Gift of Yale Divinity School \9±y Ecclesiastical Tradition: ITS ORIGIN AND EARLY GROWTH; ITS PLACE IN THE CHURCHES; AND ITS VALUE. B. Jl. HINSBJ^LjE, Jl. M., PRESIDENT OF HIRAM COLLEGE; ADTHOK OF " GEKUIBEHESS AND AU3*[ENTICITY OF THE GOSPELS," AHD "THE JEWISH-CHKISTIAN CHUKOH." Standakd Publishing Co., 180 Elm Steeet, Cincinnati. 1879. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the Year 1879, by ->^ B. A. HINSDALE, ---^ In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at "Washinglon, D C. , J. B. SAVAGE, PKINTEK AND BINDER, CLBTELAND, O. ripe?? 'H6-9 TABLE OF CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION. PART FIRST. THE ORIGIN AND EARLY GROWTH OF TRADITION. I. — Tradition in the General Sense. II. — The Divine Tradition. III. — The Beginning op the Human Tradition. IV. — The Human Tradition in the Second Stage. v.— Some Principal Causes op the Human Tradition. PART SECOND. THE PLACE OF TRADITION IN THE CHURCHES. I. — Tradition in the Greek Church. II. — Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church. Note. — The Infallibility Dogma. III. — Tradition in the Anglican Church. IV. — Tradition in the Protestant Churches. PART THIRD. THE VALUE OF TRADITION. I. — Is Tradition a Source op Divine Knowledge? II. — Does the New Testament Rest on Tradition? III. — How the New Testament is Authenticated. IV. — The Interpretation op the New Testament. V. — Summary and Conclusion. Ofr . INTRODUCTION. The Author's attention was first drawn to the subject here dis cussed by the following facts : 1. The Roman Catholic Church, whose communicants are fully one-half of the Christian world, places Tradition side by side with the Bible as a religious authority. The Greek Church, ranking next, perhaps, in numbers, follows the Roman Catholic, though at a considerable distance. The Anglican Church follows hard upon the footsteps of the Greeks. Then, nearer or farther, in the rear of the Anglicans, are found most of the Protestant sects, treading in the traditionary path. In fact, of all the millions who profess the Christian name, the vast majority, directly or indirectly, con sciously or unconsciously, pay a greater or less deference to Tradi- tioii. 3. With the Protestant Reformation, or, rather, with the causes which produced that Reformation, began a conflict between Tradi tion and the Spirit of Inquiry that has not yet ended, and that is not likely soon to end. At the opening of this conflict. Tradition ruled not only the world df religion, but the world of thought. By degrees she has been driven out of the fields of science and philosophy; but in the field of religion, where she first set up her throne. Tradition still rules a vast empire. Religious questions of all sorts are now fiercely contested, and the contest does not promise soon to die away; but the grand underlying question is — What is the final Court of Appeal? What is the last authority in religion? 3. For centuries the grand religious movement has been forward toward more light and freedom. However, there is all th* time a small movement rearward, along the easy and fascinating tradi tionary path — in the Anglican Church toward Rome, in the Prot estant Churches either toward Rome or Canterbury. Dr. J. H. 6 ¦ ECCLESIASTICAL TKADITION. Newman's Romeward movement, as traced in his "Apologia Pro Vita Sua," may fairly be said to have begun with Dr. Hawkins's sermon on "Tradition." A paragraph is quoted from that work: "There is one other principle which I gained from Dr. Haw kins, more directly bearing upon Catholicism than any that I have mentioned; and that is the doctrine of Tradition. When I was an undergraduate, I heard him preach in the University pulpit his celebrated sermon on the subject, and recollect how long it ap peared to me, though he was at that time a very striking preacher; but, when I read it and studied it as his gift, it made a most serious impression upon me. He does not go one step, I think, beyond the high Anglican doctrine — nay, he does not reach it ; but he does his work thoroughly, and his view was original with him, and his subject was a novel one at the time. He lays down a proposition self-evident, as soon as stated, to those who have at all examined the structure of Scripture, viz : that the sacred text was never in tended to teach doctrine, but only to prove it ; and that, if we would learn doctrine, we must have recourse to the formularies of the Church — for instance, to the Catechism, and to the Creeds. He con siders that, after learning from them the doctrines of Christianity, . the inquirer must verify them by Scripture. This view, most true in its outline, most fruitful in its consequences, opened upon me a large field of thought. Dr. Whately held it, too. One of its effects was to strike at the root of the principle on which the Bible Society was set up. I belonged to its Oxford Association ; it became a matter of time when I should withdraw my name from its sub scription list, though I did not do so at once."* His attention arrested by these most important facts, the Author began to enquire, solely for the satisfaction of his own mind, What is Tradition? How did it arise? What are the sources of its power? How is it regarded by the churches? What is its power in them? and. What is its value? When, as a result of much reading and thought, his views attained to measurable fullness and consistency, he reduced them to writing. They are now given to the public in the faith that they have a certain value, both as an essay in eccle siastical history, and as a contribution to current discussion. Let the reader take pains in the outset not to miss the Author's standpoint. He is not writing of traditions, but of Tradition. Be lievers in Tradition believe it to be an instrument of doctrine an ¦5 Fifth Edition, N. Y., pp. 60, 1. INTEODUCTION. 7 organ of teaching, a channel through which divine communications have descended from Christ and the Apostles to our own times. This is the sense of the word in the title to this essay. Some times particular traditions will be mentioned, though more for illustration than for any other purpose. Tradition as now described is itself a tradition, and the most important of all. Tradition is a tradition through which other traditions flow. Its own basis and authority are traditionary. But it is the object of this book to ex amine the channel of transmission, the conducting pipe through which traditions flow, and not the stream that the pipe carries. A discussion of Tradition can thus be brought within narrow limits; but exhaustively to discuss ecclesiastical traditions would require a library. For the most part the inquiry will be historical rather than crit icai. Sometimes dogmas that come to us by way of Tradition will be subjected to criticism, but the great purpose of the Author will be to get at historical truth. It has been said that the historical method of investigation, so widely used in our time, is but a poor method for determining the truth or value of the particular subject investigated. This is true : it does not claim to do more than to lay bare the origin and progress of its subject. Still we are never in so good a position to pass critical judgment on a doctrine, party, or church, as when the historical method has laid it open to us in its length and breadth. However, the'doctrine of Tradition will be examined fully enough to disclose its fatal weaknesses. PART I. THE ORIGIN AND EARLY GROWTH OF TRADITION. CHAPTER I. TEADITION IN THE GENERAL SENSE. "We hear of the traditions of a family, a city, a political jjarty, a commercial firm, a newspaper, a college, a coun try, the Church, or of one of the historical divisions of the Church. It will be a great point gained, to find out what is the most general meaning of the word. The meanings of ¦ the Greek verb TzapadMval, and the Latin verb trader e, run parallel throughout. Their first and most general meaning is, to give or deliver over, to transmit, without any reference to what is delivered or transmitted; their second and more specific meaning, to deliver over or transmit some mental thing — a product of the mind. llapadoaK; and traditio, the conjugate nouns, have three meanings, also parallel: (I) The act of giving up, handing down, transmitting; (2) The act of trans mitting some product of the mind — as a legend, saying, or doctrine— without regard to the means of communica tion, whether oral or written language; (3) The thing delivered, as the product of the mind delivered or handed down. The English language has no verb that is the equivalent of -KapaSMvai and traderej but the noun tradi tion has three meanings similar to itapddoan; and traditio. First of all, it means the act of delivery. Blackstone s, "A deed takes effect only from the tradition or TRADITION" IN THE GBKBRAL SENSE. 11 delivery." The second and third definitions are quoted from Webster's Dictionary: " The unwritten or oral delivery of opinions, doctrines, practices, rites, and customs from father to son, or from ancestors to posterity; the transmission of any opinions or practices from forefathers to descend ants, by oral commmiication, without written memorials." This is the act of transmitting some product of the mind in a particular manner. The third definition springs out of the second: '¦'Hence, that which' is transmitted orally from father to son, or from ancestors to posterity; knowledge or belief transmitted without the aid of written memorials." It will be observed that the English word, in one respect, is narrower than the Greek or the Latin.' It makes the instrument of transmission oral language; while the Greek and Latin words include both oral and written; in fact, the Latin rather prefers the written form. But it must not be supposed that the channel of transmission must forever remain oral speech, or that the tradition must always continue in an unwritten form; this element of the word relates rather to the original act of delivery, and to the early stages of the transmitting process, as will appear hereafter. It is in the last of the three senses above enumerated that the word tradition is commonly employed. It is in this sense that we speak of the traditions of Scotland or of New England; that the Count de Chambord, in refus ing, some years ago, to make concessions to French liber alism, was said to act in harmony with the traditions of the Bourbons; that Mommsen says, "We have no information — not even a tradition — concerning the flrst migration of the Aryan race into Italy;" and that Grote speaks of " the whole mass of traditions constituting the tale of Troy." There is no reason to suppose that a discussion of tradi- 13 ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION". tion, either word or thing, would ever have covered more ground than that now enclosed, had not the word been used for ecclesiastical purposes, and been modified by ecclesiastical usage. Historians would have narrated tra ditions, and have sought to determine their value; tradi tion, as a source of knowledge, would have received some attention at the hands of critics; but" it was left to the Church to fill our book-shelves with volumes of history and criticism pertaining to the subject. We shall best understand the ecclesiastical meaning of the word tradi tion, by searching out how the thing tradition originated, and what it is. CHAPTER II. THE DIVINE TRADITION. It is diflBcult for men now living, especially for those who have never studied the Gospel as a tradition, to pic ture to their minds the Church of the first age. To do so, we must lay aside some of our most familiar and best es tablished ideas of teaching Christianity; and then that age cannot be brought before our minds, as it was, without much study and a free use of the historical imagination. Let us try to reproduce one of its principal features. Christ delivered His message in oral, not in written words. In one instance only is He said to have written anything, and then " He stooped down, and with His fin ger, wrote on the ground."* He belonged to the class of great oi'al teachers; men who leave no written memorials behind them, as Socrates and Confucius, and yet pro foundly influence the world. Nor was He attended by a scribe who kept a record of His words and works. There is no reason to suppose that the four Gospels, or any one of them, is composed, in whole or in part, of materials that were reduced to writing in His life. His Apostles car ried, on the work of evangelization in the same way. Their commission was : "Preach the Gospel to every creature" — " Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have * John viii: 6. 14 ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION. commanded you."* Under this commission, "they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and conflrming the word with signs following." f Aided by the Divine Spirit, they preached what they re membered of the life and teaching of Christ, and added what they were inspired to say in further development of the Gospel. In course of time, wherever they went, bishops or pastors were called up to teach and rule the con gregations of disciples that had been planted. Of course, these bishops employed the same oral method. Not only so, they were wholly dependent for the substance of their instruction upon what had been orally communicated to them. Again, the Apostles called to their aid helpers ^ named evangelists, ministers like Luke, Timothy, and Titus, who preached and taught orally, and were depend ent upon what they had heard for their knowledge of the Gospel. These evangelists also ordained bishops, and raised up ministers like themselves, that the believers might be properly cared for and the world converted. Paul said to Timothy: "Keep that which is committed to thy trust;"! ^1^0' "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us."§ And, "The things that thou hast heard of me among many wit nesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."|| De Pressens6 has well said: " All the expressions employed in the New Testament to designate the proclamation of the new truth, set aside the notion of written documents." "The Gospel was at first nothing but the proclamation of the good news of pardon * Mark xvi: 15; Math, xxviii: 30. § 2 Tim. i: 13 14_ + Mark xvi: 20. Hlbid.lUa. tITim. vi: 20. THE DIVINE TRADITION". 15 flying from mouth to mouth."* Christ Himself is called ^'the Word."f "It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. "| The Gospel is "good tidings" "published" or "proclaimed;" a "word" "spoken" and "heard." The "great salva tion " began to be " spoken " by the Lord, and was con firmed unto us by them that heard him."§ The human agent in carrying on the work is a herald, proclaimer, or preacher. II Paul says to the Corinthians: "1 have re ceived of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you;" "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also re ceived. "T In the earliest period of its history, the Church of Corinth knew no more of Christ than had been deliv ered unto it orally. In a certain sense, the saying of Bossuet, in his " Exposition," is true : " Christ Jesus laid -the foundations of the Church upon the authority of preaching." In the beginning, then, the Gospel was a tradition in the fullest sense ; it was orally delivered and orally transmitted. To use a form of expression common with Catholic and Anglican writers, the deposit of the faith was confided to the Church ; the treasure that we now have in the New Testament, the early Christians had only in earthen vessels,** that is, living preachers. Propa gated in this way, the Gospel had made considerable head way before a single New Testament document was written. Christ spoke to men ; inspired Apostles preached what they had received, and committed the same to faithful men, evangelists and pastors, who were able to teach others also, instructing them to hand down the doctrines delivered in like manner * Jesus Christ : Times, lAfe, and 'Work, London, 1868, p. 133. f Johni: 1. II Rom. x: 14. J I Cor. 1:31. HI Cor. xi: 38; xv: 3. § Luke ii: 10; James i: 33; Heb. i: 3; ii: 3. ** n Cor. iv: 7. 16 ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION. The earliest canonical Christian writings were epistles, probably written by Paul. This class of writings began to appear about twenty years after the close of Christ's per sonal ministry. No one of these writings contains a particle of evidence showing that the Gospel— the Evangelical Tradition — was in existence in a ¦w;ritten form. It was quite natural that epistles should be written before gospels. The principal Gospel facts and teachings could very well be propagated during one generation by a ministry whose leading members had companied with the Lord, and who, moreover, were inspired ; but in the young churches, although their members had a flrm grasp of the cardinal Gospel truths, questions of vital importance would con stantly arise ; questions of spiritual life, of ecclesiastical discipline, of gifts and ordinances, that only the authority of an Apostle could settle. So much doctrine as sufficed to convert men and qualify them for Church membership, left a thousand things unsettled. Young Timothy was not the only disciple who needed to .be instructed how to behave himself in the house of God. The relations of Christianity to Judaism and Pagan civilization had to be determined, and the law of love applied to the varied phases of human life. No doubt the Apostles did much of this work in their personal ministrations ; no doubt pastors and evangelists did a good deal more ; but the evangelical work of the Apostles prevented their becoming local ministers, and they were compelled to make up for their absence by writing letters. In these considerations, in great part, the Epistles find their explanation. From first to last, it is, taken for granted that the churches are in firm possession of the Evangelical Tradition ; so that the Epistles make no pretensions to being the fundamental books of our religion. Nor must it be forgotten that writing letters was a small part of the Apostles' labors, much smaller than preaching the Gospel. THE DIVINE TRADITION. 17 When and by whom the first essays were made to reduce to writing the Evangelical Tradition, it is impossible to tell. It is probable, if not certain, that brief, fragmentary narratives were written, and to some extent circulated, before the appearance of our canonical Gospels. Nor is there anything violent in supposing that such writings were extant in the early part of the Apostolic age. At all events, before Luke wrote the third Gospel " many had taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which were most surely believed" by the Christians, " even as they delivered them " " which from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of the word."* The things " delivered " and "believed" were the primitive tradition; and the " declarations " mentioned by Luke, as well as his own narrative, were attempts to commit this tradition to writing. Luke continues : "It seemed good to me also, haying had perfect understanding of all things from the very flrst, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things,, wherein thou hast been instructed "f — language which implies a recognition of the fate that must, in the long run, overtake every system of teaching that is dependent on oral transmission, as well as the imperfection of the " declarations " previously mentioned. In reducing the Gospel to writing, the Holy Spirit employed in part the pens of men who had no original or personal knowl edge of the facts. Neither Mark nor Luke, so far as we know, had ever known the Saviour while he went in and out among men. According to ancient traditions preserved by Eusebius, Mark got his information from Peter;J while Luke "delivered in his own Gospel the certain account of those things which he himself had fully received from his * Luke 1 : 1, 3. t Eccls. Hist, ii: 15. + Lukei: 3,4. 18 ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION. intimacy with Paul, and also his intercourse with the other Apostles."* There can be no doubt that the primitive tradition was slowly assuming form, or rather forms, long before our Gospels were composed. The words and works that entered into one Apostle's recital were not in all cases those set forth by another ; something was left to indi vidual tone of thought and mental habit. The Gospel according to Matthew is no doubt the Gospel as Matthew "was accustomed to preach it ; Mark's, the Gospel as preached by Peter; and Luke's, the Evangelical Tradition as that writer had learned it from Paul and the other Apostles. John?s, however, if we are to follow the Eusebian tradition, t is supplementary to the other three, and not the full story of Christ as John was accustomed to tell it. The Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse complete the canon of New Testament Scripture, which we may nat urally divide into four divisions : A personal history of Christ ; a history of evangelization and organization under the direction of the Apostles ; a fuller unfolding and appli cation of Christian doctrine ; a map of the future history of the Church. I propound no theory of inspiration; but the Lord was with the authors of these writings ; and the Holy Spirit, sent in His name, taught them all things, and brought all things to their remembrance, whatsoever He had said unto them. J We are now in a position to understand the word tra dition as applied in the New Testament to the doctrine of Christ. It is found in three passages, two of which are * Eccls. Mist, iii: 34. ^Ibid. iii: 34. Irenaeus expressly says: "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded In & book the Gospel preached by him."— Against Heresies, iii, i i t John xiv: 86. THE DIVINE TRADITION. 19 in the second, letter to the Thessalonians. Paul says in one of them : "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw your selves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us ;""* and in the other : "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." f All Catholic writers on tradition, and some Anglican, lay great stress on these passages, as prov ing that the tradition here referred to was something not iound in the New Testament. What the passages mean, is clear enough in the light of the preceding discussion. The traditions referred to are the very substance of the Gospel, not something supplemental to it. They are what the Apostle had taught the Thessalonians of Christ; facts doctrines, precepts, and examples. More specifically, what these traditions were can be gathered from the Thess- alonian letters themselves. Paul says, for example: "But as touching brotherly love, ye need not that I write unto you, for ye yourselves, are taught of God to love one another."! That is, they were already in possession of the Divine tradition on that subject. Again, when he says, "Study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you,"§ he is refreshing their minds in traditions that had been pre viously communicated. What is more, these traditions had been delivered ja written as well as in spoken lan guage ; "whether by word or our epistle." In the hands of Paul, napdSoai'^ means what it does in other Greek writings ; something delivered, whether in oral or in writ ten language. The traditions in the hands of the Thessa lonians were Paul's discourses and letters, no more and no * II Thes. iii: 6. 1 1 Thess. iv: 9. + IHd. ii: 15. § Ibid, iv: 11, 12. 20 ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION. less. In the words of Jeremy Taylor, as quoted by Dr. Browne, the Bishop of Ely : " IIapddoai<:, tradition, is the same with Soypa, doctrine, and rtapaSiSovai is the same with Siddasw, say the grammarians ; and the nap*Sodstaa r.i