The Due Right of Presbyteries

Object. 10. It seemeth that Apostles here determine as Apostles, for they condemn the obtruders of circumcision, because they taught these things without any Apostolic, Commandment, v. 24. They teach that you must be circumcised and keep the Law, to whom, we, (the Apostles) gave no such commandment.

Answ. This is no more a good argument to prove that the obtruders of circumcision did teach false doctrine, and were not condemned by the Apostles and Elders Synodically, then if one should say, this is not a Synodical decree of the Church, because it is proven and made good by the Word of God, for Synodical decrees exclude not God's word, though they be not formally Scripture; for in some part of the Epistle the Apostles may well speak of themselves as distinguished from Elders and as Apostles, and yet the assembly is an ordinary Synod and not an Apostolic meeting, for if we should argue thus, the whole Church, men and women, v. 22. sent messengers to Antioch, as the Church, and not as Apostles, our brethren would think it a weak consequence to infer, Ergo, this was nothing but a Congregational, not an Apostolical meeting. Yet our brethren contend that the whole Church and single Congregation of Jerusalem did concur in this meeting as consenters, and having power also, though not of jurisdiction; but I wonder why our brethren should so contend that there was no power of censuring put forth in this Assembly, seeing one of their special answers, whereby they would prove that this it not a pattern of an ordinary Synod, and such a Synod as we contend for, having power of jurisdiction is, that this was an ordinary meeting of the Elders and Church of Jerusalem, giving counsel and advise with the Apostles to the Church of Antioch, but I am sure the business of not scandalizing did as much concern the Church of Jerusalem, and therefore in the Synod they ought to put forth power of jurisdiction, if any of their members, hearing that the Apostles contended that the ceremonial Law did not lay a tie on the conscience of either Jew or Gentile, in foro dei, before God's court, as the places cited by James prove, v. 15, 16, 17. (& Peter saith expressly that God now putteth no difference betwixt Jews and Gentiles, v. 9. but 〈◊〉 are saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus, v. 11.) should ab • aine from blood, to the offense of the weaker, should not this Congregation all Church condemn such, in ordine ad censuram, in order to excommunication? yea the Eldership and Congregation of Jerusalem here convened as our brethren say, should have failed in this first Synod, and also the Apostles with them, if they neglected to exercise juridical power over their own Congregation in the case of scandal, and a scandal as possible to them to fall in as the Gentiles, and therefore either this assembly consisting of Apostles and of the particular Church of Jerusalem erred, which we cannot say, or then they did exercise power in order to excommunication towards their own Church, and so there is some juridical power put forth in this meeting.

Object. 11. Though the Apostles in this Synod proceed by way of disputing and borrow light one from another, it followeth not th •• they go not on here as Apostles, yea though Peter and Paul d • e not say all the truth, nor fall upon that which is the conclusion of the Assembly, as I ames doth, it doth not hinder but they are led in all these Synodicull deba • e • by the infallible and Apostolic spirit, because some things are revealed to one Evangelist and to one Prophet, which is not revealed to another; John the Divine saw visions and heavenly mysteries which none of the rest of the Apostles saw, nor could write in their writings and Canonical Epistles, yet it doth not hence follow that James, Peter, Jude and Paul in their canonical writings and Epistles were not immediately inspired. It is enough to make the Apostles in their writings infallible Apostles and immediately inspired, if that which they write be the infallible truth and canonick Scripture, though every Apostle write not all canonick truth; now what the Apostles setteth down in this Synod is Scripture, and the object of our faith, and written for our instruction; so something was revealed to James which was not revealed to Peter and Paul in this dispute, but it followeth not, Ergo, what Peter and Paul spake, they spake it not by immediate revelation, and what they spake is not Scripture.

Answ. 1. The strength of my argument is close mistaken, for I did not argue simply from the Apostles borrowing light one from another, to prove they act not here as Apostles but as Elders, neither did I argue simply from this, James saith more then Peter doth, Ergo, Peter is not immediately inspired in what he saith: for I grant the Apostles borrow • ight from the Prophets, and their writings, one saith and writeth what another saith not, and cannot write, and yet all are immediately inspired, in what they write. But I argued thus; when ever the Apostles are consulted with to resolve a question as Apostles & do convene • Synodically & intend to resorve the question if the Apostles in that case, or any one of them come short of the resolution, & do not see the conclusion they intend to see, but in so far as they are helped on by another in a way of disputation, in that they do not act as Apostles, but the case is so here; 1. all were consulted with, Act. 15. 2. (2) all intended to resolve the question, and did meet together for that end to resolve it fully, v. 6. (3) yet divers of the Apostles, as Peter, Paul and Barnabas see not the resolution fully that they aimed at, but determine the question imperfectly, and so, as if James had been absent, or if he had seen no more in resolving the question, then Paul and Barnabas and Peter said, which was only that the Law of Moses was not to be kept by either Jew or Gentile, upon the Necessity of salvation, but that both Jews and Gentiles are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ; if James (I say) had seen no more then this, the consciences of both sides had not been satisfied, and the question not resolved, but the Jews should have gone on in a total abstinence from all ceremonies, which because of the indifference of the ceremonies, was then dangerously scandalous, and spiritual homicide, and the Gentiles should freely have eaten blood, meats offered to idols, and things strangled, which also was scandalous in a high measure to the weak Jews, and so the matter should have been worse after this Synod, and the controversy hotter, the fire bolder, and the scandal more dangerous then it was before the Synod, which I cannot believe that the Apostles as Apostles could have done; So we know Nathan to have spoken as a man, and not as a Prophet, when being consulted with by David anent the building of the Temple, and purposing and intending fully to resolve the question, yet resolved it amiss and quite contrary to the mind of God; now what the penmen of holy Scripture intended to write as Scripture, that they fully wrote and no more, and what they wrote not, that they intended not to write, but leave it to others of the penmen of the holy Ghost, because the immediately inspiring holy Ghost consulted with and intending to resolve such a canonick truth, cannot miss in his blessed intention. And also the Elders at Jerusalem were consulted with to resolve the question as well as the Apostles, as is clear Act. 15. 2. Now if the Church of Antiech had been minded to refer the resolution to the Apostles as infallibles Apostle, they would never have referred it to the Elders, whom they knew could err as well as themselves, nor would the Elders have joined as fellow-disputers with the Apostles as Apostles, as they expressly do, v. 6. for that is as you would say, some countrymen of ordinary spirit destitute of all prophetical light concurred with Isaiah to see the visions of God; And it is as if David as king counsel at God, whether the men of Keilah would deliver him up to Saul, had consulted with God and with Abiathar, and some four or five Elders of Keilah void of all prophetical spirit, whether the men of Keilah should deliver him up to Saul, or no: for these Elders of Jerusalem and Antioch and other brethren were as void of an Apostolic spirit as the Elders of Keilah were of a Prophetical spirit. It were a vain action for the Elders to join themselves as joint-disputers and fellow-resolvers of the controversy with the Apostles, for the fellow-resolvers were to seek resolution at the Apostles, who could as Apostles infallibly resolve them.

2. What the Apostles set down is Scripture, and is the object of our faith, and written for our instruction, Ergo, the Apostles did give it forth in the Synod as Scripture, it followeth not: I may preach Scripture, and that which is the object of faith, and written for our instruction, Ergo, I preach it as an Apostle by an Apostolic spirit, it followeth not; for so if the Elders had spoken Scripture which is written for our instruction, the Elders should have spoken it by an Apostolic spirit, which is manifestly false; and so if the Elders of Corinth, 1 Cor. 5. should have proven in their Presbytery that the incestuous person should be delivered to Satan, from Matth. 18. they should have spoken that in the presbytery by an Apostolic Spirit: all which are manifestly false. The holy Ghost by Luke did make it Scripture formally, but that the Apostles spake it as Scripture by an Apostolic spirit, because it is the object of our faith that Luke did insert it in the Canonical history, is no more hence proven then one might infer that Gamaliel by the immediate inspiration of the Spirit spake the oration that he uttereth to the council of Priests and Pharisees, Act. 5. 34, 35. & c. for that is formally made Scripture by Luke his inserting of it in the Register of Scripture; yea the words of Satan, Matth. 4. by that reason behooved to be spoken by divine and immediate inspiration: but the truth is, we are not to take what Peter speaketh from the Prophet Amos, Act. 15. v. 16. to be Scripture, because Amos spake it in the Old Testament, but because Luke by immediate inspiration saith that Peter uttered these words from the Prophet Amos. Immediate inspiration maketh any saying Scripture, and not the Apostles historical relating of it out of the writings of the Prophets, though the sayings of the Prophets as they are registered in the books of Old Testament be formally Scripture, yet as cited by the Apostles they d • e not become Scripture, except these saying, be cited, tali modo, that is, by the influence of the immediately inspiring holy Ghost, which influence only maketh formally any saying to be Scripture.

Object. 12. If the Apostles did not in a Synod, with the Elders dispute and voice as Apostles, it should follow that as Apostles, they did plant Churches, but after the Churches were planted they ceased to be Apostles, and did all as ordinary Elders, which is most incongr • o • s, for then should they descend from an infallible to a fallible spirit.

Answ. The Apostles did only use their Apostolic power, when there was need of it; as God worketh not miracles, but in some necessitating exigence of second causes: and what they could do by an ordinary power, when the Churches were once constituted, they did not attempt to do by their Apostolic power; and though their Apostolic power was in them as a habit, yet the exercise thereof was rather under the dominion of an extraordinary and immediate wrapped and influence of God, then under the mastery of their own freewill. I would ask why the Church of Antioch, no doubt most lawfully, Act. 15. 2. did send to seek resolution at the fallible spirit of Elders, and also (as our brethren teach) at the infallible spirit of the Apostles? and why did they not from their infallible and Apostolic spirit seek out and choose seven men to be Deacons, but remitted to the fallible spirit of the multitude who are not infallible or Apostolic in their choice, both the nomination and election of these seven men; but the Apostles did much honor the Churches of Christ in cooperating with them, and in doing most things with their consent, that by example they might interdict dominion, and assert a ministerial power, and make Christ most Monarch-like in the government of his spiritual Kingdom: nor did they put off, or interdict themselves, nor forfeit their Apostolic power, after Churches were constituted, but used their Apostolic power at the Commandment of that great King exalted Jesus Christ, whose Catholic Ambassadors they were, as God immediately moved them.

Object. 13. Paul exercised the power of the Keys of knowledge upon Barbarians, and might have preached to Indians, and did pres • h to the scefling Athenians. Ergo, he might exercise power of jurisdiction over them, and judge those who are without, it is no consequence, and against the word of God, 1 Cor. 5. 12. Yea Paul by this power dogmatical rebuked the Athenians, Act. 17. 22. I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious, yet Paul had no power to excommunicate the Athenians. Mr. Mather.

Answ. I deny not, but there is great odds betwixt a concionall rebukin • , by way of preaching, which may be, and is always performed by one, and a juridical rebuking by a power juridical of the Keys, which is performed only by a Church-s • ci • tie: now it cannot be denied but the rebuking of men, because they subverted souls, v. 24. is not a mere concionall rebuking, which may be performed by one; 1. it is a rebuking, v. 24. (2) it is a rebuking performed by many, by a whole Synod, v. 6. v. 22. (3) It is performed by a political society and body having a dogmatical power to judge and determine in a doct • inall way, as our brethren say, and consequently as we say, having a juridical power, v. 25. It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you, &c. which is undeniably a political body, an assembled company, as v. 6. met about a question which concerneth the Churches of Christ, as is clear, v. 2. v. 6. v. 23. c. 16. 4, 5. c. 21. 25. compared with v. 22. hence a business of doctrine which troubleth the Churches of Antioch, c, 15. 2. and of Jerusalem, v. 5, 6, 7, 8. and Syria and Silicia, v. 23, 24. must be a Church-business in respect of the subject. 2. The question is a Church-question in the matter of practice, it cono • rneth the consciences of the Churches in the point of taking and giving offense, in a Church-society as this doth, v. 19. That ye trouble not them which amongst the Gentiles are turned unto God, and v. 28, 29. compared with 1 Cor. 10. 24, 25, 26, 27, & c. Rom. 14. 14, 15. this was a Church- • candall or public offense, as touching the matter, materia qu • nt. (2) The form and manner of deciding the controversy was a public Church-way by the Word of God, Act. 15. so 〈◊〉 proveth, v. 7, 8. 9. and James, v. 15, 16, &c. maketh good. (4) The efficient causes and agents in the question, are 1. Church- 〈◊〉 , v. 6. Apostles and Elders. 2. Church-officers convened Church-ways in a Church-body or society, v. 6. c. 15. and The Apostles and Elders came together (in a Synod, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a word which cur brethren acknowledgeth doth, 1 Cor. 5. 4. note a formal Church-assembly) to consider of this matter, and • , 25. It seemed good to us being assembled with one accord, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the very word Church is not wanting though with reverence of others, it seemeth not to be the multitude, seeing the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being so general, must have its signification from the action and end, for which the meeting is intended, as before I said) as is clear, v. 22. It pleased the Apostles, Elders, and whole Church. 5. The action they perform, when they are met in a political body, is to decide a Church-controversy, that troubled many Churches, Act. 15. 2. v. 23, 24. (6) The end is the peace and edifying of the Churches, as that the Churches of the Gentiles be not troubled with needless ceremonies, as James saith, v. 19. and the good of the Churches, v. 29. from which if you keep yourselves, ye shall do well, c. 16. 4. And • s they went through the cities they delivered them the Decrees to 〈◊〉 , v. 5. so were the Churches established in the faith. Consider 〈◊〉 is the happy end and fruit of this Synod; The establish ••• of the Churches. Therefore have our brethren without reason (I speak with reverence of their learning and godlinese) denied the word Church to be given to a Synod, or a meeting of Elders, which to me is clear, Act. 15. v. 6. The 〈◊〉 sending is the Eldership of Antioch; the Church recei ••• , v. 4. is the Eldership at Jerusalem, and cannot conveniently be exponed of the whole and numerous thousands that •• e • ed at Jerusalem; the rebuking cannot then be merely • ••• inall by the power of the keys of knowledge which is exercised by one, nor are the Apostles and Elders here considered as merely Preachers and Teachers in the Act of teacher, for why then should they not be formally a Church and a Church-assembly, as our Brethren say, if they be an assembly meeting for preaching the Word? for the exercise of the keys of Knowledge in the hearing of a multitnde is essentially an act of preaching the Word.

Object. 14. This Synod declares only in a doctrinal way what is necessary, what is scandalous, the same way, that Paul doth, Rom. 14. 14, 15. i Cor. 8. 1 Cor. 10.

Answ. This Synod and Paul declare one and the same thing, Ergo, with one and the same authority, it followeth not; Paul writeth, 1 Cor. 5. that the incestuous man should be excommunicated, and this he wrote as canonical Scripture, by the immediate inspiration, of the holy Spirit, if then the Church of Corinth should have excommunicated him, shall it follow that they gave out the sentence of excomunication by the immediate inspiration of the holy Spirit? I think not, their Churches sentence had been given out by a mere ecclesiastical authority, according to the which Churches of Christ to the worlds end doth excommunicate, following the Church of Corinth as a pattern.

Obj. 15. Though these obtruders of ceremonies did pervent so • ks, v. 24. yet the Synod doth not summond them before them, nor excommuncite them, but remit them to the particular Churches to whom it properly belonged to censure, and not to any Synod, or superior Judicature.

Answ. There was no need to summon them, for these subverters of souls were personally present at the Synod, and rebuked in the face of the Synod as perverters of souls, v. 24. for if they were not present; 1. to whom doth Peter speak, v. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, &c. the Apostles and Elders did not impose the yoke of Moses Law upon the believing disciples, nor any other, save only the obtruders of circumcision. 2. Who were they in the Synod who made much disputing? v. 7. note the Apostles, not any save these obtruders. Ergo, they were personally present at the Synod, nor needed they to excommunicate them, for I judge that they acquiesced to the determination of James, which was the sentence of the Synod, and the great dispute spoken of, v. 7. ceased, v. 13. and the conclusion is agreed upon, 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then it seemed good to the Apostles, Elders and whole Church, and there was reason why these obtruders should acquiesce, so that there was no need of further censure, for there was satisfactiou in part given to both siddes. The question was, whether or no are believers now to keep the Law and the ceremonies of Moses his Law? It was answered by the Synod, by a distinction which favored, in part, both sides, 1. There is no necessity that the believing Gentiles who are saved by grace as well as the Jews be troubled to keep all the ceremonies, and this satisfied the Apostles who taught that the Gentiles were now made one people with the Jews, and both are freed in conscience from Moses his yoke, the other part of the distinction it was this, yet there be some ceremonial commandments, as not to eat things offered to Idols, blood, and things strangled, (for fornication is of another nature, and abstinence therefrom is of perpetual necessity, 1 Cor. 6. 13, 14, 15, 16. 1 Thess. 4. 3. Col. 3. 5.) these must be avoided, for scandals sake, by all the Jews, but especially by the Gentiles, lest the weak Jews, who take these to be divine commandments yet in force, take offense, and this was satisfactory to the obtruders, and we hear no more of their disputing, and there is an end of the controversy by the blessed labors of a lawful Synod. 3. I could easily yield that there is no necessity of the elicit acts of many parts of government, such, as excommunication, ordination, admitting of heathens professing the faith to Church-membership, in Synods provincial, national or ecumenical, but that Synods in the case of neglect of presbyterial-Churches, command these particular Churches whom it concerneth, to do their duty, and in this sense the Synod, Act. 15. is to remit the censure of excommunication to the presbytery of Antioch and Jerusalem, in the case of the obstinacy of these obtruders of circumcision, but so some power of government is due to the Synod, as prescribing of Laws and Canons for presbyteries and Congregations.

Object. 16. Therefore was the Synagogue of the Jews no complete Church, because all the ordinances of God cannot be performed in the Synagogue, and therefore were the Jews commanded only at Jerus salem and in no other place to keep the passover, and to offer offerings and sacrifices, which were ordinary worship, Deut. 12. but there is not any worship or sacred ordinance, (saith that worthy Divine Dr. Ames) of preaching, praying, Sacraments, & c. prescribed, which is not to be observed in every Congregation of the New Testament: Nor is there any ordinary minister appointed who is not given to someone Assembly of this kind. So also Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson, teachers in New England. Others say because there was a representative worship of sacrificing of all the 12. Tribes at Jerusalem, therefore all the Synagogues were dependent Churches, and Jerusalem was the supreme and bighest Church, but there is no representative worship in the New Testament, and therefore no need of Synods, as higher Churches.

Answ. Surely the aforesaid reverend Brethren of New England have these words, But it seemeth to us that the power (of a Synod) is not proporly a power and exercise of government and jurisdiction, but a power of doctrine, and so a Synod is rather a • aching then a governing Church; from which I infer; 1. That out Brethren cannot deny a power of governing to a Synod, but it is not so proper governing, as excommunication and ordination performed in their Congregations, but (say I) it is more properly governing, as to make Laws and rules of governing, is a more noble, eminent and higher act of governing (as is evident in the King and his Parliament) then the execution of these Laws and rules. 2. Our brethren incline to make a Synod a teaching Church; but I infer that Synodical teaching by giving out decrees tying many Churches, as our Brethren of New England, and the forenamed authors teach, is an ordinance of Christ that can be performed in no single Congregation on earth, for a doctrinal Canon of one Congregation can lay no ecclesiastical tie upon many Churches. Ergo, by this reason our Congregations shall be dependent, as were the Jewish Synagogues. 3. With favor of these learned men it is a begging of the question to make Jerusalem the supreme Church, and the Synagogues dependent Churches, because it was lawful only at Jerusalem to sacrifice, for I hold that Jerusalem was a dependent Church no less then the smallest Synagogue in all the tribes, for in a Catholic meeting of all Judah for renewing a Covenant with God, Jerusalem was but a sister Church, with all of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, Manasseh, who 2 Chron. 15. 9. 10. 11, 12. made up one great Church which did swear that Covenant. Ordinances do not formally make Churches visible, nor divers ordinances divers Churches; profession of the truth formally constituteth a visible Church, and Church union in ordinances and government, and this was alike in the Synagogues and in Jerusalem. It was a thing merely typical that at Jerusalem only, and in the Temple only should there be offerings and sacrifices, because in Christ God-man, all our worship and service and prayers are accepted of the Father, but (I pray you) did this instampe Jerusalem with any note of Church-supremacy above the meanest Synagogue in all Israel and Judah? I see it not, all the Synagogues and all the land were members of the national Church, and everyone a member of his own Synagogue, the persons processing the truth and dwelling at Jerusalem had no supremacy over the Synagogues, because they did inhabit that typical place, but the Priests and Levites were indeed servants to all the land, in offering sacrifices, and in governing in the Synedry either the greater, or the less, but these professors who did constitute the visible Church at Jerusalem had no Church supremacy at all for their relation to the Temple, their cohabitation or bodily contiguitie was no Church-relation then or now; and that these of the Synagogues behooved to worship in some solemn acts only at Jerusalem, did no more give supremacy to the inhabitants of Jerusalem to be a Church over them, then the Synagogues could claim supremacy over the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for the inhabitants of Jerusalem were tied to worship there, and in no other place, and to stand to the determinntion of the great Synodrie without appeal, because there was not a Catholic visible Church in the world but the Church of the Jews; and this argument with as great force of reason might conclude that all the cities and incorporations of England are in government dependent and subordinate to London and the suburbs, because they are subordinate to the honorable Houses of Parliament, if we should suppone that Westminster by a standing Law of the Kingdom were the unal • enable seat where the Parliament can fit, and in no other place, which yet could prove nothing, seeing London and the suburbs are in their government no less subordinate to the Parliament, then the meanest village and town in England, and therefore I see no ground, because some representative worship was tied to Jerusalem, to give Jerusalem a Church-supremacy, 2. because one Congregation doth pray for another that is under pestilence and diseases, and praises God for the deliverance from these evils which also is a sort of representative worship (every Church and person partaking of a Christian priesthood to offer up prayers and praises one for another) it will not (as I conceive) prove that one Congregation hath Church-supremacy, and power of jurisdiction over another. Because 1. all Israel was alike circumcised; 2. all alike the called people of God, in covenant with God; 3. all had claim to the Altar, Sacrifices, Temple, Ark, &c. 4. All alike professed their subjection to God, to Priests and Prophets in these same ordinances, whether typical, or judicial, or moral, therefore every Synagogue alike at Jerusalem, at Dan or Bersheba, were alike Congregational Churches, without dependence one upon another, and all depended upon the whole national Church, and on the Synodries supreme, subordinate, and the Synagogue-government according to their subordinations respectively; and I see no national Church in Israel peculiar to them, or typical, more then there is a national Church in Scotland or England, though God put some distinguishing typical notes upon their government, yet it never made either the invisible or visible Church of the Jews to differ in nature and essence from the Christian Churches.

Object. 17. From the power of jurisdiction, in a Synod, you may infer a power of jurisdiction, in a national Church, and a power of jurisdiction in the whole Christian world, and we know not any Political Church Catholic and visible in Scripture, and if then were any such Church Catholic, then might they convene and sweart a Catholic-covenant for uniformity of doctrine, worship, and government of the Church, as we have done in Britain, and this Catholic Church might impose it, upon a national Church, even by that same Law of proportion, by which the national Church may impose it on particular Churches which are parts of the National Church.

Answ. I see not how the consequence holdeth every way good, that as we infer from a juridical power in a presbytery, the same power juridical in a Synod, and the same in a national Assembly, that therefore we may infer the same juridical power in an Ecumenic council: and the reasons of the disparity I take to be these; 1. The farther remote in local distance of place that Churches be, (as it falleth out in the Catholic visible Church) the danger of scandalizing one another, by visible communion, and so the opportunity of edifying one another is the less, and so the communion visible is the less, and consequently the power of jurisdiction is the less. 2. An universal and oecumenick council of all the visible Churches on earth, is an act of the visible Church which supposeth all the visible Churches on earth to be in that moral perfection of soundness of faith, of concord and unity, that someone Congregation or classical presbytery of Elders according to God's heart may be in, which moral perfection perhaps is not de facto attainable, (though it be not physically impossible) in this life, except we suppose the heavenly days of Christ's visible reign on earth a thousand years, when yet there shall be no Temple nor external ministry, of which state I cannot now dispute, and therefore I conceive these sixteen hundred years there never was an integral and perfect oecumenick council of all the Churches on earth, and therefore if we should dispute of the juridical power of such a Catholic assembly whether it may impose an oecumenick and Catholic oath on a national Church against their will, and excommunicate a national Church, is but a needless and a Ch • mericall dispute, and it includeth two contradictory suppositions. 1. That all the Churches on earth are of one sound faith, worship, doctrine and Church-government, and yet one national Church is supposed to be heterodox, scandalous, and obstinate, so that that whole national Church must be constrained to take a lawful oath and must be excommunicated; such an hypothesis is not possible where the Gospel is preached, for even the whole Romish Church in all its members deserveth not excommunication, in respect we are sure God hath thousands in the bosom of that Church; who believe in Christ, and do not defend popery with obstinacy, and such an hypothesis is contradicent to the supposition of the soundness of faith and unity of all Christian Churches on earth, and therefore I plainly deny that Christ hath given the like power of jurisdiction to the Catholic visible Church, that he hath given to a national Church, over a provincial Church or Synod, and to a Synod over a classical Presbyterie; yea I much doubt if a Catholic council can formally excommunicate a national Church, though such a council may use a power analogical like to the power of excommunication.

Object. 18. But you cannot demonstrate from God's Word, that there is such a thing in the New Testament, as a Catholic visible Church.

Answ. I said something of this before, but I conceive the subject of the 1 Cor. 12. is a Catholic, visible Church, But, 1. we do not understand a political body with ordinary visible government from one man who maketh himself the vicar of Christ, the Pope, whose members are Cardinals, Bishops, & c. and such like. But the Catholic body mystical of Jesus Christ, and that as visible: and 1. that the Apostle is to be understood of an universal, not of a Congregational and particular politick Church that meeteth in one place, is clear; 1. he speaketh of that Church wherein are diversities of gifts for the good of the whole Catholic body, as miracles, the gift of prophecy, the gift of interpretation, the gift of healing, &c. of whom he saith, v. 5, 6. there is the same spirit, and the same God, who worketh all in all, the particular Congregation is not such an all in all. 2. He speaketh of such a Church as taketh in all baptized into one spirit, but this is the whole visible Church, not one single Congregation only. 3. He speaketh of such a Church as taketh in all, both Jews and Gentiles, making them one body, v. 13. and that taketh in all the world. 4. He speaketh of such a Church as hath an adequat and full relation to Christ, from which this Church is denominated Christ mystical, all the believers meeting in one mystical body of Christ, as lines in one center, v. 12. now a single Congregation hath not a foot to fill this measure. 5. He speaketh of such a body as hath need of the help one of another, as the head hath need of the feet, v. 15, 16, 17. those of a single Congregation have need of those, who are eyes and ears without the congregation. 6. He speaketh of such a body, as is not to separate in their members, one from another, to make a schism in the body. v. 25. but a single Congregation ought not to separate from the rest of the great body made up of many sister Churches. 7. He speaketh of such a body, the members whereof must care one for another, and suffer one with another, v. 26. now single Congregations are such members of this great body, as must mourn with these that mourn and rejoice with these that rejoice, therefore one single Congregation cannot be this whole body, but its part only. 8. He speaketh of such a body in which God hath set, v. 28. Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, mi •• cles, &c. now Christ hath not wedged in Apostles the Catholic Pastors of the whole world, to one single Congregation, nor hath he confined such a multitude of officers ordinary and extraordinary to one single Congregation. And that he speaketh here of a Catholic visible Church is clear; 1. He speaketh of such a body, to which is given the manifestation of the spirit to profit withal, v. 7. this must be a visible policy. 2. He speaketh of a political and organical body, having eyes, ears, hands, feet, &c. which must be a visible ministry. 3. He speaketh of a body capable of the seals, such as Baptism, v. 13. We all are baptized by one spirit into one body, this must be a visible baptized body; discerned by the visible character of baptism from all societies of Jews, Pagans, and others who profess not Christ Jesus. 4. He speaketh of such a body as standeth in need of the help one of another, as the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of the, v. 21. this evidently crieth that he supposeth a visible and external policy in this body. 5. He speaketh of a body so tempered of God, as that there should be no schism in the body, nor separation from it, v. 25. now this cannot be a separation from the invisible body of Christ, for so hypocrites which are members of this visible body, and are often officers, as eyes and ears, yea Pastors, and Teachers remaining in the body without any schism or separation, are yet separatists from the invisible body of Christ, and no more parts of that body, then a wooden leg or arm is a member of a living man. 6. He speaketh of that body which is to express its care in praying, praising, mourning and rejoicing with the rest of the members as they are in a good or adverse condition of prosperity or adversity, v. 23, 26. and this must be a visible Church praying or praising God. 7. He speaketh of such a Church as the fellow members may see and know by their senses, to suffer, and be in a hard condition, or to rejoice, as v. 25. 26. and this is more then apparently clear to be a visible Church. 8. He speaketh of such a Church as God hath furnished with several officers, in several orders visibly known to be different officers, as v. 28. Now God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly teachers, these be parts and most eminent and considerable organs of a visible Church. And the like I might prove by divers of these arguments of that body political of which the Apostle speaketh, Rom. 12. 3, 4, 5, 6. to the end of the Chapter. These special exceptions there be against this. 1. That the Church, 1 Cor. 12. is the invisible and mystical body of Christ, because it is a body baptized by one spirit. 2. A body called Christ, that is Christ mystical. Answ. It is true that this visible body hath also an inward and spiritual baptizing, answerable to the external and outward baptizing, and so according to that internal and mystical union it is an invisible body, as these reasons prove: but the question is, if the Apostle speak of the body of Christ in that notion, we deny that, for he speaketh plainly here of the Church, as it is a political, organical and visible body.

Object. 2. If one should say, God hath placed in the common-wealth Emperors, Kings, Dukes, Princes and Rulers, as the eyes and ears of the Commonwealth, it should no ways follow that all the Commonwealths in the earth are one visible civil body having a government, so though it he said God hath placed in the spiritual Commonwealths of the Church Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, &c. it followeth not that the Church is all one spiritual, politick visible body, it followeth only that the Lord hath placed in the Church Apostles, Prophets, Teachers indefinitely, that is, that these may be in any one single Congregation, as it is said, James 2. 2. If there come into your Assembly, or Synagogue, a man with a gold Ring, &c. now this will not prove that all the dispersed Jews, to whom James wrote, were all but one Congregation.

Answ. 1. It is true, if any should say, God hath placed in the Common-wealth Emperors, Kings, Dukes, Princes, it should not follow that Common-wealths are one body, even Jews, Gentiles, Barbarians, Americans, because there is not this external union of visible Communion in the Common-wealths of the earth, as there is in the Churches; but if one should say, God hath placed Emperors, Kings, Dukes, Princes in the Common-wealths, as in one organical body, having one head who hath given influence to so many Orgins of head feet, hands, eyes, ears, &c. as the Apostle speaketh of this body of the Church, he should then say all the Common-wealths of the world made but one body, but this indefinite speech must, by good logic, have the virtue either of an universal or a particular proposition, as if I say (The Church hath seated in it Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, &c.) you mean either the Cathlick visible Church, or the particular Congregation, or 3. some Church betwixt these two: our brethren cannot say they mean of a middle Church, for then they grant (contrary to their own principles) a political visible Church, beside a Congregation; if they say the first, we have what we crave; if they say that the Congregation hath seated in it Apostles, Prophets, they fall in the former absurdity, for God hath placed Apostles, in the whole Christian world.

Object. 3. When the Apostle saith, v. 21. The head cannot say to the feet, I have no need of you; either must we acknowledge here that • ee meaneth the head of a Congregation, to wit a Pastor, or a Doctor, and so he speaketh here of a Congregation; or if he speak of the Catholic Church, then Estius his argument may stand in force to 〈◊〉 the Pope to be the head of the Church; for Estius exponing these needs (The head cannot say to the feet, I have no need of you) by the head of the Catholic Church (saith he) you either understand Christ the principal head, or then, some mortal man, the Pope, who is a ministerial head; the former you cannot say, because Christ being God, and also man perfectly happy, he may say to all the members of his Church great and small, yea to the very Angels, I have no need of you; for he can sanctify and govern his Church without the •• d, the Sacraments, or any ministers, therefore the head which 〈◊〉 in need of the feet, must be the ministerial head the Pope, 〈◊〉 standeth in need of the feet for the governing of the body in a ministerial way.

I answer, there is no reason for a Popish argument to leave the truth, for this argument shall no less militate against cur brethren, then against us, because it shall prove that there is a ministerial head and Pope in every Congregation, which is no less absurd then to make a Catholic head over all the visible Catholic Church. Secondly, as for the argument it is easily answered, for the Apostle here useth a comparison from the natural body, and there is no ground to press every to • , lith and sinew of a comparison; and we deny that the word (head) here doth signify literally either Pastor or Bishop, for the eye also being that which watcheth and seeth for the whole body should also signify the Pastor, but the intent of the Spirit of God is, that the most eminent members which are as the eyes & the head, whether their eminency be excellency of saving grace, called, gratia gratum faciens, or excellency of gifts, called, gratia gratis data, they have need of the gifts and graces of others inferiors and of meaner parts, and there is neither ministerial head, nor ministerial feet, nor ministerial eyes in the Text.

Object. 4. To every visible Church there should be a Paster to feed and rule that Church, if then there be here a Catholic visible Church, thers should also be a Catholic visible Pastor, & that is a Pope.

Answ. That to every Church meeting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into one place, for Word and Sacraments, there should be one Pastor only and a supreme one, I deny; there may be more Pastors then one, but that to every Catholic Church there should be one head most eminent, that is far rather to be denied, for this is so great a flock that there be a necessity of multitude of Pastors and watchmen to attend so Catholic a flock.

Object. 19. You teach that the government of consociated Churches is warranted by the light of nature, which if it be true, surely this light of nature being common to us, in civil, as in ecclesiastical ca • ses, then by natures light every city governed with rulers within it self, is suberdinate to a Classe of many cities, and that Classe to a national meeting of all the cities, and the nation must in its government be subordinate to a Catholic or • ecumenick civil court, and this same way may appeals ascend in civil courts; and because by the same light of nature (saith Mr. Mather, and Mr. Thomson) there must be some final and supreme judgment of controversies le • t • ppeaks should be spun out in infinitum, it must be proved that this sup • em 〈◊〉 lieth not in a Congregation.

Answ. 1. Appeales being warranted by the moral counsel which Je • hro gave to Moses, in which there is nothing typical or • remoniall, but a pattern that all Common-wealths on earth, without any danger of Judaizing may fellow, cannot but be (as Whittaker hath observed) natural, and supposing that God hath given warrant in his word, for Monarchies, which are known by God's appointment to be independent, as also the government of all free and unconquered States are, it doth follow by the light of nature, that appeals in all states are natural, and that God hath appointed that the supremacy should lie within the bounds of every free Monarchy or State, so that there can be no appeal to any ecumenical or Catholic civil Court, for that is against the independent power that God hath given to States; but in the Church it is far otherwise, for God hath appointed no visible Monarchy in his Church, nor no such independencie of policy within an congregation classical, provincial or national Church and therefore though appeals be warranted both in Church and State, by the light of nature, yet appeals to exotic and foreign judicatures is not warranted by any such light, but rather contrary thereunto.

2. Church-appeals, though warranted by the light of nature, yet it is supposed they be rational, and grounded on good reason, as that either the matter belong not to the congregation, or then it be certain or morally presumed the Congregation will be partial and unjust, or the business be difficill and intricate, and if appeals be grcundlesse and unjust, neither Christ, nor natures light doth warrant them, yea in such a case the supremacy, from which no man can lawfully appeal, lieth sometime in the Congregation, sometime in the classical presbytery, so as it is unlawful to appeal, for illud tantumpossumus quod jure possumus, and neither Christ nor natures light doth warrant us to unjust appeals, or to anything against equity and reason: but that supremacy of power should be in a Congregation without any power of appealing, I think our brethren cannot teach; for when the Church of Antioch cannot judge a matter concerning the necessity of keeping Moses his Law, or any difficill dogmatical point, they by natures direction, Act. 15. 2. decree to send Pau', Barnabas and others to Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders, as to a higher judicature, that their truth may be determined, and this they did without any positive law that we can imagine: for Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson, as also the Author of the Church government of New England teach that the Church of Antioch had, jus, power to judge and determine the controversy, but because of the difficulty had not light • o judge thereof; Ergo they must acknowledge appeals by natures light warrantable as well as we, for suppose we, that a Congregation inclineth to this (that Arminianism is the sound doctrine of grace opposite to Stoicism) one man is cited before the Congregation for holding the contrary, he knoweth all the Congregation in those points to be Pelagians, would not our brethren say, that this man so unjustly accused for holding the truth against the enemies of grace may appeal to a Synod? I think they must teach this by their grounds, though by the way I think the brethren err in this to teach that Antioch had power to determine the controversy, Act. 15. in this case; 1. when the Churches of Syria and Silicia, to their knowledge, were troubled with the like question, as v. 24. may clear; 2. when as the party against the truth was so prevalent within the Church of Antioch, Act. 15. 2. as that they opposed the Apostle Pau', and Barnabas, also in this case I doubt much if they had power to determine a question, that so much concerned all the Churches, for that was proper to a Synod of many Churches. 2. When the greatest part of a Church, as Antioch, is against the truth, as is clear, Act. 15. 2. I believe in that they lose their jus, their right to determine ea • enus, in so far, for Christ hath given no ecclesiastical right and power to determine against the truth, but only for the truth, and therefore in this, appeals must be necessary. Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson against Herle, c. 2. p. 17. 18. say we do much Judaizein that we multiply appeals upon appeals, from the Congregation to a Classe, then to a Synod, then to a national assembly, then to an • eckmenick council, and this way, while the world endureth, causes are never determined, and Synods cannot always be had, even as in Jerusalem the supreme judicature was far remote from all proselytes, as from the Eunuch of Ethiopia, Act. 8. and from the remotest parts of the holy Land; But God hath provided better for us, in the New Testament, where every Congregation, which is at hand, may decide the controversy.

Answ. 1. The speediness of ending controversies in a congregation, is badly compensed with the suddainnesse and temerity of delivering men to Satan, upon the decision of three Elders, without so much as asking advise of any classes of Elders, and with deciding questions deep and grave, that concerneth many Churches, which is a putting a private sickle in a common and public harvest. 2. All appeals without just warrant from Christ's will, we condemn, as the abuse of appeals to a court, which is known shall never be. 3. Antiochs appeal to a Synod two hundredth miles distant (as our brethren say) in so weighty a question, was no Judaizing, but that which Paul and the Apostles was guilty of, as well as we. 4. Matters concerning many Churches must be handled by many.

The Doctrine of the Presbyterial Churches of Jerusalem, Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, vindicated.

WEe are convinced from the numerous multitude of believers, and the multitude of Pastors at this famous and mother Church of the Christians at Jerusalem, to believe the frame and mould was presbyterial, and that it cannot be so much as imagined or dreamed that it was molded to the pattern of one single Congregation which could all meet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into one place.

The frame of an independent single Congregation is such as no more do meet ordinarily in one house, then may conveniently be edified, in partaking of one Word, and one breaking of bread, that is, one Table at the Supper of the Lord; nor can we imagine that the first mould of a Christian visible Church was so inconvenient as that it crossed edification and conversion, which is the formal effect of a Church-meeting: Now the multitude was such as could not, neither morally; nor physically, meet in one house. For at one Table many thousands and multiplied thousands could not mere and therefore consider their number; they were, Act. 1. a hundredth and twenty met in one place, but I shall not be of the opinion that this was all, seeing, 1 Cor. 15. 6. Christ after his resurrection was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, after that he was seen of above five hundredth brethren; then in one day at one Sermon about three thousand souls, Act. 2. 42. and ch. 4. 4. though they were apprehended who preached the Gospel, yet many of them which heard the Word believed, and the number of the men was about five thousand. I deny not but worthy Calvin saith, id potius de tota ecclesia, quam de nova accessione intelligendum, this was the whole number including the three thousand that were converted, c. 2. but first he saith, Potius, he inclineth rather to this opinion: but secondly the Text saith of those which heard the word, it would seem to me, at the second Sermon of Peter, and Augustine, Chrysostom, Bed • , Basilius, Oecumenius, Hieronym. Irenaeus make this number divers from the former, so do Cornelius a Lap. Salmeron, Stapletonus, (l) Sanctius, Lorinus, Lyranus, Cajetan; but we shall not contend about the matter, nor yet whether the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 includeth women, which it often doth in the Greek, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Demosthenes doth also; yet the wisdom of God in the Apostles cannot admit us to imagine that five thousand could ordinarily meet to the Word, Sacraments, and government in one house, and after this many thousands were added to this Church.

Answ. Though it be evident that the Apostles were persecuted, cast in prison, and beaten, Act. 4. 3. c. 5. 18. 26. 33. 40. it is as evident that they had Assemblies, and Churches meetings, Act. 2. 37. 41. 46. c. 4. 1, 2, 3. c. 5. 10. v. 25. now the question then is not if they could not meet, for extrinsical impediments of persecution; for both our brethren and we agree in this, that they had their Church-assemblies for Word and Sacraments, then the question is upon the supposal of Church assembles, which the persecution of the Jews then fearing the people was not able to hinder, c. 5. 26, whether or no was the Church at Jerusalem of such a competent number, only as that they could meet not occasionally only to hear a Sermon, but in an ordinary Church-meeting to hear the Word, and communicate in the breaking of bread, and seals of the Covenant; and though the want of a capacious house be also an extrinsical impediment why they could not meet, yet that they wanted such a capacious house as the Temple, will prove nothing, but it cannot be said that they wanted a capacious house for the ordinary meeting of a Congregation, the ordinary and genuine use whereof is to be edified by the Word and Sacraments, and that an ordinary house could contain such a number of thousands and multitudes as can be edified in a Congregational way, is denied.

Answ. It is said these believers, v, 44. were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in one place, and those who, v. 46. did eat bread 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from house to house, met then being in one place, and (eating of bread from house to house) must be exponed as we do, distributively, that is, divided in small Assemblies, for the argument that we bring militateth against the eating of their common meat in houses, all being in one private house; were three thousand in • ne place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , all at one banquet, and that daily? 2. It is true, divers expone the breaking of bread, v. 46. not of the Supper of the Lord's yet of the banquets of love where there was an assembly of many; but v. 42. It is clear these three thousand did receive the Supper of the Lord together, and it is so true that the Syriac hath it in his exposition thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 un • isht an • hephin bavau but luthi u • aktsa • a deu • ha • rskia, it is memorable, saith Lorinus, that he retaineth the name of Eucharistia, it is rendered, Et communica • ant in oratione & fractione Eucharistia, yea and Lutherus and Calvin both expound it so, and as Lorinus, Cajetan, Cornelius a Lapide, they be all spiritual exercises named here. But how can we imagine that many thousands could in one meeting communicate at one Table in the Lord's Supper, and that ordinarily? 1. What voice could reach to so many thousands, as they did grow unto? 2. What Table could suffice to a Congregation of so many thousands added to the Church, for the supper is a Table ordinance, and requireth Table communion, Table gestures, which the Apostles could not so soon remove and change into an Altar, that all might conveniently hear and be edified. 3. Can we believe, that seeing Congregational meetings of fewer, and that in private houses, was less obnoxious to the indignation of authority, then meeting in the Temple, as is most evident, Act. 4. 1, 2. and seeing the Apostles had liberty to meet, Act. 5. 26. that they would draw the first mould of the Christian visible Church, after the pattern of a convention most unfit, yea unpossible, for attaining the intended end, to w • t, edification, especially not being compelled thereunto, by an extrinsical necessity. Our brethren say, three thousand, five thousand might all communicate in one place, though not at one time, súccessively, as it is in many numerous Congregations; But I answer 1. after they were five thousand, ch. 4. I dare say, taking in the hundredth and twenty, the five hundredth brethren that all saw Christ at once, 1 Cor. 15. 6. and the fruit of the preaching of the other ten Apostles, all now present at Jerusalem, when the 〈…〉 the Spirit on all flesh, joe. 2. 28, 29. 〈◊〉 15, 16, 17. was now to take effect at this time, there were 〈◊〉 thousand, but after there all it is said, Act. 6. 1. The 〈…〉 were multiplied, v. 7. And the Word of God 〈◊〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The 〈…〉 Disciples grew exceedingly, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a great 〈◊〉 the Priests were obedient to the faith; how many of the people were then obedient to the faith? could all these make on: Congregation to eat at one Table? But 2. when they are put to this shift, to say, that they did communicate suc 〈◊◊〉 Table, and (which must be) not all in one day, then 〈◊〉 brethren grant there was not here such a Congregation as is, 1 Cor. 11. 20 When you come together therefore into one 〈…〉 eat the Lord's Supper, 23. Wherefore my brethren 〈…〉 together to eat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , tarry one for another; when 〈◊〉 come to eat at the love-feasts, especially at the Lord's Supper, saith Di • datus; if everyone of the Congregation be to wait on while another come, then in the Apostolic Church all the Congregation came together to the Lord's Supper to one place and at one time, and this is not the Congregation where of he speaketh, 1 Cor. 14. 23. if therefore the whole Church c • me together to the same place, and all speak with tongues, 〈…〉 in th • se that are unlearned and unbeleovers, will they 〈…〉 mad? Hence all the Congegration come together to one place, at one time, and the place was so that heathen and unbelievers might come into their worship of the Congregation, but our brethren make the meeting of this Congregation such as they were not to s • ay one for another, 〈◊◊〉 all at one time, but successively, and so as the whole Congregation could not come to one place at once, but by 〈◊〉 and quarters, and fractions and divided parts, now one 〈◊〉 , or two thousand, then another two thousand the next day, for the Apostles then celebrating the supper at night and after Supper, 1 C • r. 11. 21. few thousands should be able to communicate after Supper. 2. There was no necessity, that these wise master-builders should divide the Church, and the first visible Church in so many parts, and this successive communion doth clearly prove our point, that there were many Congregations, for every successive fraction being a competent convention of believers having the Word and Sacraments, and so power of jurisdiction not to admit all promiscuously to the Lord's Table, is to our brethren a complete Church, for to it indeed agreeth the essential Characters of a visible instituted Church, for there is here a ministry, the Word and Sacraments, and some power of jurisdiction within it self, and so what lacketh this successive fraction of an entire Congregation?

But what ground for so needless a conjecture, that the Apostolic Church did celebrate the Lord's Supper in the Temple, never in private houses? The contrary is, Act. 20. 7. And upon the first day of the week the Disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, v. 8. And there were many lights in an upper Chamber, where they were convened, so the Text is clear, the first day of the week, 1 Cor. 16. 1. was the day of the Christians public worship, and Augustine, Calvin, Lu • her, Melancthon, Bullinger, Diodatus; and so Lorinus and Sanchius say this was the Lord's Supper, who can imagine that the Apostles did bring so many thousand Christians after Supper to the Temple, to celebrate a new Evangelic feast, and that immediately after Peters first Sermon, Act. 2. 42 ? 1. Before the Apostles had informed the Jews, that all their typical and ceremonial feasts were now abolished, yea while they stood in vigor, and the Apostles themselves kept them in a great part? was this like the Spirit of the Gospel, which did bear with Moses his ceremonies for forty years?

2. The Apostles, Act. 4. 1. are indicted before the Synedry, that they taught, in the Temple, Jesus Christ: if they had with so many thousands, gone to the Temple with a new extraordinary ceremonial ordinance as a new Sacrament, so contrary in human reason, to all the sacred Feasts, Sacrifices, and ceremonies, should not this with the first have been put in their inditement, that they were shouldering Moses out of the Temple? yet are they only accused for teaching the people; yea Christ the Law-giver, who preached the Gospel daily in the Temple, would not take the last Supper to the Temple, but celebrated it in a private Chamber; and Paul being accused always as an enemy to Moses and the Temple, his enemies the Jews who watched him heedfully, could never put on him, that he celebrated a Sacrament in the Temple: as for Baptism it being a sort of washing, (whereof the Pharisees used many, Matth. 15. Mark. 7.) it was performed often sub di • in rivers, never in the Temple; we desire any author, father, (Ocecumenius doubteth only) Doctor, Divine, Protestant, or Papist, late or old, who said the Apostles celebrated the Supper in the Temple.

Answ. The place, Act. 4. 31. saith not, that all the five thousand believers were in that one place, which was shaken, for v. 21. that when the Apostles were let go by the Priests and Captains of the Temple they returned to their own company 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to their own, but no circumstance in the Text doth infer that they came back to the whole five thousand, but only to some few of the first believers, that were converted before the first Sermon of Peter was made, cap. 2, they returned, Lyra and Hugo Cardinalis, to their own company, ad domesticos suos, and so saith Lorinus, who citeth the Syriac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hachaiehin ad fratres suos. Salmeron, ad suos • apostolos, sive condiscipulos & domesticos fidei, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not signify the whole Church, but friends and domestics, as, Mark. 5. 19. Go home to thy own house and show thy friends, Luke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 compared with, Luk. 8. 39. and Gal. 6. 10, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 1 Tim. 5. 8. therefore the place saith that the five thousand were gathered together in this one place which was shaken. 2. Giving and not granting that they were all convened to prayer, it doth not follow that they did meet ordinarily in one place, for partaking of Word and Sacraments, as one Congregation, for • oe might convene to prayer and hearing the Word, then could meet ordinarily in a Congregational-way. Neither will any Text enforce us to expone 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , collectively, but distributively, as we say, all the Congregations in Scotland met, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in one, every Lord's day, that is, everyone of the Congregations is in one place, but the sense is not that all the Congregations collectively are in one place. And we may justly ask what this place was which was shaken, it is not like that it was the Temple, that which should have been more prodigious like, and presaged a ruin to the Temple, would not have been concealo • by the holy Ghost, for it would have more terrified the Jews, and the Temple is never called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sine adjecto, without some other thing to make it be known to be the holy place, if it was a private house, give us leave to say it could not contain five thousand to hear prayer, far less a more numerous multitude.

We re • it it to the judgment of the wise, if the Apostles were so lazy to propagate the Gospel, that where twelve of them were present undoubtedly, Act. 4. 23 31. Act. 6. 2. and (as many of the learned think, the seventy Disciples) that eleven Apostles did hear the Word only, and one did speak to one Congregation only, which consisted of so many thousands, for to the five thousand, if there were no moe, c. 5. 14. mere believers were added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women, who could not conveniently hear? This I think not imaginable; for 1. now the harvest was large, thousands were to be converted. 2. The Spirit was now poured upon all flesh. 3. Christ, when he sent the tw • lve but to Jude • , he sent them two and two, and would have every man at work, and the Apostles went out in twoes, Act. 13. Paul and B • rna • as and sometimes but one Peter was sent to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles, and the world divided amongst them, 1. of other officers Timothy is sent to Ephesus, Titus to Crete, that so they might the more swiftly spread the Gospel to all the world. What wisdom could we imagine would lead the twelve Apostles to speak to one single Congregation met in one place, at one time? the rest, to wit the eleven and the seventic Disciples being silent? for in the Church the God of order will have one to speak at once, 1 Cor. 14. 31.

To which I answer. 1. Because our brethren consider that the Church of Jerusalem will not be their independent Congregation, before we obtain it, for us, as a mould of a presb • t • riall Church, they had rather quit their part of it, and permit the Jews to have it, for us both, but we are content that their Congregations in some good sense be given to them, and not to Jews. 2. There is no reason, but the Church of Jerusalem be a Christian Church; 1. The external profession of a visible Church maketh it a visible Christian Church, but this Church professeth faith in Christ already come in the flesh and the Sacraments of the New Testament, baptism, and the Sacramental breaking of bread, Act. 22. 41, 42. we desire to know how saving faith in a multitude constituteh an invisible Church, and the external and blameless profession of that same saving faith doth not contitute a visible Church also? and how this is not a Christian visible Church not differing in essence and nature from the 〈◊〉 Churches that now are, to which the essential note of a visible Church agreeth, to wit the preaching or profession of the sound faith: if it be called an Apostolic and so an extraordinary Christian Church because the Apostles doth govern • it, that is not enough, if the Apostles govern it, according to the rule of the word framing the visible Churches of the New Testament, this way the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 5. shall be an Apostolic and so an extraordinary Church, which our brethren cannot say. But we desire to know wherein the frame of this first pattern Christian Church at Jerusalem is so extraordinary, that it cannot be a rule to us to draw the mould of our Churches according to it, for if the Apostles make it a pattern of an ordinary Christian Church in Word and Sacraments, to say it was extraordinary in the government, except you show that that government was different from the rule that now is in government, is petitio principii, to beg what is in question, for these same keys both of knowledge and jurisdiction that by your grant, were given to the Church, Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. were given to the Apostles, Matth. 16, 17, 18. and Joh. 20. 21. If you say it is extraordinary, because as yet they had not Deacons, for the Apostles did as yet serve tables, where as afterward Act. 6. that was given to the Deacons by office, and so they had not Elders, nor Doctors, nor Pastors as we now ha • e, but the Apostles were both Pastors, Ruling Elders, Doctors, and Deacons, and they were the only governing Eldership, and this was extraordinary that they had no Eldership, and so they were for that same cause no presbyterial Church, whence it followeth that you cannot make this Church which had no presbytery, a pattern of a presbyterial Church.

But I answer, this will not take off the argument, if we shall prove that after they were more then could meet in one Congregation, and so after they were so numerous that they were moe Congregations then one, they had one common government, and 1. we say though the Apostles had power to govern all the Churches of the world, and so many Congregations, yet if they did rule many Congregations as Elders, and not as Apostles, we prove our point. Now we say where baptism and the Lord's Supper was, there behooved to be some government, else the Apostles admitted promiscuously to baptism and the Lord's Supper any the most scandalous and profane, which we cannot think of the Apostles: it is true say you, they admitted not all, but according to the rule of right government, but this right government was extraordinary, in that it was not in a settled Eldership of a Congregation, which was obliged to reside and personally to watch over that determinate flock, and no other flock, but it was in the hands of the Apostles, who might go through all the world to preach the Gospel, and were not tied to any particular flock: and so from this neither can you draw your classical Eldership, nor we our Congregational Eldership.

But I answer, yet the question is begged, for though it be unlawful for a settled Eldership not to reside where their charge is, yet the question is now of a government in the hands of those who are obliged to reside and give personal attendance to the flock, and the government in the hands of the Apostles, who were not obliged to personal attendance over this and this particular flock, which they did govern; were governments so different in nature, as the one is a pattern to us, not the other, and the one followeth rules different in nature and spirit from the other; for though it were granted that the Apostles did govern many Congregations as Apostles, not as Elders, yet there was no extraordinary reason why these many Congregations should be called one Church, and the believers added to them, said to be added to the Church, as it is said, Act. 2. 47. And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved, except this Church be one entire body governed and ruled according to Christ's Laws. 2. There be seven Descons chosen to this Church, Act. 6. and Deacons are officers of the Church of Philippi which our brethren calleth Phil. 1. 1. a Congregational Church, and Pnebe was a Deaconisse (say they) of the Church of Cenchrea, Rom. 16. 1. and if they had Deacons, they could not want Elders, who are as necessary. 3. This Church could not be so extraordinary as that it cannot be a pattern to us of the constant government of Churches by Elders, which we call Aristocratical, seeing it is brought as a pattern of the Churches government by the voices of the people, which is called by Divines, in some respect, democratical, and this place is alleged by our brethren, and by all Protestant Divines against Bishops and Papists to prove that the people have some hand in government, to wit, in election of officers, and so the words are clear, Act. 6. 5. And this saying pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Steven, &c. so this multitude did not make one Congregational Church, but it was a company of the multiplied disciples, both of Grecians and Hebrews, as is clearly related to these spoken of, v. 1. c. 6. Now Hebrews and Grccians were directly one Church having one government, and seven Deacons, common to both, now that could not be a single independent Congregation, as is already proved. 4. If the con • titution of this Church at Jerusalem be sewish, because of some Jewish observations, and so no pattern of the frame of ordinary visible Churches Christian; I say 1. this is no good argument, seeing the Christian visible Church, and the Jewish visible Church is of that same frame and constitution, having that same faith, s • all grant, except Papists, Socinians and Armini • ns, and so that same profession of that same faith. 2. If this were a good reason, then all the Churches of the Gentiles which are commanded for a time, in the case of scandal, to observe some Jewish Laws, to abstain from eating meats offered to Id • ls, and from blood, and from things strangled, Act. 15. 29. Act. 16. 4. shall be also Churches in their constitution Jewish, and so no pattern to us; and the Church of Rome and of Corinth shall be Jewish also, and no pattern to us, because in case of scandal they are to abstain from meats forbidden in the Law of Moses, Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. c. 10. but this our brethren cannot teach. 5. Though Apostles did govern all these Congregations, yet we are not to think • that seeing there were such abundance of gifted men in this Church, on which the Spirit, according to Joels prophecy, was poured in so large a measure, that they did not appoint Elders who did personally watch over the converted flock, especially seeing Apostles use never this Apostolical and extraordinary power, but in case of necessity, where ordinary helps are wanting, else this answer might clude all reasons drawn from the first molded Churches which were planted by the Apostles and watered by their helpers. But I have heard some say, that multitude of Pastors at Jerusalem doth not prove that the Apostles were idle, if they did all attend me Congregation, because they had work enough in the Synagogues 〈◊〉 convert the unconverted Jews, all the twelve did not labor in preaching to the one single new converted Congregation.

Answ. But if you lay down our brethren's supposition, that the Apostles had no public meetings for the Word and Sacraments of the Christian Church, but the Temple, and that they ceased not daily in the Temple, and from house to house to teach and preach Christ, as is said, Act. 5. 42. then consider that they preached not daily in the Synagogues, but in the Temple and i • houses, and their first conquest of five thousand was above three Congregations, beside those who daily came In: and c • r • ainly it the first was but one Congregation, yet one of the twelve preached to that Congregation, the other eleven b • hoor • d to have a Congregation also. 6. Our brethren acknowledge the Church of Jerusalem to be one Church, for it is called, even before the dispersion, one Church in the singular number, Act. 2. 47. And the Lord added to the Church daily. 〈◊〉 as should be saved, Act. 5. 11. Great fear came upon all the Church, and Act. 8 1. A • that time there was a great persecution 〈◊〉 Church. 2. They grant before the disportion that it had a government, but they deny this government to be presbyterial, thy s • y it was Apostolic and extraordinary, and that it had not in Eldership, nor read we of any Elders till after the dispersion, Act. 8 1. When their number was diminished, so as it is clear they 〈◊〉 meet in one Congregation. 3. You must prove this government be one if you prove a Presbyterial Church at Jerusalem. 4. 〈◊〉 must prove divers formed and organical and several Con ••• nions at Jerusalem, if you prove such presbyterial Churches as 〈◊〉 have in Scotland; but I pray you, The Apostles (you say) 〈◊〉 the Church of Jerusalem as Apostles, and so as extraordinary Elders, not as an ordinary Eldership and Presbytery, but give me leave to say this is a mere shift. 1. What reason to call the Apostles governing of the Church extraordinary, more then their preaching the Word and their administration of the Sacraments is extraordinary? and if Word and Sacraments do prove that this was the first visible Church and a type and pattern to all visible Churches, why should its government be extraordinary? 2. Why should the government be extraordinary, because the Apostles did govern it, in respect they were extraordinary officers, and should not the government be by the Apostles; and exercised by them as a common ordinary presbytery, seeing this Church in its goods, was governed by seven ordinary and constant Chu • ch-officers, the seven Deacons? Act. 6. and seeing the people did exercise an act of ordination (say our brethren) but an act of popular election (say we) which cannot be denynyed to be a politick act of divers Churches, Hebrews and Grecians choosing their own ordinary officers in relation to which they made one governed Church, under one common government, which is not congregational; because not of one Congregation, but of moe Congregations convened in their principal members (for they could not all meet in one, as we have proved) Ergo, it must be presbyterial. And that this government is one to me is evident, because these seven Deacons were officers in ordinary to them all. 3. We see not how we need to prove that the several Congregations were several formed, fixed and organical bodies; 1. Because it shall be hard to our brethren to prove a Parishonal Church in its local circuit in the Apostolic Church, and when Churches were molded and framed first in local circuits of parishes, I will not undertake to determine. 2. Ten Congregations in a great City, though not molded locally and formally in ten little distinct Churches organical, yet if sixteen or twenty Elders in common feed them all, with Word, Seals and common government, they differ not in nature from ten formed and fixed Congregations, and the government is as truly Aristocratical, and presbyterial, as if everyone of them had their own fixed Eldership out of these sixteen Elders, for fixing of this or this Elder to this or this Congregation is but accidental to the nature of an organical Church; if ten little Cities have ten magistrates who ruleth them all in common, they are ten perfect political incorporations and societies, no less then if to everyone of these ten were a fixed magistrate, to this or this city; Because the King and State might accuse them all for any misgovernment or act of unjustice done by the whole ten convened in one judicature to judge themall; for what unjustice is done by the major part is to be imputed to the whole college, in so far as the whole college hath hand in it. 2. The formal acts of a political Congregation not fixed are one and the same in nature and essence with the formal Church-acts of a fixed Congregation; For 1. the Word and Sacraments are one and the same: 2. their acts of government, in rebuking, accusing, and joint consenting to deliver to Satan an incestuous man are one and the same, whether the Congregation be fixed, or not fixed; show us a difference.

Answ. The places do not come up, to prove fixed Congregations in the Apostles times; for 1. we deny that the Church of Thessalonica was one single fixed Congregation, or the Church of Ephesus either, and far less can the Churches of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia, to which Peter writeth, and whose Elders, 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. he exhorteth to feed the flock of God, be one fixed Congregation, nor do they prove that fixed Congregations were, though I think it not unprobable that when Phebe, Rom. 16. 1. is called a Deac • nisse of the Church, which is at Cenchrea, that there were fixed Congregations at that time, but many things not without apparent strength of much probability may be said by the learned, on the contrary. 2. The Eldership of Ephesus I dare not call the Eldership of one Congregation, far less of one fixed Congregation, and they are all commanded to feed the flock over which the holy Ghost had set them, and no other Church that is most true. But how do our brethren infer a fixed Congregation at Ephesus from thence? far less I think can they in ferre that the formal Church-acts of a fixed, and a not fixed Congregation are different in nature; and therefore, if we can show that in the Apostolic Churches they had many Congregations though not fixed, under one common Eldership, which did feed them in common with Word, Sacraments and Discipline, as is clearly proved, then have we a pattern of a Presbyterial Church. 3. The Elders of Ephesus and these Elders, 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2, 3. had all of them a burden of the souls amongst them, and over which the holy Ghost had set them, and they had not a burden and charge in particular of others as watching in particular for the souls of others: but how fixed Congregations are hence inferred I see not, for I may have with other six Pastors, a Pastoral burden and charge to watch for three Congregations, according to my talent and strength, though I be not a fixed pastor to all the three collectively, or to any fixed one distributively, so as all the omissions of my six fellow-labourors shall be laid to my charge, in the Court of the Judge and Lord of all, if I do what I am able: which I demonstrate thus. 1. That moral obligation of conscience which did oblige the Apostles as Pastors of the Christian world which was to be converted, is not temporary but perpetual and moral and did oblige the Apostles as Christians. Therefore this moral, obligation did lie upon the Apostles to feed the Catholic fiocke of the whole Christian world over which the holy Ghost had set them, just as the Elders of Ephesus, Act. 20. 28. are commanded to feed the whole flock of God which is at Ephesus: now I ask if every single Apostle is to make a reckoning to God for the souls of all the Christian world? 2. If Peter must be answerable to God, because Paul by negligence should incur the woe of not preaching the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9. 16? (3.) If upon this moral ground of an obligation lying on the Apostles to feed the Catholic flock of the whole world, amongst which they were, for the most part, by special commandment of Christ, to preach to all nations, Matth. 28. 19. to every creature, Mark. 16. v. 15. If (I say) the Apostles be tied to plant Churches in such determinate quarters and fixed kingdoms of the habitable world, and if the dividing of the world into twelve several parts, and large parishes to the twelve Apostles, be juris divini, of divine institution? I believe this can hardly be proved by God's Word. 2. Where there be six Elders in a Congregation supposed to be independent, everyone of the six are obliged in their place to feed the whole flock, over which the holy Ghost hath set them, and that by the commandment of God, Act. 20. 28. 29. 1 Pet. 5. 1. as our brethren teach, but I hope by these places no human logic would infer, nor could our brethren collect, that, 1. everyone of these six should, by divine institution, be set over each of them the sixth determinate and sixth part of that Congregation. 2. That everyone of the sixth were not to give a reckoning for the whole Congregation, and did not watch for the whole Congregation according to his Talent. 3. That one might not be accused, even one Archippus possibly at Colossae, Col. 4. 17▪ for his own particular neglect to the whole flock, though others were also joined with Archippus who fulfilled their part of their ministry, Col. 2. v. 5. yea & we justly ask if all the Elders of Thyatira were guilty of remiss discipline against the false Prophetess Jezebel, and if all the Church of Sardis did become sleepy, and secure, and had a name that they were living, and yet were dead, though the Eldership under the name of the Angel of the Church, be indefinitely rebuked, Revel. 2. 20. c. 3. 1, 2, 3. 4. yea it is like to me that seeing the Lord Jesus commendeth the one for love, service, faith, patience, Revel. 2. 19. and the other, that c. 3. 4 they had a few names that had not defiled their garments, that only those who were guilty, were rebuked, I believe, and therefore this is to be proved that Elders are not rebuked, but for their remiss watching over an unfixed Congregation, the places to me, do not prove it.

1. To what effect should the twelve Apostles not also have followed their scattered flocks, and to what end did twelve Apostles stay at Jerusalem to preach to one single handful, that might all conveniently meet in one house, and a private house, for I think the persecution could as easily put them from public meetings in the Temple and Synagogues, as it could scatter them all to so few a number as one congregation? was the the harvest so great, and the Apostolic laborers so sparing in reaping, as eleven should be hearers in one Congregation? and one speak only at once?

2. Our brethren may know that we prove a Presbyterlall government before the dispersion. 3. If our brethren elide the force of our argument from multitude of believers at Jerusalem, to prove a presbyterial Church, they must prove that this dispersion did so dissolve the Church as that three thousand, Act. 2. and some added daily, v. 47. and five thousand, Act. 4. 4. and believers more added, multitudes both of men and women, Act. 5. 14. and Jerusalem was filled with the doctrine of the Apostles, c. 5. 28. and yet the number of the Disciples multiplied, c. 6. 1. and the Word of God increased, and the number of the Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly, and a great company of the Priests were obedient to the faith, they must (I say) prove (for affirmanti incumbit probatio) that all this number and all these thousands by the dispersion, Act. 8. 1. came to one thousand and to a handful of a single Congregation.

3. I see no necessity that these (all) be the whole body of the Church, I grant Diod • tus saith so, and Baronius conjectureth that there were fifteen thousand killed at this first persecution, but Dorotheus saith there were but two thousand killed, and (c) Salmeron saith of Dorotheus his relation, Quae si vera sunt, profecta magna fuit persecutio, if it be true, the persecution was indeed great, and we cannot but think, seeing the spirit of God saith this was a great persecution, but the Church was greatly diminished: but let us see if the Text will bear that so many thousands (for I judge at this time that the Church hath been above ten thousands) were partly killed, partly scattered, so that the Church of Jerusalem came to one single Congregation which might meet ordinarily for Word and Sacran • ents in one private house, where the tewelve Apostles came to them: for my part I cannot see it in the Text, only the persecution was great. 2. All were scattered except the Apostles. 3. Act. 26. Paul saith of himself at this time, 10. Many of the Saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the high Priests, and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. 11. And I punished them oft in every Synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme, and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them to strange Cities; all which saith many were imprisoned. 2. Some scattered, but the Text saith not that thousands were put to death, and it is not like that the holy Ghost who setteth down the other sort of persecution and the death of Steven, would have been silent of the killing of thousands. 3. Whereas it is said, they were all scattered except the Apostles, I see no ground of the Text to say that by ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) all scattered, he understandeth, all the Disciples as Lyranus saith, so saith Eusebius, though Sanctius saith he meaneth of the 70. Disciples. And my reasons are, 1. The Text saith, v. 3. Saul entering into every house, • aling men and women committed them to prison, as you may read, Act. 26. 10, 11. Ergo, all and everyone without exception of any, save the Apostles, were not scattered. 2. Amongst so many thousands of men and women, many for age, weakness and sickness, and having young children, and women with child were not able to flee, therefore ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) cannot be taken according to the letter every way. 3. Paul after this dispersion, Act. 26. 11. punished them in every Synagogne. What? punished he Jews? no Christians; Ergo, after the dispersion there were Christians left in Synagogues at Jerusalem which were not dispersed. 4. The Text saith that the scattered abroad were Preachers, and as I prove elsewhere here after, extraordinary Prophets, and therefore all were scattered except the Apostles, seemeth to imply that especially the whole teachers were scattered, except the Apostles; and Chrysostom, Athanasius, Nissenus observes that God out of this persecution took occasion to spread the Gospel, by sending scattered Preachers to all the regions about, so Lorinus, Sanctius, Cornelius a Lapide, say they were not all sattered, and Cajetan exponeth these (all) only of those upon whom the holy Ghost descended. 4. Though this Church should come to one Congregation now, this is but by accident, and from extrinsical causes of persecution and scattering, but we have proved at the first founding of this Church Apostolic the Church of Jerusalem called one Church, the first draught and pattern of the visible Christian Church was such as could contain many Congregations, and could not all meet in one. 5. There is no ground to say that Apostles after this dispersion erected an ordinary Eldership in Jerusalem, whereas before there was an extraordinary, because the Apostles was present with them, and you read of no Elders while after the dispersion, because 1. you read not of the institution of ordinary Elders in the Church of Jerusalem after the dispersion, more then before, and so you are here upon conjectures. 2. There is no ground to say that the Apostles changed the government of the first pattern of the Christian Churches from extraordinary to ordinary. 3. Nor is there ground that the government of the first samplar of Instituted Churches of the New Testament, should rather be extraordinary, then that first ordering of the Word and Sacraments should be extraordinary, seeing the Apostles the first founders of instituted Churches under the New Testament, had as ordinary matter to institute an ordinary presbytery and government, having believers in such abundance, upon whom, by the laying on of hands, they might give the Holy Ghost, as they had ordinary matter, to wit, a warrant, and command from Christ, to preach and administer the Sacraments. 4. The Apostles abode many years at Jerusalem, after there was an erected Eldership, Act. 15. 2. 22. Act. 16. 4. Act. 21. 18, 19, 20. Gal. 1. 18 After three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, Gal. 2. 1. Then foureture years after, I went up again to Jerusalem, &c. 9. And when James, Cephas, and John who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands fellowship. 5. Though we should give, and not grant that this dispersion did bring the Church of Jerusalem to so low an ebb as to make it but one single Congregation, yet after the dispersion, all the Churches, Act. 9. 3. had peace, and were edified, and multiplied, and so the Church of Jerusalem also was multiplied, if all France be multiplied, Paris which is a part of France must be multiplied, and if there were many thousands of the Jews that did believe, Act. 21. 20. though these many were for a great part come up to the feast at Pentecost, as some think, yet may we well think a huge number of these thousands were of the Church of Jerusalem: it is said, v. 21. They are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are amongst the Gentiles to forsak Moses, these belike were the Jews at Jerusalem who heard that Paul was come to Jerusalem, and Act. 12. 24. The Word of God grew and multiplied; it is the same phrase that is used, Act. 6. v. 7. to express the multiplying of the Church, by the multiplying of the Word, for there is no other multiplication of the Word but in the hearts of numbers who receive the Word in faith.

Answ. Our brethren should give to us the measure which they take to themselves, for they prove from that which the Scripture, Act. 20. 28. do name the Elders of the Church of Ephesus that there was an Eldership at Ephesus, which governed all the people of Ephesus; and from Bishops and Deacons at Philippi, Phil. 1. 1. that there was an Eldership in that Church; and from the Angel of the Church of Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyrtira, &c. that there was a college of Elders or a Presbytery in those Churches: for if those Churches had elders in them, though they were in their meaning Elders of a particular Congregation, and so an Eldership and a presbytery, they must give us the favor of the like consequence, in many of those Churches, they had Elders; Ergo, they had a presbyterial or classical Eldership, and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as seldom in Scripture to our brethren to prove their Congregational Eldership, as it is to us to prove our Presbyterial or classical Eldership, and in this, jam sumns ergo pares; and one government, and combination voluntary under one Congregational presbytery shall be as hardly proven, as one government, and one voluntary combination of many Congregations, and where the multitude is so numerous, as that they cannot meet in one, it is unpossible to prove that so many thousands did all agree, and that according to Christ's institution, to meet ordinarily in one for doctrine and discipline, whereas the meeting in one of so many thousands is most inconvenient. 2. An Eldership doth prove there is a relation of those that make up the Eldership to all the Church distributively to which they have the relation of Elders, but doth not prove that the Eldership is an Eldership in a Church-relation to any one single person, and that that single person hath a reciprocal Church relation to that Eldership; so here the classical Eldership carrieth a relation to a classical Church, and a classical Church doth retort and reflect a reciprocal relation to the Eldership, but it doth not follow that every Congregation of the Classical Church doth reflect a reciprocal relation of a Church classical to either the classical Eldership, or to any one Elder of the classical presbytery.

I answer, if our brethren had formed their arguments in a syllogism, I could more easily have answered, but I will do it for them. Those who did rule with an universal extent of power of government in all Churches, these did rule as Apostolic rulers, and not as ordinary presbyters, in the ruling and governing the Church of Jerusalem: but the Apostles before the dispersion did rule thus, Ergo, the Apostles before the dispersion did rule as Apostles, not as ordinary presbyters. The proposition they make good, because if those who rule with an universal extent of power, do it not as Apostles, they have then prelates to succeed them as ordinary officers in their extent of power and extent of pastoral care over many Churches.

But I answer by granting the major, and the probation of it in the connex proposition, because those who rule with an universal extent of power do it as Apostles, but I deny the assumption that the twelve Apostles did rule the Church of Jerusalem with an universal extent of power over all Churches; for it is true, the Apostles who did govern the Church of Jerusalem had an universal power over all Churches, but that they did rule the Church of Jerusalem as having this universal power, and by virtue of this universal and Apostolical power, I utterly deny, and I deny it with the reduplication, and except our brethren prove that the Apostles did govern the Church of Jerusalem as having this Apostolic power, and under this reduplication, they do not prove that they ruled as Apostles, which is the conclusion to be proven. Now that I may give a solid reason of this, we are to consider, what Apostles do as Apostles and what as ordinary Elders, as take along this rule with you, what Apostles do as Apostles; everyone of the Apostles his alone may do, as quod convenit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , conv • nit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , What ever agreeth to an Apostle as •• Apostle, agreeth to all Apostles, as because Apostles may work miracles, any one Apostle may work a miracle, so Peter his alone, extra collegium, when he is not with the twelve, he may work a miracle, his alone he may speak with tongues, and his alone he may preach and baptize through all the world, and therefore Peter as an Apostle, not as an ordinary Elder doth raise the dead, speak with tongues, preach and baptize in all nations without any calling of the people or without consent of the presbytery; but what the Apostles do as ordinary presbyters, and as a classical College that by cannot do in that relation, but in collegie: as the eye doth not see but as fixed in the head, so when the Apostles do anything in collegio, not without the suffrages of a college, that they must do as ordinary Elders; for example, Paul if he delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander his alone to Satan, 1 Tim. 1. 20. as many think he did, then he did that as an Apostle; but suppose he had been present at Corinth, 1 Cor. 5. to obey his own Epistle and direction that he gave to excommunicate the incestuous man, he should with the Eldership of Corinth delivered him to Satan as an Elder, not as an Apostle; yea in a presbyterial way Paul could not have delivered him to Satan without the concurring joint suffrages of the Eldership of Corinth. So because Act. 6. 1. 2. 3. the whole twelve do call together the multitude, the whole twelve do that as ordinary Elders, which I prove, for if they had convened them as Apostles, by that transcendent Apostolic power by which they preach and baptize in all the Churches and by which they raise the dead, Peter his alone might have convened them; so they ordain Elders by imposition of hands, as an ordinary Eldership now doth, all the twelve do it in a Court, whereas if they had put on these seven men to be Deacons upon the people by virtue of their Apostolic calling, they should not have convened the people, nor sought the free consent of the people; for any one Apostle his alone, as Peter might, by the transcendent power of an Apostle have ordained those seven men to be Deacons, but then he should clearly have done it not in an ordinary Church way, so now the Apostles must, Act. 6. govern as ordinary Elders, also what the Apostles do by the intervening help of ordinary perpetually established means, that they do not as Apostles but as ordinary Elders, as they work not miracles by advise and consent of the multitude, because they do it as Apostles, but here the twelve do all by the intervening help of the ordinary and perpetually established free voices of the multitude. 1. Because the twelve Apostles convene. The Apostles did nothing in vain, and without warrant, any one of the twelve might have instituted the office, then that all the twelve convene it must be to give a pattern of an ordinary Eldership; for you never find all the twelve meet to do with joint Forces an Apostolic work, they never met all twelve to pen a portion of Scripture, twelve of them, nor a college of them never met to raise the dead, to work a miracle, to speak with tongues, because these be works above nature, and one is no less an instrument of omnipotency to work a miracle, then 12. or 20. therefore we must say that these twelve convened as ordinary Elders to be a pattern of a presbytery. 2. The complaint is made by the Grecians to the court, not to one Apostle, for the whole twelve doth r • dress the matter. 3. Tht college hath a common hand in this government for the poor, as their words clear. 2. It is no reason that we should leave the Word of God, and serve Tables. 4. They put on the people what is their due, to look out and nominate to them seven men, as Apostles they should have chosen the men. 5. They do put off themselves the charge of Deaconrie, and the daily care, as v. 1. Ergo they were before daily constant Deacons, and why not Elders also? 6. They will do nothing without the free voices of people, and give to the people the ordinary election, this day, and to Christ's second coming, due to them, Ergo, the Apostles stoop beneath the sphere of Apostolic power and condescend to popular power, and so must here be as ordinary Elders, not as Apostles. 7. They do ordain seven men to be constant officers. 2. From this it is easy to deny that we may as well infer Prelates to be the lawful successors of T • us whose power was universal in every Church of Crete, as to in • err a presbyterial power, because Titus his alone 〈◊〉 an 〈◊〉 appointed Elders; and we cannot infer a Monarchi • in the Church, from some extraordinary acts of the the first planters of Churches, because we infer from the Aristocratical and ordinary power of the Apostles an Aristocratical power of presbyteries now in the Church, shall we hence infer a Monarchy? 3. If the Acts of government performed here, Act. 6. by the Apostles, be extraordinary and Apostolic, they are not imitable by us, but all Divines teach that from Act. 6. the ordinary presbytery may according to this very pattern ordain Deacons and Elders.

Answ. I grant that the Apostles as Apostles perform some Acts of government in this place, and that they appoint a new office of Deacons here, but that is neither the question, nor against our cause, but I desire the opponents to make good that the Apostles did appoint this new office in a Church-way, as they ordain these seven men to the office, and that, in collegio. I ask did the Apostles, 1. Crave the concurrence of the convened multitude, and their free voices shall we appoint this new office, men and brethren, or shall we for bear? 2. Did they voice the matter in a college amongst themselves, as they do Act. 15. and do they say amongst themselves in the presbytery Apostolic, have we warrant from Christ to appoint a new office of Deacons? What is your mind Peter, what is your sentence, James, Matthias, &c? now this is to proceed formally, in collegio, this they did not, nor could they do in appointing the office, for they were immediately inspired by the Spirit to appoint new offices, but in ordaining the officers, in concreto, that is, in ordaining the men, Steven, Philip, &c. they proceed after a presbyterial way, every way as an ordinary presbytery doth.