heard brought to fhew, that the apostles were not here under an extraordinary and immediate influence, it appears to me, from the whole, that this very remarkable part of the NewTeftament revelation, and about which the first Christians had the greatest difficulty, was given forth by the inspired apostles with the greateft folemnity, from that church from which the law of Chrift was to go forth to the Gentiles.

2. As the apostles are diftinguished from the elders or prefidents of the church in Jerufalem, in the commission from Antioch, and likewife expressly distinguished from them in the decifion of the question, and in the epiftle; let me inquire, if the apostles did not act in that matter in the capacity of apoftles, as diftinguished from elders, even as the eld ers acted in the capacity of elders, as diftinguished from apoftles and brethren? And if they did fo, then did not the apoftles act under an extraordinary and immediate influence? Thus when I read of the apostles, and elders, and brethren, acting in this matter, I must understand, that every one of thefe did the part that was proper to them. The apostles brought forth, and infallibly declared the mind and will of the Lord Chrift on this fubject, in an agreeableness to the former parts of the New-Teftament revelation, already made by them, and in an agreeableness to the prophefies of the Old Teftament, which they infallibly explained, under the immediate influence of the fame Spirit that indited them, and in oppofition to the Judaifers. The prefidents of the church in Jerufalem went before the brethren, as enfamples of subjection unto the revelation of the mind and will of the Lord by the apostles, and were their leaders in this matter: And the brethren obeyed and fubmitted themselves to their prefidents and guides, who agreed in judging according to the mind and will of Chrift brought forth by the apostles; and this they did in confenting to the judgment of the elders, according to the revelation made by the apoftles. Thus when the whole company was made of one accord, every member acting his proper part, the deed was done, and the epiftle was written, in name of the whole.

3. And would you have me to believe, that we Gentiles have no more, in that folemn paffage touching the yoke of Mofes's law, for our liberty from that yoke, but the canon of an ordinary council, fuch as may be held to the end of the world? By no means; while it is fo manifeft, this thing feemed good to the Holy Ghoft, in his coming at first upon the uncircumcifed Gentiles, as the highest evidence they

could

could receive of their being the peculiar people of God, without the law of Mofes, and in the Old-Teftament prophefies, of which he is author, and which are not of any private interpretation, but must be explained by men infpired by him; and feemed good to the apoftles, by whom the New-Tefta ment revelation was made, and this part of it under his infallible conduct; and feemed good to the church in Jerufa. lem, from whence it behoved this part of the New-Teftament revelation especially to go forth to the Gentiles. And while

it goes forth from this church, we have in it a copy cast to all the churches for their method of procedure in their affairs, and manner of judging, in any matter wherein they are called to judge; but no pattern for the subjection of one church to another; as is manifest from what is above faid.

You tell me, 2.." Will the apoftles their being in this "church make any man infer, that the church of Antioch, "in which there were apoftles alfo, was fubject unto the "church of Jerufalem?" As to Paul the Apostle his being in the church at Antioch when this question was raised there, if you had confidered the first reason I gave in my speech for the fending up of the queftion to Jerufalem, and what I have faid there on that point, you might have faved that clause in your query, about apoftles at Antioch; and I need not here add any thing to what I have above faid in the explication of that reason. And as to the fubjection of the church of Antioch to Jerufalem, I need not repeat what I have been fay ing clearly enough already. Yea, I do not infer from Col. iv. 16. that the church of the Laodiceans was fubject to the church of the Coloffians, nor that the church in Colofs was fubject to the church in Laodicea. But was I inferring the fubjection of the churches to one another, from these things in my fpeech, or was I fhewing the contrary? was it not your bufinefs to fhew, that, notwithstanding these things, the fubjection of churches to one another might be inferred from my fenfe of Acts xv.? When you could not do this, as good say nothing, as nothing to the purpose.

And

Then you tell me you are wearied with fuch trifling, and you are refolved to be no more with it; and then you are pleased to fignify, in your own way, what kind of writing mine will be, after you have given over, and warn me of the danger of it. Truly, Sir, the controverfy wherein you have boldly engaged is laborious; and now you may fee it will weary you before you get near the end of it. The cause you are oppofing is a burdenfome cause, and you do well for

yourself

yourself to let it alone before you proceed further in it. But, notwithstanding your big words, you appear here like a man throwing down his arms, and begging quarter; only, as the proverb is, "You will not lofe your manly look." Yet compaffion is due to you; but there is no small danger in giving quarter to your caufe. You warn me of danger in the event: but I know no everlasting danger in cleaving to the word of God, and it can comfort in all temporal affliction. And the only danger that is any way in your power to bring me in, is that which has attended difputers for the truth in all ages, when their adverfaries would difpute no more with them; and with this danger I am bound to lay my account. Only I think I can declare this for your fatisfaction, that, till I fee fomething of more weight than I have feen in your writings, or in any other writings against the principles for which I contend, and fomething new advanced by you or any other, that may give occafion to explain them further, it will be altogether fuperfluous for me to write further on the subject. And therefore, except you say something to the purpose from the word of God, beyond what you have faid, expect no more of my writings to you upon the difpute.

Before you part with me, you offer fome exceptions a gainst the scriptural evidence I brought for the consent of the people to the fentences or decifions of elders. As to Acts xv. 22. you do not meddle with it, nor except against the clear evidence I brought from thence, further than to tell me, that I must once answer what you have said about the whole church, before I take it for the private Christians or worshipping assembly; and till then, Cyprian's fentiment is of no weight with you. But I have overthrown all that you faid about the whole church, and demonstrated, from the text and context, that the whole church must be taken for the worshipping affembly in Jerufalem, and for no other fociety. Only I do not remember that I adverted to this af sertion in your book, Original conftitution, p. 389. "Be"fore the apoftles left and finally departed from Jerufalem, "we find that they, and the elders of that church, affembled "together in a judicative capacity, with the commiffioners "from Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, and very probably from "the churches of Asia, and in one body enacted several decrees, for the good and welfare of the several churches "concerned therein." I fhall not demand express scriptures for your afferting this propofition, viz. the apoftles and elders of the church in Jerufalem: nor fhall I trouble you to

reconcile

reconcile the firft part of this your affertion with your criti cifm on Acts xvi. 4. and your fyllogifm. But I obferve that, by the whole church, you here understand the commiffioners from Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia; and fo Paul and Barna. bas, and certain others that came with them from Antioch in Syria, are a part of your whole church, there diftinguished from the apoftles and elders. And, as I have fufficiently demonftrated already, that no commiffioners from these parts can be understood by the whole church, Acts xv. 22. fo you must excufe me, that I did not labour in the confutation of that part of your affertion, That apoftles and elders of the church in Jerufalem very probably affembled in a judicative capacity with the commiffioners from the churches of Afia; because I did not dream of any commiffioners coming from these churches that the fcripture calls the churches of Afia, before these churches had any being.

Although you do not pretend to confute what I have faid on Acts xv. 22. for the confent of the people; yet you take notice of some scriptures I noted down as agreeing thereto, and offer some exceptions.

And, 1. as to Acts i. and vi. you tell me, "Confider, and "give a plain answer to what I have said on these texts, " p. 230. 386. before you take it for granted they are fub

fervient to your purpose." But my purpofe on these texts was thus expreffed, "They (the apoftles) determined all "things with the confent of the people," and I brought Acts i. and vi. as very confiderable inftances to this purpose. Now I look to that page of your book to which you remit me on Acts i. p. 386. I find you there faying, "That "the body of the people there prefent were confenters "I fhall not question." And this makes it fuperfluous for me to labour in expofing the weakness of your criti cifm on these words of Peter's difcourfe, Men brethren, which I think will be manifeft enough to any that will be at pains to read it. And when I confider your p. 230. to which I am referred on Acts vi. I can find nothing there against my purpose, nor in the following page; unless you think your criticism on a Tontos, fufficiently expofed in my firft letter, is against it.

2. As to Acts xi. 1.-4. which I cited for this purpose, plainly expreffed thus, " And did not difdain to fatisfy them "as to all their conduct," you are pleased to tell me, "But "for what good purpose I know not, if it be not to put me "in mind that Peter endeavoured to fatisfy the Jews at Je

"rufalem

"rufalem of the juftness of his going unto the Gentiles, "which no doubt was his duty." That they were the be lieving Jews is manifeft from y 18. and that they had the liberty to require fatisfaction from that apoftle, even as to that part of his conduct, and that it was doubtlefs his duty to endeavour to fatisfy them, is acknowledged by yourself. And therefore I hope you that pretend to be no more but an el der, will not reckon your people indifcreet if they treat you after the fame manner in your affembly; nor will you question that it is your duty to endeavour to fatisfy them of the juftness of any fuch part of your conduct. As to what you fpeak of a confequence from this, about judicatures and their jurifdiction, there is no confequence can be drawn from any Scripture for the judicatures you intend, nor for their jurif diction. Next, you tell me, "To fupport the fame thing you fet down Matth. xviii. but take care all along to shift "any direct anfwer to what I have faid on that text." But as I am not fenfible of any care of mine on that head, so I am of the mind, that, by what I have said first and last on that text, I have not left you much to say against the purpose for which I fet it down there.

3. As to Acts xi. 22. you grant, that the church which is faid to be informed about the fuccefs of the gospel at Antioch was the church at Jerufalem; but the confequence which you draw from thence you refufe, viz. That they who fent forth Barnabas were the whole members of that church. I had faid no more upon this text, but that what was done by the apostles was faid to be done by the church, because they did it with the church's confent; and as this was modeft enough, fo it is no way contradicted by what you affert about what you call the authoritative miffion, nor by what you alledge from Acts viii. 14. of the apoftles fending Peter and John, when the church was all scattered abroad except the apostles. But you tell me," If this text prove any thing, it "proves too much, viz. That the whole church were equal"ly concerned, and acted the same part in this miffion with "the apostles; for they are said to fend them forth con"junctly, without the leaft hint of one part's acting authori"tatively, and another merely by confent." But the text will not prove, that the whole body acted the fame part in this miffion with the apoftles who were a part of it; for, when fuch a body as a church is faid to do any thing, I must of neceffity conceive, that each part acts in the way proper to it; as when I am told the parliament of Britain made a law, VOLI.

3 D

I