Ca?. III.] TIADmOl?. 101 by those who hold such traditions. But they can never prove the genuineness of a single sentence ascribed to Christ and his apostles beyond what we have in the New Testament. We have already shown that the command of hearing the church means no such thing as the Church of Rome attempts to deduce from it. A passage from Romans is quoted in fayour of traditions, (l?om[ xvi, 17,) because the apostle says, "Mark them that cause offences con- trary," not to the Scriptures, but "to the doctrines they had received." But to make this argument of any force it must be proved that this doctride which they had received was not contained in Scripture, either f7tm or a.?'d. The apostle speaks here of doctrines received from the mouth of the apostles by the Pomans; and when the unwritten traditions of the Church of Rome are proved to have been uttered by the apostles, and enjoined as doctrines, Protestants will then cordially receive them. In fayour of tradition the following text is adduced: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot hear them now," John xvi, lf?. But then it is added, ,' When he, the Spirit of truth, shall come, he will teach you all truth." Accordingly the Holy Spirit was afterward g?ven them; and the different parts of the New Testament were written, which contained ?J ?f& necessary for the Christian church. 3. Dr. M'ilner argues in fayour of tradition from the of England. "All written laws necessarily suppose the existence of es?r?tfen ?,?, and, indeed, depend on them for their force and autho- rity. Not to run into the de?)ths of ethics and metaphysics on this subject, you know, dear sir, that in this kingdom (England) we have ? or ,?nu?f?en Zm?, and st?,?fe or ?tten ?, both of them bind- ing; !?ut that the former necessarily precedes the latter."* To this we reply, that the case is not properly parallel. We must, in religion, have recourse to Scripture which existed many ages before England or the United States made any figure among the nations of the world. We might however ask, whether the law of the ten commandments, written on tables of stone on Mount Sinai, necessarily supposed the existence of enotAer law that was prior to it, but not written, and upon which this written law depended for its force and authority ? The argument then for the ?ez nos ?c?pz? of the Romish Church can find no foundation from the common law; especially when the principal traditions maintained in the Roman Catholic Church are either con- trary to Scripture, embraced in Scripture, or not found in it. And if we are told that the patriarchs lived under the authorit? of the ?ez nos ?'r?p?z, or unwritten law, this will avail nothing unless zt be proved that this law was different. from.the law of Moses. 4. Accordingly we are told that the faithful had nothing but tradition to guide them for above two thousand years, that is, from Adam to Moses. Dr. Milner's words are, "It is then certain that the whole doctrine and practice of religion, including the rites of sacrifice, and indeed the whole sacred history, was preserved by the patriarchs in succession from Adam to Moses, during the space of two thousand and four hundred years, ?y ? ? ?r? .. and when the law was written, many most important truths regarding a future life, the era- End of Contr., let. x, ! ?. ? t
�
