignore the problems associated with interpretation of written reports, as written reports do not interpret themselves. But most significant of all, Hooker avoids the issue of what authority we look towards to establish the canon of Scriptures, and to determine that the books in the canon are divinely revealed. Hooker copiously cited St. Augustine in prior sections, but here he overlooks St. Augustine's pithy saying which clearly places the authority of the Catholic Church as the foundation of knowing what the canon is, and that it is divinely inspired: "But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me." St. Augustine, Contra epistolam Manichaei 5, 6: PL 42, 176. (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.) The Church founded by Christ, it must be remembered, pre-existed the first inspired Gospel and the first inspired Apostolic epistle. Even Homer nods, and even our judicious Hooker suffers lapses of logic and consistency. The only thing we may grant Hooker is that at least he is not vituperative in his argument against the Catholic position.
Title Page of Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie
Scripture contains much more than just law: it is "stored with infinity variety of matter in all kinds." I.14.1, 124. It contains matters of doctrine, precepts, prophecies, histories of God's interaction with men, mediations, explanations, some matters general and other particular. Hooker rejects the notion that Scripture contains superfluities, and that everything other than law can be ignored. What is contained in Scripture is no more superfluous than our hands or our eyes.
NOTES:
*The Lambeth Conference of 1930 issued forth the following Resolution which offends the natural moral law as well as the revealed divine law: "Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood . . . and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods [of contraception] may be used . . . ." The Resolution was adopted by the Anglican bishops, with 193 voting for, only 67 against. The Resolution, manifestly offensive to the natural moral law and to universal Christian mores up to that time, issued forth Piux XI's Encyclical Casti Connubii ("On Chaste Marriage") which restated the received doctrine that had essentially been accepted by all Christian bodies before the Anglican Church's errant novel moral stance: "[A]ny use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life," Piux XI stated as teacher of all the faithful, "is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin." [No. 56]
**The Catholic Church's position regarding revelation is conveniently summarized in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, Nos. 9-10 (citations omitted): "[9] Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. [10] Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."
Portrait of Richard Hooker
Be all that as it may, to return to Hooker, Hooker believes the "principal intent of scripture is to deliver the laws of duties supernatural." I.14.1, 124. In times past, when mankind lived those Methuselan spans of time and had presumably similarly long memories, written revelation was not required. However, as human life-spans shortened, the benefits of written divine law became apparent, and so it was that Moses at first, then later the Prophets, even the Evangelists, inspired by the Holy Spirit, came to write down God's Revelation of which we are the beneficiaries. I.13.1, 122.
For Hooker, the fact that divine law is written (as distinguished from orally revealed) is of no moment to whether it ought to be obeyed. In other words, the motive for obedience of divine law is not that law is written, but that law is revealed by God. I.13.2, 122. Nevertheless, there is great benefit to having the divine laws written.
Hooker insists, as related above, that all divine law is found in written form in Scripture.
When the question therefore is, whether we be now to seek for any revealed law of God otherwise than only in the sacred scripture, whether we do now stand bound in the sight of God to yield to traditions urged by the Church of Rome the same obedience and reverence we do to his written laws, honoring equally and adoring both as Divine: our answer is, no.I.13.2, 122-23.**
As principal argument against oral tradition, Hooker cites the difficulties of transmital involved in oral, as distinguished from written, reports. "What hazard the truth is in when it passes through the hands of report, how maimed and deformed it becomes; they [the advocates of oral Tradition] are not, they cannot possibly be ignorant." I.13.2, 123. Entirely gone from Hooker's assessment is the role of the ecclesia docens, the teaching Church. Hooker also ignores the problems associated with written report, and that its problems are nothing other than a difference in degree from oral report. He also appears to ignore the problems associated with interpretation of written reports, as written reports do not interpret themselves. But most significant of all, Hooker avoids the issue of what authority we look towards to establish the canon of Scriptures, and to determine that the books in the canon are divinely revealed. Hooker copiously cited St. Augustine in prior sections, but here he overlooks St. Augustine's pithy saying which clearly places the authority of the Catholic Church as the foundation of knowing what the canon is, and that it is divinely inspired: "But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me." St. Augustine, Contra epistolam Manichaei 5, 6: PL 42, 176. (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.) The Church founded by Christ, it must be remembered, pre-existed the first inspired Gospel and the first inspired Apostolic epistle. Even Homer nods, and even our judicious Hooker suffers lapses of logic and consistency. The only thing we may grant Hooker is that at least he is not vituperative in his argument against the Catholic position.
Title Page of Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical PolitieScripture contains much more than just law: it is "stored with infinity variety of matter in all kinds." I.14.1, 124. It contains matters of doctrine, precepts, prophecies, histories of God's interaction with men, mediations, explanations, some matters general and other particular. Hooker rejects the notion that Scripture contains superfluities, and that everything other than law can be ignored. What is contained in Scripture is no more superfluous than our hands or our eyes.
As therefore a complete man is neither destitute of any part necessary, and has some parts whereof though the want could not deprive him of his essence, yet to have them stands him in singular stead in respect of the special uses for which they serve: in like sort all those writing which contain in them the law of God, all those venerable books of scripture, all those sacred tomes and volumes of holy writ, they are with such absolute perfection framed, that in them there neither wants anything, the lack whereof might deprive us of life; nor anything in such wise abounds, that as being superfluous, unfruitful, and altogether needless, we should think it no loss of danger at all if we did want it.I.13.3, 124.
NOTES:
*The Lambeth Conference of 1930 issued forth the following Resolution which offends the natural moral law as well as the revealed divine law: "Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood . . . and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods [of contraception] may be used . . . ." The Resolution was adopted by the Anglican bishops, with 193 voting for, only 67 against. The Resolution, manifestly offensive to the natural moral law and to universal Christian mores up to that time, issued forth Piux XI's Encyclical Casti Connubii ("On Chaste Marriage") which restated the received doctrine that had essentially been accepted by all Christian bodies before the Anglican Church's errant novel moral stance: "[A]ny use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life," Piux XI stated as teacher of all the faithful, "is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin." [No. 56]
**The Catholic Church's position regarding revelation is conveniently summarized in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, Nos. 9-10 (citations omitted): "[9] Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. [10] Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."
Portrait of Richard Hooker
No comments:
Post a Comment