Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	bishop_n	ordain_v	titus_n	2,698	5	10.8309	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A92287	The reasons of the Dissenting Brethren against the third proposition, concerning presbyterial government· Humbly presented.	Westminster Assembly; Goodwin, Thomas, 1600-1680.; Westminster Assembly (1643-1652). Answer of the Assembly of Divines unto the reasons of the seven Dissenting Brethren, against the proposition of divers congregations being united under one Presbyteriall government.	1645 (1645)	Wing R573; Thomason E27_14; ESTC R209981	37,798	45

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

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

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