and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood :* the reason he gives in these words; For Moses of old time hath in every city,' i. e. in the cities where Gentile churches were planted, them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.' From whence it is evident that the injunctions of the council to the Gentile converts were founded on prudential considerations with respect to the Jews; and the matters ordained by the council were matters of discipline and government only. The passage understood in this sense contains a very strong argument to justify the decree of the coun cil; for the Jews having been born and bred under the law of Moses, could not easily be persuaded to depart from it; and therefore, unless the Gentile converts could be brought to avoid giving them any offence, there could be no hope of peace in the Christian church.

The reason on which the decree of the council is founded accounts for the conduct of St. Paul in like cases. When he circumcised Timothy, it was because of the Jews which were in those quarters; and when he came to Jerusalem, St. James prevailed with him to purify himself according to the usage of the Jews. The argument made use of by St. James was the very same with that used by the council: Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the law; do therefore this which we say to thee, that all may know that thou walkest orderly and keepest the law.' This was going a greater length than the council had gone with respect to the Gentiles, as touching whom,' St. James says, 6 we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from meat offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.'

There is a question that arises from this case, to know why the particulars mentioned are singled out, when the Jews were strongly attached to other points of the law.

But if you consider the case, the reason for this distinction will evidently appear; for as the concern was to prevent the giving offence to the Jews, and thereby to preserve peace and charity in the church of Christ, it was necessary to guard against the practices which open to every body's view in the common

occurrences of life. A Jew could never be present at the table of a Christian without having some security that he should not meet with things offered to idols, nor with blood, nor things strangled; otherwise all intercourse between them would be cut off and though St. James, on the principle of the council, persuaded St. Paul to purify himself, yet that had relation to St. Paul's particular circumstances; and the same advice would not have been given to any other Christian who was a Gentile believer; for it was not the intention of the council to recommend the rites and ceremonies of the law to the Gentile Christians.

But the great difficulty in this case is to know what is meant by fornication, which seems to be an offence of a moral kind, and in which the Jews had no particular concern: how therefore it fell under the direction of the council is hard to say.

It is certain that, if we understood fornication in the common sense of the word, and as it is vulgarly used with us, it can have no meaning in this place, it expressing a thing that had no relation to the matter under consideration of the council.

In respect to things offered to idols, and blood, the Jews were not only forbidden the use of them, but were forbidden likewise all communication with those that did use thém, though they were strangers, and not bound by the law of Moses: I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood:' Lev. xvii. 12. It is no wonder therefore that the Jews, who were zealous for the law, thought all communication forbidden with those who allowed themselves the eating of blood.

They had the same ground for treating in like manner those who partook of meats offered to idols, which I need not spend your time in proving.

The word Topveía, which we translate fornication,' has a great latitude, and include; in it all carnal impurity and whoever considers the abominable lewdness which made part of the worship paid to the heathen idols, will not think it strange to find the worship of idols and whoredom joined together in the decree of the council. Nor is this peculiar to the council; for if you look into the writings of the New

Testament, you will see them joined together in like manner. Thus, in the first of the Corinthians: Be not deceived: neither fornicators nor idolaters-shall inherit the kingdom of God:" chap. vi. 9. And in the Revelation of St. John: • But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication: ch. ii. v. 14. And thus, ver. 20. Notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.' Agreeable to this notion idolatry is styled whoredom in the Old Testament; and the great powers which spread idolatry in the world were characterised under the image of a great whore: in which manner of speaking the writers of the Old Testament had led the way; and nobody is at a loss to understand their meaning, when they charged the people with going a whoring after other gods; and there is as little reason to misunderstand the council; for what more have they done than to forbid idolatry, and all the impurities that attended it?

What has been said in few words, (very few, the importance of the subject considered,) may show us the foundation and the proper bounds of church authority in holy Scripture; and they show us at the same time the true foundation on which our reformation from the church of Rome stands. If the church of Rome asks us why we have departed from some articles, which they account articles of faith; our answer is, because they are no part of the faith once delivered to the saints:' if they urge us with the authority of the church which has received them, our answer is, no church has, nor have all churches together, any authority to make articles of faith; that 'Christ Jesus was the author and the finisher of the faith,' to which nothing can be added, from which nothing can be taken: if they ask us why we have discarded much of their ceremony and discipline; we may, without entering into the merit of particular cases, answer, that the church of England has as much authority to appoint rules of order and discipline for their members as the church of Rome has for theirs; that

these rules have been settled on prudential considerations of the circumstances of England, of which the church of England was a far better judge than the church of Rome. But,

Secondly, if, according to the apostolical rule in the text, we are to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints,' the question will be, where we are to find this faith, and how to distinguish it from the addition of later ages?

When our Saviour came into the world, the case of the Jewish church was in this respect the same with ours: the evil had been long growing, and the ancient prophets had taken notice of it. In the prophet Isaiah God reproves the nation for this crime, that their fear towards him was taught by the precept of man:' ch. xxix. ver. 13. But yet notwithstanding these admonitions in our Saviour's time, the traditions were in such esteem, that they were appealed to in every case as a decisive authority; and the Scribes and Pharisees were so secure in this point, that they challenge our Lord to answer this question, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?' Matt. xv. 2. The very question this, which is daily put to us by the church of Rome, and the darling point insisted on by their emissaries, by which they scare ignorant people into a blind submission to their authority. But hear our Saviour's answer to the question, when put to him: Why do you also transgress the commandments of God by your tradition?' A question hard to be answered, and which the great rulers of the church of Rome should consider well; for they are much concerned in it.

If the church of Rome pretends to have received by oral tradition doctrines derived originally from the Apostles, the Jewish doctors had the same plea, and referred their traditions up to Moses, from whom, as they suppose, they received them by an uninterrupted succession continued to their own times.

The Jews had the writings of Moses and the Prophets, and the church of Rome has the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists; but neither did the Jews allow their Scriptures, nor does the church of Rome allow theirs, to be a complete rule; but both recur to tradition to supply what they suppose to be wanting in their sacred writings. But now consider how

́our blessed Saviour treated this pretence of the Jewish church, and it will be a very good direction to us how to behave in a case which is so very much the same: he speaks of them as human inventions; as doctrines of their own, and not doctrines of God: Laying aside the commandment of God,' says he, ye hold the tradition of men:' Mark vii. 8. And again, ver. 9. Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.' In the following verses he shows them how their tradition contradicted the law of Moses, and then tells them, 'You make the word of God of none effect through your tradition which ye have delivered;' manifestly considering the written law of Moses as the commandment of God, and the traditions of the elders as the law of men and of their own making.

- Moses and the Prophets make the Scripture of the Jews, and to them our Lord constantly appeals: he bids the Jews' search the Scriptures;' tells them, they err, not knowing the Scriptures;' and when the Pharisees put a question to him concerning divorce, tempting him, his answer is, What did Moses command you?' And when he told the Pharisees that on the two commandments, of loving God and our neighbor, hang all the law and the prophets,' he plainly told them that the law and the prophets contained the whole of their religion, and that they had no other rule to go by: for had he considered the traditions of the elders as a rule of religion, he must have reduced them to his general precepts likewise.

In the well-known parable of the rich man and Lazarus, our Saviour has, in the person of Abraham, fully determined this point. The rich man desires that Lazarus may be sent from the dead to warn his brethren that they come not to that place of torment: Abraham refuses this request for this reason, because his brethren wanted no means to instruct them in the right way. What was their rule then? Abraham tells him, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'

The application of this case is so easily made to our own, that there is hardly any reason to insist on it particularly. The Jewish church had Moses and the Prophets, and abounded with traditions of their own, taught and received as essential