The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-12-28 00:00:00

care should be taken that only those who laboured should re-
ceive the reward. No work no pay was a sound maxim;
and those who, like himself, had been drones in the hive,
would get no share of the honey unless they attended to their
duties.

William Brown, Esq. moved the re-election of the three
directors who had been ballotted out. 'rite propriety, and
even prudence of this step, were so obvious that he would not
take up time in endeavouring to demonstrate them. Those
who had so auspiciously begun the work should be requested
to see it finished. It would he a pity to see men who worked
so well, and so successfully, interrupted in their exertions.
Captain Stewart had alluded to the benefits which Greenock
and nenfretvshire would derive from the railway, and he did
not think these had been over-estimated. At the same time
he would remark that he bad great pleasure, as a shareholder
residing in Glasgow, in coming forward to state that that city
would benefit largely from its construction. (Cheers.)
John Gray, Esq. seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously.

On the motion of Mr. M'Leish, the thanks of the meeting
were given to the chairman, and the meeting broke up.

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.*

(From the Church of England Quarterly Review.)
We are now about to enter upon one of the most momen-
tous inquiries by which the church of Christ has been agitated
for t: any years—one, in which we are called upon to deter-
mine whether the zeal be according to knowledge or contrary
to it. The question is one in which we must weigh without
bias the logos and the didiskalia —one, in which we must
decide whet her the authors of the Tracts for the Tinges have a
tendency to Popery, or whether they can be accounted or-
thodox. We are aware that we are not discussing the merits
of ordinary men; nevertheless, we shall make our remarks
freely, but without seeking unduly to give offence.
The tracts seem at first to have obtained respect and circu-
lation from their enforcement of apostolical succession in our
church; nor was it suspected that any purpose of innovation
and of raising tradition to the standard of God's word was
contemplated. For some time afterwards, they appeared
more injudicious than dangerous: but now no one can avoid
perceiving that they are making new and serious breaches in
the Christian world, and div.ding, our house against itself.
The authority of the fathers, which is claimed for their asser-
tions, will only be admitted according to the opinions which
each may have formed of it: the varying sentiments and con-
tradictions of the fathers will prevent general deference from
being paid to it. All, therefore, that the writers will effect
will be the rise of a new party in the church, which, if we
may judge from its present deportment, will ultimately lapse
into lisonanistn.
Ai Mr. Holden has very clearly shown that a great pro-
portion of what is pressed on our attention depends upon
tradition, the question is, can "the traditionary creed of the
church, so far as it is known to us, be proved to be identically
the same as that which was preached by Cbr st and the apos-
tles ?" If this proof can be given, it should be received as
the test of orthodoxy; if it cannot, it should be only respected
as human testimony: and it will need but little reflection to
decide that the required proof is impossible; that the eccle-
siastical traditions, on which so great a stress is now laid,
can never be authenticated. as purely and traustnissively
conveying the declarations of our Saviour and his apostles,
that even an uniformity with the Scriptures in certain parts
will not amount to a demonstration that they proceeded from
the same source as the Scripture, anti that no one thing to
be discovered in the early ecclesiastical writings can fix on
them the character of divine. Mr. Holden very properly
urges, that corruptions existed in the primitive age of the
church, dire thus that there will he the same difficulty in dis-
tinguishing the true church in the primitive as in the subse-
quent ages. Of these corruptions, the epistolary parts of the
New Testament give an overwhelming evidence; in the age
too succeeding the apostles schisms and heretical opinions
abounded, and most of the churches were lacerated with in-
testine divisions. But, though the church was at no time
free from the pernicious doctrines of heretics, "the essentials
of the faith, which were at first delivered by the Holy Ghost,
and sent down from Heaven, are still taught :" and the er-
rors of particular churches have never destroyed the sub-
stance of sound doctrine.
It is, however, assertained in the tracts (No. 71) that the
heretics were always distinguished from the Catholic body ;
that the sects in every country bore their own refutation on
their forehead, in that they were of recent origin • that all
those 'societies in every country which the apostles had found-
ed did agree together in one ; and that no time short of the
apostles could be assigned with any show of argument for the
rise of their existing doctrine. any
Holden rejoins, that
this assertion bears its own refutation on its forehead; that,
since heresy is proved by the Scriptures to have existed in the
lifetime of the apostles, it cannot be called of recent origin;
that there is no evidence that all the societies founded by the
apostles agree in one; and that to allege " that the faith of
the orthodox had its rise at no time short of the apostles, is a
mere assumption, which, if proved, would not of itself prove
also that it was the creed delivered by the inspired teachers
of Christianity." Further, the simple fact of this or that
doctrine having been received by several early churches does
not absolutely prove apostolicity; for the inerrancy of these
churches must be first established; and as a corruption of re-
ligion soon began, and as we know not that those churches
may not have erred, tio article of faith, solely because they
received it, can therefore be pronounced apostolical. But the
coincidence of many ancient churches in religious opinions
is said, on the other hand, to amount to more than a presump-
tion that these transmissive doctrines had a divine origin;
yet what avails the presumption, when the evidence which is
required to verify these writers is wanting ! It will also be
required for this, that the coincidence should be universal ;
and not merely universal, but that proofs of apostolical origin
should be produced. With respect, likewise, to the inference
that the transmissive belief of the primitive Christians must
have been in exact union with the doctrines promulgated by
the apostles, it is one which will not bear an examination.
When we consider the eagerness of the spirit of heathenism
in the early ages to intrude into the sanctuary the false philo-
sophy which often successfully corrupted the doctrines of the
gospel—the darkness of Pagan idolatry, in which the human
mind had been long involved—the difficulty with which the
early Christian converts comprehended a pure and spiritual
religion—the deficiency of the primitive teachers in cautious
inquiry, in close reasoning, and hermeneutical skill (as Mr.
Holden continues), it is no wonder that they were sometimes
led away by the errors of the times, which became difficult of
detection, on account of the paucity of written documents;
and it is plain that the primitive Christians could not have
derived from their proximity to the apostolic age all the ad-
vantages which are supposed. The oral instruction of the
apostles, as these writers understand it, would have been yet
more liable to be mistaken, more liable to misconception on
the part of the hearers: the preaching of their cotempota-
ries would have been equally liable to misapprehension, and
the probabilityof error must have inerensra every remove:
no steady light or divine truth could have been therefore thus
communicated : no oral instructions could have descended
to the second generation without some mixture of error. If
idolatry found an entrance into the households of Nahor and
Terah (Gen. xxxi, 3052); of Isaac, Esau, and Jacob (Gen.
xxxi. 92; xxxv., 2); if the true religion had become corrupt-
ed during the servitude in Egypt (Josb.xxiv., 14), parallel
examples of the truth of these remarks are before us; and
it is absurd to argue, that what took place in these instances
could not have taken place with the early Christians. Oral
tradition is always unsafe : it has always been that to which
the advocates of a corrupt faith have applied as to a para-
mount authority; it was that by which the Jews, in our
Saviour's time, rendered the word of God of no effect: it is
that which the Papist still claims as the sanction of his doc-
trines. If oral tradition had been designed to direct the
church, we cannot conceive why the New Testament should
have been written—why the apostles should have committed
to fliting the substance of the doctrines which they preached.
On the same principle as they wrote, Muses was desired to
write the law, as a protection against the insecurity or oral
tradition !
As to the rule of Vincent of Lirius, quod übique, quod tem-
per, prod ah omnibus, &c., which is urged in support of the
unbroken continnity of tradative belief from the very period
of its origin, Mr. Holden observes, that it is not within the
reach of human ability to discover what were the precise te-
nets held everywhere, always, and by all; that Omniscience
alone could accomplish so mighty a task; consequently, that
sonic abatements must be made from the universality of the
rule. And if it must necessarily he enforced by limits, its
capability of constituting it proof of apostolicity may be
doubted; and when it presupposes unanimity, absolute an-
tiquity, and universality, it begs the question, and assumes
what it should prove. But this acute writer objects, that as
it was out of the power of any one or of all the writers in the
three first centuries, whose works are extant, to have ascer-
tained the doctrine of all the apostolical churches, these de-
clarations must be accepted with considerable litnitations—
that heretical opinions having sprung up, even in the infancy
of the church, grown with its growth, and increased with its
strength, and a great part of the ecclesiastical writers having
been occupied in refuting them, the doctrinal uniformity
of the primitive ages is disproved—that as certain early here-
tics either rejected a large portion of the Scriptures received
by the church, or mutilated theta, or acknowledged several
spurious books, the fathers could not properly argue with
such on scriptural grounds, and could only appeal to the tra-
ditionary- doctrine, and that thus tradition was not intro-
duced as infallible or equipotent with the Scriptures, but
merely as the only common ground of argument. Again,
certain heretics contended that their doctrines were conform-
able to those of the apostles; that they had been conveyed
to them by tradition in pet feet purity; and that in process of
time they had been perverted by their opponents. This alle-
gation the fathers denied, retorting the charge of perversion
on their antagonists, so that tradition was equally claimed
by either party.
But the fathers occasionally called the Scriptures them-
selves tradition ; sometimes the creed or summary of neces-
sary articles of faith handed down in • the apostolic churches
was likewise so denominated. In the latter case, tradition
was a system of doctrine really contained in the Scriptures,
and one to be proved from the Scriptures, not anything per-
fectly- independent of them; in fact, a compendium of Scrip-
tural doctrines. "Lastly" proceeds this writer, "the fa-
thers declare, with one voice. that the Scriptures contain all
things necessary to be known, believed, and practised for
salvation; which are words that fully refute the extravagant
assertions of those who would raise tradition to an authority
equal to the Scriptures."
He then discusses the sense in which Irenmus understood
tradition, and unanswerably refutes the usual meaning alt-
plied to his WordsHshowing, with Stillingtleet, that where he
speaks Most of ,tradition he resolves the ground of faith
wholly and entirely into scripture; and that those who other-
vv se apprehend him take citations on trust, or only search
him for the words of those citations, not taking the pains to
inquire into the scope and design of his intercourse. As
Irenceus always asserts the paramoent authority of the Scrip-
tures—as he affirms Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, to
have reported all things agreettivty to the scriptures, it is evi-
dent that he believed the scriptures to be supreme in matters
of faith, not tradition to have been another apostolicialstand-
ard of Christian doctrines.

By him and Tertullian tradition was accounted only an
evidence subsidiary to the scripture; it was cited in proof that
the scriptures were written by those to whom they are attribu-
ted—by neither was it elevated to the rank which has been
assumed. The opinion of Tertullian on this point has been
so fully proved by a living prelate to have been conformable
to our twentieth article, and opposed to the Roman Catholic
notion, that this part of the subject may be safely dismissed;
for it is very apparent, that in many Passages cited from the
fathers in support of tradition they meant the doctrines deli-
vered down in the sacred writings—not that to which modern
appeal is so forcibly made.

• •
Among other things wanting is the continuity of consent;
also the primary and connecting link in the chain of evi-
dence is wanting. Irenmus is the earliest subject of appeal ;
but as he flourished late in the second century, and as the
other authorities flourished at a much later period, there is a
great chasm which cannot be supplied; and a failure in
tracing at anyone period the uncontaminated descent of tra-
dition from the apostles subverts the very foundation upon
which the high authority claimed for it is built."
The advocates of the theory which is now perplexing the
church use language nearly similar to that of the Roman
Catholics in support of tradition, and quote texts in common
with them to justify its pretensions. If their words be ad-
mitted, how imperceptibly may Protestants glide into Popery !
Mr. Churton in particular has quoted texts which are insutfi-

rrothor-ot a publication, entitled Travers in Town,
in his allusion to the editor of this periodical, says—" The
charge of Puseyism lies against him, inasmuch as he has so
lavishly praised the men, and recommended their works, who
were the first to broach, and still continue the leading cham-
pions of, those sentiments;" and in another place calls this
review the organ of the Puseyites! The editor wishes dis-
claim any connexion with the party alluded to: if he has
praised any of their works, it has only been when they have
contained sound church principles; but when the authors
have departed from them, he has, in the same independent
spirit by which this Quarterly has always been conducted, re-
proved and exposed the tendency of their peculiar opinions,
as the pseSenfrirticle will testify.

cient to establish the authority of tradition os a standard of
faith. It is not disputed that the apostles delivered oral as
well as written instructions; but if these coal instructions
were not embodied in Scripture, who now can tell us what
they were ? Who can shew that the traditions, to which ap-
peal is now made, were the same, or indeed had any relation-
ship to them! One text, on which great relance is placed,
is 'rhess. ii , 13; but were the paradoseis is the apostle's
preaching (logo) different from the paradosqs in the apos-
tle's epistles? and as the epistles were written documents,
and as we cannot imagine men acting under the influence of
i he holy spirit to have omitted anything necessary to salvation
in those written documents, we cannot admit a distinction in
this passage, especially since the words, ai edidaehtheetee
must convince every unbiassed mind that these paradoseis
were things that had been generally taught. Tradition, in
the sense in which it is claimed, could not have continued
pure for a century, much less could it bate aeen conveyed
uncorrupted to our times; how any men of critical minds
can attach certainty to it, and write of its pu.e sources, we
cannot understand. In 2'l LI, Mr. Kelso understands
teen kaleen parakatatheekeen, as tl the treasureof apostolical
doctrines and church rules, containing" according, to the
citation by Mr. Holden,) "besides the substance of Christian
doctrine, a certain form, 'arrangement, and selection, me-
thodising the whole, and distinguishing fundmentals; and
also a certain system of church practice, both it government,
discipline, and worship, comprising matter independent of,
and distinct from, the truths which are directly scriptural."
It is most manifest that this is mete conjecture, and that the
words contain in themselves no authority for this amplifica-
tion ; in fact, Suicer (in yore) has given instances of a differ-
ent interpretation. Whatever was the parakahtheekee, the
text only enjoins Timothy to keep it safe: it is'silent even
how it was to be kept safe; and Mr. Keble's notion of mat-
ters independent of, and distinct from, the truths which are
directly scriptural; in other words, tradition, is cuwarranted
by it. Have we, however, evidence that that woich is now
called primitive tradition was the good deposit committed to
Timothy ? For all the texts collectively which refer to the
oral teaching of the apostles do not prove it to have been
distinct from that teaching which is preserved in the Scrip-
tures. We ask, do not the partisans of tradition virtually
assert the Scriptures to be defective ? and is not the tradition-
ary interpretation of many passages contrary to the simplest
rules of hermeneutics?
Mr. Holden states, that it is likewise urged that the Scrip-
ture no where hints that its authority was to supersede that of
the unwritten word, no where asserts that it is by itself an
intelligible rule of faith; that, "so far from it, the Scriptures,
on the very face of them, bear testimony to the contrary." in
other words, _this argument asserts the insuf&iency of the
' Scriptures. Now, as our Saviour arguing with the Jews, did
cot refer to tradition, but to the Jewish Scriptures, for proof;
as the apostles, seeking to convince the Jews, reasoner: not
from tradition, but from the Scripture; and as by tradition
the Jews were said to have made the word of God of no effect,
it is very clear that Christ and his apostles considered the
Scriptures alone as the intelligible rule of life awl faith; and
that irthis was the case with the 01,1 Testament, sanity of
reasoning exacts that it should also have been the case with
the New. We cannot understand, since the apostles were
enjoined to write (Apoc. i., 10, 11—ii. 1,8, 12, &c., xiv. 12,
xxi. 5, cf, 2; Pet. iii. 1,2; St. John Ep.i,-1, 3, 4,. ii. 1, 12,
13, 14, 25, v. 13,1 Cur. xi., 23.), how anything traditionary,
and therefore uncertain, can assume an authority with re-
ference to that which has been written, unless it be one most
subordinate and open to criticism. St. Luke evidently thought
tradition an uncertain guide; for he wrote his gospel that
Theophilus might know the certainty or security (asphaleia)
of the oral (kathos paredosan—periton kateechathees) instruc-
tion which he.had received. Had the evangelist not fore-
seen the possible and probable corruption of this oral in-
struction, the cause which impelled him to write would not
have existed. St. John, too (xx.. 31.). says, " These are
written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through
his name ;" than which no words can more fully express the
perfect sufficiency of the Scriptures. and by consequence the
inadequacy of tradition. St. Paul likewise wrote to Timothy,
hint to whom was committed the good deposit; that he might
know how to behave himself in the house of God, (1 Tim.
iii. 14, 25) ; whence it appears, that if the good deposit had
been oral instruction, it was insufficient without this hortatory
epistle. In his second Epistle iii. 16, 17, St. Paul unequi-
vocally maintains the complete sufficiency of the Scriptures;
and St Peter (1 Ep. iv., 11) desires that if any man speak,
be should speak as the oracles of God, by which the written
word, not tradition, must have been meant.*
In the cause of the Scriptures against tradition, Dr. Shut-
tleworth, the warden of New College, Oxford, steps forth
also as a powerful champion. He rightly maintains in limine,
that if the first links which ought to connect a chain with any
. given object be wanting, no addition to its length at the op-
posite end will remedy the defect; and that to defend tradi-
tion by appealing to tradition is, in fact, reasoning in a
circle. He adduces a striking passage from Irenmus (adv.
iii., 1.), who, be it remembered, is claimed as an au-
thority for tradition, which passage unequivocally declared,
that what the first teachers of Christianity originally taught
by word of mouth, they afterwards committed to writing ;
and that those writings are the books of the New Testament :
consequently, the paradoseis of the apostles were the mate-
rials from which the gospels and acts were made, and were
identical with the doctrinal parts of the epistles. From the
second chapter of the same book it further appears. that "the
first appeal to floating tradition, as containing articles of belief,
in addition or in contradiction to the records of holy writ, was
made by the earliest of those numerous classes of heretics
who, at so early a period of the church, attempted to ingraft
their own inventions upon the revelation of God's will."
When he again says, that the sound traditions derived di-
rectly by the church front the apostles themselves in all points
harmonzed and coincided with the written word, we have a
datum in vindication of our preceding interpretation of apos-
tolical paradoseis. We have thus a proof. that Irenseus can-
not be justly cited as a traditionist.

Dr. Shutileworth has likewise— clearly established, that
neither Clemens Romanus. Polycarp, Ignatius, nor the his 7
totians of the martyrdom of the two latter, make tradition a
second standard of faith, nor set it up as an auxiliary to
revelation. Nor can we conceive that St. Paul especially,
who called the Jewish traditions lodaikoi muthoi kai entolai
anthropon (Tit. i. 14), and cautioned Timothy against them
(1 Ep. i. 4.), stigmatizing (iv. 7.) them as groodeis muthoi,
•if he bad wished tradition to direct the Christian church,
would not have left some injunctions respecting it. Nor in
the writings of Justin Martyr is there any reference to oral
communications, as opposed to those which the apostles le:t
recorded in writing for the edification of the church—no hint
of an, esoteric and exoteric system of Christianity. Thus
w e-
have descended beyond the first 150 years after the close
of our Lord's ministry, during which period the doctrine of
tradition, as being concurrent in authority with the Scrip-
tures, was not imagined. Had the case been otherwise, we
should have found during this interval some allusion to it
ac a rule of faith, coins+ silting of tho which it
rested, some direct retracing of it to the apostles; and Justin
Martyr, who disputed with Trvpho, especially, might have
been expected to have been diffuse in its favour. The opi-
nions of the writers of the third or fourth centuries, from the
inability to support them by the evidence of the earlier, have
little value ; and if we would see how tradition involved itself
in the fabulous as it proceeded down the stream of time, we
need only consult the pages of the Byzantine authors.
Tradition should always be received with great caution: it
has ever been the engine by which the commandments amen
have been set it opposition to the revelations of Uod. It was
the tool which enabled the Jews to wrest and wrench the
Scriptures from their obvious interpretation; it was the tool
by which many of the early heretics forced the gospels to
their purpose: why should it not be so again, if it be equalized
with the written word! What tradition has pertbrined for the
Roman Catholics it may perform for others. If God, by mi-
raculous aid, enabled certain persons to write an infallible
record of his will—an infallible directory for mankind, what
they wrote must necessarily be accounted complete; if not,
the anomaly of something uncertain, therefore fallible, as an
indispensable aid to the infallible, will be presented to us.
Hence Dr. Sbuttleworth properly contends, that there is an
ci priori improbability against divine iuspiraeon having been
a:forded to an incomplete Scripture; that is the written works
of. he apostles ate merely a kind of pareyro, mere incidental
allusions to ooctrines stated elsewhere, it will follow, "that
as the original record has at all events not come down to our
time, the revelation of God's will which we now possess is ne-
cessarily incomplete; that we know not at this moment the
whole of our religion, what it has been and should be." For,
as he continues to assert, that the oral instruction of the
apostolical ages bas been transmitted to our tunes in any-
thing like purity, or a state capable of identification through
all the thousand heresies of 1,800 years, on the almost total
extinction of Christian knowledge in Europe before the lie
formation, is the merest gratuitous assumption, contradicted
by historical testimony. Where were the pure traditions oh

the church in the ignorant and superstitious middle ages of
Europe ? In this dark epoch was true Christiauity to be
found anywhere but in the Scriptures?
We cannot escape from the dilemma—either that "reve-
lation, supposing it to have originally consisted of the written
Scriptures and of oral traditiou, is at this moment incomplete,
the communication having been lost in the lapse of ages•, auu
the supplementary written portion alone having descendeu
to us; or tnat, on the other hand, we must be prepared to re-
ceive the canonical books of the New Testament as an en-
tire, full, and sufficient declaration of the will of God and
summary of our faith." That the later is correct we cannot*
doubt; for to assert that traditionary doctrines passing from
mouth to mouth, capable of modification according to the
wishes of the reporters, are revelation, and as such equally
binding on the belief and conscience as the Holy Scriptures
(as we hear in the present day) is most startling, and, in our
opinion, opens a ready door to heresy and schism.
The proximity to the apostolical age yields not proof that
the early Christians could not have made important mis-
takes ; for at that time inspiration had ceased. .Without
inspiration we cannot imagine unmixed truth to have been
orally transmitted from one generation to another; if we
affirm that in this transmission there was no taint or sur:r.
addition of human speculation, we must exempt those suc-
cessive generations from one of the most besetting infirmities
of our nature. If we compare the writings of the apostles
with those of the primitive Christian fathers, we instantly
perceive that we have passed the boundary of inspiration—
we perceive the writers to be merely fallible beings: tradi-
tions descending to us through such a channel can, therefore,
not be-put in competition with the inspired documents,--- --
In evidence, that no inspiration can be assigned even to
Clemens Romanus, Dr. Shuttleworth instances his notice of
the pliceuix, not merely as illustrative of the resurrection,
but as asserting the existence of that fabulous bird as an
established fact in natural history, bow much less can it be
assigned to those who lived at later periods? In Justin
Martyr we observe, occasionally, strange inferences drawn
from-holy writ, verbal inaccuracies arising from misquota-
tions, or quotations memoriter, and continually perceive most
inconclusive reasoning, such as his deduction of moral evil
from the progeny of angels having commerce with antedilu-
vian females.j- Such was bis interpretation. What shall
we say " of his discovering the holy symbol of the cross in
the masts of shipping, in the implements of husbandry, in
the tools of the carpenter, and even in the position of the
nose and eyebrows in the human face ;" and of his quoting
Lam. iv. 2U, in support of the last idea ? Shall we accredit
tradition handed down by such a person? Moreover, it Ire-
nseus,:t by some called the disciple of Polycarp, the disciple
of St. John, who in this case ought to have known the truth,
asserted for the sake of supporting a fanciful theory, in illus-
tration of John viii. 57, that our Lord must have nearly
reached his 50th year at the time of his crucifixion, to make
out which, contrary to the express declatation of the four
evangelists, be interpolated more than 15 years between his
baptism and the commencement of his ministry, of whit au-
thority can he be in matters of tradition ? If such distin-
guished men as Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen bore tes-
timony to the authenticity of that stupid production and for-
gery; the apocryphal epistle of Barnabas, whose misrepre-
sentations of the Levitical law, cabbalistical nonsense, -and
monstrous blunders abundantly refute it, how can they be
trusted respecting orally traditive communications? If Lac-
tantius, too, could repeat the outrageous and stupid error of
this unknown author ou Isaiah xiv. 1, and reading Kill joy for
Kuros, and arguing from that blunder as from a truth, could
have applied the passage to Christ—in the one to Christy
Kuria moo, in the other Christy Domino meo—can we, wit-
nessing this want of biblical knowledge, account for a safe
custodier of tradation ? Nay, oho that have read the frivol-
ties with which the pages of the fathers are filled %sill trust
their judgment respecting any standard of faith separate from
the written word? Who will allow these-fanciful men to
hand down to us another rule of life?

After this period the progress of innovation was so rapidly
accelerated that before the close of the fourth century many
of the abuses which human invention had superaddid to di-

* Compare Deut. vi. 6-8, x•i 8-21, xxx. 2, 10, xxxi.
11-13, xvii. 19, 1 Kiugs ii. 3, 2 Chr. xxxiv. 31, Pa. xii 6,
xix. 7-11, lxix. 105, Isaiah viii. 20, xxxiv. 16, Mal. iv. 4,
Matt. xxii. 22, Mark xii. 24, Luke xvi. 29, x. 25, 26,iJohn
v. 39, Acts xvii. l I.—particularly Rev. xvii. 11, 19, which,
in principle, applies to all the works of all the inspired
writers.
t See a subsequent note. Adv. Her., ii. 39.