they excluded reasoning about it, and warped its fair and heavenly maxims to the interests of systems

and temporalities. However (Bob continued), you will allow, I believe, that the sacred writers had not perpetually the aid of an unerring Spirit, and therefore are sometimes inconsistent in their accounts: that as they were sometimes destitute of divine assistance, they were liable to error when guided only by the human spirit, and did act like common men upon several occasions. This seems to be evident from the relations, and the human sentiments of the apostles. The evangelists speak of the same facts differently; and in citing prophecy, while one adapts a fact to the letter of the prophecy, another accommodates the letter of the prophecy to the letter of the fact: I mean here, the ass and colt in Matthew, and the colt only in John, and their citing Zechariah (ix. 9.) differently. And as to the other sacred writers, does not the dispute between Paul and Peter, show a subjection, sometimes, to ignorance and error? does not the quarrel between Barnabas and Paul let us see, that one of them was mistaken, and both of them to be blamed? Tell me likewise, what you think of Mark and John's different accounts of the time of the crucifixion — and does not Matthew contradict Mark in his relation of the resurrection of Jesus?
Jack Buncle to this replied, that however some zealots may contend for the perpetual inspiration

of the sacred writers, yet he could not think such doctrine necessary to the creed of a christian: Jesus only is called the truth, and was incapable of error. Christ only, in all his actions, was directed by a prophetic spirit. All other men, prophets and apostles, were sometimes left to the guidance of their own spirit; and therefore all things which they have signified to us by their words or deeds, are not to be considered as divine oracles. Nec adeo omnia, quaecunque dictis significarunt aut factis, ea pro divinis oraculis habenda. Nullus, excepto Domino, fuit unquam prpheta, qui omnia egerit spiritu prophetico. So Limborch, Dodwell, and Baxter say, and of the same opinion were Grotius and Erasmus(40) They assert, that the apostles,

on ordinary occasions, were ordinary men. All true christian critics must allow this, and grant that, the universal inspiration of the

sacred penmen, is a notion founded in the prejudices of pious men and their mistaken sense of scripture. Such infallible authority

they think the best way to silence all objections, and weakly embrace the hypothesis to