elsewhere obferved upon it, on another occafion *. "When the difpute arofe at An"tioch whether the Gentiles fhould be circum"cifed, and keep the law of Mofes, Acts xv. "the apostles did not, in this cafe, affume "an authority of deciding the question, or "of determining the churches practice here"in; but only by reafon and good argument, they fhewed, that the Gentiles were under "no fuch obligation. Neither did the church fuppofe that the apoftles had any fuch authority, for then there would have been no place for fuch a difpute. But when it was "moved at Antioch, and they could not bring "it to an iffue (tho' Paul and Barnabas were

prefent) they thought it advisable to have "the opinion of the brethren at Jerufalem, "to fee whether they could offer any thing "which might determine the matter. And "accordingly, when the cafe was heard, there "was no authority affumed, but reafon and ar"gument were the ground of their determina"tion: Peter fhewed, in the inftance of Cor"nelius, and his Gentile friends, that God

gave them the like gifts, and received them " into equal privileges with the Jews, even "whilft in uncircumcifion. And he was fe"conded by Paul and Barnabas, who fhewed, what special miracles God had wrought amongst the Gentiles by their miniftry. James added to this a prophesy in the Old Teftament, Amos ix. 11. in which it was "fore

*See my Collection of Trats, page 195.

"foretold, that God's name fhould be call"ed upon among the Gentiles, that is, by men "in uncircumcifion; and that the Gentiles, as

"

Gentiles, which came home to God under "the kingdom of the Meffiah, were owned by "him as his people. From all which it was infer"red, that the Gentiles were not obliged to be "circumcifed, and keep the law of Mofes, and "that it was a tempting God to lay this c yoak upon them. So that the ground of "that advice, which the brethren at Jerufalem fent to them at Antioch, was not any "authority lodged in the apoftles, but the reafons before laid down.' This famous difpute at Antioch and at Jerufalem gives us a clear view of the fenfe of the apostles, and likewife of the fenfe of the people at that time, touching this matter, viz. the apoftles did not think themfelves to be univerfally infallible, nor did they pretend so to be; for if they had, they would furely have affumed, and fhewed their power upon fo eminent an occafion, and thereby have prevented this difpute. Neither did the people judge the apoftles to be infallible in all cafes; for if they had, they would have appealed to them, when the question was first started, and the apostle's judgment would have decided it. But the contrary to this is most manifeft, from the history, and therefore that was not the cafe. This fhews likewife the intolerable impudence of the church of Rome, who pretends that an infallible judgment is fomewhere

or other lodged in, and with them, when the apostles themselves never pretended, nor laid any claim to fuch infallibility.

The ufe that I would make of these reflections is to obferve, that as the epiftles contained in the New Teftament were not written by divine infpiration, but were the produce of the judgment of each writer, which judgment was founded partly upon divine teftimony, received either verbally from the mouth of Chrift, or from those who had thus received it from him, or from precedent divine revelations by vifion or otherwife, and partly upon fuch other principles, as other men form their judgments: fo we ought carefully to diftinguish betwixt what is the judgment of an apostle, founded upon a divine teftimony, and fuch judgment as is founded only on those common principles, upon which other men's judgments are founded; because the grounds. of our affent are, or ought to be different in thofe cafes. In the former, our affent is grounded on a divine teftimony, and we rely not on the judgment, but on the integrity of the writer, that he has truly delivered, what he received. But in the latter cafe, if we affent, without examining the grounds, on whichthe author's judgment was founded, we do it merely upon his authority. And as it is in a cafe, in which he was liable to err, fo we are liable to be mified by him. And that I may be fully understood, I will give a cafe.

1 Cor. vii. 8, 9, 10, 11. I fay therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry, than to burn. And unto the married, I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from the husband: but and if the depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. In thefe verses, as the apoftle gives his opinion and advice in two different cafes, viz. firft with respect to the unmarried and widows, fecondly, with respect to thofe that are married: fo that judgment and advice are founded on different principles, viz. in the former cafe, on the nature and reafon of the thing; and in the latter, on a divine teftimony, or command. And tho' the apoftle's opinion, with refpect to each of thefe, is the truth, yet the grounds of our affent are, or ought to be different in each cafe. In the latter cafe, the ground of our affent to these propofitions, viz. that the wife ought not to depart from her husband, or if through neceffity fhe is feparated, he ought to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to him, and that the husband ought not to put away his wife; I fay, the ground of our affent to these propofitions is a divine teflimony, or a relying on the judgment of God, who knows moft perfectly well, what ought, and like wife what ought not to be done in every cafe ; and we rely only on the boney and integrity of the

F 2

apostle,

apostle, that he faithfully delivered, what he received. But in the former cafe, it is quite otherwise for as the apoftle's judgment was not founded on a divine teftimony, but only on the nature and reafon of the thing, of which other men were judges as well as he, and with respect to which he was liable to err, as well as other men fo the ground of our affent ought to be different in the present case. That is, we affent to the truth of what the apoftle has given, as his opinion, viz. That, confidering the circumftances the Corinthians were then in, it was good or fit that the unmarried and widows fhould remain in their fingle fate, if they could contain; but if they could not contain, then it was good or fit, that they fhould marry: Ifay, that the ground of our affent to these propofitions, is, or ought to be, not as on a divine teftimony, nor yet barely as on the opinion of an apostle, and merely on his authority, but as the apoftle's opinion is founded on reafon:

What I would infer from the principles before laid down, is,

First, That with refpect to any point, which is controverted amongst chriftians, it is not of any weight to quote the opinion of an apofle (as contained in his epistle of the New Teftament) on either fide, except it be fhewn on what that opinion was grounded. For if it were grounded on thofe common principles, upon which other men's judgments are formed, then other men are judges of the