"The Westminster Standards (including the Confession of Faith and Catechisms) were the fruit of the covenanted uniformity aimed at in the Solemn League and Covenant. The relationship between the Westminster Standards and the Solemn League and Covenant is so close, in fact, that to truly adhere to the Standards requires that an individual or church (or nation -ed.) also adhere to the Solemn League and Covenant. In other words, all true Presbyterians must also be Covenanters. This is clear from 'The Directory for the Ordination of Ministers' in the original (1648) Westminster Standards' 'Form of Presbyterial Church-Government' where it says that every candidate for the ministry must 'bring with him a testimonial of his taking the Covenant of the three kingdoms,' i.e., the Solemn League and Covenant. All faithful Presbyterian ministers must adhere to the Covenant. As well, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland ruled in 1648 'that all young students take the covenant at their first entry to colleges; and that hereafter all persons whosoever take the covenant at their first receiving the sacrament of the Lord's supper.' In other words, people who would not take the Covenant could not partake of the Lord's supper." - Dr. Michael Wagner, Up From Reconstructionism; or, A Short History of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, 1996. 

That Presbyterial Church Government and manner of worship are alone of divine right and unalterable; and that the most perfect model of these as yet attained, is exhibited in the Form of Government and Directory for Worship, adopted by the Church of Scotland in the Second Reformation. - The Six Points of the "Terms of Ministerial and Christian Communion in the Reformed Presbyterian Church" as listed at the end of The Act, Declaration, and Testimony for the Whole of Our Covenanted Reformation by the Reformed Presbytery, 1761, 1876, (1995, SWRB). 

For more on divine right (biblical) Presbyterian church government and the particular Reformed Presbyterian (Covenanter) term of communion above, please listen to the two free MP3s by Greg Price entitled "Covenanter Terms of Communion 8 of 19: Presbyterian Worship and Government 1/2"at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1260514421 and "Covenanter Terms of Communion 9 of 19: Presbyterian Worship and Government 2/2" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12705112647

William Cunningham's comments on the Apostolic, Presbyterian general assembly held in Acts 15 follow, excerpted from his Historical Theology (volume one, pp.43-47).

"Although our review of Theological Discussions properly begins at the close of the apostolic age, yet there is one transaction recorded in the New Testament to which it may be proper to advert to, from its intimate connection with the whole subsequent history and government of the church, and with the controversies to which they have given rise, many of them continuing down to the present day. I allude to what is commonly called the Council of Jerusalem, recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.

There has been a very great deal of discussion about the true character of this transaction, and the lessons, if any, which it is fitted to suggest respecting the government of the church in subsequent ages. Papists, Prelates, and Presbyterians have usually held that it was fitted and intended to convey some instruction as to the way and manner in which the government of the church should be permanently conducted, and have all professed to find in it something to favour their respective systems; while the Congregationalists, not being able to find in it anything to favour their views of church government, have generally contented themselves with maintaining that it does not afford any clear or certain materials for determining in what way the government of the church should be conducted in subsequent ages. Papists, finding it recorded here that Peter took a prominent part in the discussion which arose upon this occasion, adduce the narrative as a proof that he acted then, was entitled to act, and was recognized as entitled to act, as the vicar of Christ and the head of the church. Prelatists, finding that, several centuries afterwards, the notion was broached that James was appointed by the apostles Bishop of Jerusalem, profess to get scriptural evidence of this fancy in the prominent part which he took in the discussion. There is not in the narrative a trace of any superiority in office or jurisdiction on the part of Peter or James; so that the substance of the Popish argument is virtually this,-Peter spoke first, and therefore he was superior in authority and jurisdiction to the other apostles; while the Prelatic argument is,-James spoke last, and gave shape to the decision of the council, and therefore he was diocesan bishop, and, as such, superior in some respects even to the apostles. This of course, is sheer trifling; and the only question of real importance or difficulty connected with this matter, lies between the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists or Independents.

The Congregationalists usually contend that this transaction was so peculiar and extraordinary as to afford no pattern or precedent for the disposal of theological controversies, and the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs in subsequent ages, and in ordinary circumstances; while Presbyterians deny this, and allege that it affords a warrant for the general substance of some of the leading features of Presbyterian church government. The question whether or not the transaction was so peculiar and extraordinary as to afford no model or precedent for the subsequent government of the church, is virtually identical with this one,-whether the apostles acted in this matter as inspired and infallible expounders of the will of God, or simply as the ordinary office-bearers of the church, using the ordinary means of ascertaining the divine will, and enjoying the ordinary guidance and influences of His Spirit.

Presbyterians contend that there are plain indications in the New Testament that the apostles sometimes acted in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs, not as inspired men directed by the infallible guidance of the Spirit which they enjoyed in declaring truth and in organizing the church, but simply as ordinary office-bearers in co-operation with other elders, and more especially that they acted in this capacity merely in this case; and Congregationalists, not absolutely denying, and yet not prepared to admit, that they never acted in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs without infallible guidance, strenuously contend that in this case they acted under the influence of immediate supernatural inspiration, which infallibly guided them to a right decision, and that therefore it affords no model or precedent for the church in future times. It seems very manifest, from the whole scope and strain of the narrative, that the apostles did not act here as inspired and infallible men, but simply as ordinary ecclesiastical office-bearers, in conjunction with the elders and ordinary pastors. Had it been the purpose of God to settle the controversy which arose about the necessity of circumcision by an inspired infallible decision, the apostles might have at once decided it without meeting, and without discussion of any kind; or any one of them might have done so in the exercise of his apostolic authority, and confirmed his decision by the "signs of an apostle." Paul himself might have done so at Antioch, without the matter being brought up to Jerusalem at all. This was not done; the matter was brought up to the church at Jerusalem. The apostles and elders assembled to deliberate upon it publicly in the presence of the people; and we are expressly told that much disputing took place regarding it, when they were assembled to decide it. The apostles who took part in the discussion, in place of at once declaring authoritatively what was the mind and will of God regarding it, formally argued the question upon grounds derived at once from God's providential dealings, and from statements of scripture. In this way, and by this process, they carried conviction to the understandings of all who heard them, so that they concurred at length in an unanimous decision. Here everything plainly indicates, and seems to have been obviously intended to indicate, that inspiration was not in exercise, but that the matter was decided by means accessible to men in general under the ordinary guidance of the Spirit.

There is no evidence, indeed - and the Congregationalists found much on this consideration - that any of the apostles were, even at the first, of a different mind from that in which the whole assembly ultimately concurred, or that they had any disputing among themselves; but it is certain-and this is sufficient to warrant our conclusion-that there was much disputing, i.e., argument on opposite sides, in the assembly in their presence; and that they did not put an end to this disputing by an immediate and infallible declaration of the mind of God upon the point, in the exercise of their apostolic authority, but by ordinary arguments derived from admitted principles, and addressed to the understandings of those who heard them. The only thing that appears to contradict the conclusion to which the whole scope and strain of the narrative obviously points, is the fact that the decision to which the assembly ultimately came is announced in these words: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." Now, this statement certainly implies that they were confident that the decision was de facto in accordance with the mind of the Holy Ghost, but it does not necessarily imply more than this; and therefore it should not be held to imply more, as it would then contradict the general scope and strain of the narrative, which are plainly fitted to teach us that Christ, the Head of the church, determined the disposal of this matter, not by direct and infallible inspiration, but by a general meeting of apostles and elders seeking and attaining the truth upon the point, by means accessible to men in general with the ordinary influences of the Spirit. Not only does the expression, "it seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and to us," not necessarily imply more that the certain accordance de facto between the decision given by them and the mind of the Spirit, but it seems of itself to indicate that there was something in the case different from a mere declaration of what they knew simply as inspired men. It seems much more natural that if they had been simply declaring what they had been miraculously and supernaturally taught upon the point by the Spirit, they would have said only,"it seemeth good to the Holy Ghost;" the addition,"and to us," having the appearance of intimating that they did not act in the matter merely and solely as the inspired declarers of His mind, though confident that their decision was accordant with His.

We hold it, then to be clear, that while the apostles ordinarily had the gift of supernatural infallible inspiration in the discharge of their public duties, in declaring the truth and in organizing the church, yet on this occasion they did not, in point of fact, exercise this gift, but left it as it were in abeyance, and acted in the matter just as uninspired men might and could have done. Now, these two facts taken in combination, not only prove that this transaction may afford a pattern and precedent for the proceedings of the church ordinarily in similar circumstances, but also warrant us to believe that it was expressly arranged in this way for that very purpose, and that therefore it is the church's duty to apply it for the regulation of her conduct. We assume now, then, that the view generally taken by Congregationalists, as to this controversy having been decided by a supernatural exercise of infallible inspiration, is erroneous. We assume that the whole transaction must have been intended and fitted to convey instruction to the church as to the management of its affairs."

Dr. Reg Barrow comments: Scriptural uniformity can easily be seen in the "apostolic" Presbyterian general assembly at Jerusalem (cf. Acts 15). In fact, this general assembly "delivered decrees" that were binding on all the individual churches that were part of the one visible church which adhered to apostolic doctrine. The Greek word used in Acts 16:4 for "decrees" is "dogmata." Compare this with the word "decree" used in Luke 2:1. This same word as used in Luke 2:1 is referring to the decree of Caesar Augustus regarding his call for an empire wide census. This was not a suggestion given by Caesar, nor was it just advice that could be ignored without penalty - it was law! In the same way the decree sent down by the general assembly that took place in Acts 15 was to be held as law for the church. Furthermore, these pronouncements (because in keeping with the mind of the Spirit) held sway over all the churches. These decrees were carried out from Jerusalem to the churches in the cities of Asia Minor, as well as Antioch, indicating that the scope of the synod's authority extended not only over the church at Antioch which made the initial request, but over ALL THE CHURCHES! (Adapted from "Presbyterianism and Independency" in British Reformed Journal, No. 11, July-Aug. 1995, p. 10n).

It is also interesting to note the comments found in this same Journal comparing the Presbyterian's Westminster Confession (1647) with the Independent's Savoy Declaration (1658). The British Reformed Journal points out: "A perusal of the twin columns on the page opposite will yield a direct contrast, highlighted at apposite critical points by the words in heavy type. One sees Westminster's decree (31:3), which corresponds to the Greek dogmata of the Textus Receptus in Acts 16:4, juxtaposed with advice given in the Savoy article XXVI, which latter corresponds with nothing anywhere in the Textus Receptus with respect to the matters of Synodical Church Government" (p. 17). Later this Journal asks: "Does this Scriptural Synod issue decrees or advice? Scripture says decree, Westminster says decree, Savoy says advice. Which Confessional standard is therefore Scriptural?"

"And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily" (Acts 16:4-5). - William Cunningham and Dr. Reg Barrow, Apostolic Presbyterianism