the King Judgeth by them and in them 2. This error is founded upon a worse error to wit that the supreme Magistrate had no power of life and death in Israel without consent of the people but certainly there are as specious and plausible reasons if not more specious for the peoples government in all civill matters then there can be for their Church-power of judging in the Church-matters and government therof Yet there is no ground for it 1. Because the Rulers only could not be charged to execute judgement in the morning to deliver the oppressed to execute judgement for the Fatherlesse and the VViddow nor can there be a promise made to establish the Kings Throne for obeying that Commandement as a Gods Word teacheth if the people have as great yea greater power in Judging then the Rulers have by this our Brethrens argument They say all the Believers at Corinth 1 Cor. 5. could not be commanded to cast out the incestuous person nor could they all be taxed for omitting that duty if they had not power to excommunicate 2. Neither can the Spirit of God complaint that the Judges builded Zion with blood and the heads of the house of Jacob and Princes of the house of Israel did abhor judgement and pervert equity as the Prophets say nor could they be condemned as roaring Lyons and evening Wolves as the Prophet sayth for the Judgeâ— might well be faultlesse when the poore were crushed in the Gate and Judgement turned into Gall and Wormewood because they cannot helpe the matter the people are the greatest part in caring matters in judgement 2. We see Davids practise in condemning the Amalckite out of his own confession not asking the peoples consent and in condemning to death Baanah and Rehab for killing Ishbosheth Solomon gave sentence against Adoniiah Ioab Shimei without consent of the people David pardoned Shimei contrary to the counsell of Zerviahs sons 3. If from the peoples witnessing and hearing of judgement in the Gate we conclude the people were Judges with the Rulers there was never a time when there was no King in Israel and no Iudge to put evill doers to shame but every man did what seemed good in his own Eys contrary to Scripture because all are a generation of Kings and Princes no lesse then the Ruler himselfe as Anabaptists teach By the Doctrine of our brethren I deny not but he that gathered stickes on the Sabbath was brought Num. 15. 33. to Moses and to Aaron and to all the Congregation but the Congregation signifieth not the common multitude For 35. Moses received the sentence from God and pronounced it and the Congregation stoned him to death And Numb 27. 1. The Daughters of Zelophehad stood before Moses Eleazar and before the Princes as Iudges and before all the Congregation as witnesses not as Judges but v. 6. 7. Moses gave out the judiciall sentence from the Lords mouth And 1 King 21. 12. Naboth stood in presence of the people to be judged but the Nobles and Princes were his Judges because v. 8. Iezabel wrote to the Nobles and Princes that v. 10. they should carry out Naboth and stone him to wit judicially and v. 11. The Nobles and Princes did as Iezabel had sent unto them And Ieremiah cap. 26. pleaded his cause before the Princes and people for v. 10. The Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Set down judicially in the entry of the new gate of the Lords House nothing can be gathered from the place to prove that the people judged but because Ieremiah spake to the Princes and the people who vers 24 were in a fury and rage against Ieremiah if Ahikam had not saved him from their violence CHAP. 4. SECT 4. QUEST 5. WHether there be no nationall or provinciall Church under the New Testament but only a parishionall Congregation meeting every Lords day in one place for the worship of God The Author in this first proposition denieth that there is any Nationall or provinciall Church at all under the New Testament for clearing of the question observe these 1. Dist. VVe deny that there is any diocescan provinciall or Nationall Church under the care of one Diocesan or Nationall Prelate or Bishop but hence it followeth not there is no visible instituted Church now but only a particular Congregation 2. Dist. VVe deny any Nationall typicall Church where a whole Nation is tyed to one publick worship in one place as sacrificing in the Temple 3. Dist. VVe deny not but the most usuall acception of a Church or visible meeting is given as the refutator of Tylenus sayth to a convention of people meeting ordinarily to heare the word and adminstrate the Sacraments Stephanus deriveth it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Cyrillus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Causabon observeth so these who meete at one Sermon are called Ecclesia a Church and it is called Ecclesia concio sayth the Refutator of Tilen but this hindreth not the Union of more particular Congregations in their principall members for Church-government to be the meeting or Church representative of these many united Congregations 4. Dist. A Parish-Church materiall is a Church within such locall bounds the members whereof dwell contiguously togegether one bordering on the other our Brethren meane not of such a Church for as Paâ—â— Baynes sayth well this God instituted not because a company of Papists and Protestants may thus dwell together as in a Parish and yet they axe of contrary Churches a Parish-Church formally is a multitude who meete in manner or forme of a Parish as if they dwelt neere together in a place ordinarily to worship God as the 〈◊〉 of those who came together to celebrate the Lords Supper is called the Church 1 Cor. 11. 18. For first of all when ye come together in the Church I heare that there are divisions amongst you 〈◊〉 what have ye not houses to eat and drink in or despise ye the Church of God 1. Concl. If we shall evince a Church-visible in the Now Testament which is not a Parishionall Church we evince this to be false which is maintained by our Brothren that there is no visible instituted Church in the New Testament save onely a Parishionall Church or a single independent Congregation But this Church we conceive to have been no Parishionall Church 1. Because these who met dayly and continued with one accord in the Temple and breaking bread from house to house that is administrating the Sacraments together as our Brethren say were a visible Church But these being first an hundred and twenty as Acts 1. and then three thousand added to them Acts 2. 41. could not make all one single independent Congregation whereof all the members had voyce in actuall government Ergo they were a visible instituted Church and yet not a Parishionall Church The proposition is cleare The Church of Ierusalem was one visible Church and did exercise
and Ostorodius Theoph. Nicolaides reason against Gods ordinance of a sent Ministerie Robins God hath indeed set in the body some to be eyes and mouth and hath not said to all the Church Goe and preach but first they have not their gifts from the Church Secondly you would have the body to starve if such hands as Deacons will not feed and all the body blinde if the eyes of the watchmen be blinde Answ. Yet thus much is granted that gifts give not the keyes nor authority to use gifts and so that all beleevers though gifted and graced also have not power of the keyes 2. It 's certaine that in a constituted Church there be no hands nor mouthes to doe and speake by authority and ex officio by vertue of an office save onely Elders and Pastors and that if they doe or speake they doe it extraordinarily when Churches hands are lame and her eyes blinde or if they doe and speake ordinarily it is from the law of charity in a private way not by power of the keyes and as Judges and Officers Manuscript 5 ch 4 sect The Churches not the Angels of the Churches are blamed for not executing censures against Balaam Jezabel the Nicolaitans g Robinson saith more 1. These whose workes Christ commendeth for that dwelling where Sathans throne was they kept his name and denyed not his faith these he reproveth for suffering the doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitans 13 14 15 16. 2. They which were commended by Christ for their workes love service faith patience increase of workes are reproved for suffering Jezabel but these were not the Angels onely 3. These conjunctions but never the lesse say though they were zâ—alous in many things yet they failed in not being zealous enough against false teachers Ans. 1. These connexions prove guiltinesse in Angels or Pastors and one common fault may be laid upon them all but hence it followeth not that they all abused one and the same power of the Keyes as being all collaterall Judges no doubt the Angels preached not against Balaam Jâ—zabel and the Nicolaitans doctrine and yet women dwelt where Sathans throne is and there faith and patience was commended and yet our brethren will not say women are rebuked and all the beleevers because they did not pastorally preach against Balaam and Iezabel so this argument hurteth them as much as our cause The Pastors were guilty because they did not in their place use the Keyes and the people because they did not say to Archippus and their Officers Take heed how you governe as Israel was involved in Achans trespasse because they warned not one another 2. Seeing the Spirit of God maketh mention of Churches in the plurall number and every one of the seven Churches of Ephesus Rev. 2. 7. of Sâ—yrna v. 11. of Pergamus 17. of Thyatira 29 of Sardis 3. 6. Philadelphia 13. Laodicea 22. It is cleare there were more Churches then a single Congregation and an independent incorporation in every one of them and so a Presbytery of Angels in every one of them behoved to be guilty of this neglect of discipline yet not all one and the same way It is not cleare enough though that the whole Church in Ephesus was to be rebuked or that all and every one of the Elders whereof there were a good number Act. 20. 26. He prayed with them all they all wept sore were guilty of these abuses of the power of the Keyes for in Sardis there were a few names which had not defiled their garments yet the whole body is rebuked Manuscript Ch. 5. Sect. 4. When the word Congregation is put for the Elders or Judges only it is never understood of them sitting in consistery and judgement there alone by themselves and apart from the people but in the presence of the publick assembly who also had liberty in such cases to rescue an innocent from unjust judgment 1 Sam. 14. 45. I answer we urge not a Church assembly of Elders only to exclude the people from hearing yea and in an orderly way from speaking reasoning and disputing even in our Generall assembly but for judiciall concluding we find not that given to any but to the Church-guides Act. 15. 6. Act. 16. 4. 2 It is not a good argument the people sate with the Rulers and rescued innocent Jonathan 1 Sam. 14. Therefore all the people may fit and give judiciall sentence or impede the Elders to sentence any This I grant is alledged by Ainsnorth for to give popular government to the people as also 1 King 21. 13. and Ier. 26. 11 12. but 1. a fact of the people is not a Law 2. It was one fact and that in an extraordinary case of extreame iniquity in killing innocent Ionathan a Prince and Leader of the people 3. in a civill businesse and the people were to be executioners of the sentence of death and they saw it manifestly unjust 4. they were not the common people only but in thar company were the Princes of the Tribes and heads and the King and his family only on the other side what will this infer but that there were no Kings in Israel who had power of life and death nor any judges as Ainsworth contrary to Scripture sayth but that the people were joynt Judges with the King and that the people in the New Testament are co-equall Judges with the Elders from so poore an example and so the Separatists proving from the peoples power of judging in civill causes which yet is a wide mistake and a punishment bodily to be inflicted upon strangers as Paget doth learnedly observe doe conclude the peoples power of judging in Ecclesiastick causes which concerneth only the members of the visible Church Manuscript We grant it is orderly to tell the Elders the offence that the whole Church be not frivolously troubled but it followeth not that the Officers may judge there alone without consent of the people he who told his complaint to the Levite told it orderly enough to the whole Congregation assembled at Mizpeh Jud. 20. Ans. These to whom we are to complaine these and these only are to be heard and obeyed as Judges binding and loosing in Earth and validly in Heaven Mat. 18. but these are not the multitude nor one Elder only but the Church of Elders 2. if the Church of Believers be the only subject as you teach of the Keys and not the Elders but in so far as they are parts of the believing Church then it is more orderly to complaine to the multitude who only are proper Judges then to Elders who are not properly Judges Manuscript A second reason why we allow such power to the people in Church censures is from the Church of Corinth 1. He directeth the whole Church of Corinth to whom he writeth to excomunicate the incestuous man Ans. He writeth to all the faithfull and so to women the woman is not to usurpe authority over
Tribes did and the Kingdome of Iudah in the end did they should so marre and hurt the being and integrity of a visible Church as the Lord should say She is not my wife neither am I her husband and yet they might remaine in that case a free Monarchie and have a State and policy in some better frame though I grant de facto these two Twins State and Church civill Policy and Religion did die and live were sicke and diseased vigorous and healthy together yet doth this More that State and Church are different And further if that Nation had made welcome and with humble obedience beleeved in and received the Messiah and reformed all according as Christ taught them they should have beene a glorious Church and the beloved Spouse of Christ but their receiving and imbracing the Messiah should not presently have cured their inthralled state seeing now the Scepter was departed from Iudah and a stranger and heathen was their King nor was it necessary that that Saviour whose Kingdome is not of this world John 18. 36. and came to bestow a spirituall redemption and not to reestablish a flourishing earthly Monarchy and came to loose the works of the Devill Heb. 2 14. and not to spoile Cesar of an earthly Crowne should also make the Jews a flourishing State and a free and vigorous Monarchy againe Ergo it is most cleare that State and Church are two divers things if the one may bee restored and not the other Fifthly the King as the King was the head of the Common-wealth and might not meddle with the Priests office or performe any Ecclesiasticall acts and therefore was Uzzah smitten of the Lord with leprosie because he would burne incense which belonged to the Priests onely And the Priest in offering sacrifices for his owne sinnes and the sinnes of the people did represent the Church not the State And the things of the Lord to wit Church-matters and the matters of the King which were civill matters of State are clearly distinguished 2 Chron. 19. 11. which evidenceth to us that the Church and State in Israel were two incorporations formally distinguished And I see not but those who doe confound them may also say That the Christian State and the Christian Church be all one State and that the government of the one must be the government of the other which were a confusion of the two Kingdoms It is true God hath not prescribed judicials to the Christian State as he did to the Jewish State because shadows are now gone when the body Christ is come but Gods determination of what is morally lawfull in civill Laws is as particular to us as to them and the Jewish judicials did no more make the Jewish State the Jewish Church then it made Aaron to be Moses and the Priest to be the King and civill Judge yea and by as good reason Moses as a Judge should be a prophet and Aaron as a Prophet should be a Judge and Aaron as a Priest might put a malefactor to death and Moses as a Judge should prophâ—sie and as a Prophet should put to death a malefactor all which wanteth all reason and sense and by that same reason the State and Common-wealth of the Jews as a Common-wealth should offer sacrifices and prophesie and the Church of the Jews as a Church should denounce warre and punish malefactors which are things I cannot conceive Our brethren in their answer to the eleventh question teach That those who are sui juris as masters of families are to separate from these Parish-assemblies where they must live without any lawfull Ordinance of Christ and to remaine there they hold it unlawfull for these reasons First we are commanded to observe all whatsoever Christ hath commanded Matth. 28. 10. Secondly the Spouse seeketh Christ and rests not till she finde him in the fullest manner Cant. 1. 7 8. and 3. 1 2 3. David lamented when hee wanted the full fruition of Gods Ordinances Psal. 63. and 42. and 84. although he injoyed Abiathar the high Priest and the Ephod with him and Gad the Prophet 1 Sam. 23. 6 9. 10. 1 Sam. 22. 8. So did Ezra 8. 15 16. yea and Christ though he had no need of Sacraments yet for example would be baptized keepe the Passeover c. Thirdly no ordinances of Christ may be spared all are profitable Fourthly he is a proud man and knoweth not his owne heart in any measure who thinketh he may be well without any Ordinance of Christ. Fifthly say they it is not enough the people may be without sinne if they want any ordinances through the fault of the superiours for that is not their fault who want them but the superiours sinfull neglect as appeareeth by the practice of the Apostles Acts 4. 19. and 5. 29. For if they had neglected Church-ordinances till the Magistrates who were enemies to the Gospell had commanded them it had beene their grievous sinne For if superiours neglect to provide bodily food we doe not thinke that any mans conscience would be so scrupulous but he would thinke it lawfull by all good meanes to provide in such a case for himselfe rather then to sit still and to say If I perish for hunger it is the sinne of those who have authority over me and they must answer for it Now any ordinance of Christ is as necessary for the good of the soule as food is necessary for temporall life Ans. 1. I see not how all these Arguments taken from morall commandments doe not oblige sonne as well as father servant as master all are Christs free men sonne or servant so as they are to obey what over Christ commandeth Matth. 18. 10. and with the Spouse to seeke Christ in the fullest measure and in all his ordinances and sonne and servant are to know their owne heart so as they have need of all Christs ordinances and are no more to remaine in a congregation where their soules are samished because fathers and masters neglect to remove to other congregations where their souls may be fed in the fullest measure then the Apostles Acts 4. 29. and 5. 29 were to preach no more in the Name of Iesus because the Rulers commanded them to preach no more in his Name And therefore with reveâ—ence of our godly brethren I thinke this distinction of persons free and sui juris and of sonnes and servants not to be allowed in this point 2. It is one thing to remove from one congregation to another and another thing to separate from it as from a false constitute Church and to renounce all communion therewith as if it were the Synagogue of Satan and Antichrist as the Separatists doe who refuse to heare any Minister ordained by a Prelate now except these arguments conclude separation in this latter sense as I thinke they can never come up halfeway to such a conclusion I see not what they prove nor doe they answer the question c. concerning standing in
nor being a witnesse of the life death and resurrection of Christ then the authoritie of James and Peter who werâ— eye-witnesses of Christs life doctrine and sufferings and saw him visibly ascend to heaven and the believers doubted if hee was an Apostle and the Synod was convened to have theresolution of the Apostles and so it was meerely Apostolicall Ans. Though I grant there beesome truth in this that Pauls Apostolick calling was now more question 〈◊〉 then the rest of the Apostles and I easily yeeld that these who disputed with him could not rest upon his authority yet I deny that hence wee can inferre no Synod for if the Apostles had convened in Synod to satisfie those who doubted of Pauls authoritie as an Apostle then they would have reterred the matter to James and Peter who to these beleevers were undoubtedly the Apostles of the Lord but if the Apostles had had no intent but to end the controversie in a mere Apostolick way and not intended a Synodicall and an â—clesiasticall and perpetuall remedy in such cases of controversies in particular Churches I shall not beleeve that the Apostles when they were to determine by a superior an Apostolick and infallible light they would have joyned with them the Elders as Act. 15. 16. to consider of the question and that the Church of Auâ—ioch doubting if Paul was an Apostle would have decreed to seeke a resolution from Elders and that in an Apostolick way for they sent to the Elders at Jerusalem for a resolution as well as to the Apostles Act. 15. 2. and judge yee if the Apostles being to determine infallibly as Apostles would joyne the falliblo and inferiour light of Elders v. 6. and Brethren v. 22. if tlloy had not had a mind to determine the question in a Synodicall way Object 9. But it is not cleare that in this act they either censure persons or doe any thing in order to Church-censure but onely exercise a naked doctrinall power Answ. A doctrinall power was in a higher measure in the Apostles then in all the Elders of the world who were all but fallible men and James and Peter to these beleevers who moved the question were undenyably Apostles and what doctrinall power could they seeke in the Elders to whose determination by intention both of Antioch ch 15. 2. and by the Apostles intention v. 6. the question is referred as well as to the Apostles if the matter was not to bee ended by a formall Synod 2. Nor can they deny a power of jurisdiction though there were no persons rebuked and censured in this Synod for the object of a juridicall power is not onely persons but things of order decencie circumstances questions of doctrine as is cleare Reâ—el 1. 14. 15. officers to be ordained Act. 6. 3 4 5 6. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 2. 2 3. 3. Our brethren cannot deny but the sentence of non-Communion is a censure and a great one yea and of kindred and blood most neare to excommunication and that if any Churches should have refâ—â—sed those Canons by this Canon the Churches might have pronounced the sentence of non-communion against them and to pronounce this sentence is an act of government as properly so called as to pronounce the sentence of excommunication for it is the formall halfe of the sentence of excommunication Object 10. It seemeth that Apostles here determine as Apostles for they condenme the obtruders of circumcision because they taught these things without any Apostolick Commandement v. 24. They teach that you must bee circumcised and keepe the Law to whom wee the Apostles gave no such commandement Answ. This is no more a good argument to prove that the obtruders of circumcision did teach false doctrine and were not condemned by the Apostles and Elders Synodically then if one should say this is not a Synodicall decree of the Church because it is proven and made good by the Word of God for Synodicall decrees exclude not Gods word though they bee not formally Scripture for in some part of the Epistle the Apostles may well speak of themselves as distinguished from Elders and as Apostles and yet the assembly is an ordinary Synod and not an Apostolick meeting for if wee should argue thus the whole Church men and women v. 22. sent messengers to Antioch as the Church and not as Apostles our brethren would thinke it a weake consequence to inferre Ergo this was nothing but a Congregational not an Apostolical meeting Yet our brethren contend that the whole Church and single Congregation of Ierusalem did concurre in this meeting as consenters and having power also though not of jurisdiction but I wonder why our brethren should so contend that there was no power of censuring put forth in this Assembly seeing one of their speciall answers whereby they would prove that this it not a patterne of an ordinary Synod and such a Synod as wee contend for having power of jurisdiction is that this was an ordinary meeting of the Elders and Church of Ierusalem giving counsell and advise with the Apostles to the Church of Antioch but I am sure the businesse of not scandalizing did as much concerne the Church of Ierusalem and therefore in the Synod they ought to put forth power of jurisdiction if any of their members hearing that the Apostles contended that the ceremoniall Law did not lay a tie on the conscience of either Jew or Gentile in foro dei before Gods court as the places cited by Iames prove v. 15 16 17. Peter saith expresly that God now putteth no difference betwixt Iewes and Gentiles v. 9. but 〈◊〉 are saved through the grace of our Lord Iesus v. 11. should ab â—aine from blood to the offence of the weaker should not this Congregation all Church condemne such in ordine ad censuram in order to excommunication yea the Eldership and Congregation of Jerusalem here convened as our brethren say should have failed in this first Synod and also the Apostles with them if they neglected to exercise juridicall power over their owne Congregation in the case of scandall and a scandall as possible to them to fall in as the Gentiles and therefore either this assembly consisting of Apostles and of the particular Church of Ierusalem erred which wee cannot say or then they did exercise power in order to excommunication towards their owne Church and so there is some juridicall power put forth in this meeting Object 11. Though the Apostles in this Synod proceed by way of disputing and borrow light one from another it followeth not thâ—â— they goe not on here as Apostles yea though Peter and Paul dâ—e not say all the truth nor fall upon that which is the conclusion of the Assembly as I ames doth it doth not hinder but they are led in all these Synodicull debaâ—eâ— by the infallible and Apostolick spirit because some things are revealed to one Evangelist and to one Prophet which is not revealed to another Iohn the
not defiled their garments that onely those who were guiltie were rebuked I beleeve and therefore this is to bee proved that Elders are not rebuked but for their remisse watching over an unfixed Congregation the places to me doe not prove it Now whereas our brethren say that they read of no Eldership before the dispersion of the Church at Jerusalem Act. 8. 1. and therefore of no presbyteriall government and after the dispersion the number was so diminished as they might all meet in one Congregation becâ—use it is said Act. 8. 1. They were all scattered abroad throughâ—â—â— the regions of Iudea and Samaria except the Apostles It is easily answered 1. To what effect should the twelve Apostles not also have followed their scattered flocks and to what end did twelve Apostles stay at Jerusalem to preach to one single handfull that might all conveniently meet in one house and a private house for I thinke the persecution could as easily put them from publick meetings in the Temple and Synagogues as it could scatter them all to so few a number as one congregation was the the harvest so great and the Apostolick labourers so sparing in reaping as eleven should bee hearers in one Congregation and one speake onely at once 2. Our brethren may know that wee prove a Presbyterlall government before the dispersion 3. If our brethren elide the force of our argument from multitude of beleevers at Jerusalem to prove a presbyteriall Church they must prove that this dispersion did so dissolve the Church as that three thousand Act. 2. and some added daily v. 47. and five thousand Act. 4. 4. and beleevers more added multitudes both of men and women Act. 5. 14. and Jerusalem was filled with the doctrine of the Apostles c. 5. 28. and yet the number of the Disciples multiplied c. 6. 1. and the Word of God increased and the number of the Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly and a great company of the Priests were obedient to the faith they must I say prove for affirmanti incumbit probatio that all this number and all these thousands by the dispersion Act. 8. 1. came to one thousand and to a handfull of a single Congregation 3. I see no necessitie that these all be the whole body of the Church I grant Diodâ—tus saith so and Baronius conjectureth that there were fifteene thousand killed at this first persecution but Dorotheus saith there were but two thousand killed and c Salmeron saith of Dorotheus his relation Quae si vera sunt profecta magna fuit persecutio if it bee true the persecution was indeed great and wee cannot but thinke seeing the spirit of God saith this was a great persecution but the Church was greatly diminished but let us see if the Text will beare that so many thousands for I judge at this time that the Church hath been above ten thousands were partly killed partly scattered so that the Church of Jerusalem came to one single Congregation which might meet ordinarily for Word and Sacranâ—ents in one private house where the tewelve Apostles came to them for my part I cannot see it in the Text onely the persecution was great 2. All were scattered except the Apostles 3. Act. 26. Paul saith of himselfe at this time 10. Many of the Saints did I shut up in prison having received authoritie from the high Priests and when they were put to death I gave my voyce against them 11. And I punished them oft in every Synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme and being exceedingly mad against them I persecuted them to strange Cities all which saith many were imprisoned 2. Some scattered but the Text saith not that thousands were put to death and it is not like that the holy Ghost who setteth downe the other sort of persecution and the death of Steven would have beene silent of the killing of thousands 3. Whereas it is said they were all scattered except the Apostles I see no ground of the Text to say that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all scattered hee understandeth all the Disciples as Lyranus saith so saith Eusebius though Sanctius saith hee meaneth of the 70. Disciples And my reasons are 1. The Text saith v. 3. Saul entering into every house â—aling men and women committed them to prison as you may read Act. 26. 10 11. Ergo all and every one without exception of any save the Apostles were not scattered 2. Amongst so many thousands of men and women many for age weakenesse and sicknesse and having young children and women with child were not able to flee therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot bee taken according to the letter every way 3. Paul after this dispersion Act. 26. 11. punished them in every Synagogne What punished hee Jewes no Christians Ergo after the dispersion there were Christians left in Synagogues at Jerusalem which were not dispersed 4. The Text saith that the scattered abroad were Preachers and as I prove elsewhere here after extraordinary Prophets and therefore all were scattered except the Apostles seemeth to imply that especially the whole teachers were scattered except the Apostles and Chrysostome Athanasius Nissenus observes that God out of this persecution tooke occasion to spread the Gospell by sending scattered Preachers to all the regions about so Lorinus Sanctius Cornelius a Lapide say they were not all sattered and Cajetan exponeth these all onely of those upon whom the holy Ghost descended 4. Though this Church should come to one Congregation now this is but by accident and from extrinsecall causes of persecution and scattering but wee have proved at the first founding of this Church Apostolick the Church of Jerusalem called one Church the first draught and patterne of the visible Christian Church was such as could containe many Congregations and could not all meet in one 5. There is no ground to say that Apostles after this dispersion erected an ordinary Eldership in Jerusalem whereas before there was an extraordinary because the Apostles was present with them and you read of no Elders while after the dispersion because 1. you read not of the institution of ordinarie Elders in the Church of Jerusalem after the dispersion more then before and so you are here upon conjectures 2. There is no ground to say that the Apostles changed the government of the first patterne of the Christian Churches from extraordinary to ordinary 3. Nor is there ground that the government of the first samplar of Instituted Churches of the New Testament should rather bee extraordinarie then that first ordering of the Word and Sacraments should bee extraordinary seeing the Apostles the first founders of instituted Churches under the New Testament had as ordinary matter to institute an ordinary presbytery and government having beleevers in such abundance upon whom by the laying on of hands they might give the Holy Ghost as they had ordinary matter to wit a warrant and command from Christ