Page:Delineation of Roman Catholicism.djvu/107

 Cs,. !1I.] TRAMTrim. 99 Christ wished us to read, these he commanded to be written in a book, as ff i; were by his own hands. For this common bond of unity, and harmonious mii_try of the members, in different offices, under one head, each should understand, and should receive the narratives of Christ's disciples in the gospel no otherwise than if he saw the very hand of Christ writing it, which was attached to his own body."* How strange is it that Roman Catholic divines, such as Milner, Hughes, &c., will assert that Christ never commanded the New Testament to be written, when at the same time they profess great reverence for Augustine and Ironruns, and the many other fathers who assert that Christ commanded his followers to write the New Testament! We cannot reasonably suppose that the evangelists would pretend to write the gospel of Jesus Christ, insert many things more than neces- 8affy, and yet omit necessary things, and still call it the gospel of Jesus Christ. But when the four gospels, the Acts, epistles, and the apoca- lypse are collected, it is altogether improbable that this should not be the whole gospel. 4. The doctrines of the heathen philosophers seem to go by the name of tradition. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ," Col. ii, 8. It was called the tradition of men, because it was received solely on the authority of the master who delivered it. Hence arose the maxim, so famed among the ancient philosophers, ewer v, ipss dixit, tl master said it. Traditions of this kind are condomed by the word of God; and yet a large number of those maintained by the Church of Rome are of this description. They am truly traditions of men. 5. �'e have an account in the gospels (Matt. xv, 1-10; Mark vii, 1-13) of the traditions of the Jews, who believed that with the written law God communicated the oral law, or the unwritten law; that this oral law was communicated to the elders of Israel, and that they de- livered it down to their successors. Let us examine what our Lord says respecting the Jewish traditions, and draw the parallel between them and the popish traditions. (I.) They endeavoured to dignify them, arui call them the traditions of the elders or the fathers who sat in Moses' seat. The Latins will have theirs also to be apostolical, and of the fathers and pop who sat in St. Peter's chair. (2.) Yet our Lord calls them the :ommas of men, the traditions of .the Pharisees and scribes. The traditions of Rome are, it is true, the commandments of the church; but they are human commands; not divine, not given by inspiration of God, and, therefore, without divine authority. (3.) The Pharisees/aid as/de, rejeedzd, and mad of non effect the commandments of God by their traditions. The same is done by the Romarfists. (4.) By traditions the Pharisees teach in the place of dotr/n, i.e., ddv/ne trut/, human inventions, such as the washing of /umds, eujos, pots, dry. The Romanists have many ecxdatical costitutimu, ite, tmMuarn outs manibus imperavit. Hoc unitaris consortium st in diversis offach con. eorium membrorum sub uno capire ministerium, quisquis intellexerit: n. on aliter acci-  uod novantibus diseyulis Christi in gvangelio legerit, qu,a.m m. psmn manure ]Domlni, quam in proprio corpore geetabor. scribentem conspexerit. --Augur. d Coo. m Eum, Lib. i, e. L 6. I 474350
 * "Quicuid enim file de suis factis e dictis nos legere voltlit, hoe ,crib?d_ um illis

�