Page:Delineation of Roman Catholicism.djvu/108

 lOS [Boos I. and , which yet are only the traditions of their siclets, or tho who sit in St. Peter's chair, and which also mate gg the command- ments of God; such as the worship of images, communion in one kind, prayers in an unknown tongue. It is granted that suitable ceremonies may properly be used in the church of Christ; but then they should be reckoned not as necessary, but in themselves things indifferent; not used for sanctification, but only for order and decency*; not reckoned as any parts, but only circumstances of worship. III. We shall now examine the character of the traditions sanctioned by the Church of Rome, which makes them eua/with the word, and pronounces an anathema on all who reject them. 1. The simple statement of what Romanists mean by tradition might be enough to convince persons of common sense of the folly of do* pending on them. It consists of certain doctrines and precept] which Christ and his apostles are said to have spoken, but which were not committed to writing, but have been delivered from age to age by word of mouth, and have come down to us as pure as the written word con- tained in the gospo18 and epistles. And some of their doctors assert that the knowledge of Christianity might have been preserved and pm. pagated in the world though the New Testament had never been wrttten. 2. Our first step will be to examine those passages of Scripture which are brought to authorize unwritten tradition. We have seen already that their kind of' tradition is not at all autho- rized by St. Paul in his epistle8 to the Corinthians and Thessalonians, although these are the passages which they quote with the greatest confidence. In addition to what has been said respecting the traditions held by the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica we may observe, that the traditions referred to were originally delivered to these c]mrche. s. We may therefore ask, how and at what time they came into the possession of the church at Rome ?. And by what means did the lattar assure herself that they were the same instructions which the apostle delivered by divine inspiration? Moreover, were the churches of Corinth and Thesaslonica i,Jfa///b/e ? That they were not is obvious from the former having erred respecting the eucharist, and the latter respecting the day of judgment. The Church of Rome having received these traditions (ff she has received them) through such channels, is a fact of itself sufficient to prevent us from giving to tre- ditions equal authority with the Scriptures. But suppose these tr&- ditions have been received by the church at Rome, what evidence have we that they have been faithfully preserved and transmitted to us with- out alteration ? Wottld the Church of Rome have us to receive religious doctrines and ordinances, professodly delivered about eighteen hundred years ago, the knowledge of which is conveyed by oral tradition, with the same confidence with which we receive the Scriptures ? Another argument for tradition is taken from Christ'8 command to all men to hear his apostles. "He that he,'etA you, learetA rn ;" and, "If he reftuse to hear the c/ms'cA," c. It is granted that all men are bound to hear what the apot/e have said; but this has very little to do with what others have said or may yet say; and popish tradition consists entirely of what other men said. We deny that the apostles taught what is embraced in Romish traditions; and the proof is to be given 1

�