teachers. Since, then, had an inspired decision been wanted by the office-bearers and brethren at Antioch, Paul was as competent to have delivered it as the whole of the apostles, and since the evidence which he could produce,-in confirmation of his decision, was as strong as theirs, nay, completely demonstrated that his mind, upon this subject, was the same with theirs, it seems plain that the determination which they wished, upon this occasion, must have been of a different description. Paul and Barnabas, it would appear, acted only as ordinary, ministers, and, in the discussion which first of all took place at Antioch, stated what appeared to them to be the mind of God from an examination of the scriptures, while the Pharisaic teachers, on the contrary, who made very high pretensions to a knowledge of the Old Testament, obstinately defended an opposite opinion. As the veneration which was still paid to the latter for their knowledge of the law, even by the converted Jews, was extreme, and as Paul and they could not agree, it was resolved that the matter should be referred to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. By their determination of the sense of the law, upon this interesting topic, both parties were to be regulated; and in ascertaining its sense, it seems plain that it was not expected that they should be guided by inspiration, for had inspiration been wanted by them to settle the question, or had Paul laid claim to it when he delivered his opinion, and confirmed his pretensions to it by undeniable miracles, it is obvious that no reference could have been made to Jerusalem. The Spirit which performed miracles by Paul, in attestation of his opinion, could not oppose the Spirit who dwelt in the apostles; and consequently it must have been utterly improper, as well as unnecessary, to have sent to Jerusalem to see whether Paul's sentiments accorded with theirs, or whether the apostles had commissioned these men from Judea to teach the doctrine which Paul condemned, or for any purpose that Independents have specified.

In the 3d place, The persons to whom this reference was made, were not only apostles but ordinary elders. When Paul and Barnabas, (Acts xv. 2), had had no small dissen-, sion and disputation with the false teachers at Antioch, the rulers of that church determined that these ministers should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. If then, as is plain, the term elder is employed in scripture to represent only ordinary ministers of Christ, or

X

extraordinary ministers in their ordinary capacity, and if the reference, in this case, was made to these ministers equally with the apostles; if they me officially "to consider the "matter," (ver. 6),-claim authoritative superiority to the false teachers, and declare that they were entitled to teach nothing but what they commanded them, (ver. 24)-decide on the question, and say that it seemed good to them, as well as to the apostles and the Spirit, to lay upon the brethren at Antioch necessary burdens, (ver. 28); and if the decision which was made be called their decrees, as well as the decrees of the apostles, (chap xvi. 4); it seems necessarily to follow, that the apostles, as well as elders, must have acted here only as ordinary ministers. Had not this been the case, it was impossible for the elders to be judges at all. The apostles alone being extraordinary rulers, and possessed of miraculous influence, elders could have submitted only, and not judged; for men who were uninspired could certainly not add, by their councils or opinions, to the dictates of inspiration, and much less could they be requisite to prevent it from erring consequently, since they, as well as the apostles, are said to be referred to as judges, and to have discharged this duty, the apostles must have acted, on this occasion, only as ordinary ministers.

Mr. Ewing, indeed affirms, p. 19, that the elders specified, were probably, endowed with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost. This, however, is a gratuitous assertion, for no part of the sacred history supports it.Besides, though it were admitted that some of the ordinary ministers, as well as the members, of many primitive churches were possessed of these gifts, it cannot be demonstrated that it was the universal attainment of all the common pastors of this, or any of these primitive churches *, while, on the contrary, it can be evinced that the term elder is applied usually in scripture to officers who have no such miraculous endowments, nor extraordinary character. Is it alleged, moreover, as Mr. Ewing does, that the message from Antioch was intended to ascertain not merely a point of doctrine, but also a point of fact-not merely whether Gentile believers must be circumcised, but whether the men from

*If there were only six elders, or even one elder, in this assembly, who was not inspired, and yet was allowed to judge, all the rest must have acted only as ordinary ministers, otherwise he could not have judged, but could only have submitted.

Judea had been sent by these ministers at Jerusalem to teach the brethren at Antioch to this effect? It is answered, that it is obvious from the sacred narrative, as has been already proved, that the elders, not less than the apostles, were directly applied to, to decide the controversy or question, as well as to ascertain the fact (if an application for the latter purpose was made at all); that they equally came together to consider of the matter-and this certainly could not be the matter of fact, for of that there could be no doubt; that they both authoritatively, not merely ascertained a fact, but laid necessary burdens, or things, upon the church at Antioch; and that the decress which they passed, not unquestionably about a fact, but about the question referred, are denominated the decrees of both. Or is it affirmed again with that writer, that it is not wonderful that the brethren at Antioch sould have joined the apostles and elders together in their message, when the apostles sometimes class themselves in the same manner *, and, on this occasion, take along with them not only the elders, but the whole church in their reply? We observe, that it is yet to be demon

4

strated that the whole of the common members of the church, as well as the elders, were included by them in. their reply; and that the contrary has at least been attempted to be established. And as when Peter denominates himself, in the passage here cited, an elder or presbyter, he speaks of himself only as a common ruler, so, in this light, I contend that he, as well as his fellow apostles, are to be viewed in this meeting at Jerusalem. Besides, even if this term, when applied to that apostle, was descriptive of him, as an extraordinary minister of Christ, it is plain that when it is bestowed upon ordinary ministers, as in the case before us, it must be understood in a completely different sense.And though Paul joins with himself others who were not apostles, in the salutations and benedictions which he delivers in his Epistles to several Christian churches, he never says of himself and these inferior ministers, It seemed good to us, and the Holy Ghost, to lay upon you necessary burdens; and never, as was before noticed, are his epistles to these churches called, like these decrees, the Epistles of Paul and Timothy, or Paul and Silvanus. These were prerogatives to which none of the companions of Paul were admitted,

See 1 Peter v. 1.

but prerogatives which are ascribed, in the present case, to the elders as well as apostles; and consequently this circumstance, in the view of every candid and unprejudiced mind, must mark an equality of power, as having been exercised by them in the instance before us.

Farther, is it maintained with Glass *, that when "we "read of the apostles, and elders, and brethren, acting in "this matter, we must understand that every one of them "did the part that was proper to them? that the apostles brought forth and infallibly declared the mind and will of "the Lord Christ upon this subject; that the presidents "or elders of the church in Jerusalem went before the "brethren as ensamples of subjection unto the revelation of "the mind and will of the Lord by the apostles, and were "their leaders in this matter; and that the brethren obeyed «and submitted themselves to 'their presidents and guides, "who agreed in judging according to the mind and will of "Christ brought forth by the apostles?" The same objections seem to present themselves to this, as to the preceding explanations. On this supposition, it is evident that the elders did not judge, with regard to the point of controversy, any more than the common members at Jerusalem, or even than the members at Antioch; that all that they did, was merely, like the brethren in Antioch and. Jerusalem, to submit to the decision of the apostles; and *that the latter were the only arbiters in the business. But how can this be reconciled with what has been already stated, that the elders, as well as apostles, met officially to "con"sider of the matter?" Since, then, the business was referred to and determined by the elders as well as apostles, both of them must have acted only as ordinary rulers, for had any of them been directed as extraordinary ministers by a miraculous influence of suggestion or superintendence, the rest, as Glass very honestly confesses, could only have submitted, and could not have been allowed to judge at all.

Lastly, The manner of procedure, in this court, does not indicate that they acted as extraordinary ministers, or were directed by a supernatural influence from God. We are told by Luke, Acts xv. 7, that, in the beginning of their consultation, "there was much disputing amongst "them." But surely those persons, whose decision was

* See his Second Letter to Ayton.

46

cr

66

not passed till after much disputation, could not all have been inspired, or do not, at least during the whole of their meeting, appear to have been guided by a miraculous influence. "Here, however, it may be remarked," say you, p. 42, "that the expression annos seems by no means "necessarily to imply opposition of sentiment, but simply "mutual discussion or inquiry. It is indeed the same word "rendered disputation, ver. 2, but there it is connected with "another (sus), translated dissension, which, from its use "in other passages, clearly indicates the most decided opposition of sentiment. This is apparent from its being ❝used, chap. xxiii. 7, 10, to denote the dissension that "took place between the Pharisees and Sadducees. It "would rather argue a tautology in the sacred writer, if, "in ver. 2, of this chapter, he employs two words to express precisely the same idea." It by no means, however, appears a tautology to render cus" disputation," in the 2d verse; for the word saris, translated "dissension," may denote the opposition of sentiment that was between them, and ovns, the disputation which ensued in consequence of that dissension or contrariety of sentiment. Besides, we know that the verb from which it comes, is used in Acts vi. 9, to express the disputation which took place between Stephen and the Libertines, Cyrenians, and Alexandrians; and in Act ix. 29, the disputation of Saul against the Grecians; and a kindred-noun is employed by Paul, 1 Cor. i. 20, to signify the disputer of this world. That this is the sense in which curns must be understood in the 7th verse, seems evident from this, that it is said that after there had been much ovĽntos, Peter rose, and said, Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the "disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to "bear?" Had there been only, however, as you express it, mutual inquiry on the subject," how could he reprobate what had been already said by them, as approaching almost to a tempting of God? Is inquiry, which is a duty when lawfully prosecuted, to be branded with such a name? And since the conduct of part at least of the present assembly (whether they simply inquired, as you contend that the word should be rendered, or keenly disputed, as others maintain) is distinguished by this name, as far as the business had already proceeded, is this consistent, I would ask you,