The reasons of the Dissenting Brethren against the third proposition, concerning presbyterial government· Humbly…

1. If it were a meeting of Elders for Acts of Government, then it was a Presbyterial meeting for Acts of Government: But that it was no such meeting appears, because there was nothing done in it, that may seem to have any bond in it, but such as bound the Churches of Antioch, Syria, Cilicia, as much as Jerusalem, but this cannot be in any Presbyterial meeting, for Acts of Government: For such meetings have only authoritative power over their own Church.

1. If it were a meeting of Elders for Acts of Government, then it was a Presbyteriall meeting for Acts of Government: But that it was no such meeting appeares, because there was nothing done in it, that may seem to have any bond in it, but such as bound the Churches of Antioch, Syria, Cilicia, as much as Jerusalem, but this cannot bee in any Presbyteriall meeting, for Acts of Government: For such meetings have onely authoritative power over their own Church.

2. The scope and end of this meeting was to give satisfaction to the offended Brethren of Antioch, and dogmatically to declare their judgements in a difficult case of Conscience, not to put forth any Act of Juridical power upon any, as appears in the matter of their debate, and the issue of all. Of which more fully afterward. And if it be said that Peter reproved some of their own Members present, such as had taught the necessity of the Ceremonial Law, Why tempt you God, &c. This was not delivered as an Act of Government formally, by any vote of the Presbytery, but in the way of Discourse.

2. The scope and end of this meeting was to give satisfaction to the offended Brethren of Antioch, and dogmatically to declare their judgements in a difficult case of Conscience, not to put forth any Act of Juridicall power upon any, as appeares in the matter of their debate, and the issue of all. Of which more fully afterward. And if it bee said that Peter reproved some of their own Members present, such as had taught the necessity of the Ceremoniall Law, Why tempt you God, &c. This was not delivered as an Act of Government formally, by any vote of the Presbytery, but in the way of Discourse.

But it was affirmed to be sufficient to confirm the Proposition, if it be a Synodical meeting. Presbyterial and Synodical, both it cannot be; for Synods, they are or ought to be extraordinary and occasional, Presbyteries are standing and ordinary, Synods are made up of Commissioners sent from Presbyteries, and Presbyteries are made up of the Elders of particular Congregations. The Members of Synods are Elders of such Churches which are (according to the principles of Presbyterial Government) complete Churches, having full power of jurisdiction for all Acts of Government within themselves; but the members of Presbyteries are Elders of such Congregations which are neither complete Churches, nor have within themselves full and complete power. And these cannot be one. The Elders of the Presbytery of Jerusalem, (when this once became a Synod by the addition of the Elders of other Churches) ceased to be any longer a Presbytery to that Church, and must become with them a new body to all the Churches, these other Elders did come from. And then to ⟨image 17⟩argue these Acts done by these (because the Elders of Jerusalem were present and Members of this Synod) were Presbyterial Acts of the Elders of Jerusalem, is all one as to go about to argue from the Acts of Government put forth by a Parliament at Westminster, to the power of the Burgesses and Common Council of the City of Westminster, because there the Parliament sits, and the Burgesses of that City are parts and members of that Parliament. Or, as if the Kingdom were governed by County Courts, and out of those County Courts, Knights, and Burgesses should be chosen to make up a Parliament, when the Parliament is met, there can be no Argument drawn from the power of a Parliament to prove the power of a County Court. Or from the power of a County Court to prove the power of a Parliament. Thus Synods are made out of Presbyteries, therefore we cannot argue from the power of Synods to the power of Presbyteries; or from the power of Presbyteries to the power of Synods.

But it was affirmed to bee sufficient to confirme the Proposition, if it bee a Synodicall meeting. Presbyteriall and Synodicall, both it cannot bee; for Synods, they are or ought to bee extraordinary and occasionall, Presbyteries are standing and ordinary, Synods are made up of Commissioners sent from Presbyteries, and Presbyteries are made up of the Elders of particular Congregations. The Members of Synods are Elders of such Churches which are (according to the principles of Presbyteriall Government) compleat Churches, having full power of jurisdiction for all Acts of Government within themselves; but the members of Presbyteries are Elders of such Congregations which are neither compleat Churches, nor have within themselves full and compleat power. And these cannot bee one. The Elders of the Presbytery of Jerusalem, (when this once became a Synod by the addition of the Elders of other Churches) ceased to bee any longer a Presbytery to that Church, and must become with them a new body to all the Churches, these other Elders did come from. And then to

First, We find a deep silence about it: For we read but only of two Churches between whom it was transacted, they of Antioch sending to Jerusalem, and their Elders there, Chap. 14. 27, 28. compared with chap. 15. 2, 3. and the Messengers which were sent from this Assembly going only to Antioch, ver. 30. 31. as those who were chiefly troubled; only the benefit redounded to all they wrote to, yea, although Paul came through Phenice and Samaria, ver. 3. yet we read not a word of any of the Churches of those parts, their sending of any Commissioners unto this Synod, as had it been intended such certainly they would, and there was this special reason, why those of this Church were thus electively sent unto, because they were the Mother Church from whom the Word of God came, and from whom those men that troubled them had gone forth, and had ⟨p. 32⟩pretended to teach what they had received from them; and besides they were in an especial manner versed in this question, it being about the observation of their law; and there also some of the Apostles were present, (how many we know not, for dispersed they had been long before) and if any number of others out of those other parts of Judea, had come up hither, it would have been said, as Act. 11. ult. The Elders of Judea, not only of Jerusalem; yea, it is not so much as said, that they that were sent from Antioch were of the Elders of that Church, but that they sent Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them.

First, Wee finde a deepe silence about it: For wee read but onely of two Churches between whom it was transacted, they of Antioch sending to Jerusalem, and their Elders there, Chap. 14. 27, 28. compared with chap. 15. 2, 3. and the Messengers which were sent from this Assembly going onely to Antioch, ver. 30. 31. as those who were chiefely troubled; onely the benefit redounded to all they wrote to, yea, although Paul came through Phenice and Samaria, ver. 3. yet wee read not a word of any of the Churches of those parts, their sending of any Commissioners unto this Synod, as had it been intended such certainly they would, and there was this speciall reason, why those of this Church were thus electively sent unto, because they were the Mother Church from whom the Word of God came, and from whom those men that troubled them had gone forth, and had ⟨p. 32⟩

And secondly, the contrary seems clear, namely, that those Letters and Decrees were written and sent only from the Elders of Jerusalem, and not from all those Churches: For first, the Decrees are every where attributed to the Elders in Jerusalem, So Chap. 16. 4. The Decrees of the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem. [Greek or Hebrew]. Now the usual stile of the New Testament, is by way of distinction of Churches to say the Church in such a place, the Elders in such a place, as the Church of Antioch, Act. 13. 1. and the Church at Corinth, 1 Cor. 1. 1. and by the like reason the Elders in such a place do signify the proper Elders of the Church in that place or City, whilst but one, and therefore, if by the Elders in Jerusalem, had been meant in this place only the Elders met from all Quarters at Jerusalem, as the place of that Assembly, there had been a great ambiguity, seeing the more usual and proper import of that expression is to note out the fixed standing Elders of a place, and the Church in a place. Again, secondly, in the fourth verse Paul and Barnabas are said to be received of the Church and Apostles and Elders, namely of Jerusalem, as in particular relation to it. Yea, thirdly, the standing Elders of that place assumed to themselves to have written the Decrees, Chap. 21. 25. As touching the Gentiles we have written and concluded. Fourthly, and accordingly the conclusion of their Letter is made the special Act of that Church, and the Elders thereof, ver. 22. It pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church (that is) of Jerusalem, as verse 4. to send chosen men, and the Letters run thus, The Apostles, Elders and Brethren. Fifthly, the matter of the Letter argues it, ver. 24. Forasmuch as certain that went out from us have troubled you with words, to whom we gave no such Commandment. How could this be said by a Synod of the Elders of those Churches, which were themselves troubled by them? It is manifest therefore they came out from this Church of Jerusalem, who wrote this, and they pretended the Apostles Doctrine; which is called a Commandment, because the Apostles taught no other, then what Christ commanded, as Matth. 28. ult. And to say the Denomination was from the more eminent part, namely, the Elders of that Church ⟨p. 33⟩had been derogatory to the Synod, if it had been such a meeting.

And sixthly, if the Elders of all those Churches had been present, there had been less need for the Apostles and Elders of Jerusalem to have sent chosen men to carry the Letters, and withal to show the grounds of those their judgements by word of mouth, ver. 23. 27. 31. This needed not, if their own Elders had been present, and so had been to have returned; and if they were sent as Messengers from the Synod, then to all the Churches as well as to Antioch, and why do they then go no further then unto Antioch? ver. 33. Yea, and although Paul and Barnabas delivered those results to all the Cities, yet, as it should seem accidentally and not principally intended, they go not on purpose chiefly to deliver those decrees, but ver. 36. of chap. 15. it was Pauls motion upon other grounds to go visit the Churches in every City, where they had Preached, and so but occasionally delivered these Decrees, Chap. 16. 4. So as they came to them not as sent in a mandatory way, as to Churches subject to that Synod by a Synodical Law, (as such Canons are used to be sent) but as the judgement only of this Church, and the Apostles delivered them for their edification.

And sixthly, if the Elders of all those Churches had been present, there had been lesse need for the Apostles and Elders of Jerusalem to have sent chosen men to carry the Letters, and withall to shew the grounds of those their judgements by word of mouth, ver. 23. 27. 31. This needed not, if their own Elders had been present, and so had been to have returned; and if they were sent as Messengers from the Synod, then to all the Churches as well as to Antioch, and why doe they then goe no further then unto Antioch? ver. 33. Yea, and although Paul and Barnabas delivered those results to all the Cities, yet, as it should seem accidentally and not principally intended, they goe not on purpose chiefely to deliver those decrees, but ver. 36. of chap. 15. it was Pauls motion upon other grounds to go visit the Churches in every City, where they had Preached, and so but occasionally delivered these Decrees, Chap. 16. 4. So as they came to them not as sent in a mandatory way, as to Churches subject to that Synod by a Synodical Law, (as such Canons are used to bee sent) but as the judgement onely of this Church, and the Apostles delivered them for their edification.

And in the third place, If there were any further authority or jurisdiction in their Decrees, it was from the Apostles, who were present and concurred in it, and who had power over all the Churches; and accordingly though the Elders in the whole Church were present and joined with the Apostles, Quantum in se, to consent and approve their Decrees with that several respective kind of judgment proper unto them, yet all the authority put forth over these Churches was that transcendent authority of the Apostles, which is not now left in all the Elders of the world joined together; and that therefore these Decrees made, and the decision of these questions here, were by infallible Apostolical authority, and to that end they subjoined that Apostolical Seal, It seemed good to us and the Holy Ghost. And although the ordinary Elders, yea, and the whole Church joined in this, yet but according to their Measure, Analogy, and Proportion of their faith, even as in writing some Epistles Timothy and Silvanus joined with Paul, but yet Paul only wrote Apostolically, and the authority in them is looked at as his; or else because perhaps they having the Holy Ghost fallen on them through the Apostles Doctrine then delivered (which was then usual) persuading their hearts unanimously (though afore dissenting, as ver. 25.) to accord, in that respect they might speak this in such a sense, that no assembly of men wanting Apostolical presence and instruction, may now speak. And although it may be objected, That then this Letter and these Decrees should be formal Scripture, and so bind us still, it is answered; That they are Scripture, and written for our learning; and if the case were the same upon which they obliged ⟨p. 34⟩them then, (viz. matter of offence) that then they would bind us now: but the things being enjoined, but as [Greek or Hebrew], things of a superadded casual necessity and not absolute, in case of offence only and not simply for the things themselves, therefore now the necessity being ceased, the obligation ceaseth, yet so as the equity of the rule and ground these were commanded upon, to abstain from things that will offend our brethren, doth hold in like cases to the end of the world.

And in the third place, If there were any further authority or jurisdiction in their Decrees, it was from the Apostles, who were present and concurred in it, and who had power over all the Churches; and accordingly though the Elders in the whole Church were present and joyned with the Apostles, Quantum in se, to consent and approve their Decrees with that severall respective kinde of judgment proper unto them, yet all the authority put forth over these Churches was that transcendent authority of the Apostles, which is not now left in all the Elders of the world joyned together; and that therefore these Decrees made, and the decision of these questions here, were by infallible Apostolicall authority, and to that end they subjoyned that Apostolicall Seale, It seemed good to us and the Holy Ghost. And although the ordinary Elders, yea, and the whole Church joyned in this, yet but according to their Measure, Analogy, and Proportion of their faith, even as in writing some Epistles Timothy and Silvanus joyned with Paul, but yet Paul onely wrote Apostolically, and the authority in them is looked at as his; or else because perhaps they having the Holy Ghost falne on them through the Apostles Doctrine then delivered (which was then usuall) perswading their hearts unanimously (though afore dissenting, as ver. 25.) to accord, in that respect they might speak this in such a sense, that no assembly of men wanting Apostolicall presence and instruction, may now speak. And although it may bee objected, That then this Letter and these Decrees should bee formall Scripture, and so binde us still, it is answered; That they are Scripture, and written for our learning; and if the case were the same upon which they obliged

And last of all, there is no act of such authority and government put forth in it, which the Proposition intendeth; which will appear, if we either consider the occasion and rise of it, or the issue and result of it.

And last of all, there is no act of such authority and government put forth in it, which the Proposition intendeth; which will appeare, if wee either consider the occasion and rise of it, or the issue and result of it.

It was not a set or stated meeting by common agreement of the Churches, but Antioch sends to Jerusalem unknown to them; there are no summons sent to send up Delinquents, nor can we find these disturbers are sent to Jerusalem to be censured by those Ecclesiastical punishments in which, Government doth properly lye and consist; The subject matter sent to them for their decision was merely matter of Doctrine, about this question, verse 2. and about this word, verse 5. Namely, whether the Ceremonial Law was to be observed? Concerning which they wrote their judgements dogmatically, which they were called to do, being thus sent unto; Neither doth it argue that it was more then to determine this question doctrinally they came up for, because that Paul and Barnabas could have decided that before, being themselves Apostles, and that therefore their coming up was for discipline against Delinquents; for as the case stood, they listened not to Paul and Barnabas as Apostles, but pretended the judgment of the other Apostles; For indeed Paul and Barnabas did declare their judgements, the [Greek or Hebrew], or contention, ver. 3. being attributed unto them as contending against the false Teachers for the Truth; and so as even the Church of Antioch rested not in their decision: Otherwise Paul and Barnabas might have as Apostles censured those Delinquents without coming to Jerusalem, as well as by Apostolic authority have decided the question. For Apostolical power extended to Discipline as well as Doctrine. If it be said That even doctrinally to deliver the truth when it is done by a company of Elders hath authority or power in it, as when Christ said, Go and teach, all power is given unto me: It is granted an Authority exercised in doctrine and so to be in Synods, but yet not Jurisdiction, which the Proposition intends, which is when doctrines are delivered sub paena, under the penalty of that Ecclesiastical punishment of Excommunication if not received. One Minister alone hath a dogmatical authority as a Minister to rebuke, exhort, and yet acts of Jurisdiction are not his alone, but of others conjoined with him.

It was not a set or stated meeting by common agreement of the Churches, but Antioch sends to Jerusalem unknowne to them; there are no summons sent to send up Delinquents, nor can wee finde these disturbers are sent to Jerusalem to bee censured by those Ecclesiasticall pupunishments in which, Government doth properly lye and consist; The subject matter sent to them for their decision was meerely matter of Doctrine, about this question, verse 2. and about this word, verse 5. Namely, whether the Ceremoniall Law was to bee observed? Concerning which they wrote their judgements dogmatically, which they were called to doe, being thus sent unto; Neither doth it argue that it was more then to determine this question doctrinally they came up for, because that Paul and Barnabas could have decided that before, being themselves Apostles, and that therefore their comming up was for discipline against Delinquents; for as the case stood, they listened not to Paul and Barnabas as Apostles, but pretended the judgment of the other Apostles; For indeed Paul and Barnabas did declare their judgements, the , or contention, ver. 3. being attributed unto them as contending against the false Teachers for the Truth; and so as even the Church of Antioch rested not in their decision: Otherwise Paul and Barnabas might have as Apostles censured those Delinquents without comming to Jerusalem, as wel as by Apostolique authority have decided the question. For Apostolicall power extended to Discipline as well as Doctrine. If it bee said That even doctrinally to deliver the truth when it is done by a company of Elders hath authority or power in it, as when Christ said, Goe and teach, all power is given unto mee: It is granted an Authoritie exercised in doctrine and so to bee in Synods, but yet not Jurisdiction, which the Proposition intends, which is when doctrines are delivered sub paena, under the penaltie of that Ecclesiasticall punishment of Excommunication if not received. One Minister alone hath a dogmaticall authoritie as a Minister to rebuke, exhort, and yet acts of Jurisdiction are not his alone, but of others conjoyned with him.

Neither, secondly, doth the titles given to these results of theirs argue a Jurisdiction ⟨p. 35⟩in that they are called [Greek or Hebrew] and [Greek or Hebrew], Act. 16. 4. For although the word [Greek or Hebrew] is used for an Imperial decree Luke 2. 1. yet but rarely, and more commonly (as Stephanus and Budaeus observe) for doctrine & opinion in matters moral or speculative, as Platonis Dogma, &c. and thence is translated to import the Judgements of Divines given in matters Theological although delivered with certainty. And so the using of this word implieth the subject to have been doctrinal only and so delivered. And further the subject matter of this decision being about rules and ceremonies, and the not observation of them, the [Dogma] is elegantly, and perhaps on purpose, given to these Apostolical Canons by way of opposition and contradiction to those that taught and observed such rules, who are said [Greek or Hebrew] in so doing, Colossians 2. 20. being led away by the false Dogmata, or Heterodox theses of false Teachers that enjoined them. And for that other word [Greek or Hebrew] translated [ordained,] it plainly notes out but this, that these doctrinal Theses were the joint declared and avowed Judgement and conclusions of these (and so answereth to those other words in their letters (It seemeth good unto us, being with one accord, &c.) Apostles and Elders thus met with one accord agreeing therein, and particularly and unanimously so judging; and therefore when James gives his judgement he useth the same word [Greek or Hebrew] (Verse 19. of this 15. Chap.) This is my judgement, which being voted and agreed upon by the rest they are called [Greek or Hebrew]. Neither doth this argue any act of authority that the things here declared to be observed are indifferent, for some of them come under a moral consideration, and all come under the case of offence.

Neither, secondly, doth the titles given to these results of theirs argue a Jurisdiction ⟨p. 35⟩in that they are called 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 and ,

Neither doth the language they commend those to them in, sound of that Jurisdiction or government intended in the proposition; for although they seem to speak as guided infallibly in their resolution, [it seemed good to us and to the holy Ghost] yet their expressions are carried so as to avoid Jurisdiction, those words, To lay no other burden, if any, must import this Jurisdiction; but these words, as Ludovicus de Dieu hath well observed, are (as they may be) taken passively, therein agreeing with the Syriac translation; It seemed good to and the holy Ghost, that no other burden be laid on you, that whereas these Teachers of the circumcision had gone about by their doctrine to bind the Law of Moses upon mens consciences, and to put on them a burden too heavy for them to bear, as Peter speaks Vers. 9. and had taught this to be the commands of Christ and his Apostles, and the judgement of the Church of Jerusalem; They disclaim this, and profess they would have no such burden put upon them, and that they gave these Teachers no such commandment, that is, never delivered or uttered any such Doctrine to be commanded. And if it be taken actively, yet the declaring it to be the command of Christ is the imposition here intended, ⟨p. 36⟩for the same words are used of the Teachers who yet had not assumed by virtue of an Ecclesiastical authority to impose these things but by way of Doctrine, So Verse the tenth, Why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples? Vers. 5. And it is well known that in the Scripture phrase to teach and to declare, though by way of Doctrine, and to press mens consciences with things as the commands of God, is said to be a binding and imposing a burden on them. So of the Pharisees (and these were of the sect of the Pharisees, of whom, and to whom that was spoken, Verse 5.) it is said, Matth. 23. 4. that the Pharisees bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on mens shoulders; which is spoken but of a doctrinal declaring and pressing mens consciences with the rigour of the Law; and this is so well known to be the Language of the Jews, that it need not be insisted on.

Neither doth the language they commend those to them in, sound of that Jurisdiction or government intended in the proposition; for although they seeme to speake as guided infallibly in their resolution, [it seemed good to us and to the holy Ghost] yet their expressions are carried so as to avoyd Jurisdiction, those words, To lay no other burthen, if any, must import this Jurisdiction; but these words, as Ludovicus de Dieu hath well observed, are (as they may bee) taken passively, therein agreeing with the Syriack translation; It seemed good to and the holy Ghost, that no other burthen bee laid on you, that whereas these Teachers of the circumcision had gone about by their doctrine to bind the Law of Moses upon mens consciences, and to put on them a burthen too heavy for them to beare, as Peter speakes Vers. 9. and had taught this to bee the commands of Christ and his Apostles, and the judgement of the Church of Jerusalem; They disclaime this, and professe they would have no such burthen put upon them, and that they gave these Teachers no such commandement, that is, never delivered or uttered any such Doctrine to bee commanded. And if it bee taken actively, yet the declaring it to bee the command of Christ is the imposition here intended,

Neither doth it follow that if they may lay these burdens by way of Doctrine, they may censure for the neglect of them, for every Minister in his Sermon imposeth those burdens whilst they urge and declare these duties to men, and yet have not power Ecclesiastically to censure them, for though it being a command of Christ they could not but hold it forth as such and so urge it; yet not by way of Jurisdiction, but with these soft words, which if you observe you do well.

Neither doth it follow that if they may lay these burthens by way of Doctrine, they may censure for the neglect of them, for every Minister in his Sermon imposeth those burthens whilst they urge and declare these duties to men, and yet have not power Ecclesiastically to censure them, for though it being a command of Christ they could not but hold it forth as such and so urge it; yet not by way of Jurisdiction, but with these soft words, which if you observe you doe well.

Lastly, although these false Teachers had subverted their faith, and against their own light, had avouched their Doctrine to be the doctrine of the Apostles, which deserved the highest censure being a sin so scandalous, yet they proceeded not to censure them by way of admonition or excommunication (which are acts of government) but only do declare their sin and error, and give their Judgement of it. Whereas in the close of the proof from the Church of Jerusalem for many Congregations to be under one Presbyterial government, it is asserted whether these Congregations be fixed or not fixed it is all one to the truth of the proposition; this reason is offered against it. There is this difference, every Congregation having Elders fixed to it is a Church; for the relation of Elders and Church is mutual, Acts 14. 23. They ordained Elders in every Church; This relation of Elders to a Church is a special distinct relation to that Congregation of which they are Elders, so as they are not related to other Congregations, and these Congregations are Ecclesiae primae, Churches formed up though uncompleat, as being according to our Brethren's opinion, members of a more general Presbyterial Church.

Lastly, although these false Teachers had subverted their faith, and against their owne light, had avouched their Doctrine to bee the doctrine of the Apostles, which deserved the highest censure being a sinne so scandalous, yet they proceeded not to censure them by way of admonition or excommunication (which are acts of government) but onely do declare their sinne and errour, and give their Judgement of it. Whereas in the close of the proofe from the Church of Jerusalem for many Congregations to bee under one Presbyteriall government, it is asserted whether these Congregations bee fixed or not fixed it is all one to the truth of the proposition; this reason is offered against it. There is this difference, every Congregation having Elders fixed to it is a Church; for the relation of Elders and Church is mutuall, Acts 14. 23. They ordained Elders in every Church; This relation of Elders to a Church is a speciall distinct relation to that Congregation of which they are Elders, so as they are not related to other Congregations, and these Congregations are Ecclesiae primae, Churches formed up though uncompleat, as being according to our Brethrens opinion, members of a more generall Presbyteriall Church.

But if Congregations have no fixed Officers they are not Churches according to their Principles. Now it makes a great difference as to the truth of the Proposition, whether many Churches may be under the government of one, or whether many Congregations which to them are no Churches ⟨p. 37⟩may be under the government of one? Whatsoever our Brethren show of divers Congregations to be under the government of a Church Presbyterial, yet they no where show any one pattern or example in Scripture wherein many Churches were under the power of one, nay nor where any one Church was under the power of another.

But if Congregations have no fixed Officers they are not Churches according to their Principles. Now it makes a great difference as to the truth of the Proposition, whether many Churches may bee under the government of one, or whether many Congregations which to them are no Churches ⟨p. 37⟩may bee under the government of one? Whatsoever our Brethren shew of divers Congregations to bee under the government of a Church Presbyteriall, yet they no where shew any one patterne or example in Scripture wherein many Churches were under the power of one, nay nor where any one Church was under the power of another.

And lastly, if there were many Congregations in Jerusalem, having their Officers fixed to them, and not in common, then during the time before the dispersion the Apostles must be those Officers that were thus fixedly disposed of to those several Congregations, some over one, others over another, as ordinary Elders now are. Now suppose this number of Believers to have been as many thousands as is argued, at 10. or 12000. souls, and these to be divided into as many Congregations as might be divided to twelve Apostles severally to watch over; Or suppose the several Congregations made up of 2000. (which is an allotment small enough to be set apart for the pains of two Apostles.

And lastly, if there were many Congregations in Jerusalem, having their Officers fixed to them, and not in common, then during the time before the dispersion the Apostles must bee those Officers that were thus fixedly disposed of to those severall Congregations, some over one, others over another, as ordinary Elders now are. Now suppose this number of Beleevers to have beene as many thousands as is argued, at 10. or 12000. soules, and these to bee divided into as many Congregations as might bee divided to twelve Apostles severally to watch over; Or suppose the severall Congregations made up of 2000. (which is an alotment small enough to bee set apart for the paines of two Apostles.