The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-02-25
For the Central Presbyterian.
The Council of Jerusalem.

writer, who, in your issue of December
31st, signed himself Luke his nom de
plume Is well chosen. He is indeed a
" beloved physician" of souls, and one
whose praise i'll the gospel is in all the
churches. His opinions on any point
are entitled to weight, and have weight
with his brethren. But in this particular
instance | must confess that he has failed
to produce conviction. Allow me to no
tice in their order his several positions.
l. First he declares that the Council
OF Jerusalem was not General Assem-
bly, Doubtless this is true if we look
only to names. But l think that in it's
essential characteristics it was like our
General Assemblies, or rather our Assem-
blles In their essential features are like
this Councillor, in reality, it is the
model of which they are but copies. l
think so for the following reasons, viz,
(d) This Council is confessedly the germ
from which our General Assemblies have
sprung. (See recently discarded Form
of Government, chap. x, sec.-1, (2) and
also chap. II, note) The essential char
acteristics of the developed plant may be
sought and found in the germ. (6) If
this Council be not the germ from which
our Assemblies have sprung-then ques-
ton may arise in many minds as to
whether there is any Scripture warrant
for such bodies. (c) The definition of
General Assembly given in our Book of
Church Order will, if we omit what is
said of the title of this court, very we'll
describe the Council of Jerusalem. (See
present Form of Government, chap. V.
sec: e, par. ~ (d) In its composition
and in the functions exercised this Coun-
ell Wa virtually General Assembly of
the then Church. AS to its composition
it may fairly be considered as repre-
sentative of the whole Church then in
existence. Assuredly every individual
church was not represented in this Coun
ell by It's own chosen delegates. But this
was not at all necessary in order that
that Council might be truly representa-
tive of the whole Church. That BODY
may for practical purposes be regarded
as representing the entire Church of that
day-because, In the question at issue,
there were present men to represent each
of the two great parties into which the
Church was then divided The churches
of Jerusalem were represented by the
Apostles and Elders of that city. The
church or churches of Antioch were rep
resented by those who accompanied Paul
and Barnabas from that city to Jerusalem.
Paul and Barnabas themselves were rep
resentatives of the Gentle churches at
large-or may be fairly so considered.
The idea that those sent from the CITY of
Antioch, and especially the idea that Paul
and Barnabas took no part in the pro-
ceedings of the Council relative to the
great question at issue, seems strange
For the special business that brought
them to Jerusalem was to protect the
Christian liberties of the Gentle churches.
Moreover such an idea seems to contra
dict the express language of Acts XIV. If
the speeches of Paul and Barnabas were
merely of the nature of missionary re-
port then the following difficulties pre-
sent themselves, namely, (a) They made
the same report twice to the same meet
ing. (See verses 4 and 12) (b) Peters
speech was also merely missionary re-
port. (c) The Moderator might properly
have ruled them out of ,order-for they
report Just in the midst Of debate
As to the functions exercised bv this
Council they are best described in the
language of our present Book of Church
Order relative to the functions of our
General Assembly. (o) 1t constituted
the bond of union, peace, and correspond
ence among all its congregations and
COURTS (b) 1t decided controversy of
doctrine and discipline (c) 1t gave its
advice and instruction in case submitted
to it. CD 1t concerted measures for the
prosperity of the Church. (e) 1t sup
pressed schismatic contention and dis
putation. (JD 1t superintended the af
fairs of the whole Church (g) 1t recon-
mended measures or the promotion Of
charity, truth, and holiness through all
the churches under its care. These things
being true was not the Council of Jer1
salem virtually General Assembly?
2. Luke ) second position is that chat
Council seems to have had its conclusion
dictated by inspiration. 1t seemed good
to the Holy Ghost and to us, " etc.
This is true But what are the decis-
ions Of any Church court on any subject
in any form, at any time, worth, except
they are backed by "Thus saith the
Lord? Unless we can claim the sane
ton Of the Holy Ghost for our decisions
they amount to just nothing The dit
ference between the Council of Jerusalem
and one of orr Assemblies seerne to hove