TRADITION
518
TIIADUCIANISM
brew account, nor, in fact, any contemporary account, of the history of the Jews in Palestine, exce|)t wliat may be contaiiieii in the short works eiititleci Ezra and Neliemiah. The last named of these works docs not carry the history much later than one hundred years after the return from tiie Captivity; so tliat tliere is a long and extremely imjiortant jieriod of more than two centuries and a half before the heroic rising of the Maccabees, during wliicii there is a total absence of contemporary Jewish history. In this dearth of his- torical materials, it is idle to attempt a positive narra- tion of the circmnstances under which tlie oral law be- came assigned to Sloses as its author. It is amjjly suf- ficient if a satisfactory suggestion is made as to how it miyht have been attributed to IMoses; and in this there is not much difficulty for any one who bears in mind how notoriously in ancient times laws of a much later date were attributed to Minos, Lycurgus, Solon, and Numa.
Untler this head we may add that it must not be assumed that the Sadducees, because they rejected a Mosaic oral law, rejected likewise all traditions and all decisions in explanation of passages in the Pentateuch. Although they protested against tlie assertion that such points had been divineh' settled by Moses, they prob- ably, in numerous instances, followed practically the same traditions as the Pharisees. — Smith. See Sai>-
DITCKK.
Tl.'ADITION, Christian. In the older ecclesiasti- cal fathers, the words TiapdcooiQ and tniditio are used to denote any instruction which one gives to another, whether oral or written. In the New Test, also, and in the classical writers, Trapdcovvcn and trudere signify, in general, to teach, to instruct. In this wider sense, tra- dition was divided into scriplu and non scripta sice ontUs. The latter, trudi/io oralis, was, however, fre- quently called li'iiditio, by way of eminence. This oral tradition was often appealed to by Irena;us, Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others of the ancient lathers, as a test by which to try the doctrines of contemporary teachers, and by which to confute the errors of the here- tics. They describe it as being instruction received from the mouth of the apostles by the first Christian churches, transmitted from the apostolic age, and pre- served in purity until their own times.
Oral tradition is still regarded by the Roman Church as a prindpium cof/noscendi in theology, and they at- tempt to support their hypothesis respecting it by the use made of it by the fathers. Much dispute has arisen about the degree of weight to be assigned to tradition tjcmriilly ; many, however, consider that this is an idle controversy, and that each particular tradition should be tried on its own grounds. In coming to a decision on the merits of the question respecting doctrinal tra- dition, everything dei)ends upon making the proper dis- tinctions with regard to time.
In the first period of Christianity, the authority of the apostles was so great that all their doctrines and ordinances were strictly and punctually observed by the churches which they liad planted. The doctrine and discipline which prevailed in those apostolical clnirches were, at the time, justly considered by others to be purely such as the apostles themselves had taught and established. This was tlie more common, as the books of the New Test, had not, as yet, come into general use among Christians; nor was it, at that early period, at- tended with any special liability to mistake. In this way we can accoimt for it that Christian teachers of the 2d and 3d centuries ajipeal so fretjuently to oral tradi- tion. But in later periods of the Churcii, the circum- stances were far different. After tlie commencement of the i3d century, when the first teachers of the apos- tolical churches and their immediate successors had passed away and another race sprung up, other doc- trines and forms were gradually introduced, wiiich dif- fered in many respects from apostolical simplicity. And now those innovators appealed more frequently than
had ever been done before to apostolical tradition, in order to give currency to their own opinions and regu- lations. They went so far, indeed, as to appeal to this tradition for many things not only at variance with other traditions, but with the very writings of the ajws- tles which they had in their hands. From this time forward, tradition naturally became more and more im- certain and suspici<ius. No wonder, therefore, that we find Augustine establishing the maxim that it could not be relied upon, in tlie ever-increasing distance from the age of the apostles, except when it was universal and perfectly consistent with itself. The Reformers justly held tliat tradition is not a sure and certain source of knowledge respecting the doctrines of theology, and that the Holy Scriptures are the oidy prindpium cog- noscendi. ii^e\s.\\!i\)\), Christian Theolor/y, vi\,S; Eden, Theol. Did. s. v. ; Cunningham. Hist. Theohn/y, i, 186, 480; Hagenbach, IJist. of Doctrines (Index); Hook, Church Diet. s. v.; Milman, Jlist. of the Jens, ii, 42; Van Oosterzee. Christian Dogmatics, art. " Faith, Rule of."
TRADITION, in the Church of England, refers to customs, forms, rites, ceremonies, etc., which have been transmitted by oral communication, and, as used in Ar- ticle 34, is not to be understood as including matters of faith. The traditions for which the article requires re- spect and obedience are all those customs and ceremo- nies in established use which arc not expressly named in the Scriptures, nor in the written laws or rubrics of the Church, but stand simply on the ground of prescrip- tion. Among these may be mentioned the alternate mode of reading the Psalter, the custom of bowing in the Creed, the postures in various offices of the Church, the use of a doxology and collects after a sermon, the practice of pouring the baiitismal water upon the head, the quantity of the elements consumed in the eucharist, etc. These, though unwritten, are not the less obliga- tory when ascertained to be standing customs of the Church. The article ordains that " whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely doth open- ly break the tratiitions and ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the Word of God. and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like) as lie that ofFendeth against the common order of the Church," etc. See Staunton, Diet, of the Church, s. V,