Deaconrie and be Deacons in common unto all those Churches in an ordinary way as the other are Elders But this is contrary to the practise of the Reformed Churches though subject to the Presbyteriall Government in which the Deacons have the ordinary relation of Deacons in no respect extended further then to a particular Congregation nor doe they exercise Acts of that Office in an ordinary way to other Congregations nor otherwise to neighbour Congregations then to any other much lesse is there a common Deaconship of them all and why should not the later be erected over all those Churches as one Church as well as a common Eldership especially if in matters of this nature par ratio should carry it every Church quâ Church being a body hath relation to all its Officers as Organicall members thereof So. Rom. 12th and the 4th And the Apostle writing to Philippi a Church in a City he writes to the Bishops the Elders and the Deacons as both alike Officers of that Church And Acts Chap. 6th The Deacons of the Church of Jerusalem if there were many Congregations as our brethren suppose were chosen by the whole multitude when gathered together by the 12. And therefore were Deacons of that whole Church as well as the Elders Elders thereof Now if the Deacons Office should thus be extended to all the Congregations as the Elders is then why should not each Church be bound to bring contributions to the Deacons of each Church and to be distributed in common and so our purses should be subject to the Deacons in common as farre as our persons to the Elders in common and they might challenge the same power in their Office over the one that the Elders doe over the other and then also each Congregation were in an ordinary and standing obligation bound to releeve all the Poore in those Churches as well as those in their own Parishes not only by the common law of Charity but by virtue of speciall relation of their being one Church which relation in all these things doth beget the like Obligation that it doth in government and so all things of this nature should be alike common to all and each and there should be a common Treasury for this one great Diaconat Church as we may in a paralell allusion to that other name of Presbyteriall call it A second head of Incongruities and Inconsistencies which will follow upon it are in the mutuall duties required and that doe necessarily follow upon this standing relation for a constant government of these Elders to all this people of these Churches and of the people to these Elders 1. From the People to all these Elders according unto what the Scripture speakes of as due to standing Elders they owe at least honour and esteeme yea maintenance to all their Elders whether those that ordinarily rule them or preach to them and they owe it for both Tim. Epist. 1. Chap. 5. ver. 17. and 18. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially those that labour in the word and Doctrine Which honour is expressed by the Analogie of that law ver. 18. not to musle up the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corne And this is certainly due to Elders for all that is the work or Elders whether performed apart or together by way of jurisdiction in a Presbyterie And it cannot be denied but that their constant ruling as in the Presbyterie is one great part of the work of Elders and so must be here intended for which an especiall honour is due And as they are to feed all and every one in the flock as Acts 20. ver. 28. so maintenance and honour is due from all this people to all and every one of these Elders as well to those that rule as those that labour in the word and Doctrine And in reason if the Elders that rule well and performe the lesser acts of ruling in their particular Congregations and the Presbyteries thereof are to have this honour in their relations then all those Elders that rule well in the common Presbyterie and performe the greatest acts of ruling are to have the like from all that Classicall Church the emphasis being put upon ruling well and in those acts done by them the excellency of ruling consisteth and the precept is not to honour Presbyteries in some abstract notion but Elders because the particular persons of the Elders are to be the object of it and those most who excell most in that rule that rule well or best but when there are many Congregations that have their proper fixed Pastors and Elders whom they maintaine for performing one part of the Elders worke for they performe but one part of it how shall they performe this due to all the rest for that other part of it and it is due from every person as he is able or he cannot performe his duty how burthensome how confused would this be And then how to proportion this suppose it should not be maintenance but honour and esteeme this people will not be able to judge not only for that they cannot be present at their worke and so cannot judge of it but because either it must be proportioned to them as constant Preaching-Elders or as Ruling not as to Preaching Elders for they labour not to them as such the ground upon which it is required is That they tread out their Corne and to honour and esteeme them as Ruling Elders only were to honour preaching Elders below the ranke and degree of their Office So Secondly It brings the like Incongruities upon the performance of those duties of Elders which the New Testament indifferently requires of all those that it acknowledgeth to be Elders unto a people and therefore no such constant relation of Elders to so many Churches may be As first Praying with the sick Send for the Elders of the Church to pray for them James chap. 5. ver. 14. What are these Elders of a Presbyteriall Church bound hereto this duty lyes in common upon Elders of Churches and how shall we distinguish when the Scripture doth not Secondly Visiting from house to house as Paul in his example instructs the Elders of Ephesus Acts chap. 20. ver. 20. Thirdly Watching over mens soules as those that must give an accompt Heb. chap. 13. ver. 17. To watch is not to stay till causes are brought by appeales or so from the Congregations but personally to observe and oversee them as soules committed to them which they must give an accompt for Fourthly Of Preaching If Preaching Elders in season and out of season The Bishops they said the flock was theirs and the whole care committed to them and to salve the incongruity of not being able to preach themselves to them they professed a derivative delegated power to inferior Pastors whom they called their Curats This was plaine dealing but these Elders make all the whole flock theirs and this from those Scriptures that speake of Elders and
aime to be there at that time And by the journall of Paul thither from his first setting out from Philippi chap. 20. ver. 6. which was when the Passeover was ended eight weekes before this ensuing Feast of Pentecost and also by computing the dayes of his travailing which the Holy Ghost hath recorded vers. 16. 21. Acts 21. 2. it appeares he came in few weekes unto Tyre but 40. miles off from Hierusalem time enough to come to the Feast and no wonder if at the Feast he found thousands of the Jewes and this is confirmed by the 27 verse for the Jewes which laid hold on him in the Temple were as it is said Jewes of Asia not of Judea Secondly The word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} being put without any other word of number signifies no more then a great multitude as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or a greatnesse as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as Plato hath it and being put indefinitely is all one to say thousands or many as the Latins also use a definite for an indefinite as Sexcenta possum proferrâ— decreta as Tully speakes To the second Proofe of the first Head By the many Apostles and other Preachers in this Church of Hierusalem For if there were but one Congregation then each Apostle preached but seldome which will not stand with Acts 6. 2. First For the Apostles THey tooke all opportunities to fill their hands with worke preaching daily in the Temple and in every house Acts 5. 42. Chap. 2. 46. Paul also taught in Ephesus as publickly in the Congregation so from house to house Acts 20. 20. Also when any in the places abroad in Judea or else where were converted and many Churches were then erected in Judea the Apostles went abroad as Chap. 8. shewes and besides how were the twelve imployed when for forty dayes they met in an upper roome Acts 1. and had but an hundred and twenty for their flock Secondly For the many Teachers In those times there were many guifted men that were not Officers who occasionally instructed others as Aquila did Apollos yea those guifts were so plentifull that in that one Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 14. 23. almost all of them had Doctrines Prophecying speaking with tongues and yet these were not Officers so as if Congregations should be multiplied according to the number of such guifted men then there would have been almost as many Teachers as members of Congregations And the powring out of the Holy Ghost which was more ordinary then did not make every man a Teacher by Office for then all those in Samaria should have been made teachers Acts 8. And that not any of those were in Office seemes evident by this That when the Deacons were chosen Chap. 6. there is no mention made of Elders in their Ordination in which if any Elders had been they had had an interest We reade Acts 15. When there were Elders though Apostles were also then in that Church both are mentioned together And it appeares the Apostles had managed all the affaires of that Church untill then those Deacons being the first choice of any sort of Officers the work of Administration of all sorts having layen on the Apostles hands To the third Proofe of the first Head The diversitie of Languages amongst the Beleevers Acts 2. 8 9 10 11. and Acts the 6. doth argue more Congregations then one in the Church of Hierusalem FIrst 'T is true there were in that second of the Acts Out of all Nations that heard the Apostles speake in the severall Languages of the Countries they were borne in but yet these were all either Jewes or Proselites {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} worshippers as ver. 5. who came up to worship and some parts of the worship were audible and though borne in other Countries the Jewes being dispersed yet all were generally learned and understood the Hebrew tongue the language of their own Nation even as to this day the Jewes and their Children doe which seemes evident from the story in the 20 21 and 22. Chapters of the Acts Paul came up with divers Grecians to the Feast of Pentecost Chap. 20. ver. 4. unto which the Jewes out of all quarters came and being all at a solemne meeting in the Temple chap. 21. ver. 27. The Jewes out of Asia strangers stirred up all the people against him and when chap. 22. ver. 2. He made a speech to them and they heard he spake the Hebrew tongue they kept silence and heard him patiently And further those mentioned Acts 2. did understand all of them Peters Sermon and though others spake besides Peter to them in their own language the wonderfull things of God yet that was but a preparatorie signe to them as 1 Cor. 14. 22. making way for their Conversion vers. 11 12 and 13. but the meanes of their Conversion was Peters Sermon after and it was he also that gave direction to them all what to doe to be saved and therefore it must be spoken of some one common tongue they all understood and those gifts of languages given to the Apostles were not out of a necessity to instruct those new Converts only but to fit them when they should goe abroad into all the world and to be a signe to the Jewes at present to convince them Secondly for the Grecian Widdowes Acts 6. the Hellenists that lived amongst the Jewes might well be supposed to understand Hebrew and that these had not severall Congregations from the rest appeares by this That the whole multitude together met and chose the Deacons It was a joint act and if of differing languages wherein the one understand not the other occasioning such a distinction of Congregations as the Proofe would hold forth how could they all have agreed in one meeting on the same man but the argument as well holds against the Presbyteriall Association of those Congregations into one Church people and Elders unto which and in the communion and exercise whereof such Correspondencies and Intercourses are needfull as they require one common language To the second Branch of this Argument That all these Congregations were under one Presbyteriall GOVERNMENT PROOFES 1. Because they were but one Church Though it bee one yet they not beeing more then could meet in one the Argument concludes not 2 Proofe The Elders of that Church are mentioned There is no mention of any Elders in this Church untill after the aforesaid Dispersion Act. 8. And so the weight of this Argument will depend upon the proofe of this That after the dispersion there were many Congregations which the Reverend Assembly doth not so positively affirme The proofe of their being such a Presbytery as the Proposition intends doth depend upon this their being called Elders to that Church wee no where read them called a Presbytery and that therefore they are Elders but they are therefore a Presbytery as here it is argued because they are Elders to that Church
Now if they bee Elders in common because a Presbytery as was said in answer to the first Argument then they are not to bee argued a Presbytery onely because they are Elders in Common For then the Argument runnes in Circulo And the chiefe and first reason of their being Elders for no other is mentioned is accordingly held forth in their being Elders to that Church in common whereas according to Presbyteriall Principles there is a primary relation of Elders quà Elders to their particular fixed Congregations Reasons against the third Proofe of the second Branch viz. That the Apostles did the ordinary Acts of Presbyters as Presbyters in the Church of Hierusalem doth prove a Presbyteriall Government in that Church before the dispersion The Proofe of the whole depends upon this Proposition for though before the dispersion there had been many Congregations yet not under Elders but Apostles Now it is granted that the substance of Ministeriall Acts were one and the same in Apostles and Evangelists who were extraordinary and in other ordinary Ministers But first though for the Act of Ministeriall power it was the same in the Apostles and them yet in the extent of power which is the point in question therein the Apostles Jurisdiction over many Congregations is not the patterne of Presbyteriall Elders over many for the Apostles power was universall over all Churches and upon that was founded their power over those Congregations supposed many And Episcopacie may as strongly argue and inferre that because in Crete by Apostolicall warrant One man Titus did ordaine Elders c. That therefore there may bee one man a Bishop that hath power to ordaine c. in and over severall Churches And this Argument will bee stronger from the instance of an Evangelist for Episcopall power then this of Apostolicall government for the Presbyteriall by how much it is the more inferior Office but that of the Apostles is more immediate and transcendent and so the power of an Evangelist is neerer to an ordinary succession and it will as well follow that any one Presbyter alone might governe many Congregations because one of these Apostles might as that because the Apostles did governe these joyntly that therefore many Presbyters over severall Congregations may Secondly each of these Apostles as hee had by vertue of his Apostolicall Commission the power of them all so hee had relation of Ministerie unto all these supposed Congregations unto every person thereof for the performance of all sorts of duties of preaching to them admonishing them c. But thus in the Presbyteriall government over many Congregations fixed and their Pastors and Elders fixed to them the severall Elders are denied to have the relation of Elders to each Congregation but make up onely an Eldership in common as united over all these But the Apostles here have the relation to both and therefore if this Apostolicall frame bee made a Patterne then it followes that all the Elders of these Congregations were directly and immediatly Elders to each Congregation and every member of them and not onely of a common Presbytery for so the Apostles were If it bee alledged that those acts of government performed by them in that Church were for the substance of them ordinary Acts such as Presbyters performe and that therefore answerably their persons themselves are in them to bee considered as Elders because that the Apostles were not onely Apostles but Elders also as John Epistle 2. Verse 1. And Peter Epist. 1. Chap. 5. Vers 1. and therefore might and did act as Elders in ordinary Acts of Church government and are therefore therein to bee look't at as a just patterne to us and to have ruled these Congregations of Jerusalem as a Colledge or body of Elders united conedscending so to act as common Presbyters taking the consent of the Church as Acts. 6. as likewise they did in every Church where they came joyning with the Eldership thereof as Elders and not as Apostles and therefore that they might give a patterne and Example of an ordinary Presbytery especially seeing that what they thus did they did as an united body to many Congregations considered as one Church It is answered to the first that although the Apostles are called Elders yet they are so called virtually not formally and but because Apostleship containes all Offices in it so as they are Elders but upon this ground that they are Apostles and therefore John in that very Epistle where hee stiles himselfe an Elder hee yet writes Canonicall Scripture as an Apostle and takes on him to threaten Diotrephes as an Apostle to remember him which as a formall Elder hee could not have done and surely those Offices which Christ distinguisheth Ephesians 4. Hee gave some Apostles some Pastors and Teachers the same person is not formally both though virtually he may bee All that they did in that Church of Hierusalem they are said to act as Apostles their preaching is called the Apostles doctrine their bringing their monies to them as to the Officers of that Church is to them not as Elders but as Apostles They laid it downe at the Apostles feet yea in that Act of ordaining the seven Deacons it is said They set them afore the Apostles Chap. 6. Vers 6. and they laid on their hands And it is very hard to distinguish and say that the men were Apostles but the power they acted by was as Elders when the name of an Apostle imports the Office Yea in that very Act of government about Deacons they must needs act as Apostles for they doe not simply ordaine the men but doe anew by vertue of Apostolicall authoritie institute the Office of Deacons by declaring Christs mind which none but Apostles could immediatly and at first have done so as the same persons in this same Act instanced in must act partly as Apostles and partly as Elders and by what infallible rule shall wee distinguish To the second viz. that they acted here as it were in a joynt body or in Collegio over these many Congregations It is answered that an Association of Elders in an Eldership over many is not argued from hence For first they had all singly the same power which they exercised joyntly and that they should exercise it joyntly here to that end to give a patterne for Eldership is not easy to prove they exercised it together because it fell out that they were together and it was fit none of them should bee excluded but it depended not upon this union of all in a body as Acts of Elders in a Presbytery do as Parliamentary power is not the result of Parliament men but as assembled in Parliament yea and the authoritie of Jurisdiction thence ariseth not so here Our Apostle might have done that which all here did yea may it not bee said that because two Apostles Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church Acts 14. as joyned in the same Act and so acting not as Apostles but joyntly
that therefore two Elders associated may doe the like Secondly it is hard to suppose that these Apostles when all together should act with an inferiour power to what they put forth in a like case alone If Peter had beene himselfe alone in a Church new planted then and there hee must bee supposed to act as an Apostle because hee alone governed And shall these Apostles when they are all in one and joyne all together in one Act bee yet supposed to fall lower in their power under the formall exercise of it Thirdly if they had acted as Elders in a Colledge they might miscarry as Elders doe and so the minor part of them have been subject to Excommunication of the greater And what power was there on earth to have excommunicated an Apostle who held his Office immediately from Christ and who whilst hee was in that Office had power over all Churches To the third viz. That they in their Proceedings did joyne with others As in this choyce of the Deacons they did joyne with the multitude as also when they came to any other Churches they used to doe Neither doth that argue that they acted not as Apostles but as Elders For first they joyned in Acts with others and joyned others with themselves wherein they yet acted as Apostles thus in writing Scripture they joyned others with them as Paul joyned Silvanus and Timotheus in his Epistle to the Thessalonians and not meerely in the salutation for the expressions runne in their names also in that Epistle and Act. 15. The Apostles Elders yea and Brethren joyned in a Letter to the Churches But these as Apostles therefore so called in distinction from the Elders and the rest according to their severall interests as the Brethren did all according to their interests so the Elders and the Apostles in theirs So in ordaining Timothy the Presbytery laid on hands yet they as a Presbytery and Paul as an Apostle for else a Presbytery had not had power to ordaine an Evangelist Yet secondly the Apostles did where ever they came leave the Elders and people to the exercise of that right belonged to them although they joyned with them neither did therein lie their Apostolicall authority to doe all alone for then they seldome or never acted as Apostles in Churches Paul alone excommunicated not that Corinthian and yet as an Apostle wrote to have it done by them for it was Canonicall Scripture and therefore although that this Church of Hierusalem should choose their Deacons is a just example of the priviledge of a Church for if the Apostles when they were present allowed this interest to Churches then Elders should much more yet what the Apostles did by an Apostolicall power in these Congregations cannot bee drawn into example for Officers in that thing wherein their power Apostolicall lay which was to exercise acts of jurisdiction in severall Churches Neither fourthly will that helpe it That they exercised this Government in these Congregations supposed many as considered to bee one Church For if they acted not as Elders then the correlate to it namely Church could not bee considered as Presbyteriall Reasons against the fourth and last Proofe of the second Branch Viz. That the Elders did meet together for Acts of Government Act. 11. ult. Act. 15. 4. 6. 22. Act. 21. 17 18. First the Argument from Acts 11. ult. lies thus There were Elders in Judea that received Almes verse 29 30. compared Therefore the Elders of Jerusalem did meet together for Acts of Government In this Argument as the persons are mistaken so the Act for the Elders of Hierusalem are not mentioned but of Iudea as by comparing verses 29 30. it appeares And by this it might bee as well argued that the Elders in Judea met for Presbyteriall Government as that the Elders of Jerusalem seeing their Almes were carryed to the Elders of Judea as it is there said The receiving Almes which is the onely Act that is mentioned was not an Act of Government for Deacons may meet to receive Almes and yet meet not for Acts of government For that second place mentioned Acts 21. 20. where it is said Paul came in to James and all the Elders were present although wee read that all the Elders were present yet that they met for Acts of Presbyteriall government appeares not the occasion of the meeting was Pauls entertainment whom some of the brethren had received at his first comming verse 17. and now the Elders meet to receive him also A Christian duty of love and respect due to so great and famous an Apostle and Paul went not as cited but to visit and salute them as vers. 19. Secondly The Acts that passed were none of them Presbyteriall for Paul gave them an Historicall relation of what things God had wrought by his Ministery the matter of which relation was intended to provoke them as Brethren and fellow-labourers to glorify God as ver. 20. is said they did and not to give them an account as to a Consistory that met for Government Such narrations the Apostles made even to whole Churches as Paul and Barnabas at Antioch Act. 14. 27. When they had gathered the whole Church together which Church was of no more then to meet in one Assembly they rehearsed in like manner as here all that God had done by them and how hee had opened a doore of Faith to the Gentiles Neither will the advice they gave to Paul to prevent the scandall and offence the people would take at him argue authority much lesse government Neither was there any Act of Government put forth over their own Churches if supposed many Reasons against the alledging Act. 15. for the meeting of the Elders of Jerusalem for Presbyteriall Acts of Government 1. If it were a meeting of Elders for Acts of Government then it was a Presbyteriall meeting for Acts of Government But that it was no such meeting appeares because there was nothing done in it that may seem to have any bond in it but such as bound the Churches of Antioch Syria Cilicia as much as Jerusalem but this cannot bee in any Presbyteriall meeting for Acts of Government For such meetings have onely authoritative power over their own Church 2. The scope and end of this meeting was to give satisfaction to the offended Brethren of Antioch and dogmatically to declare their judgements in a difficult case of Conscience not to put forth any Act of Juridicall power upon any as appeares in the matter of their debate and the issue of all Of which more fully afterward And if it bee said that Peter reproved some of their own Members present such as had taught the necessity of the Ceremoniall Law Why tempt you God c. This was not delivered as an Act of Government formally by any vote of the Presbytery but in the way of Discourse But it was affirmed to bee sufficient to confirme the Proposition if it bee a Synodicall meeting Presbyteriall and Synodicall both it cannot
bee for Synods they are or ought to bee extraordinary and occasionall Presbyteries are standing and ordinary Synods are made up of Commissioners sent from Presbyteries and Presbyteries are made up of the Elders of particular Congregations The Members of Synods are Elders of such Churches which are according to the principles of Presbyteriall Government compleat Churches having full power of jurisdiction for all Acts of Government within themselves but the members of Presbyteries are Elders of such Congregations which are neither compleat Churches nor have within themselves full and compleat power And these cannot bee one The Elders of the Presbytery of Jerusalem when this once became a Synod by the addition of the Elders of other Churches ceased to bee any longer a Presbytery to that Church and must become with them a new body to all the Churches these other Elders did come from And then to argue these Acts done by these because the Elders of Jerusalem were present and Members of this Synod were Presbyteriall Acts of the Elders of Jerusalem is all one as to go about to argue from the Acts of Government put forth by a Parliament at Westminster to the power of the Burgesses and Common Councell of the City of Westminster because there the Parliament sits and the Burgesses of that City are parts and members of that Parliament Or as if the Kingdome were governed by County Courts and out of those County Courts Knights and Burgesses should bee chosen to make up a Parliament when the Parliament is met there can be no Argument drawn from the power of a Parliament to prove the power of a County Court Or from the power of a County Court to prove the power of a Parliament Thus Synods are made out of Presbyteries therefore wee cannot argue from the power of Synods to the power of Presbyteries or from the power of Presbyteries to the power of Synods But secondly wee deny it to have been such an ordinary formall Synod The jurisdiction of Synods is founded upon this necessary requisite thereunto That there bee Commissioners from all those Churches representing them present or called to bee so And the power of the jurisdiction cannot reach nor extend further then to such Churches as have sent Commissioners thereunto The weight then of this Synodicall power depends on the proofe of this That all those Churches sent Commissioners to this Assembly which if either it bee not proved or the contrary thereunto found true the authority of those decrees as from those Elders here will prove not to have been Acts of Government further then the Apostles authority who joyned in it was stamped on it to affirme that Commissioners from them all were present because the decrees did binde them is to begge what is denyed when another just reason may bee given of their binding if any such authority were in them and our reasons to the contrary are these First Wee finde a deepe silence about it For wee read but onely of two Churches between whom it was transacted they of Antioch sending to Jerusalem and their Elders there Chap. 14. 27 28. compared with chap. 15. 2 3. and the Messengers which were sent from this Assembly going onely to Antioch ver. 30. 31. as those who were chiefely troubled onely the benefit redounded to all they wrote to yea although Paul came through Phenice and Samaria ver. 3. yet wee read not a word of any of the Churches of those parts their sending of any Commissioners unto this Synod as had it been intended such certainly they would and there was this speciall reason why those of this Church were thus electively sent unto because they were the Mother Church from whom the Word of God came and from whom those men that troubled them had gone forth and had pretended to teach what they had received from them and besides they were in an especiall manner versed in this question it being about the observation of their law and there also some of the Apostles were present how many wee know not for dispersed they had been long before and if any number of others out of those other parts of Judea had come up hither it would have been said as Act. 11. ult. The Elders of Judea not onely of Jerusalem yea it is not so much as said that they that were sent from Antioch were of the Elders of that Church but that they sent Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them And secondly the contrary seemes cleere namely that those Letters and Decrees were written and sent onely from the Elders of Jerusalem and not from all those Churches For first the Decrees are every where attributed to the Elders in Jerusalem So Chap. 16. 4. The Decrees of the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Now the usuall stile of the New Testament is by way of distinction of Churches to say the Church in such a place the Elders in such a place as the Church of Antioch Act. 13. 1. and the Church at Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 1. and by the like reason the Elders in such a place doe signifie the proper Elders of the Church in that place or City whilest but one and therefore if by the Elders in Jerusalem had been meant in this place onely the Elders met from all Quarters at Jerusalem as the place of that Assembly there had been a great ambiguity seeing the more usuall and proper import of that expression is to note out the fixed standing Elders of a place and the Church in a place Again secondly in the fourth verse Paul and Barnabas are said to bee received of the Church and Apostles and Elders namely of Jerusalem as in particular relation to it Yea thirdly the standing Elders of that place assumed to themselves to have written the Decrees Chap. 21. 25. As touching the Gentiles wee have written and concluded Fourthly and accordingly the conclusion of their Letter is made the speciall Act of that Church and the Elders thereof ver. 22. It pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church that is of Jerusalem as verse 4. to send chosen men and the Letters run thus The Apostles Elders and Brethren Fifthly the matter of the Letter argues it ver. 24. Forasmuch as certain that went out from us have troubled you with words to whom wee gave no such Commandement How could this bee said by a Synod of the Elders of those Churches which were themselves troubled by them It is manifest therefore they came out from this Church of Jerusalem who wrote this and they pretended the Apostles Doctrine which is called a Commandement because the Apostles taught no other then what Christ commanded as Matth. 28. ult. And to say the Denomination was from the more eminent part namely the Elders of that Church had been derogatory to the Synod if it had been such a meeting And sixthly if the Elders of all those Churches had been present there had been lesse need for the Apostles and Elders
doctrinall Theses were the joynt declared and avowed Judgement and conclusions of these and so answereth to those other words in their letters It seemeth good unto us being with one accord c. Apostles and Elders thus met with one accord agreeing therein and particularly and unanimously so judging and therefore when James gives his judgement hee useth the same word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Verse 19. of this 15. Chap. This is my judgement which being voted and agreed upon by the rest they are called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Neither doth this argue any act of authoritie that the things here declared to bee observed are indifferent for some of them come under a morall consideration and all come under the case of offence Neither doth the language they commend those to them in sound of that Jurisdiction or government intended in the proposition for although they seeme to speake as guided infallibly in their resolution it seemed good to us and to the holy Ghost yet their expressions are carried so as to avoyd Jurisdiction those words To lay no other burthen if any must import this Jurisdiction but these words as Ludovicus de Dieu hath well observed are as they may bee taken passively therein agreeing with the Syriack translation It seemed good to and the holy Ghost that no other burthen bee laid on you that whereas these Teachers of the circumcision had gone about by their doctrine to bind the Law of Moses upon mens consciences and to put on them a burthen too heavy for them to beare as Peter speakes Vers 9. and had taught this to bee the commands of Christ and his Apostles and the judgement of the Church of Jerusalem They disclaime this and professe they would have no such burthen put upon them and that they gave these Teachers no such commandement that is never delivered or uttered any such Doctrine to bee commanded And if it bee taken actively yet the declaring it to bee the command of Christ is the imposition here intended for the same words are used of the Teachers who yet had not assumed by vertue of an Ecclesiasticall authority to impose these things but by way of Doctrine So Verse the tenth Why tempt you God to put a yoake upon the necke of the Disciples Vers 5. And it is well knowne that in the Scripture phrase to teach and to declare though by way of Doctrine and to presse mens consciences with things as the commands of God is said to bee a binding and imposing a burthen on them So of the Pharisees and these were of the sect of the Pharisees of whom and to whom that was spoken Verse 5. it is said Matth. 23. 4. that the Pharisees bind heavy burthens and grievous to bee borne and lay them on mens shoulders which is spoken but of a doctrinall declaring and pressing mens consciences with the rigour of the Law and this is so well knowne to bee the Language of the Jewes that it need not bee insisted on Neither doth it follow that if they may lay these burthens by way of Doctrine they may censure for the neglect of them for every Minister in his Sermon imposeth those burthens whilst they urge and declare these duties to men and yet have not power Ecclesiastically to censure them for though it being a command of Christ they could not but hold it forth as such and so urge it yet not by way of Jurisdiction but with these soft words which if you observe you doe well Lastly although these false Teachers had subverted their faith and against their owne light had avouched their Doctrine to bee the doctrine of the Apostles which deserved the highest censure being a sinne so scandalous yet they proceeded not to censure them by way of admonition or excommunication which are acts of government but onely do declare their sinne and errour and give their Judgement of it Whereas in the close of the proofe from the Church of Jerusalem for many Congregations to bee under one Presbyteriall government it is asserted whether these Congregations bee fixed or not fixed it is all one to the truth of the proposition this reason is offered against it There is this difference every Congregation having Elders fixed to it is a Church for the relation of Elders and Church is mutuall Acts 14. 23. They ordained Elders in every Church This relation of Elders to a Church is a speciall distinct relation to that Congregation of which they are Elders so as they are not related to other Congregations and these Congregations are Ecclesiae primae Churches formed up though uncompleat as being according to our Brethrens opinion members of a more generall Presbyteriall Church But if Congregations have no fixed Officers they are not Churches according to their Principles Now it makes a great difference as to the truth of the Proposition whether many Churches may bee under the government of one or whether many Congregations which to them are no Churches may bee under the government of one Whatsoever our Brethren shew of divers Congregations to bee under the government of a Church Presbyteriall yet they no where shew any one patterne or example in Scripture wherein many Churches were under the power of one nay nor where any one Church was under the power of another And lastly if there were many Congregations in Jerusalem having their Officers fixed to them and not in common then during the time before the dispersion the Apostles must bee those Officers that were thus fixedly disposed of to those severall Congregations some over one others over another as ordinary Elders now are Now suppose this number of Beleevers to have beene as many thousands as is argued at 10. or 12000. soules and these to bee divided into as many Congregations as might bee divided to twelve Apostles severally to watch over Or suppose the severall Congregations made up of 2000. which is an alotment small enough to bee set apart for the paines of two Apostles Hereupon great incongruitie doth follow that Apostles are brought to the state and condition and worke of Parish Ministers to whom yet it was committed and inseparably annexed to their Office yea and constituted it as Apostles to have the care of all Churches and if when the Churches were multiplyed and dispersed into severall Countries they were to have the care of them then much more when they were in one Citie Some of the writers against Episcopacie when those that write for it alledg the instance of James abiding at Jerusalem as the Bishop of that Church have judged it a debasing of the Apostolicall power to limit it to one Diocesan Church but this position doth debase all the Apostles at once much more it makes them not Bishops to many Churches but ordinary Elders in that one or two of them perhaps are over one single Church yea and which is yet more incredible if these Churches and their government were like to those under the Presbytery and no
materiall difference betweene them and ours these Apostles were in their severall Parishes not onely subordinate in their government to the common Presbytery of all the Apostles but limited to lesser Acts of government for so the lesser Elderships in the Churches under the Presbyteriall government are confined onely to examine and admonish and prepare for the greater Presbytery and therein not enabled to ordaine Elders over the Congregation or excommunicate a member Peter and John joyned together were by this principle not enabled to it And yet if we doe not suppose such a limited government in those severall Congregations here can bee no patterne for the Presbyterian government as it is practised Or if otherwise wee should suppose them fixed Officers for teaching onely to one of those Congregations and to have no government at all over it but to bring all to the common Presbytery of Apostles that is a greater incongruitie then the former for this casts them below the condition of our Parish Elders for unto them the greater Presbytery doth allow some measure and part of the Government but such a supposition would allow Apostles none in their severall Congregations The Scripture holds forth that many Congregations may be under one Presbyteriall Government Sect. 1. BY particular Congregations either first an Assembly of Christians meeting for worship onely as to heare pray c. or secondly an Assembly so furnished with Officers as fit for Discipline having a Presbytery is meant in the latter sense which is that the proofs are brought to confirme and that that is practised where this government is set up the proposition is equivalent to such an assertion as this Many Presbyteries may bee under one Presbyteriall government as thus many Parochiall Presbyteries may bee under one Classicall many Classicall under one Provinciall c. which is the same as to affirme that one Presbytery may bee over another as the Bishops affirme That one Presbyter may bee over another this is evident if you assert a Presbyteriall government may bee over a Congregation that is composed of a Presbytery and people for it cannot bee said to bee over a Congregation if it bee over the people onely that is not over their Presbytery also for then the Presbytery will be Independent and the people under two Presbyteries coordinate and not subordinate which stands not with common reason Sect. 2. This then being the Assertion it is thus argued against A Presbytery over a Presbytery or power over power necessarily implyeth two sorts of Presbyteries or Ecclesiasticall Jurisdictions specifically distinct or at least more then numerically A greater or lesser vary not the kind in a Physicall or Theologicall consideration but in a Politicall it doth Hee that hath a greater power then I have that is a power over my power a power to order direct or correct the power I have this mans power and mine differ as two sorts or kinds of power And although this superior Presbytery bee made up of Presbyters sent as Commissioners from the congregationall or parochiall Presbyteries yet this hinders not at all but that they may bee thus distinct For some Cities and townes corporate their Officers are sent up sit as Members of Parliament yet this Honorable House hath a power distinct and superior to that which is in London or Yorke though the superior Presbytery bee made up of Presbyters from severall Congregations yet it is not made up of Presbyteries it hath the persons materially considered but not that power formally considered for as while the Parliament sits and certaine Burgesses from Burrough townes sit as Members in it these Townes notwithstanding still retaine all the power those Corporations were ever invested with so particular Congregations whilst some of their Elders sit in the Classicall Presbytery have Elderships or a Presbytery still Now that it is very probable the Scripture holds not forth two sorts of Presbyteries thus specifically distinct may bee thus argued Sect. 3. First where the Scripture holds forth distinct sorts in any kinde there will bee found either distinct and proper names and titles or at least some adjunct or difference added to that which is common or generall In the Apostles times there were Presbyters over Presbyters Apostles were superior to Prophets and Prophets a distinct order from Teachers Therefore in 1 Corinth 12. God hath set some in the Church First Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers after that Miracles then gifts of Healings c. They have not onely particular names and titles but speciall notes of distinction added {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as in Genesis 1. where no distinction in names is given The Sunne Moon and Starres of Heaven are all called Lights yet there are termes of difference added they are called first great Lights and then the greater to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night Throughout the New Testament wee finde this word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but in three places whereof there is but one that holdeth out the Government in hand and in that place you have the naked word onely without the addition of any such expression greater lesser superiour inferior or any kinde of adjunct that can possibly put a thought in us of more Presbyteries then one Notwithstanding so usefull are peculiar distinct names where there are distinct sorts or kindes of administration as it is not omitted by any Church in their Ordinances for Government in Scotland the lowest is termed a Consistory the next a Classis or Presbytery the third a Provinciall Synod the fourth a Generall Assembly The French in these termes Consistories and Colloquel and Synods so in the Episcopall Republique there was the like varietie Sect. 4. Secondly As the Scriptures hold forth nothing in any title or name to distinguish no more can wee thence discover any sorts of Government different in nature for tryall of this let it bee supposed there is a Parochiall or Consistorian Presbytery for one sort there is another sort wee call Classicall what Scripture gives light by any kinde of reasoning to warrant the setting up one of those above or over the other Doe you read anywhere God hath set in his Church first Presbyteries secondarily Classes then Consistories Or is there any thing in the word directing a different composition or constitution in these Sect. 5. First For the materiale the Persons that these Presbyteries are made up of are the same The Consistory hath gifted men set apart to the Office of the Ministery Those that are in a Classicall Presbytery are no otherwise qualifyed nor indeed doth the Scripture require any thing but a Presbyteration to qualifie men for any sort if there were sorts of Presbytery That there is a greater number of Presbyters in the one then in the other this alters not the state in respect of the matter for if the number bee competent that is so many as two or three may agree Matth. 18. it sufficeth The
THE REASONS OF THE Dissenting Brethren against the Third Proposition CONCERNING PRESBYTERIAL GOVERNMENT Humbly presented LONDON Printed by G. M. for Ralph Smith at the Bible in Corne-Hill 1645. Die Lunae 23. Decemb. 1644. ORdered by the Commons assembled in Parliament That three hundred and no more of The Reasons of the dissenting Brethren against the third Proposition touching Presbyteriall Government and The Answer and Solution of the Assembly to the said Reasons be forthwith Printed And that the care of the exact Printing thereof be referred to Mr Byfield And the Printer is injoyned at his perill not to Print more then Three hundred of them It is further Ordered That no man presume to Re-print Divulge or Publish the said Reasons and Answers or any part of them till further order be taken herein by either or both Houses of Parliament H Elsynge Cler. Parl. D. Com. REASONS against the Third Proposition concerning Presbyteriall Government and the Proofes thereof Viz. The Scripture holds forth that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyteriall Governement Humbly Presented If many Congregations having all Elders already affixed respectively unto them may be under a Presbyteriall government Then all those Elders must sustaine a speciall relation of Elders to all the people of those Congregations as one Church and to every one as a Member thereof But for a company of such Elders already affixed c. to sustaine such a relation carries with it so great and manifold incongruities and inconsistencies with what the Scripture speaks of Elders in their relation to a Church committed to them and likewise with the Principles of the Reformed Churches themselves as cannot be admitted And therefore such a Government may not be The first Proposition THat according to the Scriptures such a Presbyteriall Government necessarily drawes such a speciall relation is evinced by parts thus 1. They must have the relation of Elders to all and every one of the Members for Church and Elders are Relatives And the Argument for the Presbyteriall government is taken by the Presbyteriall Divines from this That many Congregations in Scripture are made one Church and the Elders thereof Elders of that Church 2. That relation they have must be a more speciall relation as is evident from the practise and principles of this government For when the Congregations in Shires are divided into severall Presbyteries or Deanries the Elders though Neighbours of a bordering Presbyterie intermeddle not with the Congregations under another Presbyterie and yet Neighbour Elders It is therefore a speciall relation puts the difference that those of these Presbyteries do judge the Congregations under them as having a speciall relation to them such as not to other Congregations The minor Proposition For the proofe of which we present these incongruities as follow First this breeds many incongruous disproportions to the Order set by Christ about the Officers of the Church 1. To extend a Pastors power of ordinary ruling beyond the extent of his ordinary teaching is against the order which Christ hath set and all extent of power must as well have an Institution of Christ as the power or office it selfe the difference of Evangelists and ordinary Pastors lay in extent of power but the extent of a Pastors ordinary ruling power is but to that Flock as his whole Flock which he is able to feed The first Proposition is confirmed first by Scripture secondly by Reason First by Scripture Acts Chap. 20. Verse 28. Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to feed the flock of God which he hath purchased with his own blood Whence first we see the speciall limitation of their extensive power and relation to a flock and all in that flock is by the Holy Ghost and not by man and therefore is not to be extended by man further then the Holy Ghost hath appointed 2. The extent of that relation to that flock and the whole flock they feed and to feed all that flock alike And if they be preaching Elders then to feed by preaching and therefore are Overseers to them to feed them and this because they feed them 3. He speaks to preaching Elders especially that feed by doctrine for he propounds his own example to them Verse 20. That he had revealed the whole counsell of God And Peter seconds Paul in this 1 Peter Chap. 5. Verse 2. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof The flock {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} among you is that flock any of them had relation to as his flock respectively Peter here writing unto the Churches in severall Nations Chap. 1. Verse 1. whereas in Acts 20 and Verse 28. the charge is to the particular Elders of Ephesus to that whole flock therefore that note of respectivenesse is here put {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} among you that is that flock which respectively belongs to you as Colossians Chap. 1. Verse 17. Who is for you a faithfull Minister that is your proper Pastor So the flock {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is your severall proper flocks that belong to you And hereby it appears that their oversight is not extendible beyond their feeding Thus also Heb. 13. Verse 7. Remember them that have the rule over you and have spoken to you the word of God which he speaks of preaching Elders and of ruling Elders of whom he speaks Verse 17. Obey them that have the rule over you for they watch for your soules as those that must give an accompt And whether these places note out two sort of Officers Preaching Elders ver. 7. and Ruling Elders ver. 17. or but one sort and so but severall acts of the same Office however if but one yet still the ordinary rule over them was not farther extendible then their ordinary preaching if two sorts of Officers they being Officers together in the same Church if the Pastors power of ruling extends no farther then his preaching then the meere ruling Elders power or his that is assistant to him must extend no farther then the Pastors also this is the naturall obligation to obedience and so is the measure to set the bounds of the extent of ordinary Church power 'T is one argument used against Episcopall power that they are inforced to obey him that speakes not the word to them nor watches over their soules And this holds as well against these Presbyteriall Officers when a man to be excommunicated comes before such if he sayes I am not bound to obey you in such authoritative way nor doe I owe a subjection as to a power of censure in you for many yea most of you never spake the word unto me nor did watch over my soule nay perhaps the man can say he never saw their faces afore And it availes not to say that they may occasionally preach for take two places more the 1 to the Thes. chap. 5. ver.
flock and themselves not Curats and so personally obliged according to the rules in Scripture and yet cannot performe it which is a worse Incongruitie If it be said that they may part these duties among them ubi Scriptura non distinguit nec nos debemus distinguere Now all those duties that are spoken of Elders to the flocks they are without distinction as in respect of the object to whom they are extended Paul saith to those of Ephesus Feed the flock Peter the like to those he writes to The flock {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} respectively To feed and to take the oversight of them The author to the Hebrewes To watch over their soules And to the Thessalonians he describes them to be those that are over them and labour and admonish them When those Injunctions are thus laid upon all how shall the conscience of Elders be able to part and distinguish their discharge of them and to say though I am an Elder in common to all in these Congregations yet I am bound but to governe them in greater matters and to admonish them as with others when publickly met in a Consistorie and am bound to no other acts of Eldership and yet to this particular Congregation I am obliged to private admonition rule watchfulnesse c. Where hath the Scripture set these bounds or thus parted them And therfore certainly all these places hold forth singly only the Elders and their duties of a particular Church fixed thereto as knowing no other 'T was necessary Christ should have set the bounds and given the distinction and not indifferently lay all these upon all And either in these places the duties of Elders in a common Presbyterie are contained and that under the notion of Elders to those or they are not to be found in the New Testament And all these may be brought in severall Arguments alone by themselves against the maine Proposition though here they come in only as branches of the Minor Lastly This is inconsistent with the ordinary way of the Call of Elders held forth in the word and the Principles of the Reformed Churches There are two parts of this Call First Choice Secondly Ordination First for Choice Chamier in the name of all the Reformed Churches allowes the people this the approbation of their Elders and so in Scotland And if the Apostles themselves allowed them the choice of the Deacons that had the charge of the Church treasury and took care of their bodies then much more of their Elders that have to doe with their consciences Looke what ever right of the people is in the choice of them that should preach to them there is as much reason they should have the exercise of it in the choice of those Elders that in a common Presbyterie doe rule over them for they performe one part of the Elders duty namely Ruling as the Preaching Elders doe the other and therefore by the equity of the same law that speakes of Elders indefinitely if they choose any Elders as Elders to them they are to choose these also there being no distinction put of choosing Preaching Elders only but Elders indefinitely And further the greatest and highest acts of power over them are committed in an ordinary way unto them as of Excommunication of all punishments the most formidable there is put as much if not more then every mans life that is a member of that Classicall Church into their hands the enjoyment of all Ordinances for ever And so the power of deposing their Ministers already fix'd to them and of refusing to ordaine them they shall approve And therefore in antiquity of all other the persons of the Bishops who had the power of all those were chosen by all the people and by Panegyricall meetings And it is strengthened by this further paralell A Ministers Call hath two parts first Ordination which belongs to the Elders Secondly Choice in which the people have some interest These Elders as Elders in common and these Congregations as one Church be relatives and so that interest which a Church quâ Church hath is commensurable to the interest of these Elders quâ Elders If therefore in ordaining all the Elders in a common Presbyterie doe joyne to ordaine an Officer then all the people quâ Church must joyne in choosing or approving him neither can their common right of chusing be swallowed up by the interest of their Elders ordaining him And if it be said they all choose by vertue of the generall law of combination as in the Shires Parliament men The constitution of the State makes the one if the like be found in Scripture it will be sufficient but if not but that this interest must be common to the people of the Classicall Church it is asked when a fix'd Pastor is to be chosen to a particular charge what Office he shall be chosen to by the people of the other Congregation Not to a Pastors Office he is not to be such to them if to be a Ruling Elder only then besides that he hath two Offices as afore so now he must have two choices and two Ordinations We choose him for our Pastor sayes the particular Church he belongs to and we say the other to Ruling And besides in his Ordination the people have an interest of presence and joyning in the fasting and prayer at his Ordination and this therefore must be performed either in a panegyricall meeting of all which cannot be or in all the severall Churches which will multiply the Ordination of them The major Proposition confirmed IN regard that the maine Argumentation of such as contend for a Presbyteriall government as in their writings and otherwayes appeares is from the mention of the Elders of such and such a Church as Jerusalem c. having many Congregations as they suppose the consequence of the Major was taken so much for granted as on all sides agreed on as it was lesse insisted upon the first day but being denied and answered thus that they bear not the relation of Elders but of a Presbyterie because quod convenit toti quâ toti non convenit cuilibet parti And that if Elders yet in sensu composito non diviso As a Colonell is a Colonell to a particular Regiment but in a Councell of War not so to all Regiments A head of a particular Tribe is an head to his own Tribe divisively but not so to all the Tribes and the like For that Logicall Axiome 't is true quod convenit toti quâ toti non convenit cuilibet parti and so here that which doth competere toti to the whole of these Elders belongs not to every part for take them all as met together they are a Presbyterie and accordingly each Elder is not a Presbyterie to all these Congregations nor doth the Argument suppose it but only that if they be a common Presbyterie to all these Congregations that they then beare the relation of Elders As take an heape
of stones 't is true each stone is not an heape of stones but each stone is a stone in that heape So this Company of Elders must be supposed both a Presbyterie and also Elders to this whole people and every member of them which is farther proved thus 1. The Scriptures would have the people looke at them and honour them as Elders in all acts of ruling as well as in preaching and especially wherein the most and chiefe of ruling lyes and wherein the excellency of their ruling is seen They rule most and best when met in this common Presbyterie upon that relation we are to honour them as performing this rule and under that relation they must be said to performe it The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour especially those that labour in the word and Doctrine Tim. Epist. 1. chap. 5. ver. 17. And besides otherwise we destroy the relation of Elders quâ Elders in the highest acts of governing which are exercised only in a Presbyterie 2. The New Testament doth indifferently and promiscuously use the word Presbyterie and the word Elders of the same persons in relation to the same people and therefore to whom these Elders are supposed to be a Presbyterie they must beare the relation of Elders Matthew chap. 21. 23. those that are called Elders of the people are called Luke 22. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Presbyterie of the people so as if they related as a Presbyterie to the people to the same people they related as Elders Secondly For that distinction of their being Elders only in a community to all those Congregations as one Church in sensu aggregato but not in sensu diviso to every person thereof as was instanced in Burgesses c. First This Church as it is totum aggregatum is but an abstract notion but the rule and government of the Elders in a Presbyterie falls upon persons in particular and every member of that Church if therefore they be Elders in the Presbyterie to that Church it must be that they are Elders to every person therein Againe it must be remembred where we are namely upon what the Scriptures hold forth so the Proposition runneth And if there had been those differing relations of Elders which from those similitudes in Common-wealths Armies and the Universities are given it were necessary the Scripture should have held it forth by like differing names and respects or by differing charges whereby it might appeare that this relation obligeth them to this duty and this other relation to that which being not done is therefore to us a fiction That it was necessary appears from the instances themselves As in that of the Tribes there were generall Elders of all the Tribes and there were and perhaps some of them the same men that were Heads and Elders of the particular Tribes But as this was a differing relation and respect in the same or diverse persons so they had names and titles of difference and distinction For the Heads generall as we may call them were called Elders of the people The particular Elders of particular Tribes were called by way of distinction from them Elders of such Cities Families c. And there were as distinct lawes given in such cases the Elders of the severall Tribes did such and such particulars in their Tribes respectively and the generall Elders had reserved cases of Blasphemy c. set downe by the Law So in that instance of the Heads of Colledges and Heads of the University there is as a differing so a distinguishing Character the names are changed the particular bodies are called Colledges the generall Body the University and their severall speciall relations to their Colledges is expressed by the Title of Masters of such and such Colledges and the other by the title of Heads to the University Yea and accordingly there are differing statutes the locall statutes for each Colledge a part or for Colledges as Colledges and the duties of Masters in their speciall relations and there are statutes for the University and their duties as Heads thereof and this distinction and difference was necessary if there were this differing relation But for the case in hand if we come to the New Testament to finde out these severall jurisdictions and relations of Elders therein we still reade but simply and singly Elders and Churches as Relatives no such note of distinction And also speaking of the duties of Elders to the people and people to Elders it speaks simularly and univocally so as whoever will take upon them to be Elders all those duties fall upon them let them distinguish how they can And to confirme this the Instances in the Minor serve And where the Scripture doth not distinguish we are not to distinguish And if the Elders of a particular Congregation are Elders to that Church both in sensu diviso and every member thereof and also in sensu composito in their Presbyteries unto the whole then those generall Elders must bear the like relation to that Classicall Church and every Member of it else the difference is so vast and the consequent difference of duties thereupon depending such as it was necessary a distinction should have been made in Scripture that each might know their duties If all the Records Lawes and Ruled cases of this Kingdome should in setting downe the ordinary government thereof have made mention only and singly of Burgesses as the Rulers and of Corporations as the Correlate to them and used no other distinguishing word and there were undeniably Burgesses of every Incorporate Towne continued from antiquity if any would afterwards pretend that this word Corporation was intended by our Ancestors to import an Association or Community of many of these Corporations into one Shire and that by Burgesses of those Corporations were meant a community of all those Burgesses in one body for government and so pretend the same names without distinction and say they were also meant yea and further if the Lawes and Charters concerning such Burgesses in each Corporation the duties given them in charge by the lawes in their relations to their Corporations did runne without any distinction of what the Burgesses in the supposed greater Corporation should doe in that relation and community from what the same Burgesses in their lesser Corporations in a more proper relation Yea and if the Duties set downe in those lawes mutually betweene Corporations and those Burgesses should argue an inconsistency with the governement of Burgesses over many Corporations in common as the minor here shewes it to be in our case but all naturally fall in with that of Burgesses over single Corporations In this case to say that therefore this Kingdome did hold forth there might not be that is according to the lawes thereof such a government of the Burgesses of Corporations over many were not this a right way of arguing to overthrow such a pretence And if in answer to such arguments it should be said