Page:Delineation of Roman Catholicism.djvu/118

 110 TaAmT[OW. [Booz I. �. It is objected to us, "t]mt Protestants receive some things on the authority of tradition; and why can we not receive other things on the same authot/ty ?"such as Scripture, infant baptism, observance of the Christian sabbath, &c. l. We certainly do not receive Scripture on the authority of popish tradition, which means something handed down, through eighteen cen- turies, by word of mouth, independent of wr/tten testimony. Such a tradition as this furnishes the least part, if any part at all, of the evi- dence on which we receive Scripture. And while Protestants reject such dubious testimony, they do not reject the evidence of written tes- timony. They readily avail themselves of it. as furnishing rational evidence of the genuineness of the books of Scripture; that is, that they were written by the men whose names they bear. Of this there is the w,tten testimony of friends and enemies of Christianity. Some of these authors were cotemporary with mel who had been cotempora- hlwith some of the apostles, and all agree in fixing on the same books ch are now embraced in the New Testament. We know it to be impossible that forgeries should gain universal credit, because we know it to be impossible now, human nature and the laws of moral evidence being the same in all ages. We receive the Holy Scriptures as un- doubtedly gentne, independently of' the authority of the Church of Rome and her traditions, because they were identified with the litera. ture of the period before the Church of Rome was distinguished above other churches. And it was impossible that she could, after the fourth century, add to the evidence in favonr of the apostolic writings, which had been established above all dispute in the second and third centu- ries. Indeed, were the testimony of the Roman Church blotted out of being, we have ample Witnesses in the Greek and other churches re- opecting the gen-ineness and authenticity of Scripture. The utmost amount of Roman oral tradition would be a probab/e proof with regard to things not contrary to Scripture. We do not receive the apostolical writings on authority so vague; for besides their being ur/tten at first, which puts them out of the rank of oral traditions, the substance of them was speedily incorporated in the writings of the Greek and Latin fathers. And as it respects the inspiration of Scripture, it depends upon higher testimony than mere tradition. For this we have the miracles which attest Scripture, the prophecies which are recorded in it, the excellences of its precepts and doctrines, the force of its motives-- in short, the most convincing proofs of its being a revelation from God. But a bare probabi/ity is the utmost evidence that can be produced by oral tradition in the mind of a serious inquirer after historical truth. This is all it can effect, and that only in regard to things not contrary to Scripture, 8o that no wise man can build any article of faith or ordi- nance of worship upon such an uncertain foundation. Indeed, that faith in the word of God which constitutes a man a Christian is founded on higher authority than even the tradition of written testimony, which produces only a rational conviction, not a divine faith. But we have shown in another place how we know the Bible to be the word of God independently of human testimony. Popish authors claim great merit, on the part of their church, for having kept the Bible 8o carefully for us, during so many ages, and for giving it to the world at last. But they forget that the word of God was 1 Oiaitized b, GOOcle

�