church of Jerufalem about it, they held a meeting for the purpose of deciding it.

Now that Paul and Barnabas were not members of the court that came together to decide this question, and that they were not of that company which ordained the decrees, is to me very clear from these words: 22. "Then it plea" sed the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to fend " chosen men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul " and Barnabas, Judas firnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief " men among the brethren, and wrote letters by them." And the whole strain of the epistle distinguishes Paul and Barnabas evidently from the company by which the dogmas were judged. And though it behoved Paul and Barnabas, and those with them, to be present, and propose their question, and give information, which they did; yet I can find no mention of their giving any judgment or fuffrage. I fee Peter giving his judgment, and James his, and the apostles and the elders agreeing, and the whole church concurring with them; but as Paul and Barnabas are not of that com. pany, so I find them doing nothing there but informing and narrating matters of fact, without giving any judgment. The use they were for in that meeting is intimated in the epistle, wherein they at Jerufalem signify to them at Antioch, that they had been duly informed by their messengers, and that they had depended on and gone upon their information; and whereas their authority had been attacked by the false teachers, they testify their regard to them, and approbation of them; and, to remove all ground of fufpicion, they fend men of their own company along with them to Antioch.

From all which there is not the least ground to imagine, that Paul and Barnabas fat men bers of that court, and judges in that question there, but the clearest ground to think that they did not. And till you prove they gave their suffrage in what was determined, as a part of that ecclesiastic body, may I not inquire, where is the synod in Acts xv. that has been so much talked of both by Papists and national Proteftants? Well, speak of a fynod who will, I resolve to speak only of the prefbytery in Jerufalem, where were the apostles, in whose stead we have now the New Testament, till once you prove, that Paul and Barnabas were members of that court, and joined with the elders in Jerufalem in exercising jurifdiction over the churches in Jerufalem and Antioch.

The prefbytery of Jerufalem then came together, the apoAles and they, for to confider of this matter; and how did

they

they come together? or where? the particular place is not mentioned; but Acts xv. makes it evident, they assembled in the church, which is the true place that the Lord hath chosen for a New-Teftament prefbytery, to gather together in his name, to make decisions, and pass sentences in whatever place of the earth it happen to be; and here they have the promise of his presence, "who walks in the midst of the "golden candlesticks, and holds the stars in his right hand." There needs no consequence be drawn to prove, that the whole church was present with their prefbytery at the making of this decision; and what is the plainest nearest confe. quence from this, but that the whole church in Jerufalem was but one congregation, and that the prefbytery in Jeru. falem was but the prefbytery of a congregation? Further,' How did this prefbytery make this great decifion? by plurality of voices, or by agreement? with the confent of the church, or without it? Let the text answer, y 22. " Then " pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church."

This was the way the apostles proceeded from the beginning, in all their actings in the church at Jerufalem; they determined all things with the confent of the people, and did not difdain to fatisfy them as to all their conduct, Acts i. Acts vi. Acts xi. 1.-4. So that what was done by them is said to be done by the church, according to Matth. xviii. Acts xi. 22. This was so laid in the original conftitution of the Christian church, that, however the mystery of iniquity wrought in the churches before the days of Cyprian, it was not then wrought out of their conftitution: for he fays, Epift. 6. Ad clerum de cura pauperum et confefforum,- Ad id vero quod fcripferunt mihi com-presbyteri noftri, Donatus et Fortunatus, Novatus et Gordius, folus refcribere nihil potui; quando a primordio epifcopatus mei statuerim, nihil fine confilio vestro, et sine consensu plebis meæ, privata fententia gerere. Sed cum ad vos per Dei gratiam venero, tunc de iis quæ vel gefta funt, vel gerenda, ficut honor mutuus pofcit, in commune tractabimus. He had a very plain pattern for this laid before him by the apostles in the church at Jerufalem: and while men have been diligently inquiring into Acts xv. to find a pattern for a thing for which there is no pattern there, I wonder much, that, from Acts xv. 22. compared with Acts xvi. 4. they have not perceived, that the judgment, or determination, or fentence of a Christian pref bytery is, "What pleases them, with the whole church of

"which they are overfeers."

This

This was the greatest decision we read of in the New Testament, the greatest sentence or determination that was in any Christian assembly where the apostles were; and this was the first part of the New Testament that was committed unto writing, and delivered unto the churches to keep; and in this writing the churches had a copy cast unto them, in the first church, for their method of procedure in all their affairs and manner of judging. Now, if the greatest decision we read of in the New Testament, and wherein all the churches were con. cerned, was made by a congregational prefbytery, or by a congregational church; what is the consequence of this, but that there is no ecclefiaftic court on earth above such a church, and fuch a presbytery? As to the reasons why this question was fent to this church, and determined there, you may see my speech before the commiffion; which, if you confider, you will fee, that no consequence can be drawn from Acts xv. for the jurifdiction of one church over another. Upon the whole, may I not appeal to the conscience of any unprejudiced person, (though indeed there are few such in this matter), whether the pattern Acts xv. establishes synods and the fubordination of judicatures, or overthrows them, and establishes the congregational way of doing?

I shall trouble you no further at this time with observations upon your performance; only that your prejudice againft congregational principles seems to me to be this, that, ac. cording to them, the Chriftian religion cannot be national, and laid in the constitution of the kingdoms of this world, and a Chriftian national uniformity cannot be established unto the cutting off of heresy and schism with heretics and schismatics, by the power of those kingdoms. But, on this very account, these principles appear to me to be true Christian principles; and, as to this, I defire you may take the trouble to read and confider what I have written on John xviii. 36. 37.

And now, Sir, when you have impartially confidered what is above said, together with what you find in my former papers, if you ftill find me mistaken, pity me, pray for me, and inform me better from the word of God, and I will be obliged to you; and if you conceive, that you have received any perfonal injury from me, convince me of it, and I shall endeavour to confess my fault, and ask your forgiveness, as I defire to forgive all you have done or faid at any time, or in your book, against me. But if you receive any conviction from what I have faid, do not stifle your convictions, do not refift the truth, nor detain it in unrighteousness. Your honour, honour, and the honour of your book, which you may conceive to be by me attacked, and which I am fure cannot be much hurt by one in my circumstances, is but a poor thing 300

in

comparifon with that honour that cometh from God only. If I have been doing nothing else but making such an attack as I am capable to make upon your credit as an author, I own I have been very idle, and very ill employed; but if I have been obliged to undertake this task, and give you this trouble, only for the fake of the truth, and as a debt I owe to the truth, opposed by you, then I defire it may overcome you, as it has done me, that we may be fellow-helpers to the truth; and I am confident your yielding to it will be your honour in the day of the Lord. "That your eye may be " single, and your whole body full of light, and that you

may not be conformed to this world, but transformed by "the renewing of your mind, to prove what is that good, " and acceptable, and perfect will of God; and that his " word may be a light to your feet, and a lamp to your " paths, making you wiser than your teachers, and affording

you liberty in keeping his precepts," is the prayer of,

A Second Letter to MrAYTONE. Containing, Remarks upon his Review of the Obfervations on the Original Conftitution of the Church.

[First published in the year 1731.]

Lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wifdom is in them? Jer. viii. 9.

SIR,

Have seen your letter to me since it has been printed; and though I am not of the mind that it deferves an an

fwer, which it also seems to forbid, and though I have little hope that any thing coming from my pen can have itfluence upon your understanding; yet, not knowing but fome good end may be reached, even upon you, by the reply I am now making, I have therefore undertaken this tafk; and, in the performance of it, though I cannot promise upon myself, yet I wish I may be preserved from every thing that may unjuftly provoke you, and fo mar the end I have in view.

My principles touching Christ's institution of a visible church, and the plan laid down to us in the New Testament, were fairly stated, and their foundation in the New Testament from which they were taken, was plainly pointed out in The explication of the propofition. The scheme of principles there laid down, though it contains the main substance, and the best of that for which those called Independents contended of old, against them that are called Presbyterians; yet is not liable to all the objections that were framed by the Prefbyterians against the Independents; nor is it capable of all the consequences that were drawn formerly from the manner of maintaining the congregational scheme, or from the conceffions made by the Independent writers. Yet the author of The defence of national churches, and you after him, have taken that Independent scheme as it was the thesis formerly impugned by your writers, as answering best unto the common arguments. But I, not finding myself concerned to maintain any other scheme of principles but my own, nor to anfwer for confequences drawn from any other positions or conceffions