THE traditions of the fathers have now become venerable in the eyes of thousands. Their words can be quoted to sustain a multitude of favorite doctrines and practices which the Bible does not sanction. Hence it is that the advocates of those respective doctrines, find the tradition of the elders an invaluable treasure. The fact that many of the most conscientious and upright persons have been bewildered by this fog of the enemy of truth, makes it important that we look into this subject with care.
What weight then should be allowed the traditions of the fathers? What degree of authority should be attached to their decisions respecting religious duties? Perhaps the following remarks will throw some light on this question.
1. A doctrine does not become truth by becoming ancient. Satan's lie to our first parents, is six thousand years old, and has not yet become truth.
2. Every doctrine or tradition had a commencement; and when it began it was either truth or falsehood, according as it agreed with or contradicted the Bible.
3. We have the Bible in our own hands and may bring these traditions to its test, and examine them in its light. If they agree with the word of God, they are truth: if they do not agree with its teaching, they are worthless fables.
The soundness of this reasoning cannot, we think, be invalidated. And were it not that men are naturally inclined to love darkness rather than light, we should hope that this would lead them to the Bible as their only standard.
Tradition does not rest satisfied with being equal to the Scriptures, but exalts itself above them. Men begin by adding tradition to the written word of inspiration, and end by correcting the written word by the added tradition. The following remarks will make this plain: The absence of any testimony that the Lord's Sabbath has been changed, is accounted for by many of its warmest advocates as follows:
There were many things that Jesus did which were not recorded, as the world could not have held the books, had all been written. John xxi, 25.—The change of the Sabbath was one of those acts, the record of which was unfortunately crowded out of the written word for want of room; hence it is proper, as well as necessary, that we should add to the records of inspiration, the traditions of the fathers, who have kindly preserved for us this important and valuable truth.
In reply to such reasoning as this, we state a few facts: 1. The foregoing reasoning is in direct contradiction to 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17, which affirms that the Holy Scriptures were given by inspiration of God, and are able to thoroughly furnish the man of God unto all good works. If this word is true, it follows that no necessity exists for adding tradition to the Bible, in order to obtain a perfect rule of faith and practice. And it further follows that as the Bible thoroughly furnishes men to ALL good works, that is not a good work for which the Bible furnishes nothing. 2. But men do not merely add tradition to the Bible: they correct the Bible by it. The word of God plainly says, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy," "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." These plain statements of the word of inspiration, men correct by the tradition of the elders: thus placing tradition above the word and commandment of Jehovah.
And what an humiliating confession do the advocates of the Sunday-Sabbath make, when they place the change of the Sabbath among the things that were not written. Jesus said, even to his trusting disciples, "O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken." But were he now on earth, would he not add to that pointed rebuke, another equally strong: O fools and slow of heart to believe what the prophets have never written!
But why was the change of the Sabbath never recorded? Would a single verse stating that Sunday had become the Sabbath and requiring us to remember that day to keep it holy, have enlarged the Bible so much that the world would not have been able to hold so vast a book? The simple reason is that neither God the Father, nor his Son Jesus Christ, ever yet changed the holy Sabbath. The Bible was just large enough to contain all revealed truth: to have added a single error would have made it too large. This is the reason why the commandment to keep Sunday holy as a Sabbath unto the Lord was omitted.
But were the fathers, who furnish this lacking part of the Bible, inspired? No, they did not even claim it themselves. And those who virtually claim it for them would be ashamed to confess their faith in one tenth part of what these fathers have written. If the fathers, then, were fallible mortals like ourselves, even their advocates being judges, is it not reasonable to say that we will receive the word of the fathers just as far as it agrees with the word of Jehovah, and beyond that we will not go? If their testimony agrees with that which is infallible, we may safely receive it: if it contradicts that which came from Jehovah by the pen of inspiration, we may rest assured that it is rank poison.
Does the antiquity of certain fathers who have spoken in favor of Sunday, make them very venerable and sacred in your eyes? If so, please to take into the account the antiquity of the grand-fathers, the apostles, and the great grand-fathers, the prophets, all of whom have obeyed and taught the commandments of Jehovah. Antiquity and the ancients are on the side of the Lord's Sabbath; and it is an important consideration that those most ancient and venerable men to whom we have referred as bearing testimony in favor of the Sabbath, were divinely inspired, and hence infallible in their testimony; while not one person who has ever spoken in favor of the change of the Sabbath, had the least ground to claim divine inspiration. The Saviour's contrast between day and night, may without violence be applied to the Bible and tradition. Said Jesus, "If a man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him." John xi, 9, 10. The man who feels competent to illuminate noon-day with the darkness of midnight, is the very person who should correct the Bible by the tradition of the fathers.
None are more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of the fathers in support of Sunday, than the Presbyterians. But the following extract will indicate their feelings when the fathers are used against the Presbyterians:
"They [Episcopalians] contend that bishops, in the sense in which they use the term, certainly existed in the churches as early as A. D. 160. They lay great stress on the writings of the Christian Fathers on this point, and in particular on Clement, and the epistles of St. Ignatius. The latter, in his epistle to the Smyrneans, calls upon Christians 'to obey their bishop, even as Christ obeyed the Father; to venerate the presbyters, as the apostles; and the deacons, as the commandments of God.' Presbyterians, and other Dissenters, however, demur as to this authority, and appeal to Scripture. They plead the great dissimilarity between this language and that of the apostles; and strongly suspect that these Ignatian epistles have either been forged, or greatly corrupted by the church of Rome, in order to lay a foundation for the authority assumed by the clergy, on the establishment of Christianity under Constantine."—Goodrich's History of the Church.—p. 230.
That the testimony of the early Christians has been corrupted by the church of Rome, and many shameful forgeries palmed off as their genuine teaching, there can be no doubt. As an example, we will cite the epistle of Barnabas, the earliest father quoted to sustain the first-day Sabbath. Whoever will carefully read the ninth chapter of that epistle, cannot fail to satisfy himself, that that epistle is a wicked forgery. They would at least be prepared to appreciate the following from the "History of the Sabbath."
"To this epistle it is objected, that there is no evidence of its genuineness. Mosheim, who lived near the time when it was written, mentions it as a spurious writing, entitled to no credit. Dr. Milnor says it is an injury to St. Barnabas, to ascribe this epistle to him. Mosheim says it is the work of some superstitious Jew of mean abilities."
Those who add tradition to the Bible, do so because they are not able to prove from the scriptures all the doctrines which they choose to cherish. This is the case with the advocates of Sunday. Not being able to bring any testimony in its favor, but weak inferences, they resort to the authority of the fathers, and to the traditions of the elders. They leave the rule of the Protestants, viz., the Bible alone, and adopt that of the Papist, viz., the Bible and tradition. As proof read the following rules:—
THE RULE OF PROTESTANTS.—"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17.
THE RULE OF PAPISTS.—"All scripture. &c. Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with these scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone; nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it." Note of the Douay (Catholic) Bible on 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17.
In a word, Protestant Sunday-keepers are obliged to fight under the banner of the church of Rome. They cannot take the divinely inspired, all-sufficient book of God and sustain Sunday-keeping; hence they leave the ground of Protestants, and take that of the Papists—the Bible and the fathers. Romanists point to such conduct on the part of Protestants as a tacit confession that the Bible is not sufficient, and an acknowledgment that they are correct in joining the fathers to the Bible in order to supply what is lacking in that book, and to make it a perfect rule of faith. No stronger evidence need be adduced that Sunday-keeping comes from the Romish apostasy, than the fact that those who advocate it are obliged to adopt the Romish rule of faith.
The apostate Jewish church, in the days of the Saviour, occupied the same position that the Romish church now occupies, and which every Protestant is obliged to adopt when he undertakes to prove the change of the Lord's Sabbath. They had buried the word of God beneath a vast pile of tradition. They had exalted their traditions to a place with the words of inspiration. They had taken their traditions and corrected the truths of inspiration by them. They had virtually annulled the fifth commandment, not to mention a multitude of like acts; and all of this they did under the appearance of the greatest godliness. Those who took the lead, and who emboldened the nation to such a course, were the very men who made the greatest pretension to religion.
Under the name of religion and zeal for the Lord, they added to his pure words a vast multitude of burdensome and rigorous ceremonies. The Sabbath of the Lord which was made for man before the fall, and which God designed as a delight, they had loaded down with numberless traditions, all of which were considered of equal authority with the commandments of God, or rather as forming parts of his commandments. These made the holy Sabbath in effect what its opponents now represent it, viz., a yoke of bondage. Our Lord who kept his Father's commandments, never sanctioned their traditions by paying them the least reverence. On the contrary, he evidently designed to teach them that the most profound reverence for the words of his Father, was70consistent with the total disregard of their traditions; nay, that reverence for the word of Jehovah forbid him to honor as its equal the words of fallible men.
Hence it was that our Lord was regarded as a Sabbath-breaker and a sinner by those who acknowledged the authority of tradition. Their unjust association led him to make that remarkable defense, which is recorded, Matt. xv, 1-9. The character of their traditions was there uncovered. The fact that by following them, they were openly violating the ten commandments was exposed before all. And the solemn sentence of him who shall judge mankind at the last day was pronounced: "In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." As the Protestant church at the present day makes void the fourth commandment on the authority of tradition, just as the Jewish church then made void the fifth, perhaps the following extract, showing the source from which the Jews claimed to derive their traditions may be of interest:
"The Jews believe that all the precepts of the law, given to Moses, were accompanied with an interpretation. They say, that God first dictated the text as it is written in the Pentateuch, and then gave Moses an explication of every part of it. It was commanded that the text should be put in writing, and the explanation committed to memory, to be communicated to that generation, and transmitted to posterity by word of mouth. Hence the former is called the written law, and the latter the oral law. When Moses came down from the mount, he delivered both these laws to the people. As soon as he was returned to his tent, he was attended by Aaron who sat at his feet, and to whom he recited the text and taught the interpretation which he received from God in the mount. Then Aaron rising and seating himself on the right hand of Moses, Eleazar and Ithamar entered, and Moses repeated to them all that he had communicated to their father; after which they arose and seated themselves, one on the left hand of Moses, and the other on the right hand of Aaron. Then went in the seventy elders, and Moses taught them in the same manner as he had taught Aaron and his sons. Afterwards entered the congregation at large, or all of them who were desirous of knowing the Divine will; and to them also Moses recited the text and the interpretation, in the same manner as before. These two laws, as delivered by Moses, had now been heard by Aaron four times, by his sons three times, by the seventy elders twice, and by the rest of the people once. After this, Moses withdrawing, Aaron repeated the whole that he had heard from Moses, and withdrew: then Eleazar and Ithamar did the same; and on their withdrawing, the same was done by the seventy elders; so that each of them, having heard both these laws repeated four times, they all had them firmly fixed in their memories. Towards the end of the fortieth year after the departure from Egypt, Moses assembled the people, announced the time of his death to be near—directed those who had forgotten any tradition he had delivered, to come to him, that he might repeat it to them anew, and invited them to apply to him for a solution of all questions in which they found any difficulty. The last month of his life was employed in giving these repetitions and explanations to the people, and especially to Joshua, his successor. Before Joshua died, all the interpretations which he had received from Moses were transmitted by him to the elders who survived him. These elders conveyed them to the prophets, and by one prophet they were delivered to another." History of the Jews—pp. 29, 30.
The difference between Jewish and Protestant followers of tradition is simply this: the Jews claimed that their traditions were handed down to them from Moses; the Protestants claim that their traditions have been handed down from Christ. Both parties, while mutually condemning, each the other, agree in exalting tradition above the ten commandments. The Protestant acknowledges the wickedness of the Jew in violating through tradition the fifth commandment; yet takes the same course with the fourth commandment, and for the same reason.
If a man made a formal devotion to sacred purposes of those goods which he could afford for the relief of a parent, the Jews considered him as exempt from the duty of succoring his parent: thus encouraging a direct violation of the fifth commandment, and in so doing destroying morality at its very source. Their authority for thus openly violating the commandments of God, we have just read. Protestants no less openly violate the fourth commandment; and this they do without any other license than tradition. The Jews incurred the fearful rebuke of the Son of God; yet the Jews could present a far more venerable and imposing tradition than Protestants are able to show. What then shall we say respecting these professed followers of Christ? They acknowledge the authority of him who exposed the wickedness of the Jew's tradition, and yet with less reason, and against far greater light, they obstinately continue to make void the commandment that they may keep their own traditions. Would to God that men might realize the sinfulness of such conduct, and show the sincerity of their repentance by turning to God with full purpose of heart. J. N. A. Rochester, N. Y.