T'Idy. Notwigltassdi� t?ngs,.?t t?e ?e st? J?es of ro?nce to be tr?ed ?twe? (1 .) ?ero ?e r?em?lanees in ?. The ?hureh ofRo? ? h? the honour of ??g o?Mox d?tfine ?er many o?or churches ?d emb?eed ?t e?, such ? the A?n heresy, w?ch merg? i?eff ? the ?i?, den?ng ?th &e ? and the a?ne- mere of C?t. But eventually she fell into simil? e?. It w? t? much ? ?u?e men ?at ?st w? a cre?e; but the s?e object ? effected by ?uading men m worship mere creatures, and ? ?t ? ?e me?m of crea?es and in ?eir o? ?nces. Deny- ?g or o?cu?g the dimity of C?st may be done ? ?o ways. F?. By b?g ? down ? ?e level of a mere crea?e. Th? ? for the !earned and phil?phical; but ?ere w? somet?ng shoc?g in it for ?e b?k of ?ind. The second methM se?ed �e pu?se ?t?r; ?t w? ? b?ng up ce?n ereat&es m ?e rank ?d place of ?e Savior. Both these sys?ms seem m be op?ed each ?her; but ? a?ee in crea?e wo?p ?d e?a? mo?t, �? they are ? mbve?ive of gen?ne C?mfia?, ?d f? removed from the chaucer of a?m?city. The Soc?ians deny ?st's divi- ni?; the Papira e?ressly ?se? it; but they ?m ?t ? d?e cannot ? proved from Sc?pmre, and a? that ?e p?ve fa?em le? noting a?st A?m. ?ey al? ove?mw ?e doc?e by ?g wo?p m ?at?s. The, to a eo?ide?le e?nt, ?ey ?e comma ca?e wi? ?e 8?i?s, ?d ? ?th them in rice, though ?ey c? out a?st them. (?.) The? a? s?ng rosetab,cos ?tween 8ocinians ?d ?a?o?cs in re? m libe?es ?en ? ?e word of ? or role of f?th, in ?g the?to ?d we?ening im force. The Chu?h of ?me ?i?on to ?e word of OM. B? vocally ?knowledge the wo? of ?; but ?th c? out t? the o?nals, the Hebrew and Oreok, are ??. ?. P?estley ?cusos the a?es of reasonin? ine?- ?ly, and Moses of ?ng a ? ?c?nt of the creation. Dr. Mil- ner ?ys, "If Ch?st h? intended th? ?1 ma?d sho?d l?m ?figion from a ?k, namely, the New Testament, he himself wo?d ?ve ?en that ?k." T?s cemi?y is spewing ve? ?s?s?ct- ?ly of the wo? of G?. P and Soeinia?sm a?ee in t?, ?at there is an a?ho? am?g men su?or m ScOpic, by which the Scriptures are ? be ?ied, ?d have ?eir me?ng dete?ined.' ?s may be called the nucleus the two systems. The amho?ty w?ch the Catholics set over the $c?pmre is ?e church ?d t?fion; that w?ch the Set,inns set over it is rein and coccionce. Th? ?e ?h?ch of ?me ident?es ?rseff ?th ?is betsy by ?ng human amho?ty over the word of ?. I cannot do ?t?r hero th? adduce a quomti? from lian's Preserip?ons a?inst Heretics, and I ?e a pap? "Here? d?s not receive some sc?ptures; nor, if it receives any, it receive them entre; but eider ? or s? to prove im o? ?ne?, and when it seems ? keep the wor? ?eos ?o s? ?e?nt eommenm ?d ?terpre?fions. "? �,, Ism ? n? ?pit qu?am ?tu?s etsi qu? ?ipi? ?j?? ?t
�
