Page:Delineation of Roman Catholicism.djvu/120

 11 �TIDrn0w. [Boor I. unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which P!tOBBDBTH from the Father, he shall testify of me," John xv, 26. It is worthy of notice that the Ehemish annotators and Bishop Hay, author o/the Sin- cere Christian, deduce the doctrine of the procession from this pas. sage. It is rather strange that these Roman doctors attempt to prove this doctrine from Scripture, if it be not conmind in Scripture. Here is a specimen of the harmony existing among them in the interpretaxion of Scripture. 5. Concerning the prohibition of e/n &AMs/, (Acts xv,) we are told that it is abrogated, not by Scripture, but by tradition, so that neither Protestants nor Romanists have any scruple in eating blood or things strangled. On tibia we may remark that the passage clearly prohibits fornication, things offered to idols, things strangled, and blood; and since this..precept i8 not revoked it stands in full force, whether Protestants or fromartists observe it or not. �And those Protestants who refrain from blood and things strangled are not guided by tradition, but by Scripture. And even Dr. Milner, the celebrated Roman Catholic con- troversialist, speaking of and approving of those who eat blood and things strangled, says, they "act in direct contradiction to the express words of both the Old and New Testament." If this be the case then, no man can be at a Ion to know that it is his duty to abstain from thins strangled and from blood; and if popish tradition has anmfiled this law of God, u RomarLists say it has, then this tradition is contrary to the �word and ought to be rejected. 6. We are farther told that the divinity of Christ depends principally' for its support on tradition and not on Scripture. So Dr. Milner askn. "Is it demonstratively ev/dent from mere Scripture that Christ is Cod and to be adored as such !" To this we reply, that the Scripture proofs on this subject, brought forward by Pwtestant divines, amply demon- strata the divinity of Christ, independently of tradition. And it is much to be deplored that loman Catholics have given up the Scripture evi- dence and have fled to the uncertainty of tradition. And Soc'mians or Unitarians are pleased w/th the concession that this doctrine cannot bo proved by Scripture. Knowing also that they cannot maintain the doctrine by tradition, the Socinians reject it altogether. Thus the doctors help to make infidels in Italy, and Socinians in Poland. VI. However, Roman Catholics inform us, that their traditions, on which they depend, are not altogether unwritten, but parfly written by the ancient fathers of the church. We reply, that we acknowledge truly ancient writers in matters wherein they all agree, to be a very valuable evidence of the faith, though a fallible one. And we can prove that these writers in proportion as they lived near the ap(mdes' age were of our faith. Moreover, if antiquity be an argument, the greater the antiquity the stronger the argument; and, therefore, the authority of the Bible for this, as well as many other reasons, is the strongest of all. An original account is o/' the greatest authority. Such others as come after may be of considerable use to/11ustrate and confirm the former; but where- ever they appear to contradict it, they must be rejected without scruple. And those which come a great deal after, such as the Church of Rome cifl[ depends on, doserye little or no credit- . We aludl now collect the views of the ancient fathers respmcting 1

�