] 0 CONTEN'TS. 6. Nothing material is presented etse- where 46 7. The contrs? doctrine is the source of numerous and great errors, such as Shakerism, Mormonism, &c. 46 IlL 7? Scripture, ?e ? or ? 46 1. Romanisto ss? they are obscure 47 2. The writers of them must, at leut, be as competent as other writers 47
- 3. The Old Testament was given to
the Jews 4,7 4. The New wn addreined to all the s?nts 47 �hey are represented as a/?At, to b?trp. ct, and guide 47, 48 6. Examination of 2 Peter iii, 16 4/9, 49 7. Protestants provide against the ob- seurity of Scripture 49 8. Ability to understand them tbe- roughly, not the rule of pe?inn to ?fici?n:?d read them 49, 50 of the Church of Rome, beth in explaining, and promoting a knowledge of Scripture 50 9. Mankind liable to fall into error 50, 51 IV*. Th? 8c?pture thz rule, amt o?ly r?l?, of fa?th a?d practice 51 1. The Protestant and Roman Catho- lic rules defined 51 2. The Scripture point? out no other rule than itself 51 3. The primitive church acknowledg- ed no other 51 4. Private judgment not the Pmte?t- ant rule Protestant rule explained 51, 52 Intodated private judgment con- sidered 52-54 5. Uncertainty of the Roman Catholic rule 54 They are obliged to adopt some- times the Prutestant rule 54 Dr. Wiseman cited 54 An ?t off, irA 54 Implk?f? a substitute fo? faith 54 The absurdity of it 54' The '* 54 The curious di?tinction? they make, and theit definitio? 55 Doubts of Roman Catholics and Ptotostant? comlm'ed 55 Dr. Milner's objection, tkat Pro- answered 55, 56 Ob?_., "The church had not ?3cripture always," 57 Obj., "Many books of t? Old T?ent a? l?t" 57 ?ey deem t? Bible unn?o,m? ?ey have no c?in ? 8. The? ? no new ?velafim ? the chu?h ? co?titute a new ?e Not the ch?h Nor ?e fuhe? Nor eouncih N? d?s of ? Nor t?tion 1. First. ?pt? ? the ?e to fo? �?fe? f? or u f? u m? ca?le ?. ,?. It ? the ?le ? form t? 59 3. For t? a m? ne? stud? the pv? ?e qu?ti? of can? 4. Nor ? the ori? ian?ag? ?5. N? e?t ?eten 60 ?6. F?r th? ?!y a? ? fo? a true fait? which ?y ? t? by all? ?st. To ? w? ? f? ?ation 60, 61 7. 8e?. Adapt? ? t? ?p?ity of all 8. T?. Fo?s ? t?e ?? ? the mind 61 9. F?r?. F? f?m ? er- ? 61, 6? ?. ? ? to r?d t? ?? 6? 1. ?t?n? of the Chu?h of ? ? th? ?int F?h role ? the l?ex 6% ?us ?I.?BuH of Ju? 1816 ?e ?'s bull of ?pt. lSt? Bull of ? X., dat? M?y 18? Bull Unigenitus ? 1713 D?o?t opinions of ?m?im on this 67 ? M? eit? 67 ?nt?en? of the l? el? 67, ?e, ?ever, ?t m apple of e?ulati? tha ?? Bishop ?eli's o?n ?, 69 ?. H?i's sentiment 69, 70 ?me ?a!ly favor ?eh ti? but ?y ? ?n?y ? to it 70 ?e ?ptu? ? ?uth Am? aM ?t ? ?, 71 ?. ? ?ould ? t? B? ? Digitized by GO02Ic
�
