point, as well as an apostle, and an apoftle is liable to err, as well as other men and therefore his judgment is not abfolutely to be relied upon in fuch a cafe, but must be tried and judged of in the way, in which we judge of the opinions of other men. Thus, for example, fuppofe a Calvinist fhould urge the opinion of St. Paul (as laid down in the epiftle to the Romans) in favour of the doctrine of abfolute election and reprobation; and fuppofe he should be able to make it appear beyond all contradiction, that St. Paul was on bis fide of the question: yet this would not prove his point, because St. Paul's judgment does not appear in the present cafe to be founded on a divine* teftimony, but rather on a Jewish education, or on deductions drawn from fome texts of scripture in the Old Teftament, or on God's dealing with the Jewish nation, or the like. In which cafes, as the apostle's opinion is founded on fuch principles, of which other men are judges as well as himself, and with respect to which he was alike liable to err with other men; fo, in the nature of the thing, it does not prove the point in queftion. Because the apostle's opinion in fuch a cafe must be tried and judged of in the fame way, and by fuch evidences, as other men's opinions are tried

Note, Whether the doctrine of abfolute election and reprobation can poffibly be founded on a divine teftimony, is not the question here, and I only admit the fuppofition, to answer the purpose of my prefent argument.

and

and judged of by, viz. by a fair and full examination of the principles, upon which it was founded, to see whether thofe principles do fufficiently fupport it or not. Again,

Secondly, and chiefly, I would infer from the principles before laid down, that if any abfurdity or error fhould appear in the writings of any apoftle, nothing can fairly and justly be concluded from it in prejudice of the Meffiahfhip, or divine miffion of our Lord Jefus Chrift. For as the epiftles of the apostles were not written by divine inspiration, but were the produce of the judgment of each writer, which judgment was in many cafes grounded, not upon a divine teftimony, but on fuch principles, as other men's judgments are founded: fo in thofe cafes, the author was alike liable to error with other men. And as the great end of the apostles miniftry under Chrift, was to direct and guide men into the true way to eternal life, and not to correct every error in theology, which either Jews or Gentiles had, or might fall into: fo, if the apoftles fell into any error or abfurdity in points of leffer moment, and in which the great end and purpose of their miniftry were not concerned, fuch errors Chrift, as the Meffiah, was not concerned to fecure them from, and confequently his Meffiahship, or divine miffion, is not in the least affected by them. The apoftles, when confidered abstractedly from their grand commiffion, were left to themselves, to purfue and discover truth

in the fame way with other men, viz. by exercifing their reafoning faculties upon the queftions, which came before them, and by taking every thing into the cafe, which might give light to it. And if in their pursuit of truth they should have happened to mifcarry, all that will follow from it is only this, viz. that they were fallible and liable to err, like other men. But this does not at all concern the validity of their ministry, or the MeffiahShip and divine miffion of their master. For as thefe are to be proved by, and from other principles, fo it is thofe principles only, which they must ftand or fall by.

Thus, Sir, I have given you my thoughts on the important queftion, which lay before us, and have applied it as above.

I fubmit the whole to your impartial judg ment, and crave leave to fubfcribe myself,

Reverend Sir,

Your most obliged

Humble Servant, &c.

REMARKS

Ο Ν

BRITANNICUS'S LETTERS,

Publish'd in the

London Journal of the 4th and 11th of April, 1724; and re-publish'd in the Journals of the 5th and 12th of April 1729; containing an Argument drawn from the fingle Fact of Chrift's Refurrection, to prove the Divinity of his Miffion,

Wherein is fhewn,

That Britannicus's Argument does not answer the Purpose for which it was intended. And in which is likewife fhewn, what was the great and main End that the Refurrection of Christ was intended to be fubfervient to; viz. not to prove the Divinity of his Miffion, for that was fufficiently done before; but to gather together his Difciples, to commiffion, and qualify, and fend them forth to preach his Gospel to all

Nations.

IN A

LETTER to a FRIEND.