Surely, it required no inspiration to enable the apostles and elders to give the deliverance which they did give; seeing that it was no new law that they were laying down for the church they were merely declaring what was the expressed mind of the Holy Ghost in reference to the subject that was under their consideration. They had ample proof before them what that mind was-and concerning this proof the elders were as competent to judge as the apostles. It was on the ground of their decree being in accordance with what they knew to be the mind of the Holy Ghost, that they required obedience to be given to it by the churches to whom it was addressed. On this ground the churches were bound to yield obedience to the decree-because their doing so was tantamount to yielding obedience to the voice of inspiration for though the decree itself was not given by inspiration, yet the point of doctrine, to which the decree referred, had been decided by divine authority; and the assembly, in requiring obedience to be given to their decree, required this obedience to be given, not simply to their authority, but to the authority of God.

:

With regard to the constitution of the assembly that met at Jerusalem on this occasion, the writer of the sacred narative has not thought proper to enter into details. That there was a considerable number present, is evident from the language employed in the twelfth verse- "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul." Among the constituent members of the assembly were the apostles:" there were also present the "elders;" -but whether these elders belonged solely to the church in Jerusalem, or were summoned also from other churches, is left in a great measure to conjecture. That there were present, if not the whole, at least a large portion of the elders belonging to the church in Jerusalem, can scarcely be

66

doubted: and these, of themselves, would constitute a goodly company, when we take into account the many myriads" of converts that were in Jerusalem, over whom these elders had the oversight. But there is language employed which warrants the inference, that the elders present were not all belonging to the church in Jerusalem. For instance, the assembled apostles and elders, speaking of the judaizing teachers who had occasioned the dissension in Antioch, say, they "went out from us;" but in the first verse of the chapter, these same teachers are described as having come down "from Judea.” Now this phrase from Judea, taken in connexion with the other phrase went out from us, does not limit us to suppose that the elders, any more than the judaizing teachers, all belonged to Jerusalem, but permits us to make the supposition, that at least a portion of them belonged to other districts of Judea. That there were persons sent up to the assembly, who did not belong either to Jerusalem or Judea, is also mentioned. These were Paul and Barnabas, "and certain other" persons belonging to the church of Antioch. Paul, indeed, was an apostle, and may therefore be considered as included in that class of the members already mentioned. But Barnabas was not an apostle, neither was he an elder bearing rule over any of the churches in Judea. He is mentioned in the beginning of the thirteenth chapter of the Acts, as one of "the prophets and teachers" who were labouring at Antioch; and he took part in the proceedings of the meeting held at Jerusalem. Dr Wardlaw, indeed, affirms that Paul and Barnabas were merely messengers or what he is pleased to term, in Presbyterian phraseology, commissioners-that they 66 were admitted to state facts in evidence; but no more; and that "they took no part in the decision." These are mere gratuitous statements. Paul and

Barnabas appear to have taken the same part in the proceedings that Peter did. They spoke on the same side of the question.

Then with regard to the "certain other' " brethren belonging to the church of Antioch that accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, there can be no doubt that they were officially sent up by that church to the assembly; and though their names are not mentioned, the probability is, that they were of the number of those "prophets and teachers" who, in the beginning of the thirteenth chapter, are represented as ministering in the church at Antioch. Dr Wardlaw insists that they were merely "commissioners," or "bearers of the reference." If by this statement he mean, that they had no right to take any part in the deliberations, or to express an opinion on the question that was under the consideration of the meeting-he makes a statement for the making of which he has no authority. That Paul and Barnabas took part in the deliberations of the meeting, not simply as commissioners, but as constituent members, is abundantly evident from the sacred narrative; and the certain other" brethren who accompanied them from Antioch, occupied exactly the same standing in the assembly that these two distinguished individuals did and had the same right to take part in the deliberations that they had.

66

I again repeat, what I have already stated with regard to this celebrated meeting, that the Spirit of God has not thought proper to enter into details concerning the constitution of it. Dr Wardlaw seems to think that, because those who were present on the occasion are described as "the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem," therefore none but the elders of the church of Jerusalem were present along with the apostles. This does not necessarily follow. The phrase now quoted ad

mits of another interpretation, namely, the apostles and elders which were assembled at Jerusalem. I admit that there is no direct proof to show that the meeting, strictly speaking, was a representative one; but neither is there direct proof to show the contrary. Dr Wardlaw affirms that there is direct proof to establish the contrary; and this proof (he says) consists in the fact stated in the fourth verse of the sixteenth chapter of the Acts, that "as Paul and Timothy went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem." On this statement he makes the following comment:"Now, had there been representatives there from these churches, this would have been rendered unnecessary; each of these representatives bearing with him, on his return, a copy of the brief but precious document. The churches would then, like that in Antioch, have 'rejoiced for the consolation;'-and the effect stated in the subsequent verse (verse 5th), as having immediately arisen. from the reception of the document,

and so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily'-would have begun to appear still earlier-even from the moment of the return of their deputed representatives."--Pp. 229,300.

In reply to this comment, I would remind my friend, that though the church at Antioch sent representatives, or, as he is pleased to call them, commissioners, to the assembly at Jerusalem, the apostles and elders who were there assembled, did not think it unnecessary to send "chosen men of their own company" (Barsabas and Silas), along with the representatives, on their return home to Antioch, that they might communicate to that church the decrees which had been ordained by the assembly. It does not, therefore, necessarily follow, that no representatives were

sent from the other churches because Paul and Timothy, in travelling among the cities, "delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem." There was at least equal propriety in these two ambassadors of Christ delivering the decrees to the churches "for to keep," on the supposition that representatives had been sent by these churches to the assembly, as there was in the apostles and elders sending Barsabas and Silas to Antioch, to communicate the decrees to that church, when delegates had been sent by it to the meeting at Jerusalem. Dr Wardlaw, therefore, is not entitled to say, what he has affirmed in such broad and unqualified terms, that there were no representatives sent to Jerusalem from any of the churches, whether Gentile or Jewish. The fact which he has adduced as "direct evidence," confirmatory of this statement, does not amount to a proof,-seeing it does not necessarily follow that no representatives were sent, because Paul and Timothy, in visiting the churches, are said to have" delivered them the decrees for to keep." If my friend were a little better acquainted than he appears to be, with the working of the Presbyterian system, he would know, that it is no unusual thing for Synods to send "chosen men of their own company" to the congregations, "to deliver them the decrees for to keep,"-even though the representatives of these congregations may have been present at the meetings at which these decrees were ordained." And when the congregations are visited by those "chosen men," they "rejoice for the consolation."

66

But whether the Synod at Jerusalem was strictly representative or not, the circumstance of such a Synod being held, and of its proceedings being so fully recorded by the Spirit of God, affords a good scriptural warrant for our holding meetings

of a similar kind; meetings of ministers and ruling elders assembled from various districts of the church, to receive references and appeals, to determine controversies, and to deliberate concerning all matters of importance that may affect the general interests of that portion of the church of Christ with which we may be connected. With regard to the frequency with which such Synods ought to be held, and the number of members of which they ought to be composed, no precise rule seems to be laid down in the New Testament, These are matters of arrangement, which have been left to be determined by the churches themselves; and, in determining them, they are to have a due regard to the maintenance of order, and to the edification of the body at large. From the instance which we have been considering in the preceding pages, the holding of Synods is clearly sanctioned by apostolical precedent. Such assemblies, by bringing together, for prayerful and solemn deliberation, the rulers of the church, are calculated to be eminently serviceable to the cause of Christ; and as almost all denominations of Christians of whom we read in church history, have had recourse to them, either occasionally or habitually, in conducting the government of the church, they have thereby shown that they regarded them to be scriptural in their nature and useful in their operation.

The business of Synods and assemblies is not to make laws for the church of Christ. They are not to act the part of legislators. Their duty is to see that those laws which Christ-the sole lawgiver—has laid down for the government of his kingdom, are carried into due effect; and in determining what these laws are, they are to be guided solely by the word of God. In all matters of controversy that may be brought before them, whether referring to doctrine or to practice, they are not at liberty to

travel beyond the inspired record. To it, and to it alone, the appeal must be made. may be given,

Whatever decisions they are to take care

that they be in accordance with the dictates of this infallible standard. And these decisions are authoritatively binding on all the congregations under their charge. The authority under which they act is that of the King of Zion; and the decisions which they give are an expression of his will so far as they are capable of judging what that will is by the

study of the sacred volume. They are not indeed to be regarded as infallible. The wisest and the best of men may and do err. I am not, therefore, contending for a blind and servile submission to the rulers of the church, but for an enlightened submission to them in the Lord. I am speaking of what I regard as the general principles of the Presbyterian system, and which are clearly in accordance both with the spirit and the letter of the sacred volume.

FEW things have been so much perverted as Old Testament example. Hypocrites have used it as a cloak for their evil practices, and the profligate have found in it their most plausible defence. The lawless and disobedient, the ungodly and sinners, the unholy and profane, manslayers and menstealers, murderers and whoremongers, liars and perjured persons, have each and all sought refuge here. The example of Noah or Abraham, of David or Solomon, has been deemed sufficient to stamp on any action the character of righteous. Sin has seemed no sin when such example could be adduced for it. In short, with not a few, Old Testament example has usurped the place of the law and testimony of God, and has had conceded to it an authority higher than that of his written word; and the consequence has been, that light and darkness have exchanged places, and men have mistaken the one for the other; so great have been the evils occasioned by a mistaken view of Old Testament example. Does it follow, however, that it is a thing either bad or useless in itself? No. The evils we have been describing have arisen solely from its abuse; and being of opinion that that abuse in its turn has arisen chiefly from a misappre

hension of the end intended by it, we solicit attention to a few statements, illustrative of what is and what is not the true design of Old Testament example.

1. It is not intended to be a rule either of faith or duty to Christians. That it is not intended to be an infallible or perfect rule is evident from the fact, that the men themselves are never spoken of as infallible or perfect; that, on the contrary, they are described as men having infirmity," of "like passions with ourselves," and consequently liable to all the errors to which other men are liable. It is further evident from the fact, that God is never represented as winking at or palliating their sin; that, on the contrary, in not a few instances he is spoken of as expressly condemning it, and we see them "receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." This would certainly not have been the case had God intended their example to be a perfect and infallible rule to others. Then scripture would have been silent at least regarding their errors. God would then at least have forborne expressing his condemnation of them, and punishment, if inflicted, would not have been recorded. But Old Testament

example is not intended to be a rule, even in instances in which no condemnation is expressed. Of course there are many instances of this description; but so far are they from being intended as a rule to others, that some of them constitute the darkest blots in the history of the individuals themselves, and are so obviously wrong, that no man in his senses would ever think of imitating them. The drunkenness of Noah is nowhere expressly condemned in scripture; but would any man infer from this that it was a light offence? No. The principle that, with God, silence implies consent, is a most unsound principle; for, to persons holding it and acting upon it, he says, "These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: But I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes." Nor is it otherwise with the principle, that wherever the divine approbation of the conduct of an Old Testament saint is in any instance strongly and clearly expressed, we are bound to consider him, in that particular instance, as a perfect and infallible rule. Under the former dispensation, as under this, there were diversities of gifts; then, as now, there were particular graces in which particular saints excelled, and of some of these God has spoken in terms of the very highest commendation. Even in them, however, we "have seen an end of all perfection." Moses, the meckest man, is seen losing his temper; Job, the most patient man, is heard cursing the day of his birth; the father of the faithful is caught doubting the promise; the man according to God's own heart is found numbering the people. We are not aware of any who hold the extravagant idea, that Old Testament example is intended to be an absolutely perfect and infallible rule to Christians; but we suspect there are not a few who are haunted by a vague

impression of its being so in all cases where no condemnation is intimated, or at least of its being so in every instance in which very strong approbation is expressed. Now, so far from this being the case, it is not so in all instances in which they acted by direct command from heaven; and much that was lawful then, in the particular circumstances in which it occurred, because accompanied by direct warrant and divine authority, would be very unlawful now, when without these, and as a general rule. Joshua, in destroying the Canaanites, Abraham, in casting out the bondwoman and her son, acted by direct and positive command from heaven; but neither these, nor any instance similar to these, could ever have been intended to form precedents for general use. On the contrary, they were exceptions to the usual mode of the divine procedure, and not intended for a rule to the individuals themselves. Can they have been intended, then, for a rule to us? Assuredly not.

2. It is intended to illustrate the nature and working of the rule. "The law and the testimony" are the rule, and, this rule being in itself complete, there is no need for any other. Like every other rule, however, it requires to be illustrated, and Old Testament example is profitable for this. Its design, then, is not legislative, but expository. The object of it is not to add to, but rather to explain the written law and testimony of God. That this is one end intended by Old Testament example, is evident from the use made of it by our Lord and his apostles. Never appealed to by them for law, it is often referred to for illustration, Never quoted as an authority, it is often pointed to as an instructor. Never used by them to bind the conscience, it is often employed in teaching it. Of this nature is the use made of Abraham's example by the apostle James, where he takes advantage of it to teach the doctrine, that "by works a man is