mentioned, must be the elders of these churches, no lefs than that of Jerusalem, which was but one of them? Could they not come from Judea to Antioch, without coming out of every church in Judea, or did they not come from Judea to Antioch in coming from one church in Judea, and from the elders of that one of the churches in Judea ?

3. But what authority had the elders of all the churches in Judea, or of the church of Judea, as you call it, over the churches in Syria and Cilicia, and over all the churches of the Gentiles? What authority has the church of Holland and its elders over the church of Scotland, according to your own principles? Or how could the church of Syria fend up a question to be decided by the elders of the church of Judea? Thus, when your fynod is turned to the elders of the church of Judea, it brings you in to the dependency of churches up. on one another.

You fay further, "And what is more, there is not the "least innuendo, ver. 4. that the elders spoke of, were only "these of Jerufalem, any more than that the apoftles were "only the apoftles of that church, which is abfurd." But there is the greatest innuendo, y 2. & 4. that these apostles were refiding in Jerufalem in the church there; 33. and that, as you own elders are related to the particular church whereof they are overfeers, fo these elders were the elders of that fame church that received Paul and Barnabas, when they were come to Jerufalem. 2, "They determined that "Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go "up to Jerufalem unto the apoftles and elders about this que «ftion." 4. "And when they were come to Jerufalem, "they were received of the church and of the apostles and "elders." Thus, as the apoftles that ordained the decrees are diftinguished from Paul an Apostle, by their refidence in Jerufalem, fo the elders are diftinguished from all other cl ders by their being in that church which received Paul and Barnabas when they came to Jerufalem, that is, the church in Jerufalem. Next, you tell me, "Nor is there the leaft "infinuation, that the church mentioned in that verse, came "together with the apoftles and elders, but the contra "ry, 6." But does y 6. infinuate, that these elders came together, without the church whereof they were presidents, to determine that question? or can it infinuate a contradic tion to 22. 23. and 12.; from which it is evident, that, as

6. fays they came together, fo they came together in the church. And fo much for the firft reason, and what you have faid upon it: for you have not pretended to fhow, that, notwithstanding

hotwithstanding this reafon, an inference may be drawn from what I say on Acts xv. for the jurifdiction of one church o ver another.

your

The second reafon in my speech for the fending up of this queftion to the church in Jerufalem, and the deciding of it there, was, "the word of God came out (1 Cor. xiv. 36.) "from this church to Antioch, and to all the world, and "from hence they had their church-order, and all the ordi"nances of Chrift, Acts xi. For this was peculiar to Jeru"falem, that there the gospel should have a beginning." You cite the page here; but eafe you reader of the trou ble of looking to it, by feeming to fet down the words, and take care to conceal a confiderable part of them, and so speak against what you are pleased to set down. So you fay, "But, 1. Was it the worshipping affembly of Jerufalem, "pastors and people, that planted the church at Antioch? "This wants proof." All that I was here affirming wants no proof, as long as Acts xi. remains; namely that the word of God came out from the church in Jerufalem to Antioch, and that from hence they had their church-order, and all the ordinances of Chrift. Neither hall it want proof, that the church in Jerufalem, the first church, where qur Lord left his apoftles when he afcended, had this pre-eminence above all other churches unto which the word came, that the word of God came first out from it; and that other churches had their order, and the ordinances of Chrift from that church, as long as the prophecies, explained by our Lord to that purpose, and his commandment to his apostles before he left the earth, and the book of the Acts, remain.

It was prophefied, If. ii. 1-4. and Micah iv. 1. 2. 3. "And it fhall come to pafs in the laft days, that the moun "tain of the Lord's houfe fhall be eftablished in the top of "the mountains, and fhall be exalted above the hills, and all "nations fhall flow unto it. And many people fhall go and fay, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the "Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach "us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out " of Zion fhall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord "from: Jerufalem. And he fhall judge among the nations, "and shall rebuke many people, and they fhall beat their "fwords into plow-fhares, and their fpears into pruning"hooks: nation fhall not lift up fword against nation, nei"ther fhall they learn war any more." From this prophefy it appears, that from Jerufalem the word of the Lord and VOL. 1.

3 C

his

his law concerning the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles in one body, which is fpoke of Eph. ii. fhould go forth among the nations, and that this peace fhould be the fruit of its going forth from thence, and of their receiving it from thence. Here was a queftion raifed at Antioch, by them that pretended to bring the law of the Lord from Jerufalem to the Gentiles, and this question touched this peace very near. And where fhould they go for the decifion of it, but to Jerufalem, from whence it behoved that law to proceed? And when the law on that point, or that part of the law of the Lord came from thence, was not this peace the effect of it? That it behoved the word and law of the Lord to go forth from Jerufalem is evident from our Lord's explication of this prophecy, and fuch like prophecies in the affembly of his apoftles, and them that were with them, i. e. the hundred and twenty, the first church, Luke xxiv. 33. 36. 46.47. "That repentance and remiffion of fins fhould be preached "in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerufalem," 48. 49. "But tarry ye in the city of Jerufalem until ye be "endued with power from on high."

Hereby it is evident, that the doctrine of repentance and remiffion of fins in the name of Chrift, was, according to his explication of the prophecies, and his appointment, to have its beginning at Jerufalem, and to proceed out of that fociety wherewith the Lord himself affembled, and from which he was taken up, even the apostles and them that were with them, Luke xxiv. or the hundred and twenty, Acts i. even that fociety on which the Holy Ghoft was firft poured down, Acts ii. and to which Peter fpeaks, Acts xv. 7. 8. 9. compare Acts ii. Acts xi. 15. Now here was a question raised by the teachers that came down from Jerufalem, concerning repentance and remiffion of fins, ordained to be preached a mong all nations in the name of Chrift: for these teachers pretended to bring this from Jerufalem, as a neceffary part of the doctrine of the repentance, that the Gentiles should turn to Mofes's law, and that there was no remission of fins for them in the name of Jefus without that. And when the believing Gentiles were troubled with this question, Whether this was a part of the doctrine of repentance and remission of fins to be preached to the Gentiles in Chrift's name, beginning at Jerufalem? where were they to seek the decision of it but there, where it was the Lord's will, that the doctrine of repentance and remiffion of fins in his name should begin, and from thence go forth unto all nations? And what fociety should de

termine

termine this question, but that fociety wherein he gave orders about it, and from which he would have that doctrine to proceed, and go forth to the nations?

That this was peculiar to the church in Jerufalem is manifeft, in that there is no other church from which our Lord appointed the law, in the firft revelation of it, to come out unto all the world; so that unto every other church but that in Jerufalem, the fame question may be put that the Apoftle puts to the church in Corinth, I Cor. xiv. 36. What? came the word of God out from you? But the church that was in Jerusalem had not this pre-eminence, after the law of the Lord to the Gentiles had gone fully forth from it, and after the apoftles, by whom the Lord appointed the revelation of his law to be made, had left that church; which feems to have been the case when the epistle to the Hebrews was writ ten, wherein the revelation of the Lord's will to the Jews, with respect to the law of Mofes, calling them wholly off from it, is moft clear and full. Now it will be every way as difficult for you to draw an inference, fhewing the depend-1 ence of one church upon another,. from the subjection of the first Christians in all nations, unto the church in Jerufalem at that time, in that which was peculiar to that church; as, you will own, it is not eafy to infer the fubjection of elders to fuperior officers, after the New Teftament reve lation is completed, from the fubjection of the elders of the first churches to the apoftles, prophets, and evangelifts. But you tell me, 2. "What is the inference from "thence? Does it thence follow, that Antioch was not a "free church, but fubject to the determinations of the el"ders and people in Jerufalem? If the church of Antioch " and its prefbytery was subject to no jurisdiction under hea "ven in its difcipline, then, contrary to your own principle, "one Independent was fubject to another."

You may fee, by what I have been saying in the explication of this part of my fpeech, that the confequence of it is, that no inference can be drawn from the fending of this question to the church in Jerufalem at that time, and its being decided there, to fhew the jurifdiction of one church over another; and it was your business to fhew, that, notwithstanding what was faid in my speech, the inference, fhewing the subjection of one church to another, was good. But how you come to fpeak of jurifdiction in difcipline here, I cannot understand: for you cannot fay, that there was any discipline exercised upon the church in Antioch or its members, by them that fent the epiftle to Antioch, unless you alfo affirm, that in all

3 C 2

the

the epiftles that the apoftles wrote to the churches, they, and these that were with them, in writing these epiftles, were exercifing difcipline upon them. No doubt, the Chriftian law is the rule of difcipline: and there is that fame jurifdiction, in, the epiftle that was fent to Antioch from Jerufalem, as there is in all the other parts of the New-Teftament revelation, or in the Chriftian law, whereof this is a very confi derable part. But how you come to imagine, that the elders and people of the church in Jerufalem could make this part of the New-Teftament revelation, or at firft give forth this part of the law of Chrift to the Gentiles, without the apostles, I cannot understand.

3. I faid in my fpeech, "The apoftles were in this church, "and with the elders of this church, where they began their ministry, and settled all matters of importance: and this "was an important point to be fixed in this church, while "they were in it: therefore we fee the church at Antioch "had a fpecial eye to the apoftles their being in the prefbyst tery of Jerufalem, when they fent up this question to be "determined there, y 2.",

Against this you fay, 1. "It must be proven, that the "apostles in this matter acted by an extraordinary and im"mediate influence, as in the penning of the fcripture. The "contrary of this I made appear; but it is overlooked by "you,"

But, 1. The contrary will never appear from the difcourfes of Peter and James, upon this question in the church in Jerufalem, in which difcourfes they infer one truth from an other, and explain Old-Teftament prophefies in like manner as is done in all the New-Teftament epiftles to the churches, unless you will make it good that these epiftles were not written under an infallible influence. Nor will it appear from the apostles their agreeing in the writing of this epistle, unless you prove, that when a fingle apoftle wrote an epiftle, he was under an extraordinary and immediate influence, but when a company of them agreed, then they were only under an ordinary influence. Nor will it appear, from their taking the concurrence of that church, and its prefidents, where they at first received their commiffion, and from whence it behoved the law of Chrift, and this remarkable part of it, to go forth to the Gentiles. And you may as well fay, that when the epiftle to the Galatians is written in the name of all the brethren that were with Paul, in the writing of it he was not under an extraordinary and immediate influence, as an apoftle, in that epiftle, I muft fay, that after all I have heard