to carry the letters, and withal to show the grounds of those their judgments by word of mouth; xv. 23, 27, 31, This needed not, if their own elders had been present, and so had been to have returned: and if they were sent as messengers from the synod, then to all the churches as well as to Antioch; and why do they then go no further than unto Antioch? verse 33. Yea, and although Paul and Barnabas 'delivered' those results to all the cities, yet as it should seem accidentally, and not principally, intended; they go not on purpose chiefly to deliver those decrees, but, chap. xv. 36, it was Paul's motion, upon other grounds, to go [and] visit the churches in every city' where they had preached;' and so, but occasionally delivered these decrees;' xvi. 4: so as, they came to them not as 'sent' in a mandatory way as to churches subject to that synod by a synodical law-as such canons are used to be sent, but as the judgment only of this church; and the apostles' delivered them,' for their edification.

"And, in the third place: If there were any further authority, or jurisdiction, in their 'decrees,' it was from the apostles who were present and concurred in it, and who had power over all the churches. And accordingly, though the elders in the whole church were present and joined with the apostles, quantum in se, to consent and approve their decrees with that several respective kind of judgment proper unto them, yet all the authority put forth over these churches was that transcendent authority of the apostles; which is not now left in all the elders of the world joined together: and that [accordingly] therefore, these 'decrees' made and the decision of these questions here, were by apostolical authority! And to that end, they subjoined that apostolical seal, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.' And although the ordinary elders,' yea and 'the whole church,' joined in this, yet but according to their measure, analogy and proportion of their faith; -even as in writing some epistles, Timothy and Silvanus joined with Paul, but yet Paul only wrote apostolically, and the authority in them is looked at as his;-or else because, perhaps, they having the Holy Ghost fallen on them through the apostles' doctrine' then delivered,— which was then usual,-persuading their hearts unanimously—though afore, dissenting-to accord,' as verse 25; in that respect, they might speak this in such a sense that no assembly of men, wanting apostolical presence and instruction, may now speak. And, although it may be objected, that, then, this letter and these decrees should be formal Scripture, and so bind us still; it is answered, that they are Scripture, and written for our learning; and, if the case were the same upon which they obliged them then, namely, matter of offence, that then, they would bind us now; but the things being enjoined but as Enávaykes, things of a superadded casual necessity, and not absolute; in case of offence only, and not simply for the things themselves; therefore, now, the necessity being ceased, the obligation ceaseth: yet so as the equity of the rule and ground these were commanded upon, to abstain from things that offend our brethren, doth hold, in like cases, to the end of the world.

"And [fourthly,] last of all: There is no act of such authority and government put forth in it, which the Proposition intendeth: which

will appear if we either consider the occasion and rise of it, or the issue and result of it.

"[First,] It was not a set stated meeting, by common agreement of the churches; but Antioch sends to Jerusalem unknown to them. There are no summonses sent to send up delinquents, nor can we find these disturbers are sent to Jerusalem to be censured by those ecclesiastical punishments in which government doth properly lie and consist. The subject matter sent to them, for their decision, was merely matter of doctrine, about this question,' xv. 2, and about this word, namely, whether the ceremonial 'law,' verse 5, was to be observed? Concerning which, they wrote their judgments dogmatically; which they were called to do, being thus sent unto. Neither doth it argue, that it was more than to determine this question doctrinally, they came up for; because that Paul and Barnabas could have decided that before,— being themselves apostles, and that, therefore, their coming up was for discipline against delinquents: for, as the case stood, they listened not to Paul and Barnabas as apostles, but pretended the judgment of the other apostles. For indeed Paul and Barnabas did declare their judgments-the sáois, or contention, verse 2, being attributed unto them as contending against the false teachers, for the truth,—and so as even the church of Antioch rested not in their decision: otherwise, Paul and Barnabas might have, as apostles, censured those delinquents, without coming to Jerusalem; as well as, by apostolic authority, have decided the question; for apostolic power extended to discipline as well as doctrine. If it be said, That even doctrinally to deliver the truth, when it is done by a company of elders, hath authority or power in it; as when Christ said,Go, and teach; all power is given me,' Matt. xxviii. 20, 19: it is granted, an authority exercised in doctrine, and so to be in synods; but yet not jurisdiction, which the Proposition intends; which is, when doctrines are delivered, sub pœna, under the penalty of that ecclesiastical punishment of excommunication, if not received. One minister, alone, hath a dogmatical authority, as a minister, to rebuke, exhort; and yet acts of jurisdiction are not his alone, but of others conjoined with him.

"Neither, secondly, do the titles given to these results of theirs, argue a jurisdiction, in that they are called τὰ δόγματα and τὰ κεκριμένα, Acts xvi. 4. For although the word dóyua is used for an Imperial decree, Luke ii. 1, yet but rarely; and more commonly, as Stephanus and Budæus observe, for doctrine and opinion in matters moral or speculative, as 'Platonis dogma,' etc.; and thence is translated to import the judgments of divines given in matters theological,' although delivered with certainty. And so, the using of this word, implieth the subject to have been doctrinal only, and so delivered. And further, the subject matter of this decision being about rules and ceremonies and the non-observation of them, the [term] dóyua is elegantly and, perhaps, on purpose given to these apostolical canons, by way of opposition and contradiction, to those that taught and observed such rules, who are said doyμarile in so doing, Col. ii. 20; being led away by the false dóyuara, or heterodox theses, of false teachers that enjoined them. And for that other word, KEкpiμéva, translated ordained,' i

plainly notes out but this, that these doctrinal theses were the joint, declared, and avowed judgment and conclusions of these and so, answereth to those other words in their letters, It seemed good unto us, being.. with one accord,' etc. Acts xv. 25,-apostles and elders thus met, with one accord' agreeing therein, and particularly and unanimously so judging; and therefore when James gives his judgment, he useth the same word spivw, verse 19, this is my judgment,' which being voted and agreed upon by the rest they are called Keкpiμéva. Neither doth this argue any act of authority, that the things here declared to be observed are indifferent, for some of them come under a moral consideration, and all come under the case of offence.

"Neither [thirdly], doth the language they commend these [letters] to them in, sound of that jurisdiction, or government, intended in the Proposition. For although they seem to speak as guided infallibly in their resolution, 'It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us,'yet their expressions are carried so as to avoid jurisdiction. Those words, to lay no other [λéov] burden,' if any, must import this jurisdiction; but these words, as Ludovicus de Dieu hath well observed are, as they may be, taken passively, therein agreeing with the Syriac translation, 'It seemeth good,.. that no other burden be laid on you:' that whereas these teachers of the circumcision had gone about, by their doctrine, to bind the law of Moses' upon men's consciences, and to put on them a burden too heavy for them to bear,' as Peter speaks, verse 10, and had taught this to be the command of Christ and his apostles, and the judgment of the church of Jerusalem; they disclaim this, and profess they would have no such burden put upon them, and [that] they gave these teachers 'no such commandment,' that is, never delivered or uttered any such doctrine to be commanded! And if it be taken actively, yet the declaring it to be the command of Christ, is the imposition here intended for the same words are used of the teachers who yet had not assumed, by virtue of an ecclesiastical authority, to impose these things; but, by way of doctrine: chap. xv) 10 and 5. And it is well known that, in Scripture phrase, to teach, and to declare, though by way of doctrine; and to press men's consciences with things as the commands of God; is said to be a binding and imposing a burden on them. So of the Pharisees,-and these were 'of the sect of the Pharisees' of whom and to whom that was spoken, verse 5, it is said, Matt. xxiii. 4, that they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders;' which is spoken but of a doctrinal declaring and pressing men's consciences with the rigour of the Law: and this is so well known to be the language of the Jews, that it need not be insisted on. Neither doth it follow, that if they may lay these burdens, by way of doctrine, they may censure for the neglect of them: for every minister, in his sermon, imposeth those burdens while they urge and declare these duties to men, and yet have not power ecclesiastically to censure them. For though, it being a command of Christ, they could not but hold it forth as such, and so urge it; yet not by way of jurisdiction, but with these soft words, Which if you observe, you do well!' Lastly; although these false teachers had subverted their faith, verse 24, and against their

own light had vouched their doctrine to be the doctrine of the apostles -which deserved the highest censure, being a sin so scandalous,-yet they, verse 23, proceeded not to censure them, by way of admonition or excommunication-which are acts of government,-but only to declare their sin and error, and give their judgment of it!"a

CHAP. LIX.

THE REASONS; OR, THE GRAND DEBATE; CONTINUED.

"REASONS against the last two assertions of the ASSEMBLY; concerning the instance of the Church of Jerusalem.

"Assertion i. Whether these Congregations be fixed, or not fixed, in regard of officers or members; it is all one, as to the truth of the Proposition.'

"Our reply. Whereas in the close of the proofs from the Church of Jerusalem, for many congregations to be under one presbyterial government, it is asserted, Whether these congregations be fixed or not fixed, it is all one as to the truth of the Proposition:' this reason is offered against it:

"There is this difference: Every congregation, having elders fixed to it, is a CHURCH; for the relation of elders and church is mutual, Acts xiv. 23: They ordained elders in every church.' The relation, of elders to a church, is a special distinct relation to that congregation of which they are elders, so as, they are not related to other congregations. And these congregations are ecclesiæ primæ, churches formed up, though uncomplete, as being, according to our Brethren's opinion, members of a more general presbyterial church; but if congregations have no fixed officers,' they are not churches, according to their principles. Now, it makes a great difference, as to the truth of the Proposition, whether many churches may be under the government of one, or whether inany congregations-which, to them, are no churches -may be under the government of one!' Whatsoever our Brethren show of divers congregations to be under the government of a churchpresbyterial, yet they nowhere show any one pattern or example, in Scripture, wherein many churches were under the power of one; nay, nor where any one church was under the power of another!

"Assertion ii. That there appears no material difference betwixt the several congregations in Jerusalem and the many congregations now, in the ordinary condition of the church, as to the point of fixedness in regard of officers and members.' "Our reply. And lastly: If there were many congregations in Jerusalem having their officers fixed to them, and not in common; then, during the time before the dispersion, the apostles must be those officers that were thus fixedly disposed of to their several congregations;

P. 28-34

some over one, others over another, as ordinary elders now are. Now, suppose this number of 'believers' to have been as many thousands as is argued; as ten or twelve thousand souls, and these to be divided into as many congregations as might be divided to twelve apostles, severally to watch over: or, suppose the several congregations made up of two thousand-which is an allotment small enough to be set apart for the pains of two apostles: hereupon this great incongruity doth follow, These apostles are brought to the state and condition, and work of parish ministers! To whom yet, it was committed, and inseparably annexed to their office, yea and constituted it [their office], as apostles to have the care of 'all' churches [2 Cor. xi. 28.]; and if when the churches were multiplied and dispersed into several countries, they were to have the care of them, then, much more, when they were in one city. Some of the writers against Episcopacy-when those that write for it, allege the instance of James abiding at Jerusalem as the bishop of that church,-have judged it a debasing of the apostolical powers to limit it to one diocesan church! But this position, doth debase all the apostles at once, much more; it makes them not bishops to many churches, but ordinary elders, in that one or two of them, perhaps, are over one single church. Yea, and which is yet more incredible, if these churches and their government were like to those under the Presbytery, and 'no material difference' between them and ours, these apostles were, in their parishes, not only subordinate, in their government, to the common presbytery of all the apostles, but limited to lesser acts of government: for so the lesser elderships in the churches under the Presbyterial government are confined only to examine and admonish, and prepare for the greater presbytery, and therein not enabled to ordain elders over the congregation, or excommunicate a member ! Peter and John joined together were, by this principle, not enabled to it! And yet, if we do not suppose such a limited government in those several congregations, here can be no pattern for the Presbyterial government as it is practised. Or if, otherwise, we should suppose them 'fixed' officers, for teaching only, to one of those congregations, and to have no government at all over it, but to bring all to the common presbytery of apostles: that, is a greater incongruity than the former. For this, casts them below the condition of our parish Elders, for unto them the greater Presbytery doth allow some measure and part of the government; but such a supposition would allow apostles none, in their several congregations!"a "Other REASONS against the Main Proposition:

"The Scripture holds forth, That many congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government.'

"By Particular Congregations, either, first, an assembly of Christians meeting for worship only, as to hear, pray, etc.; or, secondly, an assembly so furnished with officers as, fit for discipline, having a presbytery, is meant. In the latter sense, which is that the proofs are brought to confirm, and that that is practised where this Government is set up, the Proposition is equivalent to such an assertion as this, Many presbyteries may be under presbyterial government; as thus,