TRADITION

(Lat. trado, J deliver.) A truth of doctrine or fact, delivered or handed down to one from another, and received on the faith that the first to whom it was so delivered received it from an authentic source. In common language, the word is used to signify records of facts preserved in the memory of succe ive persons or generations only,"iand not committed to writing. In Theology, tradition means, generally, that body of doctrine and discipline supposed to have been put forth by our Saviour or his inspired Apostles, and not committed to writing; and thus the word is used in a contrary sense from " Scripture." And such traditions are of two sorts: tradition of doctrine (such as that of the Trinity), which is commonly said to be directly affirmed by tradition and proved by Scripture; and tradition of rites and ceremonies, called by Hooker " traditions ecclesiastical," or " ordinances made in the prime of Christian religion, established with that authority which Christ has left to his church in matters indifferent, and, on that consideration, requisite to be observed till like authority give just cause to alter them." (Eccl. Pol., v. 65.) It is, of course, impo ible to deny that Revelation may have been communicated to man in this manner, as well as in the form of Scripture. Therefore, when a Protestant a erts that Scripture is the only rule of faith, he must mean this only, that the evidence on which Scripture rests is solid, while no particular tradition has sufficient evidence to support it; for if any tradition had evidence to support it, there can be no d prior i reason a igned why it should not be as binding as any Scripture. " I make no scruple to grant," says the high church writer Hammond, " that apostolical traditions, such as are truly so, as well as apostolical writings, are equally the matter of that Christian's belief, who is equally secured by the fidelity of the conveyance that as the one is apostolical writing, so the other is apostolical tradition:" one of those unmeaning phrases which are of such common occurrence in this widely spread controversy; for the only real questions are, whether we can be " equally secured by the fidelity of the conveyance," in the case of tradition and of Scripture 1 and, secondly, who is to be the judge for us what is authentic tradition and what is not 1 In the latter question lies the real difference, on this subject, between Romanist and Protestant. The former holds tradition of equal authority with Scripture; but then he also holds that the church, that is, the pope, with or without a council, is the authoritative declarer of tradition. It is curious to observe that at the Council of Trent this fundamental difficulty, namely, who is to say what is tradition and what is not, struck the minds of the divines who were contending to fix the doctrine of the Catholic church. They were probably hardly agreed as to the form, rather than the substance, of its solution. "All agreed," says Paolo Sarpi, " that Christian faith is contained partly in Scripture and partly in tradition. Yea, some said more: that tradition was the only foundation of the Catholic doctrine for; the Scripture itself is not believed but by tradition." But Vicenzo Lanello, a Francis can friar, thought ' that they ought first to treat of the church, which is a more principal foundation;" since " Scripture itself is founded upon it," according to Saint August in's saying, and " that no use can be made of traditions, except by grounding them upon the same authority." But his opinion had no followers."Some objected that the synagogues of the heretics would also arrogate the authority of a church." Others thought that the authority of the church was sufficiently declared already. (Book 2.) Perhaps some confusion would have been avoided if the father's suggestion had prevailed: but there is no doubt that the Romanist, by tradition, means tradition declared to be such by the church. Protestants, on the other hand, without laying ' down as a doctrine that tradition is equal to Scripture, have, in general, a ented to the proposition that an authentic tradition of doctrine is binding; but on the question, what is the authority competent to pronounce a tradition authentic, they have wandered strangely indeed, from a reluctance to admit toits full extent that very right of private judgment on which ihey founded their di ent from Rome. And this is peculiarly the case with tt.ose reformed divines who dislike parting with the title "Catholic." When the early Reformers, especially those of the Luther an and Anglican schools, attacked a doctrine or practice ofRome, their first endeavour was generally to show that it was not scrpitural; their second, that it was not an- 1258 [s. 1272]