12. speaking of respect to their Officers Know them that labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you These two labour and are over you are commensurable that is who make it their calling to have the care of you which the many Pastors and Elders in a common Presbyterie cannot And labour in what Tim. Epist. 1. chap. 1. ver. 17. expounds it That labour in the word and Doctrine The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour especially those that labour in the word and Doctrine And expound this latter known place whether of Teaching Elders only or ruling and teaching both as the Reformed Churches doe however it affords this to us that the extent of ruling in either the one or the other is but as large as teaching And if it be meant of Teaching Elders only that both rule and labour in the word and Doctrine yet if they be limited in labouring in the word as they are being fixed Pastors to their own Congregations then in ruling And if it be meant of ruling Elders as distinct from them yet their ruling is but of the same extent that the others labouring in the word is and that is extended but to one Congregation And secondly Reason is for this For in a Pastors Office in which Preaching and Ruling are joyned yet his power of ruling flowes in him from and is the adjunct of his power to preach and to be sure it is not extendible further and however yet there is the same proportion of either and then by just reason the extent of the Church which is the subject of his ordinary ruling cannot be extended larger then what is the ordinary subject of his preaching and so these relations are of equall limits If a father hath the power of governing as a father then it is extendible only to those he is a father to And that a Pastor hath his ordinary ruling power annexed to his ordinary power of preaching is proved by these reasons First If not upon this ground then upon some other not by any speciall faculty or Office over and above this of preaching for then he should be ordained a ruling Elder over and above his being first a Preaching Elder as a new faculty given him or by being made a Ruler first and then this of preaching superadded as the Bishops first made Deacons then Presbyters But Secondly All the keyes are given him at once the keyes of ruling with the keyes of knowledge the power of the staffe intrinsecally followes his being a Pastor or Shepheard and though the one is a power of meere order namely that of Preaching and that of his Ruling be a power of jurisdiction to be exercised with others and not alone yet still his receiving power to joyne with others in those acts of Rule of jurisdiction is from this his power of Order and the ordinary extent of his authority therein is extendible no farther then his ordinary call to preach Yea Thirdly The extent of the power of the Apostles themselvs in ruling in all the Churches was founded upon and extendible with their commission to preach in all Churches and their very call and obligation being not to preach in a set fixed relation as ordinary Pastors calling is but to all Churches in all Nations Hence their power of ruling was answerable It was their very call to be universall Pastors and therefore universall Rulers yea and in reference to those that are without their authority of ruling was narrower in the extent of it then of their preaching The Apostles might preach to Heathens and their call was so to doe to convert them but they had not power to rule all men what have I to doe to judge them that are without But in this way of Presbyteriall governement though they also may occasionally preach where they may not rule yet the proportion of their ordinary ruling is extended beyond the proportion of their ordinary preaching which it was not in the Apostles themselves Secondly It breeds an incongruous disproportion between the Offices of Ruling and Preaching Elders compared among themselves for this Governement makes the Extent of the Ruling Elders Office and relation to be larger then that of their Teachers or Pastors For the Pastor quâ Pastor is limited to his particular Congregation he is fixed to for the ordinary performance of his Office as the Deacons also are but the Ruling Elders Office quâ Ruling Elder is extended over all these Congregations in this Presbyterie The Ruling Elder performes his Office in the highest perfection of it as to admonish excommunicate in all these Churches but the Pastors are limited in the highest work of their Callings Preaching being more excellent then Ruling yea then baptizing unto one Congregation That in the first Epistle to Tim. Chap. 5. Ver. 17. interpret it as you will justifies this Thirdly It perverts the order and distinction of Teaching Elders and meere Ruling Elders as the reformed Churches call them or Church Governours as the Assembly That whereas Christ hath made some Teaching Elders and some Ruling Elders and these distinct in this that the Preaching Elders Office is to preach and rule the Ruling Elders Office only to rule this frame of Presbyteriall government makes one person not only to doe both these works which in a particular Congregation every Pastor doth but formally to be both those Offices in respect of a double relation he doth susteine namely a Pastor to be a Preaching Elder to the Congregation where he is fixed and a meere ruling Elder to the rest of the Congregations of a Classicall Church for it is demanded when a Pastor in a particular Congregation is in this common Presbyterie what sort of Officer he is to that Presbyteriall Church An Elder he is because he doth the work of an Elder A Teaching Elder to that Church he is not for to that whole Church he labours not in the word and Doctrine Timothy Epist. 1. Chap. 5. ver. 17. Therefore a meere ruling Elder he must be and so the same man beares two sorts of Offices and by this meanes there are two sorts of meere ruling Elders whereas in a particular Congregation a Pastor though he rules yet he ruleth as a Pastor to that Congregation And this disorder and confusion is further set out in that by this meanes the same Officer hath a full relation to one Church and but halfe a relation to another and causeth him to performe the whole of his Office to one Church the particular Church he hath relation to and but the halfe thereof to the other Fourthly It makes an incongruous disproportion between the Extent of the relation of those two Offices of Elders and Deacons unto a Church If the Scriptures had intended many Churches making one Church and the Elders of those many Churchers to have been Elders in common to those Churches as one Church then in like manner the Deacons of all those Churches should make up a common
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
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
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