The Government of the Churches of Christ

CHAP. II.

THough the Pattern of the Jewish Church be urged to prove such a National Church, yet it will not serve the turn.

1. For it was not therefore a Church, because a Nation, but because there were no more Nations that God had chosen, nor would choose till Christ came; and therefore if any other turned Proselyte, they were to turn Jews, and to be as Natives.

2. The Instance of the Jewish Church, will rather serve for the proof of an universal Church, than for any evidence, that there should be as many Churches, as there be Nations. When the Jews did turn Christians, they were the same Nation; yet the Apostles do nowhere Write to them, as a National Church: They Write not to the Church of Judea, but the Churches.

3. That the Church of the Jews, was a Type of the Churches in Nations, as Nations, let that be shewn. We can show that the whole Nation, and Temple-worship, was a Type of Congregations, and that Royal Nation (as that whole Nation was then called) and the Holy Priesthood, is a Type of the Saints in all Nations.

4. God at first Set up a Church-Government, suitable to that of a Kingdom, and suited unto the Government of the World; that policy is therefore called the Elements of this World, unto which the Church in the New Testament, is not to be conformed, Rom. 12.

5. And then when there was a National Church, there was a Worship for the whole Nation, as a Nation to come unto; and so a Government in the place that God should choose for all to appeal unto; but there are no such orders now.

6. If the Institution do fall upon them, it must fall upon them either as they are a Church in a Kingdom, or as a Kingdom. But not as a Church in a Kingdom, for Qua Church, there is a greater Church out of that Kingdom, namely the Universal.

7. This opinion, though' it seems indeed calculated to comply with Magistracy, for it divideth the independency of Government, according to the Division of the Supreme power of Magistrates, and so would seem to fence them from any external power, from any other Kingdoms or Churches: Yet it makes the Church-power in that Kingdom, Independent upon that Magistrate, and that united into a greater Body, would be too hard for them, whereas the dispersing it, into particular Congregations, makes it easily wieldable.

Neither doth the Institution fall upon a conformity, either to the extent, or to the Government of Cities, as those who are for Episcopacy have intended, and some Presbyterial Divines also; and both upon the same grounds, although with this difference, that the Bishops would have the Government of Churches, to be conformed to that of the Cities, taking in the Villages about them, and so to make a Diocese and a Diocesan Church; but those for the Presbytery, contract it to the extent of a City within itself, and so make a classical Church; the opinions of either, differing in this respect only, viz. the point of extent of larger and lesser Jurisdiction, the one confined within the City Walls, the other extending without.

1. Because if it were so, then the conformity either must fall upon the Government of Cities, or the bounds of the place; that look what extent either the Government, or bounds of the Local Circuit of Cities have, the same extent should your classical Presbyteries have conformable thereunto; and in asserting either unavoidable Absurdities, would follow.

1. To make the Government conformable to the Government of Cities, as their extent should fall out, is to make a warly Government, the pattern of Ecclesiastical, is wholly to conform Spiritual Government, to the Government of the World; and then the same degrees of Officers of Superiority, and Inferiority, that is in Cities, should be in Ecclesiastical Government.

2. The conformity must rather fall upon the bounds of the Governments of Cities, than upon the circuit or material consideration; because that, which makes it a City, is the Government of it, whether the bounds of it be within the Walls, or other Towns about it, whether it extend to a larger circuit, or to a less.

3. It must either fall upon a City, as having many Congregations in it; and if so, it might as well have fallen upon Villages in the Country, capable by Association to be many Churches as well, and the one would be as uncertain as the other; because there may be many Congregations in the one, as well as in the other. Or else 2. It must fall upon the Form of the Government of Cities. Or else 3. Upon Cities of such and such a circuit; and some Cities greater, and some lesser, that would be uncertain also; because some Cities are greater, and some lesser.

2. The Foundation of this Assertion cannot be a conformity to the Government of the Cities amongst the Jews; for 1. The Villages, among the Jews, had a Government in them, as well as the Cities. 2. Suppose that the Government of the Gentiles, in their Cities, was not conformed to the Government of the Jews in their Cities (which may well be supposed) for the Government of the Gentiles, was oftentimes to have whole Empires under the Government of a City; so Rome had, and then all the World under Rome, whilst it was a City Government, must have been one classical Church. or however, among the Gentiles, the Cities were the Head of a whole Province, and of all the Villages under it, and it is so in many Cities at this Day; and that would make for a Diocesan Government, and not Presbyterial.

If thus the bounds cannot be fixed, we are still to seek even in Cities, what should be the bounds, and are as uncertain, as in Villages. So as the conclusion is, the bounds according to this measure are uncertain.

3. God doth not shape a Spiritual Government, unto the political? and the bounds thereof. Political Government, goes by the bounds of the Soil; so doth not the Spiritual. All that do live within such a place, or within such a Country, because they are of that Soil, fall under the same political Government; but there is no reason, that they should fall under the same Spiritual.

4. If the Frame of the Church were to be conformed to the City Government; then as the City did take in the Suburbian Towns, the Daughters round about, so the Church should not be confined only to the compass of the City, but extend to a whole Province: As the Bishops argue for a Diocesan Church.

5. Christ's Government is suitable to all Ages, times and places; but now in all Ages and places, there is not the City Government; and there could not be the same Rule for the Government of Churches in Villages, and therefore it did not suit all places.

6. Jesus Christ's way is rather conformed to the Synagogue way; for so the Churches are called, and it is therefore conformed to the Government of the Synagogues, although in Cities.

7. If this were the Ordinance of God, to conform Church Government to the Government of Cities, then all, in London, should make one Church, because it is but one City; and Alexandria and Grand Cairo, if it were converted, would be so too, nay Rome itself (whereof the present Rome, is but the tenth part of what it was, as Cyprius shows) must have been but one Church, if they had been all converted; and there should have been but one classical Presbytery, to have Governed all the Churches there. Yea, in some places there are two Cities built together, that have the privileges of Cities, as Constantinople and Galata, London and Westminster, the two Pragues; yea, Jerusalem had the City of David within it, and so there must have been two classical Presbyteries in Jerusalem, from the first; For those of the City of David, might have challenged the privilege of it, the Church had been conformed to a City Government; and perhaps that was the reason, why we read of two companies of the three and twenty Elders, that did sit in Jerusalem; because each City had an Eldership of Twenty three, and so there being two Cities in that one, that of David, and the other of Jerusalem itself; there might be two Elderships, for those two Cities, besides there great Sanhedrin.

8. When Cities are decayed and do lessen, and are brought low, it may be to as small a number of Inhabitants, as Villages; yet they often retain their Privileges as Cities, as many decayed Incorporations do. Now then if there were but one Congregation left in such a lessened City, it would claim by virtue of this City, privilege to be entire within itself.

Object. But the Apostle hath said, in Tit. 1. Ordain Elders in every City, and that is parallel with that in Acts 14. They Ordain Elders in every Church, holding forth the pattern of a City, and the Government thereof for the bounds of it, to be set for that of a Church.

Answ. 1. That place in Acts 14. in every Church hath Relation, as well to Churches in Villages, as in Cities; and so to Churches in those first times of the Gospel, that consisted of no more than might meet in one place; and therefore as well it may be interpreted, that there was but as many as would make but one Church in every City, as suiting the Phrase of his Direction, in Relation to what number of Christians were supposed to be in each City of Crete, when first Titus came thither in the beginning of the Gospel; and this number may well be supposed, to be no more than could make up one Congregation, and it was well if so too, no more than could make up.

Answ. 2. Ordinary Elders in every Church implies farther, that if there were more Churches to be in a City, that then he should ordain the Elders, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to every Church apart.

Answ. 3. That it is so, appears; because as hath been shewn 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 City is meant, small Towns as well as Cities.

Answ. 4. The Reason why his Direction runs to Ordain Elders in every City, was because though they did Preach the Gospel in Villages, yet principally in Cities at the first; because they were to leaven the Countries. And the Apostles, when they did Write to Churches in a Province, did use to Write to the Church of the Head City, as more eminent, not because that was either a Mother Church, as the Bishops say, or a classical Church of more Churches, as the Presbyterians say; but because it was more eminent, and from it the Epistle might be spread to others, as Paul's Epistle, to the Colossians, was ordered to be sent to Laodicea, which was in all likelihood, a less City than Colossae. And thus when they Write to the Churches of Syria and Silicia, Acts 15. they Write especially to Antioch. So when he would Write to all the Churches about Corinth, he nameth especially the Church of Corinth, together with them; and wrappeth up all the rest thus, and all that call upon the Name of the Lord.

Object. It was the Ordination of the Apostles in the Primitive Times, that all, in a City, should be one Church; both because the Distinction of Churches, and also their Names are taken from the City, as the Church of Ephesus, &c. And therefore whether in one consideration or more, whether for the present, or for the time to come, the Saints, in such and such a City, were to be one Church; and a Congregational Church they could not be, therefore a distinction of a classical Church was intended by a Church in Cities. And the Elders had charge given them, to take care of that whole City, to convert them. And to this pattern of a City Government, were the Villages also to be conformed, several Villages making an Association into one Church, as those Cities did.

Answ. 1. To the first part of the objection I answer, that they are called one Church in a City, and so distinguished; because there was but one Church for the present, as in Acts 3. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Church existing at Antioch, that is, which at present was there. It doth not follow, that all the Churches, that should afterwards be there, should be but one Church. So as Baines saith, there is an Adequate acception of these Phrases, per accidens, not because the City and Church, was to make but one Church; but because the Christians by occasion of their number, not being then too great, were formed into one Church, not because there was to be but one. Now he, who thus useth them promiscuously, doth imply, that one Church was as yet constituted, not that there was to be but one, through the circuit of a City, Suburbs, and Country. Thus likewise it is easily answered, to the purpose of the Proposition; for thus the Multitude of Citizens converted, and unconverted, could not be a Church of one Congregation; yet the number of those, who in City, Suburbs, or Territories, were actually converted, was no more than might be ordered into one Church; and the Apostles framing these into one, on the present occasion, did not exclude the after constituting of any other within the same local bounds. But if there had been more, there would have been other ways to have distinguished them: As when there were many Synagogues in a City, they were distinguished (for all the Synagogues could not have been called, by the Name of that one City; so nor the Congregations) and perhaps that was the reason, why that a School, which was a kind of a Synagogue, was for Distinction's sake, called the School of Tyrannus, as being the Ruler of it.

Answ. 2. If that were a Reason, then also the Name of a Village or smaller Town, as that of Cenchrea, would make as strong an Argument, that in every small Town, if there be a Church there, that it should be one entire Church (having the Government wholly in itself) as well as that many Congregations in a City, should become one Church for Government.

Answ. 3. The name of a Church, in a City, is not taken simply from the City, but from the People; as in the Revelation, the Church of the Smyrnians, and of the Laodiceans, &c. Suppose they had removed (as in those times, thorough Persecution they often did) to some other City; they would have been the Church of the Smyrnians, as well as the Church at Arnhem was called the English Church. So as the Name doth not refer simply to a City, and the bounds thereof. And when there was a Church of Strangers, of Aquila and Priscilla, &c. in Rome, it is called the Church in their House; and so also when they were removed to Ephesus, it bore the same Name, to Distinguish it from the Church of the Ephesians. It is one exception against us, that when we say the bounds of a Church should be so many as can meet in one place, we hereby do fetch the constitution of a Church, from what is merely external and accidental to it; and the exception were true, if we fetch it from any one set or standing place, or House of meeting; but we fetch it from that which is essential to a Church, which is oneness of communion, in ordinances together, meeting with one accord, as in the Acts, their meetings are characterized, which because it cannot be done, unless they do meet in some place or other, hence we so express it, not as that thing the Ordination is set upon, but as the necessary consequent or adjunct; but this exception made against us, falls fully and directly upon them, that would make a City the extent, either of the Local bounds, or the Government thereof a pattern or measure of a classical Church, and the Institution of it.

If many Churches had been in one City, they might have been Distinguished by the Names of some of the Rulers, or as now they are by the Streets, or places of their constant meetings; for as if the Holy Ghost doth Write to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, as if the King doth Write to the City of London, he should entitle his Letter, to the Mayor and Aldermen, as Writing to the whole Corporation in their Names; so also might several Churches in Cities, have been as well Distinguished by the Names of their Rulers, and of their Elders and Pastors, as Tyrannus his School was. And there are other Reasons, why in that case the Names should be taken from the place; for cohabitation and dwelling together in a place, we acknowledge is a ground, why the Saints, so far as possibly they can, should meet in one Church-Fellowship, and not make several Fellowships. And we much rather think, that still the Denomination of one Church, in a City, did hold forth this Rule, that in all Cities, the Saints dwelling together; and so elsewhere, should make as big Churches as they could; to show their Unity, and to make the Worship more Solemn, and to have more of the assistance of the Holy Ghost; and therefore they should not make many Congregations, where there might be one only.

Answ. 4. To the Second part of the Objection, concerning the conversion which the Elders are to take care of, I answer 1. To Preach is one thing, to censure is another. And besides at that rate of arguing, all those, that a Man begets to Christ, hath therefore Authority over, to Rule them, to be their Minister. 2. The Elders, at Ephesus, indeed had a charge as Elders, by way of Government over the whole Flock, the Church that God Redeemed by his Blood; that is, of those that were conververted; and although that they were to endeavor to convert others (for how should the Gospel otherwise be propagated) yet if more had been converted, then there must have been Churches multiplied; but still in the uniform frame, that this first Church was, having the same privileges; and so to have New Elders placed over them, as over a New Flock. And besides, they are not called Elders of Ephesus, but Elders of the Church at Ephesus. The care of Elders set in a City to convert, was to be extended as well to the Neighbor Villages, as to the Cities, especially then when they had gained as yet but few in a City: And then by this Reason, those in the Villages were obliged to be Associated with them, as well as those in a City, although all the City should also be converted, especially if those in the Villages were the first converts; and this is one of the Episcopal grounds for a Diocesan Church; they in effect tell the same story, for the rearing up of Episcopal Government.

Answ. 5. To third part of the Objection, we Reply, that the way of constitution of Churches under the Gospel, being uniform according to Christ's institution, both in Villages and Cities, it is therefore squared, as well to the condition of the one, as the other: And therefore a Church, in a Village, may as well be made the pattern for the constituting of Churches in a City, as a Church in a City, for forming one in a Village. But Christ hath framed his institution so, as will serve both; and the certain Rules for both are the due bounds of a Church set (whereof there are many sure and certain characters in the word, from the Nature and thing itself) that so many as dwell together, that can conveniently meet in one place, should become one Church.

We grant (as Baines in the like case, pag. 12. Conclus. 2. concerning a Diocesan Church) that God might have made this pattern of City Government, an Ordinance of Church Government, as he did once take a Family Government under the Old Law, and made that a Church; and extended the bounds still by a Family, as they grew either greater or lesser: But as then, if a Man's Family had spread into many Families, though he was the Priest of all these Families in public Worship; because he was the Eldest of the Family, whilst he lived; yet that would not have been a binding Law to several other Families living together, that had not sprung one from another; that they should have come under the same Law of Association, that the others did. And therefore, though this were granted concerning Cities, it would not follow, that the Villages must be conformed thereunto.

CHAP. III.

THere are many things that were commanded to the Jews, which are obligatory to us Christians; though' there are also many things which were Rules and Laws to them, which are not so to us. It will therefore be necessary, in stating the case first, to show what is equally binding to us both.

1. All such Duties as depend not upon Institution, but are Duties belonging to the First Commandment, as to Pray, to hear the Word, to give Thanks, must needs continue as well under the New Testament, as under the Old, and are the same.

2. Such things as then had then a Morality in them, yet if the Morality was only by mere Institution, which depends upon the Will of God, (which Divines call Moral positions) even such Institutions, in their own individual Nature, cannot be urged upon us as Rules. As to instance in that of the Sabbath Day; if any should infer, that that Seventh Day should be the Sabbath Day under the New Testament, which was the Seventh after the Creation, would be a false Reasoning; although indeed, the Institution of the Seventh Day, to be the Sabbath, was not Ceremonial merely, but had a Morality in it; for it was from the Creation. The two Sacraments of Circumcision and the Passover, had assuredly besides the Ceremonialness annexed to them, the Institution of Typifying of Christ to come (which Circumcision did by Blood, and being Administred the Eighth Day) these Sacraments signifying Jesus Christ, the Substance of them must needs be Moral, and that by Institution, as well as ours are now; as in 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2. They did all eat of the same Spiritual Meat (the same Spiritual Manna) and all Drank of the same Spiritual Drink. But yet it doth not follow, that the same Sacraments for Substance (cutting off the ceremonial part) should continue, but God was pleased to Institute other two in their rooms.

3. Yet whatsoever was Moral in the Substance of the Jewish Institution then, there is this equality, that Jesus Christ should Institute something in the room of it, in the New Testament. As for Example, because there was an High Priest; because there was an House of God then, the Apostle therefore argues, (Heb. 20. 21, to 26.) that we having an High Priest over the House of God, there is to be Assemblies to be now, as well as then: But as these Assemblies should be Formed up, and cast into the same Latitude and Extent, and the like, which their Assemblies had then; herein a new Institution putteth the difference. They had National Assemblies then, not so now: The Priests were maintained by Tithes and Offerings then, the equity of this continueth, and the Apostle urgeth it in his Epistle to the Corinthians; but yet it followeth not, that their Maintenance now should be the same way. And although there was a Moral equality in it, yet the Apostle Superaddeth, So I Ordain in all the Churches, 1 Cor. 7. 17.

4. When the Gospel hath once made an Institution in the Room of what was under the Law (as it hath done Baptism instead of Circumcision though' not exactly on the same Moral Ground; yet on the same Evangelical Ground, as Baptism was the Substance extant, under the Type of circumcision) this will warrant the Application of Baptism, unto like Infant Children now; when the Gospel itself also holds forth the same privilege for Substance, unto such Children now, as it did then; and renews the same promise to them; though' in an Evangelical way, far differing from that in the Old Testament, which contained a Typicalness in it. And this is not to raise up a New Institution, it is only the Application of an Institution to a Person; and that also when the Gospel holds forth the same ground which the Law did. But if any would reason, that because there was a circumcision under the Law, a Sacrament of initiation into the Church, therefore there must be the same under the Gospel, (if they cannot show that Jesus hath appointed it, for the continuing of such an Institution) the Argument from the Old will not hold, or if they would argue, that it should be Administred in the same Latitude; or that the same Persons, who did Administer Circumcision under the Old Testament, may Administer Baptism now, we believe our Brethren will not concede to it, though the Argument will be as strong one way, as the other; for the Father of the Family might circumcise them, and did; but they would have only Ministers to Baptize now; and they too circumcised then in their Families, and did not bring their Children to the Temple.

5. That the Laws of the Old Testament, do help up to Regulate many Institutions in the New, we acknowledge (as likewise the Laws of Nature do) but they will not be Warrant sufficient, to set up the like. So the Rules of the Judicial Law, concerning the punishments of criminal Acts, that none should be condemned under two or three Witnesses, these Rules will serve unto, and perhaps ought to be received by, every State (as some have held) to Regulate their proceedings against Malefactors: But yet unto Jewish policy (take it for the Government of it, and the ranks of Officers among them, and power they had) Nations are not bound so, as though the Rules of equity, whereby that policy did proceed, were perpetual, yet the question remains still of the power. That Ministers should be maintained, as they were then, the equity of the Law holds, but it will no way follow, that there should be the same Ranks of Ministers.

6. That the New Testament, entitles some of those Ordinances, that itself hath anew Instituted, with the same Names and Words used in the Old Testament, argues not that those Ordinances are to be framed and formed according to the Analogy of the Old: But they have the same Names, because that the Old were Types of these. Thus that our Ordinances now are called Sacrifices: That Christ is called an High Priest: That the Officers of the Church are called a Presbytery: That Excommunication is called a purging out the Old Leaven, and many such like, in the Evangelist; all this will not prove, that there should be Sacrifices, High Priests, &c. under the New Testament. In the Evangelist, Christ speaking of the Teachers of the New Testament, saith, (Matth. 23. 34.) I will send you Wise Men, and Scribes, &c, but yet it follows not, that the Orders of the Officers of the New Testament, should be answerable to the Wise Men, and the Scribes: So when a Believer, or a Church is called the Temple of God, when the Saints are called a Royal Nation, and the like; no inference can be made, that there should now be a Temple, and a National Church.

7. There were many things which are Moral now, that were not Moral then. To cast out of the Church for Moral sins, as such Qua Moral, is the Law of Christ now: But under the Old Law, they did not keep Men from Ordinances, for sins as Moral; but as having a ceremonial uncleanness annexed to them. No Man is to put his Wife away now, because she is a Heathen; but they were to put their Wives away then, if Heathens, after Moses his Law was settled. In destroying matters of Idolatry, they were to be much stricter than we are bound to be, as Meats Sacrificed to Idols, they were in no place to eat thereof, Daniel refused the Kings Meat; but out of the Idol's Temple, we may eat things that have been Sacrificed to Idols, as the Apostle saith. They were to destroy all the Temples and Groves, &c. but if places have been abused to Idolatry, we under the Gospel may make use of them. They were to destroy the Canaanites out of the Land, not we so now. They were to burn Idolater's Goods, as in Jericho, &c. Not so now.

Having thus made way by these particulars premised, I shall now prove my Proposition, that the Jewish Economy, is no Pattern or Rule for Modelling the Church of Christ, under the Gospel.

1. The Priesthood being changed, there is a necessity of a change of the Law, Heb. 7. 12. and so of the Law of the Government, which depends on Christ's Priestly Office. We having a new High Priest over the House of God, we have a new Order in this House. For he is the Apostle and High Priest of our Profession, and it was meet it should appear, he was the new High Priest, by uttering the Institution for Worship and Government. So then that Old Law, which depended upon Institutions, as the High Priesthood itself did, is to be changed, and a new Law of Institutions, is to come in the room of it; and therefore in the Heb. 9. 10. it is called a Reformation, and the time of the Gospel is called, the time of Reformation.

2. That Jewish Frame, and Form of Government, is called the Elements of the World; and therefore both in Coloss. 2. and Rom. 12. the Apostle bids us under the Gospel, not to be conformed neither for Worship nor Government (further than as Jesus Christ hath been pleased to take what was before, and make it anew) to the Elements of the World. So in Galat. 4. 2, 3. he saith, they were under Tutors and Governors, till they came to be of Man's Estate, or to be of Age; which under the Gospel, they are in comparison. And indeed the Gospel being more spiritual the Frame of the Government, and Institutions of it, are not formed to a Worldly way to Governments of Nations, and of Kingdoms, as that was then, to an outward external Glory, as their Worship also was. As God hath chosen the Preaching of the Word, which is foolishness, so he hath chosen many of those things, which are vile and base, and contemptible, and a foolishness of Government, in comparison of what was then: And this is it deceiveth the World; for the Gospel is a Mystery throughout: He chooseth the Synagogue, and not the Temple; he chooseth a Congregation and Eldership, and not the Sanhedrin; he chooseth Baptism, and not Circumcision, &c.

3. Our Lord and Savior, speaks altogether of a new Church to be made, a Church gathered in his Name, as when he Instituted Baptism, to show that it was a new Ordinance; he bids them Baptize in his Name, so to show that he erected a Frame of a New Church, he bids that it should be gathered in his Name.

4. Our Brethren's Principles, that hold the Universal Church, to be the Seat and Subject of Christ's Institution, argue this; for as his Church now over all Nations, both Jew and Gentile, is a differing Seat from that of the Jew only, so answerably, to set in his Church Apostles and Prophets, &c. instead of chief Priests, &c. is a new Institution; and it is certain▪ that that Church, whereof the Apostle speaks, 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. is the Church of the New Testament: And therefore if the Church Universal being a politick, be argued from thence, it is by a new Institution, differing from the former; because the Church of the New Testament, which he speaks of there, began with the Apostles. And besides the Institution fell upon the Church of the Jews Qua National; but this falls upon the Church, Qua Universal, in all Nations, else it would not extend to all Nations to be equal standers in it, whereas under the Law, they were not to be so with the Jews; but were to come under that National covenant, only when Proselited.

4. There seems to have been several forts of Policies and Orders extant, under the Old Testament, and unto which of these should the conformity now be made? By what rules should we now judge?

1. There were 1. Chief Rulers over several Bodies of the Priests and Levites: To which Government the Bishops say, their order is an Allusion. There was also a power in these Priests and Levites, proper and peculiar to them, to judge of the clean and unclean; and concerning the matters of Worship in the Temple. And this Government was purely Ecclesiastical; and unto this therefore, rather should the Analogy refer of matters in the Church, seeing that these were purely such.

2. Again, There were the civil Judicatures in their Cities and Towns, and in their great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, for all controversies within their Gates, as the Distinction is in Deut. 17. Yet these were all Ecclesiastical, but indeed mixed both in respect of causes and persons; their Church and Commonwealth being so mixed, as it is hard to distinguish what belonged to them, merely as a Commonwealth, and what belonged to them as a Church, in respect of what came under the cognizance and power of those Courts.

3. Then again, There was their Synagogical Government, which seems to be differing from what either the Priests had in the Temple, in respect of Persons clean and unclean ceremonially, or over one another; or from Courts of Judicature in their Gates. A Government those Synagogues had, for there are the Rulers of them mentioned; and also punishments they had, for when the Romans took away their Government in their Gates, they scourged in their Synagogues. There were Admonitions also, or Excommunications, or casting Men out of their Synagogues. The Great Sanhedrin, and their other Courts, did punish by civil mulcts, and the Sanhedrin did put to Death: In the Temple, the Priests kept out the unclean; and the Judgment of that was not by the Sanhedrin, but by the Priests that did look to the Worship of the Temple: But the Synagogues did cast a Man out; and the Priests did not Supervize the Government of the Synagogues.

And that all this was a matter of a differing cognizance, from what was Transacted in their other Courts, is evident by this, that for many sins (besides the civil punishments that were adjudged in the Courts of their Gates, as to restore and the like) a Man was further obliged to come to the Temple, with Confession, and with a Sacrifice; so as the charge of the things of the Temple, and the Order and Discipline thereof, was another thing than that of their civil Courts. And although a Man was cast out of the Synagogues, and was in respect of such a communion, as a Heathen and a Publican; yet he might still come to the Temple, and partake in the Worship thereof. But that the Sanhedrin did at any time pronounce that Sentence, that a Man should be as an Heathen or Publican, that this was proper to their Courts, we believe not. Now it is left very uncertain, to which of these the Analogy of the Government of a Gospel Church should be accomodated.

Object. It is said, that our Savior Christ, in Matth. 18. reflected upon some Bench or Court, the next then extant, to which the People were wont to resort among the Jews, and so intimated, that his Will was, that the Church, under the Gospel, should be formed up conformably to us, and that so it should be like to that of the Jews, and so the policy of the Church of the New Testament, should be conformed to the policy of the Old, by virtue of that first Institution, And from thence it is argued, that there should be Ruling Elders, that are not Teachers, because there were such among the Jews: From thence it is argued, that there should be a National Church, a National Sanhedrin or Assembly, as was among the Jews: From thence it is argued, that the power is in the Elders alone, because it was so among the Jews, who are called the Church: And so this Analogy of the Jewish Church, is one of the great Foundations of the Presbyterian Government, and of Classical and National Assemblies.

Answ. But besides that, it was not necessary that Jesus Christ should allude to it, though he useth the same Phrase: The Deformity of that Pattern, and the policy of the Government of the New Testament is such, as that that cannot be Christ's intent.

For 1. If we take the Jewish Pattern, in matter of Government, we shall be worse put to it, to judge what is ceremonial, and what is perpetual, or what was a judicial Appendix to the ceremonial, and added upon a supposition of it, more than we are put to it to judge, what was ordinary, and what was extraordinary in the Apostle's practices. If that our Savior Christ alluded to it in the gross, and in the lump, who shall be able to distinguish?

2. If that policy should thereby be Established, it would as well serve for the erecting of Episcopal Government over Ministers; for although it is said, that Aaron's High Priesthood was Christ's Type, and not the Type of Bishops; yet that the Priests and the Levites (several companies of them) should have one that was the chief overseer over all, who is by the Septuagint called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bishop and Overseer was no way Typical. There were four sorts of Levites. Priests, Kohathites, Gershemites, Mecarites, Numb. 3. 30, & 35. And over each of those, were four Eminent persons, whereof Eleazar was one, Numb. 3. 32. And when Eleazar was made High Priest, then Phinehas was Governor of the Levites, and had oversight of them, Ruling of them, as a Chron 9. 20. And Numb. 4. 33. Ithamar was over the Sons of Gershom and Merari. And in Neh. 11. 14, & 22. They are called Overseers, or as the Septuagint translates it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bishops, the same word is used of the Apostles, Acts 1, 1. 20. and their office, unto which (say the Episcopal party) Bishops do Succeed as Rulers over other Ministers (though perhaps called Bishops also) as the Apostles were over the Seventy, and all other Ministers. And for this, will the Jewish pattern and policy (if that were alluded to) serve as well as for the Presbyterian Government. And in 2 Chron. 35. 8. we read of the three Rulers of the House of God, whereof but one was the High Priest: Now although that the High Priest, for his going into the Holy of Holies, was a Type of Christ, yet not all those other that were the Rulers of the Priests, and of the House of God.

And if it be replied as it is by some, that this was but the Law of Nature, the Heads of these Familses being Rulers over the rest, it is answered.

1. So was not Korah, Numb. 16. 1.

2. The Law of Nature, makes as well for one Man to Govern over many, and so for a Monarchical Government, • s for an Aristocratical, and so Episcopal Government might be argued to be suited to the Law of Nature, as well as to the Jewish.

3. It belonged not to the ceremonial Law, but it served only for Order; and although the Eldest of the Family were those Governors that were set over the rest of a company of Priests of the same Family, and so that the Eldest had it by Birth, and by the Law of Nature; yet that one should be set over the rest, was merely a matter of Order, and therefore will plead for itself as strongly (if we take the Jewish Pattern) as for any other way of Government.

It may be objected, that upon this ground, that one Man makes not the Church, Episcopal Power is cut off, and that therefore the Allusion of our Lord Christ in Matth. 18. is to those Courts that were erected among the Jews.

Answ. 1. In the first place, either there were two sorts of Courts, one civil, and the other purely Ecclesiastical, two kind of Synedrims, both in each City, and in Jerusalem, which can never be proved: And if two, which of these two Christ should Allude to, will still be the question. Or if there were but one kind of Court, that was both for civil and ecclesiastical Government; then the Jewish Pattern will not serve the turn, for then, by that reason, Persons Ecclesiastical, now should deal in civil causes (for so they did then) and Persons civil, should deal in Ecclesiastical. Yea, and those that hold there were two Courts, the one for causes civil, the other for ecclesiastical; yet they say, the Persons in both were mixed. And because that both were thus mixed, therefore in Deut. 17. 9. speaking of the Sanhedrin, he saith, When thou shalt come to the Priest, or the Judges, which shall be in those Days, &c. for sometime a Priest was the President of that Council, and sometimes a civil Person, that was not of the Priest's Office, whom therefore he calleth a Judge. It was by Institution, that there should be some Priests, Ezek 44. 24. Deut. 24. 8. 2 Chron. 18. 18. Deut. 16. 18. And also that others then Priests and Levites, were of the Sanhedrin, and also Judges of particular Cities, as all sides acknowledge. For from hence, all Presbyterian Divines argue, the Pattern of Lay-Elders, which yet, if there be not an Institution for it in the New Testament, would never be able to be argued from hence; and therefore many of our Brethren that acknowledge Persons civil, that were not Priests and Levites, to have been mingled in those Courts, yet deny the consequence of that Argument, unto Ruling Elders now; which if the Jewish Pattern had held, it would have argued it. And it appears further, that therefore the Elders and the Priests are mentioned. Pharisees that were not of the Tribe of Levi threw off their Rulers, and the Priest or the Judge, Deut. 17. and the Judges, Elders and Priests, are usually put together in their Cities and Courts.

And the Reason why both were mixed thus, to become but one Court, was because that then the Church was mingled with the Common-wealth, and both were but one; therefore the Church of Israel is called the Common-wealth of Israel: And the Laws of their Common-wealth, were given immediately by God; and therefore the Levites, as well as the civil Authority, were the Interpreters of that Law. If therefore this should now be the pattern, as when according to our Brethren's Assertion, the Church grows up to a Nation, there should be a National Church; because that was the Pattern of the Jews, so when the Churches grew up to a Nation, the Ecclesiastical State, and the civil, should become mingled, and Ministers should Judge in civil Causes, and those, that are not Ministers, should Judge in Ecclesiastical, for so in that Sanhedrin they did.

If it be said, that all the Acts were not Church Acts, as sending Ambassadors, making Wars and the like: The answer is, that all such Acts as were towards other Nations, might not so properly be called Church Acts; but the question is, what was among themselves? And yet even their Wars were Holy, and their God was called the Lord of Hosts, and the Priests wait with Trumpets, to encourage the People to fight, as if it had been an Ecclesiastical business.

Answ. 2. Again Secondly, if that be the Pattern that Christ alludeth to, then if that State had whilst it stood in the Apostle's times turned Christian, it might have been conformed to the Jewish Pattern of Government, as it then stood; and so the Persons of the Sanhedrin, that were Judges of the Jewish Church, should have continued Judges of the Christian Church.

3. If that the Jewish Government had been the Pattern, then there should be but two Courts Subordinate one to another; for so there was no more among the Jews, in a way of Subordination. There was the Court in each City and Town, consisting some of more, some of less, according to their proportion and bigness, that did Judge of all causes within themselves; and then there was the great Sanhedrin, and Appeals were made immediately from each of the Inferior Courts, unto this Superior. And whereas it is said by some, that there were three Courts at Jerusalem for Appeals; we find not by the Scriptures, that there were three such Courts, although some of the Rabbins say there were. And when the Text saith, in Deut. 17. that whosoever would not obey the Sentence of the Judge, that should be in that place, should be put to Death; then when they brought it to the first Court, the Judges of the Twenty three at Jerusalem, according to that Notion, they should have been put to Death, and never have come to the great Sanhedrin. And if there were two such Courts of the Twenty three, besides the Sanhedrin, yet they were not for Appeals; but they were either the one of that City of Jerusalem, which as a City had the privilege to have Judicature within itself, besides the Sanhedrin for the whole Nation; and the other of the Priests for the matters of the Temple (for the Temple was an inclosure) or else the one was for Jerusalem; and the other for the City of David (each having the privilege of a City, although in two places, as Westminster and London have) the one was at the Door of the Mountain of the Lord, the other at the Door of the Temple. If then the Form of the Jewish Government be the Pattern, then all those Subordinate Congregational, Classical, Provincial, and National Assemblies, they shall be cut off; for the Jewish Pattern will not suit these.

4. If that were the Pattern, then the National Assembly should be the Supreme Judge; and there should be none above that: But our National Assemblies, Presbyterian Divines, do place an Universal General Council, and make that to be the Supreme; whereas the National Sanhedrin of the Jews, Qua National, was the Highest Court.

5. If that that be the Pattern, the matters brought to that Sanhedrin, so far as we have a Rule in the Word for it, were only matters that were too difficult; and when they were too difficult for those particular Courts in the Cities or Towns, they were brought to the General Assembly, Deut. 17. If a matter be too hard for thee, &c: Even as the hard matters, which none could Determine but God, were brought to Moses, Exod. 18. 21.

6. When the Inferior Court itself did find it to be too hard for them, it was not by way of Appeal, that they brought it to the Superior, so in Deut. 17. If it be too hard for thee: So as it was not in the liberty of any Person to Appeal; but the Court finding themselves not able to decide the controversy, they were to carry it to the Sanhedrin (therefore the Rabbins say, that that place, Deut. 17. belongs only to a Rebellious Elder) And if so, then this place will not serve to have Ecclesiastical Courts for Appeals.

7. The Sanhedrin did only judge of the matter of the Law and Right in a Doctrinal way, in such and such a case; but it was still left, after their Sentence, unto the Inferior Court to judge of the matter of fact, and to apply the Sentence: So as by this Rule, the greater Assemblies of Synods and Councils should not at all Excommunicate; but only Doctrinally deliver the Sentence, still leaving, to the particular Churches, the Application of that Rule, by the Sentence of Excommunication, in whose power alone it is. Therefore speaking to the Judges of the Inferior Courts, he says, Thou shalt do according to the Sentence of the Law, which they shall teach thee, and according to the Judgments which they shall tell thee, Deut. 17. 10, 11.

8. The Sanhedrin executed civil punishments, as putting to Death, &c. if their Sentence was not obeyed, so that they Excommunicated not, but punishment was civil, which their Court inflicted.

9. If Appeals were made, and things were carried to the Higher Courts, from the lower; there was an High punishment for the neglecting of the Sentence (supposing there were an Appeal) merely because the Sentence of that Court was contemned. The Man was to be put to Death, although the matter wherein he disobeyed, did deserve a lesser punishment. But in the Ecclesiastical Government, that Christ hath set up, there is no higher punishment than Excommunication, and delivering to Satan, therefore this Pattern will not serve.

10. In that Sanhedrin, Persons were still the same Men, continually Resident. They were Officers on purpose that were set, and constant for that Church (even as Bishops are amongst us) and they resided at Jerusalem. And so the Foundation of the calling of the one to that National Assembly, and the calling of Ministers to our National Assemblies (which they would pattern by this) do wholly differ; for as ours are called by a new choice for that special Assembly, as occasion is, and by a choice too, residing in their particular Congregations and charges.

Object. It is said, 2 Chron. 19. 8. They returned to Jerusalem. It seems therefore they rod Circuit.

Answ. That was occasional, when first Religion was to be Reformed, and the People instructed, after a neglect of all Order and Government amongst them. Otherwise they were constant at Jerusalem, and had therefore a peculiar Title, being called Elders of the People, whereas others were called Elders of the Cities. And so the pattern of Bishops, who were constant Officers for a National Church, and attend wholly upon the public (as the same Persons did always here in the high Commission) will much better suit the Jewish pattern.

11. They had always a chief, whom they called the Nasi, or the Prince, in imitation of the first Court, wherein Moses was chief, and the number with him: Seventy one, and so it is too Eze. 8. 11. 70 Elders, in the midst of them, Jazanias as the Prince; and if the Jewish pattern should hold, there should be such now. Therefore in Deut. 17. the Court, being Denominated from someone, is called the Priest or the Judge; and it would, according to that, much better suit Rome, than Zion, the Popish Government, than that of the Reformed Churches, it being a nearer pattern to have one Nasi, one Prince, one High Priest, with a constant number of Cardinals, in a place which they pretend the promise is made to. And accordingly Bellarmine urgeth it for the State of Antichrist, and with more reason and strength, and more likelihood, than for the Presbyterian pattern. For the High Priests were ordinarily over that Sanhedrin, so the Asmones in the time of the Maccabees, Matth. 26. 5. 7. and Acts 23. 5. compared with, Exod. 22. 28.

12. There was a peculiar place, which God did then Sanctify at Jerusalem, in which the Great Sanhedrin was always to sit: Therefore it is still said, in Deut. 17. Thou shalt go to the place that God shall choose, as well as that they should go to the Judge, or to the Priest; because it was God's promise to be in that place, and with the Court sitting there; and therefore also it is said, If they should not do according to the Sentence of the Priest, that standeth before the Lord. And if they show us any one place that God hath so peculiarly Sanctified, and set up such a Court as the Papists would pretend to do, then it would be a pattern, or else not. But God hath not Sanctified any place now, therefore the pattern will not hold. It may much better, in a Type, be Transferred to the general Assembly in Heaven, even to which we under the Gospel are come, or to the General Judgment of the Great Day, when all causes shall be judged over again.

13. Neither were all causes Ecclesiastical, brought to this Sanhedrin; therefore it is said, Thou shalt bring all Causes within thy Gates, not all causes in God's House. Therefore the High Priest is said to be over the House of God, and the charge of that House belonged unto the Priests; and there were three Rulers over the House of God. Therefore to the Sanhedrin belonged Judicials, and such Ceremonials, as did not appertain to the Temple, as the cutting off of a Man, that had Leaven in his House, Exod. 12. But yet the ceremonial belonged to the Temple, and the Priests themselves were Judges thereof. And the Order of Priests and Levites had a peculiar power to Judge of Leprosy, and of Persons that were unclean, and to keep them out of the Temple, Levite. 10. 10, 11. Ezek. 44. 23. Hag. 2. 11, 12, 13. therefore the Priests of the Temple put out Uzziah, when he was struck with the Leprosy. So Christ answerably speaks, Matth. 8. 4. Go show thyself to the Priest, saith Christ, to the Man that he cured of the Leprosy, that he might judge of it, whether he were whole or no. Neither were there any Persons that we read of, but those that were Priests, that were to do this. Yea, the Leprosy was so infectious, that there was no Warrant or Promise, that any that conversed with, or came to a Leper should be kept from it, but only the Priest. And in Numb. 3. 7. they were to keep the whole charge about the Tabernacle of the Congregation: And in Ezek. 44. 27, they were to look to the Sabbath. Now it is evident, that others, besides the Priests, made up that Great Court at Jerusalem,

14. If that this were the pattern, then the Church in each Village or City, now should have an immediate and entire Government within themselves; and so it would suit the Congregational Government. For each Town in Judea had Elders in their Gates; in the smaller there were three to judge their causes, in the greater Cities there were Twenty three.

15. The number of the Persons were all set, they were Seventy, So that in the conclusion, we may say as Paul of those of the Circumcision, and observing the Law that they themselves keep not the Law, so nor those that were the Analogy of the Jewish pattern, here being these so great, so essential, and many differences between the Jewish and Presbyterial Government, so now for a National Assembly.

And if it be said by them, we urge not the identity, that it should be the same: We reply 1. Why not the identity in things that were not ceremonial (for such they pretend to make a pattern) but matters of mere Order and Policy, fuited to them, as to a National Church, and that by God's Institution, If they make the Institution of God the pattern in one thing, why not in another? 2. If it be only a mere Analogy, they themselves might show some other Warrant, first, for the like things Instituted anew, by Christ under the New Testament, which being so Instistituted, do bear Analogy with what was under the Old. For otherwise it's left unto the pleasure of Man to take and refuse what he pleaseth, and set it up as Analagous to the Old; and so others may set up other things, and indeed pick another form of Government out of other things, that were Analagous to the Government of that pattern. As when they argue out of Matth. 18. that Christ Alludeth to the Courts that were then in Jury, where he saith, Go tell the Church, and urged the Analogy to hold in this; that as their Courts which were called Ecclesiae, were a College of Elders and Judges, and that therefore, the Church, that Christ means under the New Testament, must be a consistory of Elders, and National Assemblies (as the lesser and greater Sanhedrin was distinct, and apart from the People) we have just reason to reply, why should the Analogy hold in this only, unless the New Testament hold forth that the Assembly of a company of Elders, apart from the People, are called a Church? If that were first found, then indeed this Analogy might be applied thereunto; but to pick and choose out one piece of the Model, and leave out the rest, and to say that Christ intends this, rather than the rest, without a special Warrant of his so to do, but Human and Arbitrary, under the color of Divine Institution.

To us this is an infallible Rule, that where God hath applied a Type, or anything out of the Old Testament, to an Institution under the New, we should so far be led by it, as he hath in his or that particular applied it; for otherwise the Analogy of those chief Priests, which are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Overseers, as the Septuagint rendereth it, Psal. 109, 8, Acts 1. 20. Zech. 11. 14, 22. would hold for the Order of Bishops, by way of Analogy, as strong as any Argument can be framed from the Analogy of their Courts, to the like Ecclesiastical now,

It is urged by some, that that which belonged to that Church, as a Church, is Moral in all Ages (as that which belongs to a Child, as he is Animal rationale, belongs to a Man, though what agreeth to him as a Child, agrees not to all Men; but what agrees to a Child, as it is Animal rationale, is common to all Men) now this Government, say they, did not belong to the Church as Jewish, and as in its Infant condition, in a Typical respect, but as a politick National Church,

We answer 1. That their being a National Church was in a typical respect; and therefore all their Laws, Ceremonial, Judicial, Moral, the Laws that were given the State, were given by God; Jus civile judaicum pars Theology fuit, The Jews Civil Law, was part of their Divinity. And therefore the Common-wealth of Israel is called the Church; and in 2 Pet. 1. Peter, speaking to the Saints, saith, applying the type, you are a Holy Nation, a Royal People, he speaks not to them, as they were a Nation under a Government, one National Church, although he Writes to the Jews that were Disperst over many Provinces, 1 Pet. 1. 1. Totus status illius populi fuit figuralis, Aquinas, prima secundae Quaest. 104. Art. 2.

Yea, 2. That great Sanhedrin, at Jerusalem, seems to have a typical Respect upon it, it being restrained to the place that God should choose, and was a type of the General Assembly in Heaven, or at the Day of Judgment; for to that Assembly, doth Christ seem to Allude, when he saith, they shall sit upon twelve Thrones, Judging the twelve Tribes of Israel; and the great Sanhedrin, at Jerusalem, was only that Court that did Judge the twelve Tribes, and no other Court besides.

3. There was that peculiar ground of the Jews, being a National Church (which was the main ground, why God made them a National Church) as is compatible to no Nation under Heaven; they were a National Church, not only as Men living under the same Government, and under the same Prince, and in the same Land, or of the same Language; but chiefly and principally, as they were the Children of Abraham, to whom the promises were made as to one common Father, whose Seed did grow up into a Nation, whom God did sever from all other Nations as such, and made a Nation of them, dwelling alone, so as they were not to Marry out of their own Nation. And herein Abraham was Christ's type, Jesus Christ being now the Father of all the Faithful in all Nations, who are become one Royal Nation unto him; but a Royal Nation Spiritually, and a Royal Kindred, although out of several Nations, but not as formed into a National Government. And when they did grow up into a Nation, then God gave them Laws for the Government of them as a Nation, God did Institute them to a National Church and Kingdom, and made a new Covenant with them, and gave them Laws. And if now under the Gospel, we should come to a National Church, and have a like Government, it may have an Institution under the New Testament, as that had then.

And there is likewise this difference between our Churches under the Gospel, and that of the Jews, that the prima notio, the first Notion of a Church fell upon them, as they were a Nation; but now doth not fall upon the Saints, as they are a Nation in that sense that they were; but it falls either upon the Church Universal, which is the Church Mystical, or upon Congregational, but upon none Qua Nation, as it did upon them; and therefore their being a National Church, was a type of the Universal, and not of this or that particular Nation, now Qua Nation; but we can show too, that Qua Nation, they were the type of particular Churches and Congregations.

5. There is a great Fallacy in this Argument. It is true, that that which agreeth to a Church, Qua talis as such, is in every Church that is such; and so what was in that Church as National, purely so considered, may be, and ought to be in any other Church that is National in a political respect, as whatsoever belongeth to a Man, Qua rationals, belongeth to every Man: When therefore it is said, this Government did belong to it, Qua Church, so we deny it, for it belonged only to it, Qua National Church in the general, and hath many specifical differences annexed. There is a Church National, such indeed was the Jews; and there is a Church Congregational, and such are those under the New Testament; there is a Church Universal, which is the Church Mystical: But what belongs to the Church of the Jews, as National, and cast into a Kingdom, will not belong to the Church Universal, nor will it belong to the Church Congregational, for it belongs to it only as National; and so we might as well argue, that what belongs to one Species under a genus, belongs to the other Species, or that what belongs to a Man, Qua animal rationale, should belong to a Beast, because he also is Animal. So that this remaineth first to be proved, that Jesus Christ hath made National Churches under the New Testament, to be polilitick Bodies; and then the Argument might have some show in it, that what belongs to a Church, as a National Church, should belong to a National Church under the New Testament, for matter of Government. But otherwise it may as well be argued, that what Form of Government agrees to a Kingdom, as a Body politick, must be found in every Corporation; and that the same Government must be in the one, that is in the other (whereas a Body politick is the genus, as also Church is, and National, Presbyterial, &c. are but Specifical differences annexed) and also that what belongs to the Common-wealth of Venice, as an Aristocratical Common-wealth, must belong to all Common-wealths, whereas there are Common-wealths that are Monarchical, which we call Kingdoms, others that are Democratical, and what belongs to the one, with these differences, belongs not to the other. What belongs simply to a Monarchy, as a Monarchical Common-wealth, must not be said to belong to a Democratical Common-wealth. In a Monarchy, there are differing degrees of Marquesses, and Earls, and Lord's; it will not therefore follow, that in a Democracy, or in a Common-wealth, whose Government is by several Hance Towns, there should be the same too.

6. And if Christ had appointed National Churches under the New Testament in a political Respect, it was not necessary that the Analogy of the Jewish Government should be observed; no more than that, in every Kingdom and Common-wealth, the Analogy of the Jews political Government should also be observed. And the Analogy too, might be kept and observed in its proportion, in every Congregational Church, as the Analogy of the three Estates, in the Superior Court in Parliament, is shadowed out in many Corporations, where there is the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common-Council; but it is not necessary, that there should be the same Subordination of Courts, all keeping the same Analogy as was amongst the Jews: For Churches depending immediately upon the Magistrates, in every Kingdom, might be well governed, as we see the Church in Geneva is and the Helvetians are. But we answer.

7. Whereas the Argument runs, that that Government was not ceremonial, suppose that their having such a Form of Government with Courts of Appeals, having Judicature in them, were not typical and ceremonial, yet it will not follow, that the like must be in the Churches in Nations, under the Gospel: Therefore Gersom Bucerus Distinguisheth, that some things were merely ceremonial; and they were cut off, other things were perpetually Moral, and other things, though they were not ceremonial, yet they did peculiarly serve to the conservation of that policy, and were annexed for order's sake, to the preservation of what was ceremonial. Now that National Sanhedrin, was of that latter sort; for suppose it were not ceremonial altogether; yet that Church being constituted a National Church, as a politick Body Ecclesiastical, it must have a National Sanhedrin, that was suitable and answerable. For if we suppose a National Church, it must have a National Government proportionable to it, and Officers accordingly: And so that there should be those Heads of the Priests, and that imparity accordingly amongst the Priests, was a thing proper to the policy of the Levites, and yet not typical; for multitudes of them meeting in their ranks and courses, for the Service of the Temple, it was necessary that there should be one that should order those Multitudes of them, that in their courses came up.

It must be acknowledged, that what ever constitution of Churches as politick Bodies, Jesus Christ hath made, he hath took a suitable order, for the preservation of order among them: So having made congregational Churches those politick Bodies, he hath taken order for the Government of them as such. And if he had made Churches National, as politick Bodies; he would have took suitable order for them also, as he did among the Jews, and he would have done it afore such time, as Churches were multiplied, so as to come up to a Nation; for so he did with the Church of the Jews, afore they came into the Land of Canaan, but so he hath not done in the New Testament, nor did the Apostles live to see it settled; and it were strange that that Form should be erected by Christ, that the Apostles lived not to see.

So that the conclusion of all, it must be this, that Jesus Christ did still suit the Government of his Church, to the condition of the matter, thus the Church, when in Families, had a Family Government; and when a Nation was singled out and chosen, it had a National Government; but the Saints being to be dispersed over all Nations (as the Jews themselves were, when they had their Synagogues dispersed) he hath Established a Government answerable.

A Church is said to be National, either 1. In respect of the Members, that all, that are of the Nation, are Members of the Church, which was the constitution of the Jewish Church: Or 2. In respect of Government, that because they are a Nation, they are cast therefore into a National Government. Now indeed, the National Government of the Jews did follow upon their National constitution of Members; and answerably under the Gospel, even in Nations, the Government of Christ's Church doth follow the condition of the Members. Now the condition of those that are Saints (which are only fit to be Members of Churches) is to be scattered up and down, and to be few; for they are Redeemed out of Nations: There are few Cities in England will afford more Saints, than will make one Church, but London. So as the reason, why, that under the Gospel, there is not this National Government for Churches, is because a Nation comes not up to Christ's terms, and if it should, there are other respects that make the alteration; for it was fit that the Body of the Saints, the People, should have interest of presence, and of a virtual concurrence, and of edification; yea, of suffrage in the Government. It was for the Honor of the Saints, that are come out of their Nonage, that it should be so, and that Worship and Government, and communion in both, should be commensurable; God loving more the Spiritual communion, that Saints have in public Worship under the Gospel, than the National Sacrifices under the old Law; and did therefore cast the Government under the Gospel thus, to attain this end, without which, it could not be attained; and also, because that Churches, as Churches, would be more sweetly ordered by the Law of communion of Churches without Jurisdiction, than by a Jurisdiction placed in combination of many Churches over each, seeing that Government could not be transacted in the presence of the Saints, but by delegated Messengers, and Representative Elders.

CHAP. IV.

THough those, who have stood up and Written for the Presbyterial Government, (as it is practiced in the Reformed Churches) do assert it to be the only ordinary standing, and perpetual Government, which ought to be embraced in all Churches and Christian States; yet the Wisdom of the Assembly of Divines, at Westminster, thought meet to propound it to this Debate, that the Scripture holds forth it may be.

And whereas when the asserting the Jus Divinum of it is waved, that yet it is a Government the nearest, and in a Conspicuous Eminency, most conformed to the Scripture Rules and Examples in the New Testament, is a position in Succession, the next, though a far lower step than the former. And less could not have been expected to have been held forth, when all other Governments are laid aside, to give room for its Entertainment. Yet this first and leading proposition, to all the other that follow about it, viz. that the Scripture intimates, that such a Government may be, falls as low in its undertaking, as any Government that can be supposed to pretend the least for itself. And in the like manner, the rest of the Propositions, that follow, run but in the same Style, that it is lawful and agreeable to the Word, that things should be ordered thus or thus.

Though the Reverend Assembly would not venture so far, yet the next fairest way, left for Deciding this controvesie, had been to have patterned the practices and directions, which the several ways of Church Government pretend to, for their Warrant; and to have compared these, each with the other, and by an Harmonious Draught and Platform of either, when set together, it would easily have been discerned, not only which of them May be, but which of them rather should be; and that of the two which appeared to hold the greatest likeness, to the Primitive picture, drawn in the Stories of the New Testament, and in the Rules and Commands in the Epistles, simular unto, let that have been esteemed the True Child there. But the proposition is so cast, that we must directly oppose it with such grounds, as may show, that this Presbyterian may not be, without troubling ourselves to consider, which of the Forms of Government this should be.

The Proposition as thus stated for the Dispute, upon a mere, It may be, as it allows the greatest Latitude and compass to the affirmers of it, for their way of defending it; and paves the way for passableness with all Men, of all sides whatever, whose Judgments are not bound up with the opinion of a Jus Divinum, in Church-Government, so it did put the greatest difficulty, upon those that were negative in Judgment to disprove it. The Difficulty lay in this, that the most direct and punctual way, to overthrow the Proposition, is First, to prove and make good this other more general Assertion, so much controverted; That there is a certain standing ordinary Term of Church Government, held forth in the Directions given to the Apostles, or the Examples of those Churches we read of in the Scripture, erected by their guidance; and that also seconded by this Negative, That there ought to be no other, than what is by Institution. Which two General Principles, if supposed or gained, then indeed this alone had been Argument sufficient to Disprove the Presbyterial Government, that if it be not held forth in the Scriptures, as the ordinary standing Government for the Churches, that then it may not be. These afore said General Propositions having been Determined, there needed no more words, to have been on the Opponent's part, but to examine the Assemblies proofs, whether therein there appeared this standing Government Instituted. But the Discussion of the General Propositions, was denied by the Assembly (in the very first entrance into the Dispute of Discipline) to be so much as Debated; and therefore could not be assumed here, nor anywhere else into any Debate, but against the former Order of the Assembly, so that they stood upon this Advantage, to maintain their Assertion upon Erastian Principles, and yet left us to disprove it upon the contrary Principles, which yet are common to them and us, and which (as one said, when it was laid aside) would require a quarter of a years Debate, and also would have been left wholly upon us to make good, although it be laid as the Foundation, by the Church of Scotland, and other Reformed Churches of the Pesbyterial Government, and made use of against the Episcopal, to prove that the Government of the Church by Bishops, may not be.

And whereas it may be said, that yet this was left us, that by proving the Congregational way, to be by Institution, we might by that, as another Medium, have shown that the Presbyterial Government may not be: We were in this Disadvantaged also (if we would have introduced the Debate thereof, as against the Proposition) that though we had never so sufficiently proved all, (that is, a complete) Government) to be in a Congregation, by Christ's Institution (and yet for this Demonstration of that, (as our Brethren full well know) it had been necessary to debate and discuss at large, first, that forementioned Principle, by what ways the Institutions of Christ in the New Testament are held forth, whether in ordinary Examples and Practices of the Primitive Churches) yet that had been (as to our Brethren) an insufficient Argument to disprove this Proposition, that therefore a Presbyterial Government over many Congregations, may not be. And the consequence would have been denied by many of our Brethren, that hold all power of Government, to be in a Congregation, but not solely or only; and so a classical Government over many Congregations, may yet be. And therefore, to have overthrown their Assertion, there were two Propositions yet more necessary to have been proved by us, or the proof had not been sufficient as to them: First, that an Ecclesiastical Government may not be set up (unless Warranted by Institution) over many Congregations, that have it by Institution within themselves: Or Secondly, that the Scriptures do not hold forth by Institution, an Ecclesiastical Government in classes, &c. over many Congregations. One of these, or both, must have been proved by us. If the first, we should fall again into a new General Head about Institutions, Namely, That what in Church-Government is not by Institution, may not be. The latter we also saw, the Assembly did Decline, and stated their Assertion upon an, It may be. And then again, this latter also being a Negative, the Demonstration lies not in positive Arguments to the contrary; but in a Defensive Denyal, with answers to the Arguments which might be brought to prove the Affirmative. And our Brethren not undertaking to prove an Institution of the Presbyterial Government, all our answers to their Arguments, had answerably still fallen short of disproving the Institution of that Government. So that our Attempt this way, to oppose their Proposition, would have been unavailble, and in vain.

But this was not all the obstruction that lay in our way, to the confuting this Proposition, in respect of this their stating it upon an, It may be; but the Difficulty was increased further also, and yet no less from the vast indefiniteness, and indeterminate Ambiguity and uncertainty of that other Term [Presbyterial Government, over many Congregations] which importing an Association of the Elders of many Congregations for Government, doth admit many Variations, and includes in it several patterns of Government, and also differing Constitutions of those Congregations. For, (to give an Instance) there might be conceived, a Twofold Presbytery or Association of Elders, over many Congregations. There might be one for the Ordinary and Standing Government thereof, so as the greatest matters appertaining to any of those Congregations, should be in a constant way brought before their Consistory, as belonging to their Jurisdiction: So as the Congregations and their several Elderships should not proceed, but as first Warranted by the Sentence of the Higher Presbytery. And there might be another Presbytery or meeting of Elders (and the Assembly had not declared any difference between Synodical and Presbyterial Assemblies set for a standing Government) but only in case that Schisms and Contentions fall out in the several Congregations, either about matters of Doctrine or Government, or for Difficult cases, which the several Elderships of the Congregations, do find too hard for them, and so seek their help and direction: Or otherwise when the Eldership of a particular Congregation, hath Scandalously managed their Government, or wrongfully Excommunicated, &c. Then the Neighbouring Elderships offended, or appealed unto by the Persons offended, are to Judge and Determine of it. This is the first and most General Division of the Presbyterial Government, into which (as 'tis propounded in the [May be] it can be cast. If it be limited to an ordinary and standing Government, yet still as great an Ambiguity▪ as the former, remains touching the several ways, sorts or kinds, into which this Presbyterial Government, and the constitution of these Congregations may be, and are cast in the Reformed Churches, arising from a differing Relation, that the Elders (that thus are to make a common standing Presbytery) do bear unto these Congregations.

1. The one is common and promiscuous, unfixed for all sorts of Duties, of Preaching, &c. as well as for Ruling: That as in common, they make one Presbytery over them all for Government; so likewise they all are alike Elders and Pastors to each Congregation, and do bestow like pains and care for all Pastoral Duties of Preaching, Feeding, &c. in their courses and rounds, as is practiced in some Cities in Holland.

2. A Second variety is, that they are a Presbytery unto all in common, for Acts of Discipline; yet they are Pastors or Elders fixed in their Relations properly, but to one Congregation, to perform all such Duties thereunto, and not unto the rest.

In the first, the Ministers of all these Congregations do, in a circular way, Preach to them all in their course, as well as they do Rule in common; as if three or four Parishes be together, the Ministers of each should in their turns feed them all, and the People partake of the Gifts and Graces of all, as well as the Ministers Rule all. Now if these Congregations, for the number of the Persons belonging to them, consist only of so many as can at times meet altogether, with their common Elderships for matters of Discipline, choice of Ministers, Admonitions and Excommunications, and can be all present upon such Great and Solemn Acts of Government, in which we conceive all are interested, so to join in them, and to be edified by them; although in respect of convenience, they make several Set and Fixed Congregations for Worship, either on the account of Persecution, or of Distance from each other, or the like: And if they are so few Congregations, and so near as that Elders, that make up an Eldership in common, can fulfil the Duties of the Relation of Pastors to them all, in their round and course; so as those Congregations, do partake of the Gifts and Graces of them all, as well as are Ruled by them all; this kind of Presbytery of Elders in common over such a number, as can, and do, for their great Acts of Government, meet in one Assembly upon such occasions, both People and Elders altogether, make up one kind of Government and constitution of Congregations. But when there are Presbyteries that either through their extent and compass of the number and distance of the Congregations under them, or otherwise by the Law of their Combination, neither do nor can hold the Relation, nor discharge the Duties of Pastors in common unto them, but do only and merely rule them (and so do in respect to this, make a greater Presbytery over their many lesser Congregations, and this for the ordinary Government of them) and when the Members of these Congregations cannot meet to be present at the Acts of Discipline (wherein they have an interest of presence and edification) This is a second sort of Presbyterial Government; and which is generally practiced in the Reformed Churches.

3. And again yet further, this latter may also be (in Rational Supposition) cast into two sorts of Government.

The first sort of Government is, wherein the Elders of these many Congregations, have no share of Government in public Admonitions or Censures, nor bear no Rule in those Congregations, they are respectively affixt to; but such as under the Bishops, the Pastors of the Congregations had, of preaching, private Watching, visiting the Sick: All Suspensions from the Sacrament, public Admonitions, Censures, being immediately to be brought to the common presbytery of Elders, set over them all for Government.

2. Another Form of Government, is, that many Congregations (as in Scotland) having their proper and peculiar pastors and Elders, hereby come to be so many formed and distinct Churches; for the Relation of a pastor and other Elders, or Rulers, cannot but be unto a Church, properly so called; for Church and Elders are Relative, as Rulers and a Common-wealth. And therefore they are called Ecclesiae primae, as those to whom the Notion and true Nature and State of a Church doth first belong. And further, these Officers of pastors and Teachers, being first in these several Churches, and there being in each, some competent number of Elders or Officers, as a Pastor or Teacher, with other Ruling Elders (for otherwise the greater Presbytery should not be made up complete, of some of all these sorts of Officers out of each Church, since the first Seat of all these Officers, is some particular Church) these pastors and Ruling Elders, do make up a Presbytery over each of these Churches respectively. And further, being thus particular Churches, or having a presbytery or Eldership, they have some, yea, and a great part of Government allotted to them within their several Churches, as Suspension from the Sacrament, public Admonitions, &c.

For to suppose them Churches, and to have Elderships over them, and to have no privilege of governing, would be to make an empty Title, without any of those things the Scripture gives to the Churches and their Elderships. There is only this difference, that when it comes to the great matters of Ordination or Excommunication, these are taken up to the great Presbytery. And thus within the Territory of this presbyterial Government, intended in the proposition, two sorts of Elderships are to be understood▪ as included lesser, and greater ones over them, and two sorts of Churches (though called only Congregations) Churches lesser, and incomplete joined to make one Church, as the Subject of the common presbyterial Government.

In these unlimited and incomprehensive Senses, was this proposition (the first Born of all that follow about this Government) propounded to the debate, although we urged upon the Assembly, that they would specify and determine, which of these Governments they intended, and would maintain, but it would not be granted, nor anything added for the limitation thereof; as [must be] nor [rather be] instead of [it may be] not [over many Churches] instead [of many Congregations.] The advantage of which, on their part, was a liberty to defend it in any of these Senses, and each upon the lowest Terms [it may be] for the proposition might vary, and alter with any of these shapes, for its defense, as if a standing Government, immediately over many Congregations, could not be defended; then extraordinary and mediate of Elders Associated in Synods might: If the common standing Government of fixed Elders, to their several Congregations, would not abide the touch, then still the proposition (they might say) is not confuted; for presbytery of promiscuous unfixt Elders might notwithstanding be true, and so the Truth of the proposition would stand.

Being reduced to this narrowness in the entrance into the Debate, both for the state of the question, and for the Medium of arguing, We (1.) Profess to lay our Arguments against that way of Presbyterial Government, over many Congregations, as it is extant, or practiced in the Church of Scotland, over many Congregations, having Elders fixed to them: And we did also desire, that no other answers might be given; but such as they would in rearing up the presbyterial Government, reduce to practice. And 2. For the Medium of Arguing, we had little else left us, to have in a direct and open way recourse unto; but those Exhortations and charges given to Elders in the Epistles of the Apostles, as lying apparently cross to this way of presbyterial Government, as thwarting the Rule of Christ, and Directions of the Apostles.

The State of the Question then is this.

1. By Government is meant, a standing ordinary and constant Government, exercised over many Congregations, in all the matters of greatest Moment, that concern any Persons therein.

2. These Congregations are such, and so constituted, as to have severally or apart, each their proper Elders affixed to them, to preach to them, and watch over them; and to be interested in lesser cases of Government, as Admonition, &c.

3. But it is questioned, whether for all cases of Government that are the greater, as Excommunication, &c. that shall fall out in any of those Congregations, those Elders in common, meeting in one great Presbytery or Eldership, and made up of them all (even as for lesser matters, the Elders of particular Congregations meeting, are lesser Presbyteries to their several Congregations Respectively) should not appropriate this greater Government to themselves, which we deny, and shall endeavor to refute in the following chapter.

CHAP. V.

THat no company of Elders Assembled together, hath a Power and Rule over many Congregations, will appear, if we do but consider what the New Testament declares concerning Elders in their Relations to their Flocks committed to them; and concerning the Exhortations and charges to them, of Duties towards those Flocks, founded upon that Relation; as also the Duties of their Flocks to them, all which is like to be the surest measure to find out the extent of their power, and bounds of their Flocks, and whether that power for the ordinary way, be limited to one Congregation or many. For those Exhortations and Charges, must needs be supposed, suited to that boundary of Churches, and that constitution and extent of Relation, that the Elders of those Primitive times were placed in over them: Like as in the question about Polygamy, what the Scripture hath said of the Duties between Man and Wife, which were given and suited to the extent of that Relation, as God from the beginning bounded it; manifestly evinceth, that one Man cannot have many Wives, but one.

We have hitherto taken this for an undoubted Maxim; that as a Mutual Relation, is the ordinary Foundation of all power, whether Oeconomical, Civil, or Ecclesiastical; so the extent of all power, is commensurable with the extent of that Relation. A Master, as a Master, hath power but over such Servants, of whom he may say, I am your Master, and they of him, we are your Servants; for what hath any Man to do to Judge another Mans Servant? As the Apostle speaks. And the same is true correspondently here; those Elders that assume to be over either one or many Congregations, must have, as the Office of Elders, so the Relation of Elders unto that one, or those many Congregations; that they may be able to say, we are your Elders, and you all are our Church; which two are in Scripture expression, the Relate and the Correlate, as King and Kingdom, Magistrates and Common-wealth.

Now against this standing Government of these Elders in greater Presbyteries (as the Question hath been stated) We shall Humbly make use of the forementioned Maxim, for a Medium to overthrow this Government, by presenting together therewith, the Incongruities and Inconsistencies of it, and also by Arguing what the New Testament speaks of the Elders and their Duties, in relation to the Flocks committed to them; which all do argue, that according to the Scriptures, such a Government May not be. And we frame our Argument thus.

If many Congregations, having all Elders already affixed Respectively unto them, may be under such a standing Presbyterial Government: Then all those Elders, must also (according to the Scriptures) sustain a special Relation of ordinary and standing Elders to all the People of those Congregations, as one Church their Flock, and to everyone as a Member thereof.

But for a company of such Elders already affixed, &c. to sustain such a Relation, carries with it so great and manifold Incongruities and Inconsistences, with what the Scripture speaks of Elders, in their Relation to a Flock or Church committed to them; and likewise with the Principles of the Reformed Churches themselves, as cannot be admitted, and therefore such a Government may not be.

That according to the Scriptures, such a standing Presbyterial Government, necessarily draws such a standing special Relation, we endeavor to evince by parts, thus.

1. They must have the Relation of Elders, for Church and Elders are Relatives. And the Argument, for the Presbyterial Government, is taken by the Presbyterial Divine from this; That many Congregations in Scripture, are made one Church, and the Elders thereof Elders of that Church. This we had the greatest reason to take for granted, from the former Writings and Expressions of the Presbyterial Divines: Yea, the main Arguments, by which themselves have proved this Government, have been taken from this; that many Congregations, in the New Testament, do make one Church, and the Elders thereof, Elders of that one Church; and therefore are to govern that Church. And this we have the greatest reason to take for granted still, for in the proof which was presented to the Honorable Houses of Parliament, by the Reverend Assembly (and before we entered into the Debate, was brought in by the Committee, in the instance of the Church of Jerusalem) this is one Medium, that mention is made of the Multitudes there, as of one Church, and of Elders, as the Elders of that Church. Yea, and there being no mention made, of any distinct particular Congregations or Churches therein, but of a Church, and the Elders thereof; as thereby the prime Notion of a Church is held forth and Attributed thereto; So the prime and more principle Relation of Elders, as Elders to this one Church, and every Member of them is imported, and so as true and as Genuine a Relation (according to the Scripture's intent and expression) must be supposed to be intended, as can be supposed between any particular Congregation and their Elders. Yea, and moreover, to make out the Presbyterial Government over those many Congregations, as one Church, whilst the Apostles were the Rulers of it, the Apostles themselves are made to act and become, as ordinary Elders to that Church. It was therefore desired, that they who should deny this Proposition, would rase out of their Writings forever, all such expressions; and that in the proofs after, to be brought to Establish the Presbytery, they would forbear that Medium, which yet as a main studd in this Building, cannot be wanting.

2. This Relation, which these Elders have, must be a more special Relation: As is evident from the practice and principles of this Government. For when the Congregations, in Shires, are divided into several Presbyteries or Deanries, the Elders (though Neighbors) of a bordering Presbytery, intermeddle not with the Congregations under another Presbytery; and yet they are for their Office Elders. It is therefore a special Relation, puts the difference, that those of these Presbyteries, Judge the Congregations under them, as having a special Relation to them, such as not to other Congregations. So the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem, as they all had the Relation of Elders to that Church, so they had a special Relation to that Church; and the Church was an entire distinct Church within itself, from the rest of the Churches in Judea, and the Elders of that Church were in such a special manner Elders thereof, as of no Church else in Judea; yea, in such a sense as they might be said not to be Elders of those other Churches, but of this.

3. It is an ordinary standing Relation: For they exercise and assume a constant and ordinary power, as the Presbyters of lesser Congregations do. Their meetings as Elders, in a Presbytery, are constant and ordinary, as those of the lesser Presbyteries are; and as these are Established for the smaller matters of Government, so these always are for the greater, and most Solemn; and they are both alike ordinary: For their Meeting, Work, and Exercise of power, being standing their relation must be suitable and answerable, to that of Elders in their Congregations respectively.

Unto the Argument, several Answers were given by the Reverend Respondents. 1. Some said, that they meet not Qua Elders, only Qui: They, meet, as Commissioners, but not as Elders. But this answer is taken away, by the first and second Argument; which proves, they have the Relation of Elders in Ruling. 2. It was denied by others, that if they make up a Presbytery to these Congregations, and all the people of them, that then they must bear the Relation of Elders to these Congregations, and every Member of them: For though they are Elders taken singly and apart, as in Relation to their several Congregations, which they are affixed unto; yet in this their conjunction into a common Presbytery over them all, they bear the Relation of Elders, but of a Presbytery or Eldership acting all in common: For as all these Congregations, under this Government, are to be considered as one Body, and as making up one Church, so all these Elders, met in this community, are to be considered as one Body and community; and therefore although they be considered altogether a Presbytery to that whole Church; yet it follows not, that they bear the Relation of Elders to each Congregation or Person they Govern; for according to that Logic Rule, Quod convenit toti qua toti, non convenit cuilibet parti, what agrees to the whole, as a whole, doth not agree to every part; these Elders, as in a Presbytery, make one Totum aggregatum; and these Congregations, as making up one Church, make another Totum aggregatum correlative thereunto: But take any Elder out of this Presbytery, and consider him in a single Relation to any of those Churches under the Presbytery; and he is not an Elder of any of those Churches, no more than if you take any Member of all those Congregations, that make up a classical Church; it would follow, that therefore he is a Member of all those many Congregations, whereas he is only a Member of that Community, as making one Church. And it was exemplified thus; that in Judah, the Heads of the Tribes Governed the Tribes; but so, as the Heads of the Tribe of Benjamin were not the Heads of the Tribe of Manasseh; and so in the University, the particular Heads of Trinity College, and of Queen's College, are altogether Heads of the University, as a common Body; but it follows not, that the Head of Trinity College, is Head of Queen's, and of all the other Colleges: And so in Parliament, a Burgess of Warwickshire acts for all England; yet it follows not, he is a Burgess of Norfolk: So the case is here, they are Elders in sensu composito, as united into one Presbytery or Community; but not in sensu diviso, to each of these Congregations, but each to their proper Congregations, to which they are affixed: As the Collonels in an Army, are Collonels but to their several Regiments; yet they all join in one Body, as a Council of War to the whole Army. And so these are Elders here in sensu aggregato, collectively to all the Congregations, though apart with a more special Relation to each. It was Retorted also, that in a particular Congregation, according to our Principles, the community of all the Brethren have power over any particular Member, as Thomas and Peter, with the rest over John; but it follows not, that Peter hath power over John apart, but only as in this Community considered; and so in this Presbytery, all these Elders are a Presbytery to the whole; but yet bear not the Relation of Elders to each apart considered. But we answer,

1. That we had the greatest reason to take it for granted (from the former Writings and Expressions of the Presbyterial Divines; as also because the main Arguments, by which themselves had proved this Government, have been taken from it) that many Congregations, in the New Testament, do make one Church; and that the Elders thereof, are Elders of that one Church, and therefore they are to Govern that Church.

2. That Logical Axiom is indeed true, Quod convenit toti, qua toti, non convenit cuilibet parti, and so here, that which doth competere toti, to the whole of those Elders, belongs not to every part: For take them all as met together, they are a Presbytery; and accordingly each Elder is not a Presbytery, to all these Congregations. Nor doth the Argument suppose it, but only that if they all be a common Presbytery to all these Congregations, that then they bear the Relation of Elders to them. Thus in a particular Congregation, though all the Elders are acknowledged by all, to be Elders to every Member of the Congregation; yet each cannot be said to be a Presbytery to the whole, or each Member; for that which belongs to the whole, as the whole belongs not to every part. That indeed which belongs to an aggregate whole, or collective community, formally considered as such, cannot be Attributed to every part; but what materially belongs to them, belongs to each apart. As take an heap of Stones, 'tis true, each Stone, is not an heap of Stones: but each Stone is a Stone; and both the Stones apart, and as an heap may be said to be such or such a Man's propriety, and to relate to him; so this company of Elders must be supposed both a Presbytery, and also Elders to this whole People, and every Member of them,

3. If they be a Presbytery in common to those Congregations, then according to the Scripture Notion and Expression (and what the Scriptures hold forth, is the Subject matter of this Debate) they bear the Relation of Elders also; and then they must be such Elders, as the Exhortations and Duties of Elders mentioned do concern. Now this consequence we make good by these Arguments:

1. The Scriptures would have the people look at them, and Honor them as Elders in all Acts of Ruling and Governing, those especially wherein the most and chief of Government lies, and wherein the excellency of their Ruling is seen: Now the chief of the Acts of Government, and the most excellent thereof, are assumed and exercised by these Elders, met in a common Presbytery, as Excommunication, &c. And therefore they that exercise such Acts of Government over Congregations, must bear the Relation of Elders to them; for upon that Relation, we are to Honor them, as performing this Rule; and under that Relation, they must be said to perform it, The Elders that Rule well, are worthy of double Honor, especially those that labor in the Word and Doctrine, 1 Tim. 5. 17. From whom are they to have this Honor given them, but from the People under them, and to be Honoured in their Relation; and this, as well in Ruling as in Preaching, though an Especially is put upon that. And therefore if in giving this Honor to them that labor in Preaching to them; they are to look at them, under the Relation of Elders, and their Elders laboring in the Word to them; then in giving that Honor to them that Rule them, they are so to look upon them, and therefore they must sustain that Relation in that Ruling; and besides, otherwise we destroy the Relation of Elders, as Elders in the Highest Acts of Governing, which are exercised in a Presbytery, whereas the Apostle calls them Elders in Ruling, as well as in Preaching.

2. The New Testament doth indifferently and promiscuously, use the word Presbytery, and the word Elders of the same persons, in Relation to the same people; and therefore to whom the Elders are supposed to be a Presbytery, to them they must bear the Relation of Elders. That the phrase is promiscuously used, is evident by Matth. 21. 33. where those that are called Elders of the People, are called, Luke 22. 66. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Presbytery of the People, so that if they were Related as a Presbytery to the people, to the same people they were Related as Elders. Neither are they said to be Elders in Relation to their being a Presbytery, but to the people; therefore it is not said the Elders of the Presbytery, but of the people, as bearing a direct Relation as Elders to the people: And so in Analogy thereunto, if they be a presbytery to many Congregations, they must be supposed Elders of those Congregations; for to whom ever they are a Presbytery, to them they are Elders; and to whom ever they are Elders, to them upon occasion they are a Presbytery. And in Analogy, the New Testament useth the word Presbytery, as under the Gospel but once, and in all places else, the Holy Ghost still when he exhorts them to their Duties, calls them Elders, or them that have the Rule over you, and yet in all those places, he intends to involve the Duty of Elders, as met in a Presbytery, as well as those singly performed to each person.

3. It is evident from the like parallel instance of the Eldership of a particular Congregation, where the Elders bear the Relation of Elders to each Member, and when met in common, they are an Eldership or Presbytery in common to that Church, and each Member of it. And then this their being a Community, takes not away their Relation of being Elders, as if the answer given by the Respondents, should hold, it would; for they would only be a Presbytery, and not Elders in that Community, when as they never are Elders more than then, and are not Elders of that Church, because met in a Presbytery; but therefore meet in a Presbytery over that Congregation, because they personally bear the Relation of Elders to it. And when they meet in that Presbytery, they are Elders particularly to each Member, as well as are Universal Elders in the Assembled presbytery. The Scripture commits the care of Churches, to these as in a presbytery, as well as out of it; and therefore they are Elders of their particular Flock in this presbytery, as well as when out of it. Thus (Acts 20. 28.) all the care of the Flock was committed to them as Elders, and having Relation to it as such; and therefore when met in a presbytery (therein to have care of the Flock, or any Member of it) they were Elders to it. And they are therefore to meet in a presbytery; because they were first Elders to their several Respective Congregations; and that they must be acknowledged Elders of all the people in those Congregations, the very instance itself alleged by our Brethren, will evidently clear; for the General Elders of all the Tribes, were called Elders of the people, Mat. 21. So as suppose the same individual persons, had been Members of the General Sanhedrim, or common Eldership of the people, and also Elders of the Tribes Respectively; yet they might as justly be called Elders of all those Tribes in their General Relation, for such ends and purposes, as truly as they were Elders to their particular Tribes, for other ends and purposes. Now therefore by like Reason, must all the Elders in this common Presbytery, have the Relation of Elders to all the Congregations, as well as severally they have their proper Relations to their several Congregations. For if in the instance given of the Jewish Government, we take all causes common to all the Tribes, as the Elders of Manasseh, were Elders to the Tribe of Benjamin, so in like manner must these Elders of a Presbytery, in common to all these Congregations, be supposed to be to each Congregation, when any cause comes afore them in their cognizance.

Lastly, Those places and exhortations of Scripture, concerning the Duties of Elders, &c. to their Flocks, and their Flocks to them, may be alleged to strengthen the Argument, Heb. 13. 7. Remember them that have the Rule over you, and have spoken the Word of God to you. And 1 Thess. 5. 12. Know them which labor among you, and are over you, and Admonish you. And to the same purpose is the charge, Acts 20. To the Elders of Ephesus, Feed the Flock, &c. These are all spoken of them, and to them, under the very Notion and Relation of Elders and Rulers, (which is Equivalent) and as their Rulers and Elders. And surely if any Person in a Congregation, were called afore one of those Presbyteries, over many Congregations, they would urge upon the Conscience of the Person, these and the like places to obey them, by virtue of these commands. If he should Reply, that these places speak of such as have the Relation of Elders to their Flocks, and every Person therein; and that by virtue of their being such to them, this Obedience is urged upon them; but you of the Presbytery, do not own the Elders of your Prebytery to have a Relation to the Congregation I am of, and so I am quit of Obedience to you; how could they by virtue of these places, holding this principle, that they have not the Relation of Elders to him, enforce Obedience from him? And how will his conscience ever be brought to a Submission to their Sentence against him, if not satisfied of this Relation to him thus Specified? And yet would not these Elders by the Presbyterial Principles expect equal, if not more Obedience from him, than the Elders of that particular Congregation he is a Member of would do? I am sure that in practice, they assume more; and I doubt not, but any one of these Elders, or all of them apart, would as Authoritatively Admonish him (as an Elder to him) in private after the cause is brought afore the Presbytery, to obey and submit to them, as any of his own Elders would do before or after their public Admonition, and would require Obedience to him as an Elder, by virtue of these places of Scripture before mentioned. If therefore they would require it; then the Relation must be the same. Yea, do not often some few of the Elders of a common Presbytery, come into particular Congregations, and perform Acts of Government, and ordain Elders to them; and in case of obstinacy, Excommunicate the Elders of any particular Congregation? Upon what plea of Authority do they this, as Elders to that particular Congregation, or not?

4. We come now to consider the other Distinction. 1. Of their being Elders only in a community to all these Congregations as one Church, in sensu aggregato: And 2. Of their being apart, Elders unto their particular Congregations respectively: And so the Duties mentioned of Feeding the Flock, &c. concern them only as considered apart; but Acts of Government, belong to them as Elders in a Presbytery. We reply 1. That this Answer supposeth two distinct differing Relations, the one a more particular Relation of Elders, as proper Elders to their several Congregations apart; and another more common Relation of the same persons considered as Elders merely, as in a Presbytery. Now for the confirmation or Establishment of this Distinction, by the one side or the other, the Foundation on which we proceed, must be remembered, viz. what the Scriptures hold forth; and therefore what ev •• Suppositions or Instances may be found in other constitutions, to Illustrate such Distinctions here; yet if what the New Testament speaks of Elders in Relation to their Flock, warranteth it not, yea crosseth it, it may not be. Now then it is to be considered, that when the New Testament speaks of Elders and Churches, it speaks Universally, and without Distinction of a different Relation. It calls them simply and simply Elders of the Church, and delivers (in that Relation to their Church, they were Elders of) Exhortations to their Duties, which that Relation specially called for; and in those exhortations intends their Duties, as their Elders, met in a Presbytery; as well as those they are to perform in other Ministrations towards their Flocks, and on the other side, exhorts the people in like simular expressions, to Obey and Honor their Elders that Preach the Word, Rule them, and Admonish them, prescribing Obedience to them, in their Rule in a Presbytery, as well as in other Administrations; and all this without any Distinction of this Relation of Elders in common, and in special. And farther 'tis enjoined, that these presbyterial Elders, must perform those Duties which belong to their Office, unto all those they are thus Elders unto, without any Manifest Distinction of any several bounds of this so differing Relation. This evidently argueth, that there is but one single Relation of Elders, to one Flock, to whom they perform these Duties; and that the same that Preach, ought to Rule them in public; and that the same Persons that Admonish them privately, do also in the public Presbytery Rule them; and that the same Persons that Rule them in those public Presbyteries, do Admonish them in private. So then, the same Persons sustain in the Holy Ghosts intention, and view when he made those exhortations, one and the same Univocal Relation of Elders to their Flocks, committed by him to them, whether they be met in a Presbytery for Acts of Government, or otherwise perform the Duties of Elders apart. And it is evident, that in a particular Congregation, they are Elders in one Univocal Simular Relation, unto the whole Flock, and every Member thereof. But now this is the wonder, that when Elders are thus affixed to particular Congregations; and that their Relation is a differing Relation from that other in common Presbyteries (yea, so vastly differing, that our Brethren dare scarce acknowledge them Elders, calling them rather a Presbytery, than Elders of those Churches) that yet the exhortations in the Scriptures, should so univocally fall on them, to so differing Duties, founded on differing Relations; and that yet this only Genuine Relation of Elders to their particular Congregations, should not be mentioned apart; and the Duties accompanying it, singled out from the rest, seems to us very strange. Yea, and to direct the Discharge of the Duties of the People likewise, to either of these Elders (that they might know what Duties to perform to their more proper Elders, acknowledged theirs by way of so eminent and differing a Relation, and what to those more common; and that all confusion might be prevented, that the one assume not the Duties of the other) it was as necessary to have set the differing Limits of these, as to set the bounds of Officers in the Church, which the Holy Ghost hath done.

2. And Secondly, If there had been this differing Relation of Elders, which from those Similitudes in Common-wealths, Armies, and the Universities is given; it was necessary that the Scripture should have held it forth, either by differing Names and Respects, or by differing charges, whereby it might appear, that this Relation obligeth them to this Duty, and the other Relation to that; which being not done in Scripture, the Distinction will not pass upon us. That it is thought necessary, that the Scripture should prescribe herein, appears from the instances brought by the Reverend Respondents. As 1. That of the Tribes, where there were General Elders of all the Tribes, and there were (and perhaps some of them the same Men) Heads and Elders of Tribes: But as this was a differing Relation, and respect in the same or diverse Persons, so they had Names and Titles of difference and distinction; for the Heads General (as we may call them) were called Elders of the People: The particular Elders of particular Tribes, were called by way of Distinction from them, Elders of such Cities, Families, &c. And there were as Distinct Laws given, so that in some causes the Elders of the several Tribes did judge such and such particulars in their Tribes Respectively: And the General Elders had reserved cases, of War, Blasphemy, &c.

So in that Instance of Heads of Colleges, and Heads of the University; there is as a differing Relation, so a Distinguishing Character. For the Names are changed, since the particular Bodies are called Colleges; and the General Body the University: And their several special Relation to their Colleges, is expressed by the Title of Masters of such or such Colleges; and the other by the Title of Heads to the University. Yea, and accordingly there are differing Statutes, the Local Statutes for each College apart, or for Colleges as Colleges, and the Duties of Masters in their special Relations; and there are Statutes for the University, and for their Duties as Heads of it. And this Distinction or Difference was necessary here too, if there were this differing Relation: But for the case in hand, if we come to the New Testament, to find out the several Modifications and Relations of Elders therein, we still read but simply and singly, Elders and Churches, as Relatives, without any such Note of Distinction of a classical Church, and the Presbytery thereof; and the Congregational Church, and the Elders thereof. The New Testament in all its mentioning of Elders, speaks uniformly of them, as Elders of the Church, and this Rule is to us certain, Ubi Scriptura non distinguit, nec debemus distinguere, Where the Scripture makes no Distinction, we ought not to make any.

But however, I will Represent the difference between us and our Brethren, by the Proposition of such a Case in Law as this is: If all the Records and Ruled Cases and Laws of this Kingdom, should, in setting down the ordinary Government thereof, have made mention only and singly, of Burgesses (as the Rulers) of Corporations (as the Correlate to them) and used no other Distinguishing Word (when yet there were undeniably Burgesses of every incorporate Town, continued from Antiquity) might any one afterwards pretend, that this Word Corporation, was intended by our Ancestors, to import an Association or Community of many of these Corporations in one Shire; and that by Burgesses of these Corporations, were meant a community of all these Burgesses in one Body for Government; and so pretend to the same Name without Distinction, and say, that these Communities were also meant, and to prove it, give instance in some Foreign Government, where there are States General of Provinces, and States particular of Cities; when as they have in their Laws, a Distinction and Differencing Character; but in the Laws of this Kingdom, there is no such Distinction made? But now if the Laws about the choice of such Burgesses in each Corporation, and the Duties given them in charge, and their Relation to their Corporations, do run without any Distinction of what the Burgesses in the supposed greater Corporations should do, in that Relation and Community; from what the same Burgesses in their lesser Corporations do in their more proper Relations: Yea, and if the Duties set down in those Laws, mutually between Corporations, and those Burgesses, should argue an inconsistency with the Government of Burgesses, over many Corporations in common; but should all naturally fall in with that of Burgesses over single Corporations, and argue such a Relation: Would not this plainly evidence, that therefore the Laws of the Kingdom did hold forth, there might not be (that is, according to the Laws thereof) such a Government of the Burgesses of Corporations over many others? And if in answer to such Arguments, it should be said, that both these might be consistent; for that in other Foreign States and Kingdoms, and Societies, there are Burgesses of particular Corporations, and there are Burgesses in an Assembly of Parliament (so called by way of Distinction) met in common for the ordinary Government of all those Corporations in common; and therefore the like may be here in this: The reply were easy, that what ever such Distinction there is in other States; yet the question is of such Burgesses, as the Laws of this State holds forth, and as this Kingdom hath set up, where there is no such Distinction of Burgesses of Corporations, and Burgesses in Parliament mentioned; but on the contrary, only one single uniform Style and Title in the Laws, Namely, Burgesses of the Corporations; and further, the Rules about their choice and duties mutually between them, and the Corporations they have Relation to, be also delivered without any difference; which doth argue them to have been Anciently the Relation of Burgesses to someone Corporation, and not many; yea, to be utterly incongruous and inconsistent, with such a manifold Relation. Now Parallel to this case, are our Arguments; and the Answers given to the Arguments of our Presbyterian Brethren.

But they Retort the Argument upon us, and say, that it follows no more, that they are to be Elders to each Congregation, because joined in a common Presbytery, than that in a particular Congregation; Peter or one Member apart, hath a power over John; because in community with the rest of the Brethren, he hath power over any one.

We answer, That let this Parallel decide it; and then as the Foundation of any one Members having an interest in that community over John, or any other, consists, in this that he stands in the Relation of a Brother to John, as a Member of that Church; and • o in like manner to all the rest of the Members in that community: So likewise all and everyone, when in that common Fraternity, stand in the very same Relation of Brethren to John, as well as when they are apart out of it; and do not become Brethren, having power over him, because met in a community; but therefore meet, because as Brethren; this Duty lies on them in common, to Judge him as much as in private to Admonish him; and so one and the same Relation, puts them upon both these Duties. And in Scripture, the Exhortations run to the same Persons to perform these Duties, though of differing sort; because of their Relation as Brethren. Let this Parallel be applied to the thing in hand, and as it answers the Instance, so it strengthens our Argument.

Lastly, If they be acknowledged to have the Relation of Elders, as Assembled in a Presbytery; and in that respect, to have a Relation to all the People in the several Congregations: Yet still the same Incongruities mentioned will follow upon it. For many of those Duties from all the Congregation, as Honor, Maintenance, &c. are due to them, as well as to their own Elders, for that their Works sake: And the Acts too also of these Elders in this Presbytery, though in common, are the most eminent Acts that belong to the Office of Elders; and in which the Consciences and Interest of the People, and each Member, is as much concerned, as in the daily Preaching of their more proper Elders (as for Distinction sake, we now call them) for they have power, and they alone to cut them off from all Ordinances, and to deliver them unto Satan. Now then, if they are to be interested in the choice of their proper Elders, to Rule them in smaller things, then their concern ought to be, as much in the choice of, and consenting to these their General Elders, and they should be present at the Ordination of all of them; for one great part of their Function, is to be exercised towards any, and all of those Congregations in a standing way; yea, and to Rule them in matters of the greatest concernment. Thus then so far, as they are acknowledged Elders, so far these Inconveniences will still follow upon the Heels of that acknowledgment; and the Scriptures indifferently speaking the same things, without Distinction of both these kind of Relations, under the common Name of Elders, the People have as much cause to challenge their right about the one, as they have about the other; and these Elders may expect the same (by virtue of those Scriptures) from the People.

CHAP. VI.

I have proved, that if a Presbytery be set over many Congregations, the Presbyters thereof must bear a special Relation of constant, and established Elders to all those Congregations: I shall now evince, that for these Elders already fixed to several charges, to sustain also a special Relation of Ordinary and Standing Elders to all these Congregations, as one Church; and all the people thereof, as Members of that Church; carries with it Great and Manifold Incongruities, and Inconsistencies also, with what the Scriptures hold forth concerning Elders, and other Officers of Churches, as also with the Principles professed by the Reformed Churches themselves.

1. This breeds an Incongruous Disproportion, between the Relation of the Officers of a Church, of this sort of Officers, Namely Elders, in the extent of their Relation and Power; and of those other sort of Officers of the Churches, acknowledged by the Reformed Churches, viz. Deacons. Now let us therefore put it to the examination of the conscientious, whether what the Scripture speaks of Elders, and of their Commission, Duties, &c. in their several Relations to the Flock under them, will afford clearer characters of the extent of their standing Government, to be Congregational to one Congregation, than of its being classical over many. Yea, let us see whether the Descriptions of Elders, and Exhortations given unto them concerning their several charges, do not plainly overthrow any such Relation of Elders (as Elders) unto many Congregations, as Inconsistent thereunto. Surely unto us, there appear many great and unanswerable Incongruities and Inconsistencies, in this classical Government

If we compare the extent of this Office of Elders in their Relation, with the extent of other Church Officers in their Relation; we shall find, that what holds true of one sort of ordinary Officers of a Church, according to the word, may well be supposed to hold true of another; or else there is a disproportion between the several Relations of Officers; and the one is not of like extent with the other, which yet the Scriptures make commensurable, and to be of equal extent. More plainly, if the Scriptures had intended, and held forth many Churches, as making one Church; and the Elders of those many Churches, to have been Elders in common to those Churches, as one Church; then the Deacons of all those Churches, should make up a common Deaconry, and be Deacons in common, unto all those Churches in an ordinary way, as the other are Elders. But this is contrary to the practice of the Reformed Churches, though subject to the Presbyterial Government, in which the Deacons have the ordinary Relation of Deacons, in no respect extended further than to a particular Congregation: Nor do they exercise Acts of that Office, in a set way to other Congregations, nor to Neighbor Congregations more than to another; much less is there a common Deaconship of them all. And yet why should not this common Deaconry be erected over all those Churches, as one Church, as well as a common Eldership, especially if in matters of this Nature, a parity of Reason should carry it? For,

1. A Church in Scripture, and all the Officers are alike Relatives, as a Church and the Elders are. The best of the Presbyterial Arguments for this common Presbytery, are founded upon the commensurable extent and relation of Church and Elders; that if any Churches make one Church, then the Elders of them all make one Eldership, and they are Elders in common unto them; then why not the Deacons also? Now this Reason of theirs, fetched from this Mutual Relation of one Church, and one Eldership or Elders thereof, will require the like for Deacons: for every Church, as it is a Church, being a Body, hath a Relation to all its Officers, as Organical Members thereof: As we have it asserted, Rom. 12. 4. As we have many Members in one Body, and all Members have not the same Office, so it is also in the Church of Christ; and the Members have several Offices in the Church, which be mentioneth, ver. 8. and so if that Church of Rome were one Body, and a Church of many Churches; then the Deacons were Deacons in common of those many Churches, as they all were one Church. For as the Pastors and Teachers Office is held forth in that following Description, ver. 8. He that Exhorteth, and he that Teacheth: So the Deacons in that, He that Giveth. And in the Analogy of the Natural Body (to which there the Apostle refers us, to exemplify this of a Church organized with Officers, as a Body to Christ) though one Member may be less and inferior to another, in bulk or use; yet it is a Member of that whole Body in its use. The little Finger, is a Finger of the whole Body, as well as the Arm is a Member of the whole: The Foot that serves the whole Body, is a Member in its Office, as fully as the Hand; and the extent of its Jurisdiction or Use, according to its kind, is the same, by virtue of the same Relations. If therefore these are Elders in common, or an Eldership do Rule in common those Congregations as One Church, and as Organical Members thereof, as one Body; then why should not the Deacons in as ordinary a way, perform their Office in common, and bear the Relation of Deacons in common unto all, as One Church? And

2. The Scriptures do confirm this like commensurable extent of the Deacons and Elders Office, as Relating to a Church: For the Apostle Writing to Philippi, a Church in a City (which therefore we suppose our Brethren will needs have to have been a Presbyterial Church, of many Congregations, lest any one instance of a complete Congregational Church, should be left unto us) He Writes to the Bishops (the Elders) and the Deacons of that Church. And Acts 6. 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 Twelve; and therefore were Deacons of that whole Church, as well as the Elders were 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, to be distributed in common; and so our Purses should be subject to the Deacons in common, as far as our consciences to the Elders in common; and they might challenge the same power in their Office over the one, that the Elders do over the other: And then also each Congregation were in as ordinary and standing an obligation, bound to Relieve all the poor in those Churches, as well as those in their own: Not only by the common Law of charity, but by virtue of a special 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 in this Nature, should be alike common to all and each; and there should be a common Treasury for this one great Diaconate Church (as we may in a Parallel Allusion, to that other Name of Presbyterial call it) as there is a common Regimen or Government, for this great Presbyterial Church. This strange Disproportion between the Officers or Members of this Body, which the Presbyterial Government doth make, seems to us, at least, unnatural: Whereas this (as all other things) fall in suitably and naturally, when the Relation of Elders and Elderships, is extended no further than each Congregation; which, as it is to be an Original Body unto Christ, so the Officers and Members thereof, according to the Law of Nature, are alike Members of, and for that Body; and the Use, Service, Relation, of all and each in their several kinds, bear alike proportion to the whole. And that even by the practice and judgment of the Reformed Churches themselves, the Deacons are confined to each particular Congregation, is to us a Testimony (as the remaining Office of Overseers for the poor under the Episcopal Government, hath been judged a pregnant evidence of the Deacons Office once in the Church) that the limits of a Church and Elders were all once within a particular Congregation, although the Elders, because a Superior Office, have assumed to extend their power and jurisdiction in their kind, further than the other more inferior in theirs.

But let it be supposed, that some reason of difference might be given of this Disproportion in the Elder's Office, and the Deacons, and that a common Deaconry would not follow upon a common Presbytery. Yet

2. There are other as great Incongruities will fall upon the very Relations of the Elders Offices themselves, which this Frame of fixed Elders to some Congregations respectively, and yet of ordinary Elders to all of them, causeth. God hath made some Preaching Elders; some Ruling Elders (as the Reformed Churches allow) or Church-Governors to assist the Pastors in Government. And to Preaching Elders, both Preaching and Ruling belongs; which are conjunct in that Office, according to the Principles of the Presbyterial Government, and the Scriptures. But the business of Ruling, belongs only to the other; and by this they are distinct, as two Subordinate Species, or as the Sensitive and Reasonable Soul, whereof the one hath Sense only in all its Acts, the other both Sense and Reason, and yet are Specifically distinct.

Every Church of Christ, is a Body ordered, Coloss. 2. 1. Rejoicing (says Paul) to see your Order. And the intent of the Presbyterial Government, is professed to be, to preserve Order in the Church; and if in anything this Order is most to be seen, it is in the Distinction and Order of the Officers thereof. Now this Frame of Government, brings in a great Disorder in the Offices and Officers, and confounds them, and their Relations. To Demonstrate this, let us consider the Pastors, or Preaching Elders. They are all undeniably Preaching Elders, to their particular Congregations, of which they are the fixed Pastors; and yet they have another Relation of Elders (by means of this Presbyterial Government) to all these Congregations, considered as one Church: And if these Pastors be any way Elders to both; they must Sustain the Title of both sorts of Elders in these two differing Relations, which is an evident confounding of both these Offices, in one and the same person. For,

1. It is evident, that they do each apart, bear the Title and Relation of preaching Elders unto their particular Congregations; and such pastors, or such preaching Elders, they can be to no more or other than those they ordinarily preach unto; for they Labor in the Word and Doctrine, unto no other; and this is the character of Distinction from the other Elders and Governors, in 1 Tim. 5. 17. And it is evident, that they being fixed each as Pastors to their particular Congregations, cannot Labor in the Word and Doctrine to them all; therefore they sustain this Title in Distinction of Elders, only unto those their several charges. And it is certain, that all Offices have their Distinction and Denomination, from that special Praxis or Function they are ordained unto: As that is an Eye to the Body, whose Praxis or Function is to see for the whole Body. They can therefore be said to be Preaching Elders to no other of this classical Church, than that Praxis of Preaching is extended unto. It is an Argument which Whitaker useth against the Pope; and our Divines make use of it against the Bishops: That nor he nor they, can be said to be Pastors unto all they yet pretended to be Pastors unto, because they are not able to exercise the Function of Pastors unto them. Therefore,

2. We ask what sort of Elders the Pastors are that are in this common Presbytery? What sort of Relation of Elders do they bear to this one Presbyterial Church, over and above that Relation, they, as Pastors, bear to their own? (And this Church and Elders, as Elders, are Relatives, as well as the particular Congregations and their Elders, or else this Great Church, must want its correlative of Elders to it) Surely they bear no other Relation, than of Ruling Elders, if they be Elders at all (and to make them no Elders, and not to have the Relation of Elders to this Great Church in this Presbytery, we believe will not be affirmed) And if they be Elders, then the Notion of their being Elders, must have one of those two forementioned Formal Differences annexed to it, either of Preaching Elders, or merely Ruling: And this Difference and Denomination must be fetched (as was said afore) from the differing Praxis, or use they serve for. And it is evident, that the ordinary Acts they serve for, and exercise in those common Presbyteries, are merely Acts of Ruling Elders (in all which therefore, Ruling Elders concur in common with them) and accordingly it is called the Presbyterian Government.

And further, the power of an Office in the Church (though exercised but as conjoined with others) is a Relation in respect to some Administration in a constancy; now the constant and ordinary Administration they serve for in such a Presbytery, is only Ruling, not Teaching, there being no Acts but such, that Ruling Elders join in. So as by this Frame, the same Preaching Elder or Pastor, must bear two sorts of ordinary Offices, in these two Relations, of a Preaching, and a mere Ruling Elder, as if one were both a Physician and a Chirurgeon, and were fixed to one of the Companies in the City, to practice Physic to them, he sustained the Office of a Physician to that Company; and if he were besides, called to practice Chirurgery, to many other Companies, he were certainly only a Chirurgeon unto them, as truly as a Physician to the other. So as we shall not need to Dispute the point of Ruling Elders anymore; for here are such as are Elders, acknowledged such by all sides, and yet for the sort of their Office, but plain Ruling Elders, and deserve properly in this Relation, no other Name, if we hold the Presbyterial Government; and they are as truly and properly to this Presbyterial Church such, and no other, as those Governors that Preach not at all, are unto those they are Elders unto.

And this Incongruity, no Distinction will Salve; call them Elders in this Presbytery, in what Sense you please, whether in Sensu diviso, or Conjuncto, yet Elders they are; and if so, then one of these two sorts of Elders, they must be to this Presbyterial Church, either both Preaching and Ruling Elders, or merely Ruling. Their being Elders together in this Presbytery, cannot be supposed to Divest them of the Title of some sort of Elders (and there is not a third sort) no more than the Elders of a Congregation, met in a Presbytery, do thereby loose the Title of Elders, which they sustain to that Congregation, or no more (as was even now instanced) than when the Body hath two Eyes, that always concur in one Act of sight, either of them should not be Denominated Eyes unto the Body apart, and the one called the left, and the other the right.

The Disorder and Confusion hereby, may be further set out, 1. That by this means, the same Officer hath a full Relation to one Church, and but half a Relation unto another; and it causeth him to perform the whole of his Offices to one Church (the particular Church) to which he hath Relation, and but the half thereof to the other. And 2. It makes an ordinary Pastor, not only perform the work of two Officers, but to bear the Relation of two Offices; for in his several Relations to these two several Churches, his Congregational and Classical, his Relations are parted and divided.

And it brings up the same Absurdity which was put upon Episcopal Government; That a Bishop professing himself to bear the Relation of a Pastor to the whole Diocese; yet was but a Ruling Elder to them, not a Teaching.

3. To extend a Pastor's power of ordinary Ruling, beyond the extent of his ordinary Teaching, is against the order which Christ hath set (and all extent of power, must as well have an Institution of Christ, as the Power or Office itself; for the difference of Evangelists, and of ordinary Pastors, lay but in extent of power) and then we argue thus; if the extent of a Pastor's ordinary Ruling Power, as a Pastor and Elder, be but to the Flock, as his whole Flock, which he is able to Feed: Then to bear the Relation of a Pastor or Elder for ordinary Government, to anymore than he is able, and doth thus Feed, May not be. But the extent of a Pastor's ordinary Ruling power, is but to that Flock, as his whole Flock, which he is able to Feed. And this Argument, as also the former; besides that, it serves to make up more Incongruities of this Presbyterial Government, so it might stand alone, and make a complete Argument of itself against it; for if the Pastor's ordinary power in Ruling, be not to be extended further than of his ordinary Preaching; then this ordinary standing Government of Pastors fixed for Preaching to their own Congregations, may not be over those many in common.

Now that the extent of a Pastor's ordinary Ruling power, reacheth only to that Flock which he is able to Feed, I prove 1. By Scripture. 2. By Reason.

1. I prove it by Scripture, Acts 20. 28. Take heed to yourselves, and to all the Flock (the whole Flock) over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Over-seers, to Feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own Blood. Here are 1. Elders, (ver. 17.) spoken to. 2. Their having Relation to a Flock, an whole Flock is mentioned. 3. They are enjoined to Feed the Flock, and the whole Flock: And all these are commensurable. Whence 1. We see that the special Limitation of their extensive Power and Relation to a Flock, and to all the Flock, is set by the Holy Ghost, and not by Man; and therefore is not to be extended by Man, further than the Holy Ghost hath appointed. 2. The extent of that Relation, is to that Flock; and the whole Flock they Feed, and they are to Feed all that Flock alike: And if they be Preaching Elders, then they must Feed it by Preaching; and therefore are Overseers to them, to Feed them, and because they Feed them. 3. He speaks to Preaching Elders especially, that Feed by Doctrine: For 1. He propounds his own Example to them, ver. 20. that he had Revealed the whole Counsel of God. And 2. He says, ver. 30. Some of you shall arise, speaking perverse things. And 'tis Paul's farewell; and (as Baynes argues against Bishops▪) those to whom at last the Apostles commended Churches, were the ordinary Governors left; but he commended them not to a Bishop, but ordinary Elders. Thus we argue also, for the extent of the Relation of those Elders that they are to Govern only that Flock that they are able to Feed; and therefore they have not the Office of Overseeing, as ordinary Elders over those whom they Feed not. And Peter seconds Paul in this, 1 Pet. 5. 2. Feed the Flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, the Flock, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among you, is that Flock that any of them had Relation to, as his Flock Respectively. Thereupon Writing unto the Churches in a whole Nation, in chap. 1. ver. 1. (whereas in Acts 20. 28. the charge is to the particular Elders of Ephesus, to that whole Flock) he therefore puts in that Note of Respectiveness 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among you, that is, that which Respectively belongs to you, answerable to which is that Text, Col. 1. 17. Who is for you a Faithful Minister, that is, your proper Pastor: And Acts 14. 23. They ordained Elders Church by Church, Elders to them, that is, proper Elders to them, so the Flock 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies your several proper Flocks that belong to you. Hereby it appears, that their Feeding, and their oversight over any of those Flocks, are commensurable; and that Flock which they are not able to Feed, they have not the oversight over, for they are both of the same extent. Thus also, Heb. 13. 7. 17. Remember them that have the Rule over you, and have spoken to you the Word of God, which he speaks of Preaching Elders, for the extent of their Rule and their Preaching is all one. And of Ruling Elders he speaks, ver. 17. Obey them that have the Rule over you; for they watch for your Souls, as those that must give an account. And not to Dispute, whether these places note out two sorts of Officers, Preaching Elders, v. 7. and Ruling Elders, v. 17. Or but one sort, and so but several Acts of the same Office; yet this is certain that these are commensurable; for they are Officers together in the same Church: And if the Pastor's power of Ruling extends no further than his Preaching, then the mere Ruling Elders power, or his that is assistant to him, must extend no further also. 1. Remember those that have spoken the word to you. 2. Obey and Submit to those that watch for your Souls. This is the Natural Obligation to Obedience, and so is the measure to set the bounds of the extent of ordinary Church-power. 'It is one Argument used against Episcopal power, that they are enforced to obey him that speaks not the Word to them, nor watcheth over their Souls; and this holds as well against these Presbyterial Offices; and when a Man comes before such to be Excommunicated, he may say, I am not bound to obey you in such an Authoritative way, nor do I owe a Subjection as to a power of Censure in you; for many, nay most of you, have never spoke the word to me, nor do watch over my Soul: Nay, perhaps the Man can say, he never saw their Faces afore. And it avails not to say, that they they may occasionally Preach; for the Apostle, 1 Thess. 5. 12. speaking of respect to their Officers, Know them (says he) that Labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and Admonish you. These two, Those that Labor, and are over you, are commensurable, and they are meant, who make it their callings to have the care of the Flock, which the many Pastors and Elders in a common Presbytery do not. But in what is it they Labor, the 1 Tim. 5. 17. expounds it to be, That Labor in the Word and Doctrine; The Elders that Rule well, as worthy of double Honor, especially those that Labor in the Word and Doctrine. And whether you expound this latter known place of Teaching Elders only, or of Ruling and Teaching both (as the Reformed Churches do) 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 Labor in the Word and Doctrine; yet if they be limited in laboring in the Word, as being fixed Pastors to their own Congregations, then in Ruling also. And if it be meant of Ruling Elders (as distinct from them) yet their Ruling is of the same extent, that the others laboring in the Word; and that is extended but to one Congregation, whereas Pastors they are fixed. And

2. Though in a Pastor's Office, in which Preaching and Ruling is joined, yet his power of Ruling flows in him from, and is the Adjunct of his power to Preach; and to be sure, it is not extendable 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 than what is the ordinary Subject of his Preaching, and so those Relations are of equal limits, (which is the present case of a Pastor's Authority, appropriated to a Congregation, and extended but to his own in an ordinary way) and to make the ground of a Relation narrower, than the extent of it is absurd. If a Father hath the power of Governing as a Father, then it is extendable only to those he is a Father to. And that a Pastor hath his ordinary Ruling power, annexed to his ordinary power of Preaching, we prove by these Reasons.

1. If he hath no this Ruling power upon this ground, then must be assigned some other. He hath it not by any special Faculty or Office, over and above this of Preaching; for then he should be made a Ruling Elder, over and above his being first a Preaching Elder, as a new Faculty given him: Nor hath he it by being made a Ruler first, and then having this of Preaching Superadded (as the Bishops first made Deacons, then Presbyters.) For

2. All the Keys are given him at once, the Keys of Ruling, with the Keys of Knowledge. The power of the Staff intrinsically follows, his being a Pastor or Shepherd; and though the one is a power of mere Order, Namely that of Preaching, and that of his Ruling is of Jurisdiction (to be exercised in many cases with others, and not alone) yet still his receiving power to join with others in those Acts of Rule of Jurisdiction, is from this power of Order; and the ordinary extent of his Authority therein, is extended no further than his ordinary call to Preaching. Yea,

3. The extent of the power of the Apostles themselves, in Ruling in all the Churches, was founded upon, and extendable with their Commission to Preach; and their very Call and Obligation being not to Preach in a set and fixed Relation, as an ordinary Pastor's calling is; but to all Nations, and in all Churches, hence their power of Ruling was answerable. It was their very Call to be Universal Pastors, and therefore Universal Rulers; Yea, and their Authority of Ruling, was narrower in the extent of it, than of their Preaching. The Apostles might preach to Heathens, and their Call was so to do, to convert them; but they had not power to Rule all Men, What have I to do to Judge them that are without? says the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15. 12. But in this way of Presbyterial Government, 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 was not so in the Apostles themselves. Let but the same Line of proportion equally be drawn over the Apostle's power in these and theirs, according to their several measures. Their Call to Ruling, was Uniform to Preaching in all Churches, though their Preaching was larger than their Rule, Namely, to those without; but ordinary Pastors have a standing fixed Call to Preach, but in one Congregation; let their Call and power of Ruling, be Uniform to it, and they can have an ordinary standing power to Rule, but in that Congregation; either extend both further, or contract both to this. It is no answer, to say that they may Preach as Pastors in Neighbor Churches occasionally; for so they may Preach to any Reformed Church, as in Scotland, where yet they have not so much as an occasional Call to Rule, and in such occasional Acts of Preaching also, they have but the proportion, which the Apostles had, whose power in Preaching, was larger than of Ruling; for it was extended to them without. But still if an ordinary standing power in Ruling, although with others (for the Apostles exercised their power with others) should be stretched where they have not an ordinary standing Call to Preach, it should exceed the proportion of the Apostles in that respect.

4. And Fourthly, From hence ariseth another Disproportion between these Officers, Ruling and Preaching Elders, compared among themselves; and it is such a Disproportion, as is like to the former, alleged between the Deacons and the Elders. For this Government makes the extent of the Ruling Elders Office and Relation, to be larger than that of the Teachers or Pastors: For the Pastor as Pastor, is limited to his particular Congregation he is fixed to, as the Deacons also are: But the Ruling Elders Office, as Ruling Elder, is extended over all these Congregations in this Presbytery. The Ruling Elder performs his Office, in the highest perfection of it, as to Admonish, Excommunicate, &c. to all in these Churches; but the Pastors are limited as Pastors, in the Highest Work of their Callings (which preaching is; and more excellent than Ruling, yea, than Baptizing) unto one Congregation. That place in 1 Tim. 5. 17. (interpret how you will) Justifies what is asserted.

Now these are strange Disproportions, which are occasioned by this and the Presbyterial Government. And this greatly makes for the Congregational way, wherein as to these particulars, no such Incongruities are found, but all things fall naturally Uniform.

2. A Second Head of Incongruities and Inconsistencies, which will follow upon this Government, concerns the Mutual Duties required, that do 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. The people of all these Elders (according to what the Scripture speaks of, as due to standing Elders) owe at least Honor and Esteem to them; yea, Maintenance to all of them, whether they ordinarily Rule them, or Preach to them; and they owe it on both accounts, 1 Tim. 4. 17, 18. Let the Elders that Rule well, be counted worthy of double Honor, especially that Labor in the Word and Doctrine; Which Honor is, (ver. 18.) in the Analogy of that Law, Not to Muzzle the Mouth of the Ox, that treadeth out the Corn: And this is certainly due to Elders, on account of what is the Work of Elders, whether performed apart or together, by way of Jurisdiction. And it cannot be denied, but that their constant Ruling, as in the Presbytery, is one great part of the Work of Elders, here intended and mentioned with Preaching, for which an especial Honor is due. God appoints no constant work in the Ministry, but he appoints a Reward from those, for whom it is performed. And as they owe a Duty of Ruling to everyone in the Flock, as Acts 20. 28. So there is a due of Maintenance and Honor, due from all this people, to all and everyone of those Elders, to those that Rule, as well as to those that Labor in the Word and Doctrine. And in Reason, if the Elders that Rule well, and perform the lesser Acts of Ruling in their particular Congregations, are to have this Honor from them, in their Relations; then all these Elders that Rule well in the common Presbytery, and perform the greatest Acts of Ruling, are to have the like from all of that classical Church; for the Emphasis being put upon Ruling well, and in those Acts done by them, the Excellency of Ruling consisting; therefore to these, is this Honor due from this Great Church, more especially, than from the lesser Congregations, Respectively unto their proper Elders. Neither will the Distinction of being a Presbytery in common salve it; for if the particular Elders of Congregations, are to have this Honor for what is done by them in their joint Acts of Ruling in the particular Presbyteries; then these are to have it in what is done in their common Presbyteries also. And the precept is, not to Honor Presbyteries in common in an abstract Notion, but to Honor Elders; because the particular persons of the Elders, are to be the Object of it; and those most, who excel most in that Rule, that Rule well, or best. But when there are many Congregations apart, who have their proper fixed Pastors and Elders, whom they maintain for performing one part of the Elders work (for they perform but one part of it) how shall they perform this due to all the rest, for that other part of the work? How Burthensome, how confused would this be? And yet due it is, for they are all one Church to them. And then how can this Duty be proportioned (suppose it should not be Maintenance, but Honor and Esteem) for the people will not be able well to judge of it, not only because they cannot be present at their Work, and so cannot judge of it; but because either it must be proportioned to them that are constant, as Preaching Elders, or as Ruling. For the ground it is there, (1 Tim. 5. 18.) required upon is, that they tread out their Corn, and the Apostle says, Esteem them for their Work sake, that Labor among you, 1 Thess. 5. 12, 13. So as it is to be proportioned to the Work of a Pastor, as Pastor; but to Honor or Esteem them as Ruling Elders only, were to Honor the Preaching Elders, below the Rank and Degree of their Office.

2. It also brings the like Incongruity, 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. 1. One Duty is praying with the Sick, Send for the Elders of the Church, to pray for them, Jam. 5. 14. What! are these Elders of the Presbyterial Church bound to this? And this Duty lies in common upon Elders of the Churches; and how shall we Distinguish, when the Scripture doth not? 2. Another Duty is visiting from House to House, as Paul in his Example instructs the Elders of Ephesus, Acts 20. 2. 3. Another Duty is watching over Men's Souls, as those that must give an account, Heb. 13. 17. and that the people should obey them; and no Warrant is given to obey others in the way of an ordinary Rule. And to watch, is not to stay till causes are brought by Appeals, or so, from the Congregations; but personally to watch over them, as Souls committed to them. 4. Another Duty is Preaching (if they be Preaching Elders) in Season, and out of Season. The Bishops 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 all, they professed a Derivative delegated Power to Inferior Pastors, whom they called their Curates. This was plain dealing; but these Elders make all the whole Flock theirs, and this from those Scriptures, that speak of Elders and Flock; and yet themselves have no Curates, and so are personally obliged according to the Rules in Scripture, and yet cannot perform the obligation, which is a worse Incongruity. 5. It will be their Duty also, to attend to all causes, which so many Churches will fill their Hands with sufficiently; for Churches will be full of Scandal, and there will be cases of Difficulty. What a deal of Work, did one Church of Corinth find Paul? And 'tis the Duty of each Elder, to attend to all those that come in his cognizance, as if he alone were to Judge; for he is to give his Judgment of them all, as one that is to give an account. 'It is an Argument against Episcopacy, that they cannot take the care (according to what the Scripture seems to require of an ordinary Officer) of so many Churches in a Diocese; now this Work (suppose of Ruling only, as in a Presbytery) lies upon each of these Elders, as if he were but one, as to the matters of attending thereto (as was said) though each is helped by the Suggestion of others. And besides the common Work that must needs arise from all these Churches, they are to attend to all cases of Conscience, and of Temptations, in their particular Congregations, or from elsewhere, if those Churches will have Recourse to them. If it be said, that they may part these Duties among them, and perform only to the whole, those that are in common: The answer is plain, Ubi Scriptura non distinguit, nec nos debemus distinguere, Where the Scripture makes no Distinction, we ought not to Distinguish. Now all those Duties are spoken of, as owing from Elders to the Flock, without any Distinction. Paul saith to those Ephesians, Feed the whole Flock, Acts 20. 28. Peter says the like to those he Writes to, that they Respectively should Feed, and take the oversight over the Flock, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which was among them. The Apostles tells the Hebrews, that their Elders watched over their Souls, Heb. 13. 17. And to the Thessalonians, he Describes them to be those that are over them, and Labor and Admonish them, 1 Thess. 5. 12. When these Injunctions are thus laid upon all, how shall the Conscience of Elders be able to part and distinguish themselves out of the discharge of them, and to say, though I am an Elder in common to all in these Congregations; yet I am bound but to govern them in greater matters, and to Admonish them as with others, when publicly met in a consistory, and to no other Acts of Eldership; and yet to my own particular Congregation, I am obliged to private Admonition, Rule and Watchfulness, &c. Where hath the Scripture set these bounds, or thus parted them? Therefore certainly all these places hold forth singly, only the Elders of a particular Church fixed thereto, and their Duty to it, as knowing no other. And indeed it was necessary that Christ should set the bounds, and give the Distinction, and not indifferently lay all these Duties upon all: And either in these places, the Duties of Elders in a common Presbytery are contained, or they are not to be found in the New Testament.

Lastly, That which is Inconsistent with the ordinary way of the Call of Elders held forth in the Word, and by the Reformed Churches allowed. May not be: But such is this Presbyterian Government. It is the Call, which breeds Relation between Elders and Church, and is the Foundation of it. None are to assume the Honor of Ruling the Church of Christ, that are not called thereto, as Aaron was not to have been over all the Church, but that he was called of God.

There are two parts of this Calling, 1. Choice. 2. Ordination.

1. As for Choice, Chamier in the Name of all the Reformed Churches, allows to the People, the Approbation of their Elders; and so it is 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 do with their Consciences. Look what ever Right of the People, is in the choice of those who should preach to them, there is as much Reason they should have the exercise of it in the choice of these, that in a common Presbytery do Rule over them; for they perform one part of the Elders Duty, Namely Ruling, as the preaching Elders do the other; and therefore by the equity of the same Law, that speaks 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, which is of all punishments, the most Formidable, and so there is put as much, if not more than every Mans Life (that is a Member of that classical Church) into their Hands. The enjoyment of all Ordinances forever, and the power of Deposing their Ministers, already fixed to them, and the power of Refusing to ordain them they shall approve, is lodged in this classis. And therefore in the Primitive Church, the Persons of the Bishops, who had the power of all these, were chosen by all the people, and by panegyrical Meetings.

And the Argument is strengthened by this further parallel. A Minister's call hath two parts, 1. Ordination, which belongs to the Elders, 2. Choice, in which the people have some interest; therefore these Elders as Elders in common, and these Congregations as one Church, being Relatives, that interest which a Church hath as Church, is commensurable to the interest of these Elders as Elders. If therefore in Ordination, all the Elders in a common Presbytery, join to Ordain an Officer; then all the people as a Church, must join in choosing and approving him; for the common Right of choosing, cannot be swallowed up by the interest of their Elders Ordaining him. And if it be said, they all choose by virtue of the general Law of Combination, as in the Shires they do Parliament Men: It is answered, that the constitution of the State makes it so, and if the like be found in Scripture for this other, it will be sufficient; but if not, but that this interest must be common to the people of the classical Church, it is asked, when a fixed Pastor is to be chosen to a particular Church, what Office he shall be chosen to, with respect unto the people of the other Congregations? Not to a Pastor's Office; for he is not to be such to them: If he be chosen to be a Ruling Elder only, then besides that he hath two Offices, he must have two choices, and two Ordinations; we choose him for our Pastor, says the particular Church he belongs to; and we, say the other, to Rule us. And besides the people have an interest of presence, and joining in Fasting and Prayer, at his Ordination: And this therefore must be performed either in a panegyrical Meeting of all, which cannot be as the practice is, or in all the several Churches, which will multiply the Ordination of him.

The Government OF THE Churches of Christ.

BOOK V.