Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	apostle_n	church_n	word_n	1,664	5	4.2322	3	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

of Jerusalem to have sent chosen men to carry the Letters and withall to shew the grounds of those their judgements by word of mouth ver. 23. 27. 31. This needed not if their own Elders had been present and so had been to have returned and if they were sent as Messengers from the Synod then to all the Churches as well as to Antioch and why doe they then goe no further then unto Antioch ver. 33. Yea and although Paul and Barnabas delivered those results to all the Cities yet as it should seem accidentally and not principally intended they goe not on purpose chiefely to deliver those decrees but ver. 36. of chap. 15. it was Pauls motion upon other grounds to go visit the Churches in every City where they had Preached and so but occasionally delivered these Decrees Chap. 16. 4. So as they came to them not as sent in a mandatory way as to Churches subject to that Synod by a Synodical Law as such Canons are used to bee sent but as the judgement onely of this Church and the Apostles delivered them for their edification And in the third place If there were any further authority or jurisdiction in their Decrees it was from the Apostles who were present and concurred in it and who had power over all the Churches and accordingly though the Elders in the whole Church were present and joyned with the Apostles Quantum in se to consent and approve their Decrees with that severall respective kinde of judgment proper unto them yet all the authority put forth over these Churches was that transcendent authority of the Apostles which is not now left in all the Elders of the world joyned together and that therefore these Decrees made and the decision of these questions here were by infallible Apostolicall authority and to that end they subjoyned that Apostolicall Seale It seemed good to us and the Holy Ghost And although the ordinary Elders yea and the whole Church joyned in this yet but according to their Measure Analogy and Proportion of their faith even as in writing some Epistles Timothy and Silvanus joyned with Paul but yet Paul onely wrote Apostolically and the authority in them is looked at as his or else because perhaps they having the Holy Ghost falne on them through the Apostles Doctrine then delivered which was then usuall perswading their hearts unanimously though afore dissenting as ver. 25. to accord in that respect they might speak this in such a sense that no assembly of men wanting Apostolicall presence and instruction may now speak And although it may bee objected That then this Letter and these Decrees should bee formall Scripture and so binde us still it is answered That they are Scripture and written for our learning and if the case were the same upon which they obliged them then viz. matter of offence that then they would binde us now but the things being enjoyned but as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} things of a superadded casuall necessity and not absolute in case of offence onely and not simply for the things themselves therefore now the necessity being ceased the obligation ceaseth yet so as the equity of the rule and ground these were commanded upon to abstain from things that will offend our brethren doth hold in like cases to the end of the world And last of all there is no act of such authority and government put forth in it which the Proposition intendeth which will appeare if wee either consider the occasion and rise of it or the issue and result of it It was not a set or stated meeting by common agreement of the Churches but Antioch sends to Jerusalem unknowne to them there are no summons sent to send up Delinquents nor can wee finde these disturbers are sent to Jerusalem to bee censured by those Ecclesiasticall pupunishments in which Government doth properly lye and consist The subject matter sent to them for their decision was meerely matter of Doctrine about this question verse 2. and about this word verse 5. Namely whether the Ceremoniall Law was to bee observed Concerning which they wrote their judgements dogmatically which they were called to doe being thus sent unto Neither doth it argue that it was more then to determine this question doctrinally they came up for because that Paul and Barnabas could have decided that before being themselves Apostles and that therefore their comming up was for discipline against Delinquents for as the case stood they listened not to Paul and Barnabas as Apostles but pretended the judgment of the other Apostles For indeed Paul and Barnabas did declare their judgements the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or contention ver. 3. being attributed unto them as contending against the false Teachers for the Truth and so as even the Church of Antioch rested not in their decision Otherwise Paul and Barnabas might have as Apostles censured those Delinquents without comming to Jerusalem as wel as by Apostolique authority have decided the question For Apostolicall power extended to Discipline as well as Doctrine If it bee said That even doctrinally to deliver the truth when it is done by a company of Elders hath authority or power in it as when Christ said Goe and teach all power is given unto mee It is granted an Authoritie exercised in doctrine and so to bee in Synods but yet not Jurisdiction which the Proposition intends which is when doctrines are delivered sub paena under the penaltie of that Ecclesiasticall punishment of Excommunication if not received One Minister alone hath a dogmaticall authoritie as a Minister to rebuke exhort and yet acts of Jurisdiction are not his alone but of others conjoyned with him Neither secondly doth the titles given to these results of theirs argue a Jurisdiction in that they are called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Act. 16. 4. For although the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is used for an Imperiall decree Luke 2. 1. yet but rarely and more commonly as Stephanus and Budaeus observe for doctrine opinion in matters morall or speculative as Platonis Dogma c. and thence is translated to import the Judgements of Divines given in matters Theologicall although delivered with certaintie And so the using of this word implyeth the subject to have beene doctrinall onely and so delivered And further the subject matter of this decision being about rules and ceremonies and the not observation of them the Dogma is elegantly and perhaps on purpose given to these Apostolicall Canons by way of opposition and contradiction to those that taught and observed such rules who are said {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in so doing Colossians 2. 20. being led away by the false Dogmata or Heterodox theses of false Teachers that enjoyned them And for that other word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} translated ordained it plainely notes out but this that these

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