Is Tradition of more Authority than the Word of God?
By Wm. Penniman
PETER DENS, in his Moral Theology, prepared for the use of Romish Seminaries, defines tradition in a theological sense as follows: “Tradition is nothing else than unwritten doctrine; not as though it could never be found written; but because it has not been written by its author nor dictated by him, that it might be written.” He divides tradition thus: “1. On account of its origin or author, into divine, apostolic, and ecclesiastical tradition. 2. On account of its matter, into dogmatic, ritual, and moral tradition. 3. On account of its duration, into perpetual, and temporal. 4. On account of its place, into universal and particular.” He then defines the different kinds, among which he defines apostolic, as that which was instituted by the apostles as the pastors of the church: “Such is the observance of the Lord’s day, the forty days’ fast, and various rites of the mass and sacraments.” Universal tradition he regards as that which is proposed for observation to the whole church, as the Lord’s day. Among the rules for distinguishing tradition, he mentions the following as the first: “If the whole church embraces anything as a dogma of faith or customs, or if it has approved by practice something which no one but God alone could institute, and which is not found in Scripture, it must needs be a divine tradition; thus for instance, we know that the baptism of infants is valid,” &c. After quoting Scripture to prove the necessity of tradition he adds: “Hence, observe there is more need of divine tradition than of sacred Scripture, as Scripture can not be known without tradition.” He concludes the subject in the following authoritative language: “Whatever the Catholic church holds or declares as such, is to be regarded as tradition.” The above quotations are taken from Joseph F. Berg’s translation of Dens’ Theology, pp. 152, 153, 155-157. Why is all this ado concerning tradition, and why do Catholics lay so much stress upon it? Is it not because they are unable to prove or to substantiate their man-made institutions, and thus attempt by tradition to palm them off as of divine authority? In regard to apostolic and universal tradition for the observance of Sunday, but little need be said, as the author in undertaking to prove too much, proves nothing. It is well known that the “Man of Sin” has attempted to change the Sabbath to the first-day of the week, and boasts that he has done it; but not altogether satisfied with the authority of which he boasts, he attempts to bring in the aid of tradition, and of that kind which has so little foundation, that it is like the “baseless fabric of a vision, [it] leaves not a wreck behind.” This same “Man of Sin” admits that infant sprinkling is not found in Scripture, and yet he says it is valid because the church has approved of it by practice. It is then plain to be seen that both Sunday-keeping and infant baptism, as well as many other erroneous doctrines, have their origin in the Papacy. Those Protestant churches which adopt these customs, are closely allied to their mother in that they follow tradition instead of the “law and the testimony.” How absurd the idea that “there is more need of divine tradition than of sacred scripture.” In fact, the assertion is blasphemous and indicative of apostasy. Christ says, “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.” John 5: 39. From this we learn that the Scriptures are to be searched, not tradition. We read of the noble Bereans who “received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily” (not tradition). Acts 17: 11. The Scriptures also are able to make us wise unto salvation. 2 Tim. 3: 15-17. The papacy would adduce the language of Paul to prove the necessity of tradition: “Hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” 2 Thes. 2: 15. In answer to this I will quote from Mr. Berg. “1. To this we answer, that these words do not import that the apostle delivered some things to them as tradition, and others as scripture, but that he taught them the same truths both orally and in writing. “2. Even supposing that the things which he thus taught them were different, this proves only that there are some important and precious truths which are not contained in this epistle to the Thessalonians, though all that is necessary to salvation is supplied by other portions of Scripture.” Has not the apostle forewarned us against “unwritten verities” in that he says, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men.” Col. 2: 8. The Scriptures when rightly understood, do not clash, but harmonize. When God has given laws to his people, he has caused them to be written. “Go write it before them in a table, note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come.” Isa. 30: 8. Lastly, and most authoritatively, the “Man of Sin” says: “Whatever the Catholic church holds or declares as such, is to be regarded as tradition.” This is the power behind the throne which gives the church power to change the law of God, or “to change times and laws”; making Sunday keeping, and infant baptism valid. The same principle settles the apostolic character of the mass, extreme unction, invocation of saints, merit of works, the supremacy of the pope, holy water, holy bones, holy stones, and other holy relics, prayers for the dead, auricular confessions, penance, indulgences, image worship, celibacy of the priests, &c., &c. It is no wonder that Paul, seeing the “mystery of iniquity” already working in his day, cried out: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy or vain deceit, after the tradition of men.”