Obj. VVOuld you not have them depend upon their Classicall, Provinciall, and Nationall Sinods?
Ans. We finde no such termes of pr••heminence in Scripture, as* 1.1 I have formerly told you, and therefore we are not to allow of any such place of dignity; and if there had been a dependancy be∣longing to the Apostles, (after the Assention of Christ) cer∣tainely it had belonged unto Peter, as I have formerly shewed; but that the Apostles did not absolutely depend upon the judge∣ment of Peter, is manifestly cleared, at the decision of the con∣troversie about Circumcision, Act. 15. the due observance of which Dispute, wil fully cleare the matter in question; For,
1. We finde that the Assembly collegated together, to decide that controversie, was not meerly the Apostles themselves, (who certainly either then or since, was the most able to have decided it of themselves) but we finde in the same text, that the Apostles admitted also of the Elders of the Church (then with them at Jerusalem) yea, and not only these, but also the Brethren; so that it is manifest, that Counsell consisted of the reall Body of the Church then at Jerusalem, and not of any members set apart from the whole.
2. We read that albeit Peter was the first that opened the* 1.2 case in that difference (as commonly he was in all other, in re∣gard of his boldnesse) yet did the Apostles, and Elders, and the rest of that Church, rather allow of the judgement of James, then of Peter, as we have it in the 22. verse of that Chapter, whereas had they been absolutely to have depended upon Peters judge∣ment, it had been a presumption in James to have spoken; or if they had been to have depended upon the judgement of James, it had been the like for Peter to have spoken; but that they were not bound to depend on either of them, or any of the rest, may appeare, in that either all, or most of them, used their Christian