A92287:86
The reasons of the Dissenting Brethren against the third proposition, concerning presbyterial government· Humbly presented.
London: printed by G.M. for Ralph Smith, 1645
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
The Proof of the whole depends upon this Proposition: for though before the dispersion there had been many Congregations, yet not under Elders, but Apostles: Now it is granted that the substance of Ministerial Acts were one and the same in Apostles and Evangelists who were extraordinary, and in other ordinary Ministers. But first, though for the Act of Ministerial ⟨p. 26⟩power, it was the same in the Apostles, and them, yet in the extent of power (which is the point in question) therein the Apostles Jurisdiction over many Congregations is not the pattern of Presbyterial Elders over many, for the Apostles power was universal over all Churches, and upon that was founded their power over those Congregations supposed many; And Episcopacy may as strongly argue and infer, that because in Crete (by Apostolical warrant) One man [Titus] did ordain Elders, &c. That therefore there may be one man [a Bishop] that hath power to ordain, &c. in and over several Churches. And this Argument will be stronger from the instance of an Evangelist, for Episcopal power then this of Apostolical▪ government, for the Presbyterial, by how much it is the more inferior Office, but that of the Apostles is more immediate and transcendent, and so the power of an Evangelist is nearer to an ordinary succession, and it will as well follow, that any one Presbyter alone might govern many Congregations, because one of these Apostles might, as that because the Apostles did govern these jointly, that therefore many Presbyters over several Congregations may.
The Proofe of the whole depends upon this Proposition: for though before the dispersion there had been many Congregations, yet not under Elders, but Apostles: Now it is granted that the substance of Ministeriall Acts were one and the same in Apostles and Evangelists who were extraordinary, and in other ordinary Ministers. But first, though for the Act of Ministeriall ⟨p. 26⟩power, it was the same in the Apostles, and them, yet in the extent of power (which is the point in question) therein the Apostles Jurisdiction over many Congregations is not the patterne of Presbyteriall Elders over many, for the Apostles power was universall over all Churches, and upon that was founded their power over those Congregations supposed many; And Episcopacie may as strongly argue and inferre, that because in Crete (by Apostolicall warrant) One man [Titus] did ordaine Elders, &c. That therefore there may bee one man [a Bishop] that hath power to ordaine, &c. in and over severall Churches. And this Argument will bee stronger from the instance of an Evangelist, for Episcopall power then this of Apostolicall▪ government, for the Presbyteriall, by how much it is the more inferior Office, but that of the Apostles is more immediate and transcendent, and so the power of an Evangelist is neerer to an ordinary succession, and it will as well follow, that any one Presbyter alone might governe many Congregations, because one of these Apostles might, as that because the Apostles did governe these joyntly, that therefore many Presbyters over severall Congregations may.
Secondly, each of these Apostles, as he had by virtue of his Apostolical Commission the power of them all, so he had relation of Ministry unto all these supposed Congregations unto every person thereof for the performance of all sorts of duties, of preaching to them, admonishing them, &c. But thus in the Presbyterial government over many Congregations fixed, and their Pastors and Elders fixed to them, the several Elders are denied to have the relation of Elders to each Congregation, but make up only an Eldership in common as united over all these. But the Apostles here have the relation to both, and therefore if this Apostolical frame be made a Pattern, then it follows that all the Elders of these Congregations were directly and immediately Elders to each Congregation and every member of them, and not only of a common Presbytery, for so the Apostles were.
Secondly, each of these Apostles, as hee had by vertue of his Apostolicall Commission the power of them all, so hee had relation of Ministerie unto all these supposed Congregations unto every person thereof for the performance of all sorts of duties, of preaching to them, admonishing them, &c. But thus in the Presbyteriall government over many Congregations fixed, and their Pastors and Elders fixed to them, the severall Elders are denied to have the relation of Elders to each Congregation, but make up onely an Eldership in common as united over all these. But the Apostles here have the relation to both, and therefore if this Apostolicall frame bee made a Patterne, then it followes that all the Elders of these Congregations were directly and immediatly Elders to each Congregation and every member of them, and not onely of a common Presbytery, for so the Apostles were.
If it be alleged that those acts of government, performed by them in that Church, were for the substance of them ordinary Acts, such as Presbyters perform, and that therefore answerably their persons themselves are in them to be considered as Elders, because that the Apostles were not only Apostles, but Elders also, as John Epistle 2. Verse 1. And Peter Epist. 1. Chap. 5. Vers. 1. and therefore might and did act as Elders in ordinary Acts of Church government, and are therefore therein to be looked at, as a just pattern to us, and to have ruled these Congregations of Jerusalem as a College or body of Elders united, condescending so to act as common Presbyters taking the consent of the Church, as Acts. 6. as likewise they did in every Church where they came joining with the Eldership thereof, ⟨p. 27⟩as Elders, and not as Apostles, and therefore that they might give a pattern, and Example of an ordinary Presbytery, especially seeing that what they thus did, they did as an united body to many Congregations considered as one Church.
If it bee alledged that those acts of government, performed by them in that Church, were for the substance of them ordinary Acts, such as Presbyters performe, and that therefore answerably their persons themselves are in them to bee considered as Elders, because that the Apostles were not onely Apostles, but Elders also, as John Epistle 2. Verse 1. And Peter Epist. 1. Chap. 5. Vers. 1. and therefore might and did act as Elders in ordinary Acts of Church government, and are therefore therein to bee look't at, as a just patterne to us, and to have ruled these Congregations of Jerusalem as a Colledge or body of Elders united, conedscending so to act as common Presbyters taking the consent of the Church, as Acts. 6. as likewise they did in every Church where they came joyning with the Eldership thereof, ⟨p. 27⟩as Elders, and not as Apostles, and therefore that they might give a patterne, and Example of an ordinary Presbytery, especially seeing that what they thus did, they did as an united body to many Congregations considered as one Church.
It is answered to the first, that although the Apostles are called Elders, yet they are so called virtually, not formally, and but because Apostleship contains all Offices in it, so as they are Elders but upon this ground, that they are Apostles, and therefore John in that very Epistle where he stiles himself an Elder, he yet writes Canonical Scripture as an Apostle, and takes on him to threaten Diotrephes as an Apostle, to remember him, which as a formal Elder he could not have done; and surely those Offices which Christ distinguisheth, Ephesians 4. He gave some Apostles, some Pastors and Teachers, the same person is not formally both, though virtually he may be; All that they did in that Church of Jerusalem they are said to act as Apostles, their preaching is called the Apostles doctrine, their bringing their monies to them, as to the Officers of that Church, is to them not as Elders, but as Apostles, They laid it down at the Apostles feet; yea in that Act of ordaining the seven Deacons, it is said, They set them afore the Apostles, (Chap. 6. Vers. 6.) and they laid on their hands; And it is very hard to distinguish and say that the men were Apostles, but the power they acted by was as Elders, when the name of an Apostle imports the Office; Yea in that very Act of government about Deacons they must needs act as Apostles, for they do not simply ordain the men, but do anew, by virtue of Apostolical authority, institute the Office of Deacons by declaring Christs mind, which none but Apostles could immediately and at first have done, so as the same persons in this same Act instanced in, must act partly as Apostles, and partly as Elders, and by what infallible rule shall we distinguish.
It is answered to the first, that although the Apostles are called Elders, yet they are so called virtually, not formally, and but because Apostleship containes all Offices in it, so as they are Elders but upon this ground, that they are Apostles, and therefore John in that very Epistle where hee stiles himselfe an Elder, hee yet writes Canonicall Scripture as an Apostle, and takes on him to threaten Diotrephes as an Apostle, to remember him, which as a formall Elder hee could not have done; and surely those Offices which Christ distinguisheth, Ephesians 4. Hee gave some Apostles, some Pastors and Teachers, the same person is not formally both, though virtually he may bee; All that they did in that Church of Hierusalem they are said to act as Apostles, their preaching is called the Apostles doctrine, their bringing their monies to them, as to the Officers of that Church, is to them not as Elders, but as Apostles, They laid it downe at the Apostles feet; yea in that Act of ordaining the seven Deacons, it is said, They set them afore the Apostles, (Chap. 6. Vers. 6.) and they laid on their hands; And it is very hard to distinguish and say that the men were Apostles, but the power they acted by was as Elders, when the name of an Apostle imports the Office; Yea in that very Act of government about Deacons they must needs act as Apostles, for they doe not simply ordaine the men, but doe anew, by vertue of Apostolicall authoritie, institute the Office of Deacons by declaring Christs mind, which none but Apostles could immediatly and at first have done, so as the same persons in this same Act instanced in, must act partly as Apostles, and partly as Elders, and by what infallible rule shall wee distinguish.
To the second, viz. that they acted here as it were in a joint body or in Collegio over these many Congregations. It is answered, that an Association of Elders in an Eldership over many is not argued from hence. For first, they had all singly the same power which they exercised jointly, and that they should exercise it jointly here to that end to give a pattern for Eldership, is not easy to prove; they exercised it together, because it fell out that they were together, and it was fit none of them should be excluded, but it depended not upon this union of all in a body, as Acts of Elders in a Presbytery do, as Parliamentary power is not the result of Parliament men, but as assembled in Parliament; yea and the authority of Jurisdiction thence ariseth, not so here; Our Apostle might have done that which all here did, yea may it not be said that because two Apostles, Paul and Barnabas, ordained Elders in ⟨p. 28⟩every Church, Acts 14. as joined in the same Act, and so acting not as Apostles, but jointly, that therefore two Elders associated may do the like? Secondly, it is hard to suppose that these Apostles, when all together, should act with an inferior power to what they put forth in a like case alone. If Peter had been himself alone in a Church new planted then and there, he must be supposed to act as an Apostle, because he alone governed; And shall these Apostles, when they are all in one and join all together in one Act, be yet supposed to fall lower in their power under the formal exercise of it? Thirdly, if they had acted as Elders in a College, they might miscarry as Elders do; and so the minor part of them have been subject to Excommunication of the greater. And what power was there on earth to have excommunicated an Apostle who held his Office immediately from Christ, and who whilst he was in that Office had power over all Churches?
To the second, viz. that they acted here as it were in a joynt body or in Collegio over these many Congregations. It is answered, that an Association of Elders in an Eldership over many is not argued from hence. For first, they had all singly the same power which they exercised joyntly, and that they should exercise it joyntly here to that end to give a patterne for Eldership, is not easy to prove; they exercised it together, because it fell out that they were together, and it was fit none of them should bee excluded, but it depended not upon this union of all in a body, as Acts of Elders in a Presbytery do, as Parliamentary power is not the result of Parliament men, but as assembled in Parliament; yea and the authoritie of Jurisdiction thence ariseth, not so here; Our Apostle might have done that which all here did, yea may it not bee said that because two Apostles, Paul and Barnabas, ordained Elders in
To the third, viz. That they in their Proceedings did join with others.
To the third, viz. That they in their Proceedings did joyne with others.
As in this choice of the Deacons they did join with the multitude, as also when they came to any other Churches they used to do. Neither doth that argue, that they acted not as Apostles but as Elders. For first, they joined in Acts with others, and joined others with themselves, wherein they yet acted as Apostles; thus in writing Scripture they joined others with them, as Paul joined Silvanus and Timotheus in his Epistle to the Thessalonians; and not merely in the salutation, for the expressions run in their names also in that Epistle, and Act. 15. The Apostles, Elders, yea and Brethren joined in a Letter to the Churches; But these as Apostles (therefore so called in distinction from the Elders) and the rest according to their several interests, as the Brethren did all according to their interests, so the Elders and the Apostles in theirs. So in ordaining Timothy the Presbytery laid on hands, yet they as a Presbytery and Paul as an Apostle, for else a Presbytery had not had power to ordain an Evangelist. Yet secondly, the Apostles did where ever they came leave the Elders and people to the exercise of that right belonged to them, although they joined with them; neither did therein lie their Apostolical authority, to do all alone; for then they seldom or never acted as Apostles in Churches: Paul alone excommunicated not that Corinthian, and yet as an Apostle wrote to have it done by them, (for it was Canonical Scripture) and therefore although that this Church of Jerusalem should choose their Deacons, is a just example of the privilege of a Church (for if the Apostles when they were present allowed this interest to Churches, then Elders should much more) yet what the Apostles did by an Apostolical power in these Congregations▪ cannot be drawn into example for Officers in that thing wherein their power Apostolical lay, which was to exercise acts of jurisdiction in several Churches▪
As in this choyce of the Deacons they did joyne with the multitude, as also when they came to any other Churches they used to doe. Neither doth that argue, that they acted not as Apostles but as Elders. For first, they joyned in Acts with others, and joyned others with themselves, wherein they yet acted as Apostles; thus in writing Scripture they joyned others with them, as Paul joyned Silvanus and Timotheus in his Epistle to the Thessalonians; and not meerely in the salutation, for the expressions runne in their names also in that Epistle, and
Neither fourthly, will that help it, That they exercised this Government in these Congregations (supposed many) as considered to be one Church. For if they acted not as Elders, then the correlate to it, namely, Church, could not be considered as Presbyterial.
Neither fourthly, will that helpe it, That they exercised this Government in these Congregations (supposed many) as considered to bee one Church. For if they acted not as Elders, then the correlate to it, namely, Church, could not bee considered as Presbyteriall.
First, the Argument from Acts 11. ult. lies thus, There were Elders in Judea that received Alms, verse 29▪ 30. compared; Therefore the Elders of Jerusalem did meet together for Acts of Government. In this Argument, as the persons are mistaken, so the Act for the Elders of Jerusalem are not mentioned, but of Judea, as by comparing verses 29, 30. it appears. And by this it might be as well argued, that the Elders in Judea met for Presbyterial Government, as that the Elders of Jerusalem, seeing their Alms were carried to the Elders of Judea, as it is there said. The receiving Alms (which is the only Act that is mentioned) was not an Act of Government, for Deacons may meet to receive Alms, and yet meet not for Acts of government. For that second place mentioned, Acts 21. 20. where it is said, Paul came in to James, and all the Elders were present: although we read that all the Elders were present, yet that they met for Acts of Presbyterial government, appears not; the occasion of the meeting was Pauls entertainment, whom some of the brethren had received at his first coming, verse 17. and now the Elders meet to receive him also. A Christian duty of love and respect due to so great and famous an Apostle, and Paul went not as cited, but to visit and salute them, as vers. 19.
First, the Argument from Acts 11. ult. lies thus, There were Elders in Judea that received Almes, verse 29▪ 30. compared; Therefore the Elders of Jerusalem did meet together for Acts of Government. In this Argument, as the persons are mistaken, so the Act for the Elders of Hierusalem are not mentioned, but of Iudea, as by comparing verses 29, 30. it appeares. And by this it might bee as well argued, that the Elders in Judea met for Presbyteriall Government, as that the Elders of Jerusalem, seeing their Almes were carryed to the Elders of Judea, as it is there said. The receiving Almes (which is the onely Act that is mentioned) was not an Act of Government, for Deacons may meet to receive Almes, and yet meet not for Acts of government. For that second place mentioned, Acts 21. 20. where it is said, Paul came in to James, and all the Elders were present: although wee read that all the Elders were present, yet that they met for Acts of Presbyteriall government, appeares not; the occasion of the meeting was Pauls entertainment, whom some of the brethren had received at his first comming, verse 17. and now the Elders meet to receive him also. A Christian duty of love and respect due to so great and famous an Apostle, and Paul went not as cited, but to visit and salute them, as vers. 19.
Secondly, The Acts that passed were none of them Presbyterial, for Paul gave them an Historical relation of what things God had wrought by his Ministry, the matter of which relation was intended to provoke them as Brethren and fellow-labourers, to glorify God (as ver. 20. is said they did) and not to give them an account, as to a Consistory, that met for Government. Such narrations the Apostles made even to whole Churches, as Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, Act. 14. 27. When they had gathered the whole Church together (which Church was of no more then to meet in one Assembly) they rehearsed in like manner, as here, all that God had done by them; and how he had opened a door of Faith to the Gentiles. Neither ⟨p. 30⟩will the advice they gave to Paul to prevent the scandal and offence the people would take at him, argue authority, much less government: Neither was there any Act of Government put forth over their own Churches if supposed many.
Secondly, The Acts that passed were none of them Presbyteriall, for Paul gave them an Historicall relation of what things God had wrought by his Ministery, the matter of which relation was intended to provoke them as Brethren and fellow-labourers, to glorify God (as ver. 20. is said they did) and not to give them an account, as to a Consistory, that met for Government. Such narrations the Apostles made even to whole Churches, as Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, Act. 14. 27. When they had gathered the whole Church together (which Church was of no more then to meet in one Assembly) they rehearsed in like manner, as here, all that God had done by them; and how hee had opened a doore of Faith to the Gentiles. Neither ⟨p. 30⟩will the advice they gave to Paul to prevent the scandall and offence the people would take at him, argue authority, much lesse government: Neither was there any Act of Government put forth over their own Churches if supposed many.
