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

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 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, 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,

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.

Hereupon great incongruity doth follow, that Apostles are brought to the state and condition and work of Parish Ministers, to whom yet it was committed, and inseparably annexed to their Office, yea and constituted it, as Apostles, to have the care of all Churches; and if when the Churches were multiplied and dispersed into several Countries, they were to have the care of them, then much more when they were in one City. Some of the writers against Episcopacy, (when those that write for it allege the instance of James abiding at Jerusalem, as the Bishop of that Church) have judged it a debasing of the Apostolical power to limit it to one Diocesan Church: but this position doth debase all the Apostles at once, much more it makes them not Bishops to many Churches, but ordinary Elders, in that one or two of them perhaps, are over one single Church; yea, and which is yet more incredible, if these Churches and their government were like to those under the Presbytery, and no material difference between them and ours, these Apostles were in their several Parishes not only subordinate in their government to the common Presbytery of all the Apostles, but limited to lesser Acts of government, for so the lesser Elderships in the Churches under the Presbyterial government are confined only to examine, and admonish, and prepare for the greater Presbytery, and therein not enabled to ordain Elders over the Congregation, or excommunicate a member: Peter and John joined together were by this principle not enabled to it. And yet if we do not suppose such a limited government in those several Congregations, here can be no pattern for the Presbyterian government as it is practised. Or if otherwise we should suppose them fixed Officers for teaching only to one of those Congregations, and to have no government at all over it, but ⟨p. 38⟩to bring all to the common Presbytery of Apostles, that is a greater incongruity then the former; for this casts them below the condition of our Parish Elders, for unto them the greater Presbytery doth allow some measure and part of the Government, but such a supposition would allow Apostles none in their several Congregations.

Hereupon great incongruitie doth follow, that Apostles are brought to the state and condition and worke of Parish Ministers, to whom yet it was committed, and inseparably annexed to their Office, yea and constituted it, as Apostles, to have the care of all Churches; and if when the Churches were multiplyed and dispersed into severall Countries, they were to have the care of them, then much more when they were in one Citie. Some of the writers against Episcopacie, (when those that write for it alledg the instance of James abiding at Jerusalem, as the Bishop of that Church) have judged it a debasing of the Apostolicall power to limit it to one Diocesan Church: but this position doth debase all the Apostles at once, much more it makes them not Bishops to many Churches, but ordinary Elders, in that one or two of them perhaps, are over one single Church; yea, and which is yet more incredible, if these Churches and their government were like to those under the Presbytery, and no materiall difference betweene them and ours, these Apostles were in their severall Parishes not onely subordinate in their government to the common Presbytery of all the Apostles, but limited to lesser Acts of government, for so the lesser Elderships in the Churches under the Presbyteriall government are confined onely to examine, and admonish, and prepare for the greater Presbytery, and therein not enabled to ordaine Elders over the Congregation, or excommunicate a member: Peter and John joyned together were by this principle not enabled to it. And yet if we doe not suppose such a limited government in those severall Congregations, here can bee no patterne for the Presbyterian government as it is practised. Or if otherwise wee should suppose them fixed Officers for teaching onely to one of those Congregations, and to have no government at all over it, but

The Scripture holds forth that many Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government.

The Scripture holds forth that many Congregations may be under one Presbyteriall Government.

Sect. 1.

BY particular Congregations either first an Assembly of Christians meeting for worship only, as to hear, pray, &c. or secondly, an Assembly so furnished with Officers as fit for Discipline having a Presbytery, is meant; in the latter sense, which is that the proofs are brought to confirm, and that that is practised where this government is set up, the proposition is equivalent to such an assertion as this▪ Many Presbyteries may be under one Presbyterial government, as thus, many Parochial Presbyteries may be under one Classical, many Classical, under one Provincial, &c. which is the same as to affirm that one Presbytery may be over another, as the Bishops affirm. That one Presbyter may be over another, this is evident, if you assert a Presbyterial government may be over a Congregation that is composed of a Presbytery and people: for it cannot be said to be over a Congregation, if it be over the people only, that is not over their Presbytery also, for then the Presbytery will be Independent, and the people under two Presbyteries coordinate and not subordinate, which stands not with common reason.

BY particular Congregations either first an Assembly of Christians meeting for worship onely, as to heare, pray, &c. or secondly, an Assembly so furnished with Officers as fit for Discipline having a Presbytery, is meant; in the latter sense, which is that the proofs are brought to confirme, and that that is practised where this government is set up, the proposition is equivalent to such an assertion as this▪ Many Presbyteries may bee under one Presbyteriall government, as thus, many Parochiall Presbyteries may bee under one Classicall, many Classicall, under one Provinciall, &c. which is the same as to affirme that one Presbytery may bee over another, as the Bishops affirme. That one Presbyter may bee over another, this is evident, if you assert a Presbyteriall government may bee over a Congregation that is composed of a Presbytery and people: for it cannot bee said to bee over a Congregation, if it bee over the people onely, that is not over their Presbytery also, for then the Presbytery will be Independent, and the people under two Presbyteries coordinate and not subordinate, which stands not with common reason.

Sect. 2.

This then being the Assertion, it is thus argued against. A Presbytery over a Presbytery, or power over power necessarily implieth two sorts of Presbyteries, or Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions, specifically distinct or at least more then numerically. A greater or lesser vary not the kind in a Physical or Theological consideration, but in a Political it doth; He that hath a greater power then I have, that is a power over my power, a power to order, direct or correct the power I have, this mans power and mine differ as two sorts or kinds of power. And although this superior Presbytery be made up of Presbyters sent as Commissioners from the congregational or parochial Presbyteries, yet this hinders not at all but that they may be thus ⟨p. 39⟩distinct; For some Cities and towns corporate their Officers are sent up, & sit as Members of Parliament, yet this Honourable House hath a power distinct▪ and superior to that which is in London or York, though the superior Presbytery be made up of Presbyters from several Congregations, yet it is not made up of Presbyteries, it hath the persons materially considered, but not that power formally considered: for as while the Parliament sits and certain Burgesses from Borough towns sit as Members in it, these Townes notwithstanding still retain all the power those Corporations were ever invested with; so particular Congregations whilst some of their Elders sit in the Classical Presbytery, have Elderships or a Presbytery still. Now that it is very probable the Scripture holds not forth two sorts of Presbyteries thus specifically distinct, may be thus argued.

This then being the Assertion, it is thus argued against. A Presbytery over a Presbytery, or power over power necessarily implyeth two sorts of Presbyteries, or Ecclesiasticall Jurisdictions, specifically distinct or at least more then numerically. A greater or lesser vary not the kind in a Physicall or Theologicall consideration, but in a Politicall it doth; Hee that hath a greater power then I have, that is a power over my power, a power to order, direct or correct the power I have, this mans power and mine differ as two sorts or kinds of power. And although this superior Presbytery bee made up of Presbyters sent as Commissioners from the congregationall or parochiall Presbyteries, yet this hinders not at all but that they may bee thus ⟨p. 39⟩distinct; For some Cities and townes corporate their Officers are sent up, & sit as Members of Parliament, yet this Honorable House hath a power distinct and superior to that which is in London or Yorke, though the superior Presbytery bee made up of Presbyters from severall Congregations, yet it is not made up of Presbyteries, it hath the persons materially considered, but not that power formally considered: for as while the Parliament sits and certaine Burgesses from Burrough townes sit as Members in it, these Townes notwithstanding still retaine all the power those Corporations were ever invested with; so particular Congregations whilst some of their Elders sit in the Classicall Presbytery, have Elderships or a Presbytery still. Now that it is very probable the Scripture holds not forth two sorts of Presbyteries thus specifically distinct, may bee thus argued.

Sect. 3.

First, where the Scripture holds forth distinct sorts in any kind, there will be found either distinct and proper names and titles, or at least some adjunct or difference added to that which is common or general; In the Apostles times there were Presbyters over Presbyters, Apostles were superior to Prophets, and Prophets a distinct order from Teachers▪ Therefore in 1▪ Corinth. 12. God hath set some in the Church: First Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that Miracles, then gifts of Healings, &c. They have not only particular names and titles, but special notes of distinction added, [Greek or Hebrew], as in Genesis 1. where no distinction in names is given, The Sun, Moon, and Stars of Heaven, are all called Lights, yet there are terms of difference added, they are called first great Lights, and then the greater to rule the day, and the lesser to rule the night.

First, where the Scripture holds forth distinct sorts in any kinde, there will bee found either distinct and proper names and titles, or at least some adjunct or difference added to that which is common or generall; In the Apostles times there were Presbyters over Presbyters, Apostles were superior to Prophets, and Prophets a distinct order from Teachers▪ Therefore in 1▪ Corinth. 12. God hath set some in the Church: First Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that Miracles, then gifts of Healings, &c. They have not onely particular names and titles, but speciall notes of distinction added, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, as in Genesis 1. where no distinction in names is given, The Sunne, Moon, and Starres of Heaven, are all called Lights, yet there are termes of difference added, they are called first great Lights, and then the greater to rule the day, and the lesser to rule the night.

Throughout the New Testament we find this word [Greek or Hebrew], but in three places, whereof there is but one that holdeth out the Government in hand, and in that place you have the naked word only without the addition of any such expression, greater, lesser, superior, inferior, or any kind of adjunct, that can possibly put a thought in us, of more Presbyteries then one. Notwithstanding so useful are peculiar distinct names where there are distinct sorts or kinds of administration, as it is not omitted by any Church in their Ordinances for Government; in Scotland the lowest is termed a Consistory, the next a Classis or Presbytery, the third a Provincial Synod, the fourth a General Assembly. The French in these terms, Consistories, and Colloquel, and Synods: so in the Episcopal Republic there was the like variety.

Throughout the New Testament wee finde this word 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, but in three places, whereof there is but one that holdeth out the Government in hand, and in that place you have the naked word onely without the addition of any such expression, greater, lesser, superiour, inferior, or any kinde of adjunct, that can possibly put a thought in us, of more Presbyteries then one. Notwithstanding so usefull are peculiar distinct names where there are distinct sorts or kindes of administration, as it is not omitted by any Church in their Ordinances for Government; in Scotland the lowest is termed a Consistory, the next a Classis or Presbytery, the third a Provinciall Synod, the fourth a Generall Assembly. The French in these termes, Consistories, and Colloquel, and Synods: so in the Episcopall Republique there was the like varietie.