own light had vouched their doctrine to be the doctrine of the apostles -which deserved the highest censure, being a sin so scandalous,-yet they, verse 23, proceeded not to censure them, by way of admonition or excommunication--which are acts of government, but only to declare their sin and error, and give their judgment of it!"a

CHAP. LIX.

THE REASONS; OR, THE GRAND DEBATE; CONTINUED.

"REASONS against the last two assertions of the ASSEMBLY; concerning the instance of the Church of Jerusalem.

"Assertion i. Whether these Congregations be fixed, or not fixed, in regard of officers or members; it is all one, as to the truth of the Proposition.'

"Our reply. Whereas in the close of the proofs 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 as 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 xiv. 23: They ordained elders in every church.' The 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 ecclesiæ primæ, churches formed up, though uncomplete, as being, according to our Brethren's opinion, members of a more general presbyterial 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 inany congregations-which, to them, are no churches -may be under the government of one!' Whatsoever our Brethren show of divers congregations to be under the government of a churchpresbyterial, yet they nowhere 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!

“Assertion ii. That there appears no material difference betwixt the several congregations in Jerusalem and the many congregations now, in the ordinary condition of the church, as to the point of fixedness in regard of officers and members.'

"Our reply. 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 their several congregations;

⚫ P. 28-34

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; as ten or twelve thousand 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 two thousand-which is an allotment small enough to be set apart for the pains of two apostles: hereupon this great incongruity doth follow, These 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 [their office], as apostles to have the care of 'all' churches [2 Cor. xi. 28.]; 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 powers 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 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 adinonish, 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 Presbyterial 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 to bring all to the common presbytery of apostles: that, is a greater incongruity than 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!"'a Other REASONS against the Main Proposition:

"The Scripture holds forth, That many congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government.'

"By Particular Congregations, either, first, an assembly of Christians meeting for worship only, as to hear, pray, etc.; 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 presbyterial government; as thus,

4 P. 35, 36.

parochial presbyteries may be under one classical; many classical under one provincial, etc.; 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 [that] 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 co-ordinate and not subordinate; which stands not with

common reason.

"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 specially distinct, or at least more than numerically. A greater or lesser, varies not the kind, in a physical, or theological, consideration; but in a political, it doth. He that hath a greater power than I have, that is, a power over my power; a power to order, direct, or correct, the power I have; this man's 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 distinct: for some cities and towns corporate, their officers are sent up and 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 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 towns 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 Scriptures hold not forth two sorts of Presbyteries, thus specifically distinct, may be thus argued :

"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 Cor. xii. 28, God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing,' etc. They have not only particular names and titles, but special notes of distinction added, рτоν ἀποτόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας as in Gen. i. 16, where no distinction of 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 light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.' Throughout the New Testament, we find this word peoẞuréρov but in three places [Luke xxii. 66; Acts xxii. 5; 1 Tim. iv. 14], 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 than 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 'colloquies,' and 'synods: so in the Episcopal Republic, there was the like variety.

Secondly As the Scriptures hold forth nothing, in any title or name, to distinguish; no more can we thence discover any sorts of government, different in nature. For trial of this, let it be supposed there is a parochial or consistorian presbytery, for one sort, [and that] there is another sort we call classical: what Scripture gives light, by any kind of reasoning, to warrant the setting up one of those above, or over the other? Do you read anywhere, God hath set in his church, first presbyteries, secondarily classes, then consistories? Or is there anything in the Word, directing a different composition, or constitution, in these? First; for the materiale: the persons that these presbyteries are made up of, are the same. The consistory hath gifted men set apart to the office of the ministry; those that are in a classical presbytery, are no otherwise qualified; nor, indeed, doth the Scripture require anything but a presbyteration to qualify men for any sort, if there were sorts of presbytery. That there is a greater number of presbyters, in the one than in the other; this alters not the state, in respect of the matter: for if the number be competent, that is, [if] so many as two or three' may agree'-Matt. xviii.—it sufficeth. The Honourable House of Commons is, to all Parliamentary purposes, as much a House when but two or three above forty, as when four hundred. Nor doth this always fall out, that all classical presbyteries have a greater number than some parochial. Scriptures have determined neither how few will constitute a classical presbytery, nor how many may be in a parochial: practice, many times, makes them equal. Secondly; now for the formale: the uniting of this matter into a consessus or cœtus. Presbyters become united into a presbytery in the classical, by having pastoral charges in such a division; whosoever cometh so to be disposed of, he is no sooner pastor to such a parish, but he is, eo nomine, member of such a classis: the presbyters of a parochial presbytery, are as nearly united, and more; they are united in the choice and call of the same congregation they govern, and united in the whole work of the ministry over the same people; so that they are not only fellow-governors but fellow-labourers in the same vineyard. There is, therefore, no just ground for such a distinction of difference between presbytery and presbytery, in respect either of the matter or the form.

"Thirdly: Nor do we find anything, in the Scriptures, making them, as from different employments, or functions, to differ. First; we [you] pretend, and so it is in the Proposition, the one is superior,

the other inferior: but how can you say the Scriptures have made this difference, when there is not a word spoken this way in any place? Presbyterian writers themselves, in some expressions seem to take away utterly such difference as this. In one place, you shall read, The classis can do nothing renitente ecclesia, but it is null and invalid! thus, 'The assertion for Discipline,' and [which] avouches Zepperus, Zanchy, and others, as of this opinion. The congregation, though but minima ecclesiola, yet may reform, that is, suspend, excommunicate, etc. Renitentibus correspondentis: so, Voetius, in his Theses, et Desperata causa Papatus: Lib. ii. cap. 12. Surely, according to what these reverend divines have expressed, it is hard to be said which of these presbyteries hath the greater or superior power! Secondly; the employment or work of a presbytery, is to ordain, excommunicate, suspend, admit members, appoint times for worship, and the like. The classical presbytery reserve ordination and excommunication to themselves; but the other [acts] are left to [the] parochial presbytery: thus, some Presbyterians divide the work; others, possibly otherwise. But how can we [you] affirm any such designment, from the Scriptures, if you have not two sorts, either in name or nature, to be found there? And none of these acts, or administrations, but may be done by that one [sort] the Scripture mentioneth; which, doubtless, they may [do], seeing ordination seemeth to be specified in the text: if the greater, then doubtless the lesser. The pastor, in one place, is said to 'exhort,' in another, to comfort,' in another, to visit the sick;' this will not warrant distinct sorts of pastors: for there being but one sort spoken of in Scriptures, we must interpret all these several administrations to belong to that one.

"It was not found an easy work, in this ASSEMBLY, to find two sorts of elders, teaching and ruling, notwithstanding all the Scripture hath said of these; and in some places, so plain as if on purpose to distinguish them! If it be so hard a matter, by Scripture light, to hold forth two sorts of presbyters; it must needs be more difficult, to find out two sorts of presbyteries; especially, seeing-as it is generally granted, and this by the Presbyterians themselves,-that for above fifty years after Christ, and in the apostles' times, there was but one kind of presbytery!

"It hath been the wisdom of States, to keep and preserve the bouuds and limits of their judicatures evident and distinct, and as free from controversy as may [might] be. If laws and ordinances about matters of meum and tuum, and such inferior claims, should not be so evident; the authority of these courts, will be in a readiness to relieve wrongs and injuries through such mistakings: but controversies, and clashings, about these high and public interests, are no other, in the issue, than the dividing of a kingdom within itself.

"Is man wiser in his generation, than Jesus Christ? He is our 'Law-giver;' the Government' is laid upon his shoulder:' He is the Wonderful,' [the] Counsellor,' the Prince of Peace; and therefore, surely, though other matters of practice and duty should have obscurity in the rule, yet it is most probable [that] He hath ordered authority and jurisdiction, with the officers and offices for the