that the gospel was to begin to be preached from Jerufalem, but not a fyllable is mentioned, either there or elsewhere, of the right of the church which was to be formed in that city, to determine the faith of every other church during the apoftolic age, or in any other period. Though this power might be vefted in the apostles as extraordinary minifters, on what principle could it be granted to the members at large of the church at Jerufalem? Was their opinion neceffary to confirm the dictates of infpiration? or was it fafe to fubmit the decifions of the apofiles to their judgment and vote? Nay, even when the apoftles were referred to as ordinary minifters, on what ground could the members indifcriminately claim a right not only of declaring, to the church which applied to them, the true doctrine of repentance, but (as will be afterwards proved) of authoritatively laying on them whatever burdens they chofe? This affembly, then, could not be merely a meeting of the members of the church at Jerufalem, together with the apoftles and elders; and confequently the reference from the Chriftians at Antioch could not be an application from one Independent church to another.

But though this affembly at Jerufalem cannot be allow. ed to be the meeting of a particular congregation only, did it refemble a Prefbyterian Synod in every refpect, and include reprefentatives from the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, as well as of Jerufalem? Such was the opinion of the Prefbyterian Divines in the Weftminster Affembly-of the London Minifters of Wood, Ayton, Hall, and Muir; but this, whether the cafe or not, is by no means neceffary for our present argument in support of Prefbytery. The appointment of the minifters of the different churches next to any congregation to constitute a Prefbytery, for reviewing the deeds of the overfeers of that congregation, and the appointment of the minifters of various Prefbyteries next to a Prefbytery to form a

Synod, for reviewing the conduct of that particular Prefbytery, are matters altogether circumftantial, not effential to the firft principles of Prefbytery, and adopted merely from convenience. It is not of fundamental importance in Prefbytery, whether its courts of review are compofed of the minifters whofe local fituation is nearest each other, or of minifters who are placed at a confiderable diflance; or whether a Synod be made up of a particular number of separate Prefbyteries, or of an affemblage of minifters from different and more remote places, but fuperior in number to thofe who conftitute the Prefbytery from which a reference is made to them. Thefe circumftances muft be determined from the particular pleasure and fituation of those churches which agree in government, and can be more easily arranged in modern times than among ancient believers. Though then it could not be proved that there was a Synod at Jerufalem correfponding in all refpects to a modern Synod, it will by no means, as Independents have often afferted, enervate the argument. The grand point to be afcertained is fimply this, Were the minifters and church of Antioch fubordinate, in this reference, to the authoritative review of a number of other ministers convened at Jerufalem as minifters of Chrift, though the affembly fhould have refembled ftrictly neither a Prefbytery, nor Synod, nor any fuch affociation? If this can be established, all the other arrangements will neceffarily follow, and nothing more is requifite to demonstrate their propriety *.

"The positive precepts of scripture,” said a very distinguished character, when speaking on the fubject of church-government, 66 are fo expreffed as to comprehend every poffible cafe which can occur in the subject to which they relate; and, in referring to "them, there can never be a deficiency either of direction or "authority. But when we refer to fcriptural examples for the "authority of modern practice, we must not forget that an example "could not go beyond the circumstances of the particular cafe in

We are exprefsly told, that the church at Antioch referred the matter, for final decifion, to the affembly convened at Jerufalem, and that by this decifion they determined to abide. The members of this court, as was before proved, appear to have been office-bearers alone: and even the brethren, who are joined with the apostles and elders in the letter which was written by this affembly, feem to have been of this defcription; and were either prophets and evangelifts, or other ministers, who were at that time at Jerufalem. The other members, befides these brethren, were the common elders of the congregations in Jerufalem, and the apoftles, who, even as uninspired teachers, were univerfal paftòrs and

"which it occurred, although by fair inference or analogy it may "authorize many things which that cafe did not require or admit "of. The application of the church at Antioch to what has "been called the council of Jerufalem, is an example and authority "for a reference from an inferior to a fuperior court. The

example could in this point go no farther from the nature of "the cafe. But its authority goes far beyond it. It is quite "fufficient to authorize an appeal or a complaint (as well as a "reference) from an inferior court to a fuperior, and every other

jurifdiction of the fuperior which the circumstances require. "It authorizes not merely the fubordination of one inferior to 66 one fuperior court, which is all that the example mentions, "but fuch a gradation of court-jurisdiction as the circumftances "of the church of Chrift, in different fituations, render expedient. "This is but, one illustration-but the idea may be illustrated by "a multitude of fimilar cafes, and fhews the abfurdity of the " conduct of Independents, who, while they neglect or explain away a great part of the practice which is clearly found in the "Bible, affect to fix down the practice of modern times to the precife letter of the examples they choose to refer to, though

ever fo contrary to their true spirit and defign. Every pin of "Presbytery could not poffibly be found in any scripture-example, "although the general system is not only explicitly but clearly "authorized by the practice of the primitive church as far as the cafes occurred."

minifters to all the churches in the world. Here then is one fact which appears to be ascertained, that there was a reference from the minifters and members at Antioch to another court at Jerufalem, which was not only competent completely to decide on the question referred, but which, even as uninspired, poffeffed the high authority of a general council, which could give univerfality to its decrees, and compofed, as far as is recorded, of none but office-bearers.

But admitting that there was a reference here to another court, confifting of ecclefiaftical office-bearers only, what was the degree of power which they exercifed? Did they communicate an advice only to the minifters at Antioch? or did they deliver a fubordinately authoritative decifion? That the latter, and not the former, was the degree of power which they are said to have exercised, appears, agreeably to our Second pofition, to be very clearly manifeft from the following con fiderations.

The decifion which they delivered, as was before ftated, is called a decree, Acts xvi. 4.; and the word doyun, there rendered decree, in the only other four inftances where it occurs in the New Teftament, denotes, not merely an advice or opinion, but a law, or highly authoritative injunction. Thus, in Luke ii. 1. and Acts xvii. 7. it fignifies the decrees of the Roman emperor, which certainly were more than fimple advices; and in Eph. ii. 15. and Col. ii. 14. the ordinances or commandments of the ceremonial law, which certainly were more than admonitions. It is used also by the Seventy, in their tranflation of Dan. ii. 13. iii. 10. 29. and iv. 6. to exprefs the decrees or mandates of Nebuchadnezzar, and Dan. vi. 8, 9. 12. 15. 26. the imperial decrees of Darius, as well as in two of the verses of that chapter, to fignify the laws of the Medes and Perfians,. which altered not. Nor does the verb δογματίζω, in

Col. ii. 20. the only inftance produced by Independents in fupport of their opinion, feem to denote fubjection" merely to doctrine or instruction, but, as our tranflators have rendered it, to ordinances or commandments. The things, for their undue subjection to which Paul reproves the Coloffians, are called in ver. 22. the commandments of men, erraλuara, by which we are unquestionably to understand the ceremonial precepts of the Mofaic law, which were originally binding as the commandments of God, but at that time were obligatory, upon those who chose to obey them, only as the commandments of men *.

Not only however is the decifion of the apoftles and elders called a decree, but we are informed, Acts xvii. 4. it was ordained by them, xsxgiμevov, a word which, when applied to an affembly, and added to the former, imports the moft decided exercife of authority. It is employed, for inftance, by the Seventy, in their verfion of Efther ii. 1. to express the judgment of a Perfian council against Queen Vashti, when they decreed that fhe fhould be degraded from her regal fituation; and the word σvyngium, which is derived from it, is ufed, in their translation of Dan. iv. 17. 24. &c. to fignify a decree. And in Acts xxiv. 6. it denotes the authority of the Jewish fanhedrin, or council of the elders, which Tertullus declares was ready to have proceeded to pronounce judgment upon Paul as in Acts xiii. 27. it expreffes the authority of

• Accordingly doyparisols, in Col. ii. 20. is explained, in the very ancient Syriac version, by a word which is equivalent to judicamini-" Are ye judged by these commandments?" by Erafmus and Bullinger, "Decretis tenemini-Are ye bound by these "decrees of men?" by Gualther, Stephanus, and Beza, “ Ritibus "oneramini-Are ye loaded with thefe rites or obfervances?" and by Budæus, Leigh, Parkhurst, Wetstein, and Kypke, "Have ye "these decrees or ordinances impofed upon you? or, Are you subject "to thefe ordinances?"