gainsay. "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," Matt. xv. II. We shall first examine those traditions sanctioned by the word of God, and then those which it condemns. 1. To ascertain the Scriptural use of the word tradition, the following observations are offered. The word tradition, from the Latin traditio, means something delivered by word of mouth without written memorials; or it means any thing delivered orally from age to age. But the Greek word Пapadocis, for which tradition is used as a translation, is of more extensive signification, and means precept, instruction, ordinance, delivered either orally or in writing. The compound root of this word is napadid, to deliver from one to another, to deliver down, and is from, wapa down, and didwμ, to give, extend, deliver from one to another. It deserves notice, that the inspired writers received a knowledge of the doctrines of the gospel, not by the operation of reasoning, but by inspiration of God: and they were accordingly instructed to publish them, not as the conclusions of reason, but as a revelation from God. St. Paul, therefore, saith, that he received them and delivered them as he received them. For these terms imply that he neither found them out by reasoning, nor established them by reasoning. Thus, "I have received of the Lord that which also I DELIVERED (Taрedwкa) unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread," 1 Cor. xi, 23. "For I DELIVERED unto you first of all that which I also RECEIVED, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," 1 Cor. xv, 3. Therefore, because the apostles received the doctrines of the gospel from Christ by revelation, and delivered them to the world as revelations from him, they are fitly called Пapadoreis, traditions, or things delivered, from mapadidwμi, to deliver from one to another, to deliver down. Wherefore, when Paul commended the Corinthians for holding fast the traditions as he delivered them, (1 Cor. xi, 2,) and commanded the Thessalonians to hold fast the traditions which they had been taught, whether by his word or his epistle, (2 Thess. ii, 15,) it is plain he did not mean doctrines which others delivered verbally as from him, which is the popish sense of traditions, but he meant those doctrines of revelation which he had himself delivered to them, whether by word or writing. The word tradition is, therefore, common to things written and unwritten, to things delivered by word and by epistle. And Пapadosis, tradition, is the same with doyua, a doctrine; and napadidovai, to deliver down, is the same with didaoke, to teach, say the grammarians. The mapadobεica Toris, the faith delivered in Jude, is the same with the traditions which ye were taught, mentioned by St. Paul. Therefore, the whole Christian faith is a tradition. Jude 3. The doctrine of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection is a tradition, wapɛdwka yev, for I delivered these doctrines, saith St. Paul, (1 Cor. xv, 3,) and certainly these doctrines are delivered in the New Testament. And Irenæus calls it a tradition that "Christ took the cup," and said, "It was his blood;" and "to believe in one God, and in Christ who was born of a virgin, was the old tradition."* 2. The traditions approved of in Scripture are such only as were * "Veterem Traditionem diligenter custodientes, in unum Deum credentes fabricatorem cæli et terræ et omnium quæ in eis sunt, per Christum Jesum Dei Filium."-Irenæus, Advers. Hæres., lib. iii, c. 4, p. 242. VOL. I.-7 delivered by inspired writers. St. Paul delivered them to the Corinthians, that "you keep the ordinances (traditions) as I delivered them to you," 1 Cor. xi, 2. And St. Paul and his associates delivered to the Thessalonians, by word and epistle, the traditions, or doctrines of Christ. 2 Thess. ii, 14; iii, 6. Whenever we have sufficient evidence that any other doctrines were delivered by the inspired writers than those contained in their writings, we will cordially receive them. But as for the various traditions delivered by other persons, either in the apostolical age or since that time, of which we have no account in Scripture, except a command against receiving them, we must reject all such from having a part in our religious creed. And the Church of Rome cannot adduce a single article of religion, or ordinance of worship, which she has derived from oral tradition, that is not contrary to or inconsistent with some part of the written word. Therefore it cannot be of God; for it is impious to say he has commanded his servants to teach one thing with their pens, and a contrary thing with their mouths. Indeed, there are three kinds of traditions spoken of in Scripture, viz., the traditions of men, which St. Paul condemns, (Col. ii, 8,) and our Lord also. Mark vii, 9. There were traditions touching things indifferent, or those which were of a temporary or local nature; such as the frequency of communion, the temporary ordinance respecting marriage given to the Corinthians, and, finally, traditions by inspiration, which were first communicated orally, and afterward were committed to writing, and are comprised in the New Testament. 3. Besides, we have no reason to doubt that all that was delivered by the apostles of any importance was committed to writing. And al though, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians and Thessalonians, he mentions the traditions that were formerly delivered to them by word or epistle, we have no account in Scripture that any important truths were omitted either by the evangelists or the other writers of the New Testament. That the word which St. Paul preached orally was afterward written by St. Luke, we learn from undoubted history, or from tradition, if this word is more pleasing to our Roman Catholic brethren. This is recorded by Irenæus and Eusebius in the following words :"But Luke, the follower of Paul, wrote in a book the gospel which was preached by Paul."* Irenæus says in the same chapter, that "the gospel which the apostles preached, afterward by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith."† It was a tradition still, not in its modern and ecclesiastical sense, but in its primitive and natural sense. Nor were those things which were written done by accident, as some Roman Catholics say; they were written under the immediate providence of God, so as to be entitled to as much credit as if Christ had written them with his own hand, as is clearly declared by Augustine in the following words :- -"For as many of his actions and sayings as "Lucas autem sectator Pauli, quod ab illo prædicabatur Evangelium, in libro condidit.”—Iren., lib. iii, c. 1. Λεκας ὁ ακολουθος Παύλε, το επ' εκείνε κηρυσσόμενον ευαγγελιον εν Βιβλιῳ καταθετο. Eus. Hist. Eccl., lib. v, c. 8. "Evangelium quidem tunc præcaniaverunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum et columnam fidei nostræ futurum."Irenæus, lib. iii, c. 1, p. 229. Christ wished us to read, these he commanded to be written in a book, as if it were by his own hands. For this common bond of unity, and harmonious ministry of the members, in different offices, under one head, each should understand, and should receive the narratives of Christ's disciples in the gospel no otherwise than if he saw the very hand of Christ writing it, which was attached to his own body.' ""* How strange is it that Roman Catholic divines, such as Milner, Hughes, &c., will assert that Christ never commanded the New Testament to be written, when at the same time they profess great reverence for Augustine and Irenæus, and the many other fathers who assert that Christ commanded his followers to write the New Testament! We cannot reasonably suppose that the evangelists would pretend to write the gospel of Jesus Christ, insert many things more than necessary, and yet omit necessary things, and still call it the gospel of Jesus Christ. But when the four gospels, the Acts, epistles, and the apocalypse are collected, it is altogether improbable that this should not be the whole gospel. 4. The doctrines of the heathen philosophers seem to go by the name of tradition. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ," Col. ii, 8. It was called the tradition of men, because it was received solely on the authority of the master who delivered it. Hence arose the maxim, so famed among the ancient philosophers, avros ɛon, ipse dixit, the master said it. Traditions of this kind are condemned by the word of God; and yet a large number of those maintained by the Church of Rome are of this description. They are truly traditions of men. 5. We have an account in the gospels (Matt. xv, 1-10; Mark vii, 1-13) of the traditions of the Jews, who believed that with the written law God communicated the oral law, or the unwritten law; that this oral law was communicated to the elders of Israel, and that they delivered it down to their successors. Let us examine what our Lord says respecting the Jewish traditions, and draw the parallel between them and the popish traditions. (1.) They endeavoured to dignify them, and call them the traditions of the elders or the fathers who sat in Moses' seat. The Latins will have theirs also to be apostolical, and of the fathers and popes who sat in St. Peter's chair. (2.) Yet our Lord calls them the commandments of men, the traditions of the Pharisees and scribes. The traditions of Rome are, it is true, the commandments of the church; but they are human commands; not divine, not given by inspiration of God, and, therefore, without divine authority. (3.) The Pharisees laid aside, rejected, and made of none effect the commandments of God by their traditions. The same is done by the Romanists. (4.) By traditions the Pharisees teach in the place of doctrines, i. e., divine truths, human inventions, such as the washing of hands, cups, pots, &c. The Romanists have many ecclesiastical constitutions, rites, "Quicquid enim ille de suis factis et dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperavit. Hoc unitatis consortium et in diversis officiis concordium membrorum sub uno capite ministerium, quisquis intellexerit, non aliter accipiet quod novantibus discipulis Christi in Evangelio legerit, quam si ipsam manum Domini, quam in proprio corpore gestabat, scribentem conspexerit."-August. de Consensu Evangelistarum, lib. i, c. 1. b. 474350 and ceremonies, which yet are only the traditions of their elders, or those who sit in St. Peter's chair, and which also make void the commandments of God; such as the worship of images, communion in one kind, prayers in an unknown tongue. It is granted that suitable ceremonies may properly be used in the church of Christ; but then they should be reckoned not as necessary, but in themselves things indifferent; not used for sanctification, but only for order and decency; not reckoned as any parts, but only circumstances of worship. III. We shall now examine the character of the traditions sanctioned by the Church of Rome, which makes them equal with the word, and pronounces an anathema on all who reject them. 1. The simple statement of what Romanists mean by tradition might be enough to convince persons of common sense of the folly of depending on them. It consists of certain doctrines and precepts which Christ and his apostles are said to have spoken, but which were not committed to writing, but have been delivered from age to age by word of mouth, and have come down to us as pure as the written word contained in the gospels and epistles. And some of their doctors assert that the knowledge of Christianity might have been preserved and propagated in the world though the New Testament had never been written. 2. Our first step will be to examine those passages of Scripture which are brought to authorize unwritten tradition. We have seen already that their kind of tradition is not at all authorized by St. Paul in his epistles to the Corinthians and Thessalonians, although these are the passages which they quote with the greatest confidence. In addition to what has been said respecting the traditions held by the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica we may observe, that the traditions referred to were originally delivered to these churches. We may therefore ask, how and at what time they came into the possession of the church at Rome? And by what means did the latter assure herself that they were the same instructions which the apostle delivered by divine inspiration? Moreover, were the churches of Corinth and Thessalonica infallible? That they were not is obvious from the former having erred respecting the eucharist, and the latter respecting the day of judgment. The Church of Rome having received these traditions (if she has received them) through such channels, is a fact of itself sufficient to prevent us from giving to tra ditions equal authority with the Scriptures. But suppose these traditions have been received by the church at Rome, what evidence have we that they have been faithfully preserved and transmitted to us without alteration? Would the Church of Rome have us to receive religious doctrines and ordinances, professedly delivered about eighteen hundred years ago, the knowledge of which is conveyed by oral tradition, with the same confidence with which we receive the Scriptures? Another argument for tradition is taken from Christ's command to all men to hear his apostles. "He that heareth you, heareth me;" and, "If he refuse to hear the church," &c. It is granted that all men are bound to hear what the apostles have said; but this has very little to do with what others have said or may yet say; and popish tradition consists entirely of what other men said. We deny that the apostles taught what is embraced in Romish traditions; and the proof is to be given by those who hold such traditions. But they can never prove the genuineness of a single sentence ascribed to Christ and his apostles beyond what we have in the New Testament. We have already shown that the command of hearing the church means no such thing as the Church of Rome attempts to deduce from it. A passage from Romans is quoted in favour of traditions, (Rom. xvi, 17,) because the apostle says, "Mark them that cause offences contrary," not to the Scriptures, but "to the doctrines they had received." But to make this argument of any force it must be proved that this doctrine which they had received was not contained in Scripture, either then or afterward. The apostle speaks here of doctrines received from the mouth of the apostles by the Romans; and when the unwritten traditions of the Church of Rome are proved to have been uttered by the apostles, and enjoined as doctrines, Protestants will then cordially receive them. In favour of tradition the following text is adduced: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot hear them now," John xvi, 12. But then it is added, "When he, the Spirit of truth, shall come, he will teach you all truth." Accordingly the Holy Spirit was afterward given them; and the different parts of the New Testament were written, which contained all truth necessary for the Christian church. 3. Dr. Milner argues in favour of tradition from the lex non scripta of England. "All written laws necessarily suppose the existence of unwritten laws, and, indeed, depend on them for their force and authority. Not to run into the depths of ethics and metaphysics on this subject, you know, dear sir, that in this kingdom (England) we have common or unwritten law, and statute or written law, both of them binding; but that the former necessarily precedes the latter." To this we reply, that the case is not properly parallel. We must, in religion, have recourse to Scripture which existed many ages before England or the United States made any figure among the nations of the world. We might however ask, whether the law of the ten commandments, written on tables of stone on Mount Sinai, necessarily supposed the existence of another law that was prior to it, but not written, and upon which this written law depended for its force and authority? The argument then for the lex non scripta of the Romish Church can find no foundation from the common law; especially when the principal traditions maintained in the Roman Catholic Church are either contrary to Scripture, embraced in Scripture, or not found in it. And if we are told that the patriarchs lived under the authority of the lex non scripta, or unwritten law, this will avail nothing unless it be proved that this law was different from the law of Moses. 4. Accordingly we are told that the faithful had nothing but tradition to guide them for above two thousand years, that is, from Adam to Moses. Dr. Milner's words are, "It is then certain that the whole doctrine and practice of religion, including the rites of sacrifice, and indeed the whole sacred history, was preserved by the patriarchs in succession from Adam to Moses, during the space of two thousand and four hundred years, by means of tradition: and when the law was written, many most important truths regarding a future life, the em * End of Contr., let. x, p. 53. |