ufed with us, it can have no meaning in this place, it expreffing a thing that had no relation to the matter under confideration of the council.

In refpect to things offered to idols, and blood, the Jews were not only forbidden the use of them, but were forbidden likewife all communication with thofe that did ufe them, though they were ftrangers, and not bound by the law of Mofes : Ifaid unto the children of Ifrael, No foul of you fhall eat blood, neither fhall any ftranger that fojourneth 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 themfelves the eating of blood.

They had the fame 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 moguía, which we tranflate fornication, has a great latitude, and includes in it all carnal impurity: and whoever confiders the abominable lewdnefs which made part of the worship paid to the heathen idols, will not think it ftrange 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 Teftament, you will fee them joined together in like manner. Thus in the firft of the Corinthians: Be not deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters-fhall inherit the kingdom of God, chap. vi. ver. 9. And in the Revelations of St. John: But I have a few things against thee, because thou haft there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to caft a ftumbling block before the

children of Ifrael, to eat things facrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication, ch. ii. ver. 14. And thus, verfe 20. Notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee, because thou fuffereft that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to feduce my fervants to commit fornication, and to eat things facrificed unto idols. Agreeable to this notion idolatry is ftyled whoredom in the Old Teftament; and the great powers which spread idolatry in the world were characterized under the image of a great whore in which manner of speaking the writers of the Old Teftament had led the way; and no body is at a lofs to understand their meaning, when they charged the people with going a whoring after other Gods: and there is as little reafon to misunderstand the council; for what more have they done, than to forbid idolatry, and all the impurities that attended it ?

What has been faid in few words (very few, the importance of the fubject confidered) may fhew us the foundation and the proper bounds of church authority in holy Scripture; and they fhew us at the fame time the true foundation upon which our reformation from the church of Rome ftands. If the church of Rome afks us, why we have departed from fome articles, which they account articles of faith; our answer is, because they are no part of the faith once delivered to the faints: if they urge us with the authority of the church which has received them; our anfwer is, no church has, nor have all churches together, any authority to make articles of faith; that Chrift Jefus 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 difcarded much of their ceremony and difcipline; we may, without entering into the merit of particular cafes, anfwer, 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 upon prudential confiderations 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 apoftolical rule in the text, we are to contend for the faith once delivered to the faints, the question will be, where we are to find this faith, and how to diftinguish it from the addition of later ages?

When our Saviour came into the world, the cafe of the Jewish church was in this refpect the fame 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 men, ch. xxix. ver. 13. But yet, notwithfranding these admonitions, in our Saviour's time the traditions were in fuch efteem, that they were appealed to in every cafe as a decifive authority: and the Scribes and Pharifees were fo fecure in this point, that they challenge our Lord to answer this queftion, Why do thy difciples tranfgrefs 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 infifted on by their emiffaries, by which they fcare ignorant people into a blind fubmiffion to their authority. But hear our Sa

viour's answer to the queftion, when put to him: Why do you also tranfgrefs the commandments of God by your tradition? A question hard to be answered, and which the great rulers of the church of Rome should confider 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 fame plea, and referred their traditions up to Mofes, from whom, as they suppose, they received them, by an uninterrupted fucceffion continued to their own times.

The Jews had the writings of Mofes and the Prophets, and the church of Rome has the writings of the Apostles and Evangelifts: 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 fupply what they fuppofe to be wanting in their facred writings. But now confider how our bleffed Saviour treated this pretence of the Jewish church, and it will be a very good direction to us how to behave in a cafe which is fo very much the fame: he speaks of them as human inventions; as doctrines of their own, and not doctrines of God: Laying afide the commandment of God, fays 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 fhews them how their tradition contradicted the law of Mofes, and then tells them, You make the word of God of none effect through your tradition which ye have delivered; manifeftly confider

ing the written law of Mofes as the commandment of God, and the traditions of the elders as the law of men, and of their own making.

Mofes and the Prophets make the Scripture of the Jews, and to them our Lord constantly appeals : he bids the Jews fearch the Scriptures; tells them, they err, not knowing the Scriptures; and when the Pharifees put a queftion to him concerning divorce, tempting him, his answer is, What did Mofes command you? And when he told the Pharifees, that on the two commandments, of loving God and our neighbour, 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 confidered the traditions of the elders, as a rule of religion, he muft have reduced them to his general precepts likewife.

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 defires that Lazarus may be fent 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 inftruct them in the right way. What was their rule then? Abraham tells him, They have Mofes and the Prophets; let them hear them.

The application of this cafe is fo eafily made to our own, that there is hardly any reafon to infift on it particularly. The Jewish church had Mofes and the Prophets, and abounded with traditions of their own, taught and received as effential to their