THE REASONS OF THE Dissenting Brethren against the Third Proposition, CONCERNING PRESBYTERIAL GOVERNMENT.  
Humbly presented.  
LONDON, Printed by G. M. for Ralph Smith at the Bible in corn-hill. 1645.   

Die Lunae, 23. Decemb. 1644.  
ORdered by the Commons assembled in Parliament, That three hundred and no more, of The Reasons of the dissenting Brethren against the third Proposition touching presbyterial Government, and The Answer and Solution of the Assembly to the said Reasons, be forthwith Printed; And that the care of the exact Printing thereof be referred to Mr Byfield: And the Printer is enjoined (at his peril) not to Print more than Three hundred of them.  
It is further Ordered, That no man presume to reprint, Divulge or Publish the said Reasons and Answers, or any part of them, till further order be taken herein by either or both Houses of Parliament.  
H: Elsing, Cler. Parl. D. Com.   

REASONS against the Third Proposition, concerning presbyterial Government, and the proofs thereof: Viz. The Scripture holds forth, that many particular Congregations may be under one presbyterial government. Humbly Presented.  


If many Congregations having all Elders already affixed respectively unto them, may be under a presbyterial government: Then all those Elders must sustain a special relation of Elders to all the people of those Congregations as one Church and to every one as a Member thereof.  
But for a company of such Elders already affixed, &c. to sustain such a relation, carries with it so great and manifold incongruities, and inconsistencies, with what the Scripture speaks of Elders in their relation to a Church committed to them, and likewise with the Principles of the Reformed Churches themselves, as cannot be admitted.  
And therefore such a Government may not be.    

The first Proposition.  
THat according to the Scriptures, such a presbyterial Government necessarily draws such a special relation, is evinced by parts thus.  
1. They must have the relation of Elders to all and every one of the Members; for Church and Elders are Relatives. And the Argument for the presbyterial government is taken by the presbyterial Divines from this; That many Congregations in Scripture, are made one Church, and the Elders thereof Elders of that Church.  
2. That relation they have, must be a more special relation, as is evident from the practice and principles of this government. For when the Congregations in Shires are divided into several Presbyteries or deaneries, the Elders (though Neighbours) of a bordering presbytery, intermeddle not with the Congregations under another presbytery, and yet Neighbour Elders. It is therefore a special relation puts the difference, that those of these Presbyteries do judge the Congregations under them, as having a special relation to them, such as not to other Congregations.   

The minor Proposition.  
For the proof of which, we present these incongruities as follow.  
First, this breeds many incongruous disproportions to the Order set by Christ, about the Officers of the Church.  
1. To extend a pastor's power of ordinary ruling beyond the extent of his ordinary teaching, is against the order which Christ hath set (and all extent of power must as well have an Institution of Christ, as the power or office itself, the difference of Evangelists and ordinary Pastors lay in extent of power,) but the extent of a Pastors ordinary ruling power, is but to that Flock as his whole Flock which he is able to feed. The first Proposition is confirmed, first by Scripture, secondly by Reason.  
First by Scripture, Acts Chap. 20. Verse 28. Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to feed the flock of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Whence first we see the special limitation of their extensive power and relation [to a flock] and [all in that flock] is by the Holy Ghost, and not by man, and therefore is not to be extended by man, further than the Holy Ghost hath appointed.  
2. The extent of that relation to that flock, and the whole flock they feed, and to feed all that flock alike. And if they be preaching Elders, then to feed by preaching, and therefore are Overseers to them to feed them, and this because they feed them.  
3. He speaks to preaching Elders especially, that feed by doctrine: for he propounds his own example to them, Verse 20. That he had revealed the whole counsel of God. And Peter seconds Paul in this, 1 Peter, Chap. 5. Verse 2. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof. The flock {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} among you: is that flock any of them had relation to as his flock respectively. Peter here writing unto the Churches in several Nations Chap. 1. Verse 1. whereas in Acts 20▪ and Verse 28. the charge is to the particular Elders of Ephesus to that whole flock; therefore that note of respectiveness is here put {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} among you: that is, that flock which respectively belongs to you, as Colossians Chap. 1. Verse 17. Who is for you a faithful Minister, that is, your proper Pastor: So the flock {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is your several proper flocks that belong to you. And hereby it appears that their oversight is not extendible beyond their feeding. Thus also Heb. 13. Verse 7. Remember them that have the rule over you, and have spoken to you the word of God; which he speaks of preaching Elders, and of ruling Elders (of whom he speaks Verse 17.) Obey them that have the rule over you, for they watch for your souls, as those that must give an account. And whether these places note out two sort of Officers, Preaching Elders, ver. 7. and Ruling Elders, ver. 17. or but one sort, and so but several acts of the same Office, however if but one, yet still the ordinary rule over them was not farther extendible than their ordinary preaching; if two sorts of Officers, they being Officers together in the same Church, if the pastor's power of ruling extends no farther than his preaching, than the mere ruling Elders power, or his that is assistant to him, must extend no farther than the Pastors also; this is the natural obligation to obedience, and so is the measure to set the bounds of the extent of ordinary Church power. 'Tis one argument used against episcopal power, that they are enforced to obey him that speaks not the word to them, nor watches over their souls; And this holds as well against these presbyterial Officers, when a man to be excommunicated comes before such, if he says I am not bound to obey you in such authoritative way, nor do I owe a subjection as to a power of censure in you, for many, yea most of you, never spoke the word unto me, nor did watch over my soul; nay, perhaps the man can say, he never saw their faces afore.  
And it avails not to say that they may occasionally preach; for take two places more, the 1 to the Thes. chap. 5. ver. 12. speaking of respect to their Officers, Know them that labour among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you: These two labour, and are over you, are commensurable; that is, who make it their calling to have the care of you, which the many Pastors and Elders in a common presbytery cannot. And labour, in what? Tim. Epist. 1. chap. 1. ver. 17. expounds it, That labour in the word and Doctrine: The Elders that rule well, are worthy of double honour, especially those that labour in the word and Doctrine. And expound this latter known place, whether of Teaching Elders only, or ruling and teaching both (as the Reformed Churches do) however it affords this to us; that the extent of ruling in either the one or the other, is but as large as teaching: And if it be meant of Teaching Elders only, that both rule and labour in the word and Doctrine, yet if they be limited in labouring in the word (as they are being fixed Pastors to their own Congregations) then in ruling. And if it be meant of ruling Elders (as distinct from them) yet their ruling is but of the same extent, that the others labouring in the word is, and that is extended but to one Congregation.  
And secondly, Reason is for this; For in a pastor's Office in which Preaching and Ruling are joined, yet his power of ruling flows in him from, and is the adjunct of his power to preach, and to be sure it is not extendible further; and however yet there is the same proportion of either, and then by just reason the extent of the Church which is the subject of his ordinary ruling cannot be extended larger than what is the ordinary subject of his preaching, and so these relations are of equal limits; If a father hath the power of governing, as a father, than it is extendible only to those he is a father to. And that a Pastor hath his ordinary ruling power annexed to his ordinary power of preaching, is proved by these reasons.  
First, If not upon this ground, then upon some other, not by any special faculty or Office, over and above this of preaching, for than he should be ordained a ruling Elder over and above his being first a Preaching Elder as a new faculty given him, or by being made a Ruler first, and then this of preaching superadded, as the Bishops first made Deacons than Presbyters. But  
Secondly, All the keys are given him at once, the keys of ruling with the keys of knowledge, the power of the staff intrinsically follows, his being a Pastor or shepherd; and though the one is a power of mere order, namely that of Preaching, and that of his Ruling be a power of jurisdiction (to be exercised with others and not alone) yet still his receiving power to join with others in those acts of Rule of jurisdiction is from this his power of Order, and the ordinary extent of his authority therein, is extendible no farther than his ordinary call to preach. Yea  
Thirdly, The extent of the power of the Apostles themselves, in ruling in all the Churches was founded upon, and extendible with their commission to preach in all Churches, and their very call and obligation being not to preach in a set fixed relation, as ordinary Pastors calling is, but to all Churches in all Nations: Hence their power of ruling was answerable; It was their very call to be universal Pastors, and therefore universal Rulers; yea and in reference to those that are without, their authority of ruling was narrower in the extent of it then of their preaching. The Apostles might preach to Heathens, and their call was so to do, to convert them, but they had not power to rule all men: what have I to do to judge them that are without? But in this way of presbyterial government, though they also may occasionally preach where they may not rule, yet the proportion of their ordinary ruling, is extended beyond the proportion of their ordinary preaching, which it was not in the Apostles themselves.  
Secondly, It breeds an incongruous disproportion between the Offices of Ruling and Preaching Elders compared among themselves, for this government makes the Extent of the Ruling Elders Office and relation, to be larger than that of their Teachers or Pastors; For the Pastor, quâ Pastor, is limited to his particular Congregation he is fixed to for the ordinary performance of his Office, as the Deacons also are; but the Ruling Elders Office, quâ Ruling Elder, is extended over all these Congregations in this presbytery. The Ruling Elder performs his Office in the highest perfection of it, as to admonish, excommunicate in all these Churches, but the Pastors are limited in the highest work of their Callings, Preaching being more excellent than Ruling, yea then baptising unto one Congregation; That in the first Epistle to Tim. Chap. 5. Ver. 17. (interpret it as you will) justifies this.  
Thirdly, It perverts the order and distinction of Teaching Elders, and mere Ruling Elders (as the reformed Churches call them) or Church governors (as the Assembly) That whereas Christ hath made some Teaching Elders, and some Ruling Elders, and these distinct in this, that the Preaching Elders Office is to preach and rule, the Ruling Elders Office only to rule: this frame of presbyterial government, makes one person not only to do both these works, (which in a particular Congregation every Pastor doth) but formally to be both those Offices, in respect of a double relation he doth sustain, namely, a Pastor to be a Preaching Elder to the Congregation where he is fixed, and a mere ruling Elder to the rest of the Congregations of a classical Church: for it is demanded, when a Pastor in a particular Congregation is in this common presbytery, what sort of Officer he is to that presbyterial Church? An Elder he is, because he doth the work of an Elder; A Teaching Elder to that Church he is not, for to that whole Church he labours not in the word and Doctrine. Timothy, Epist. 1. Chap. 5. ver. 17. Therefore a mere ruling Elder he must be, and so the same man bears two sorts of Offices, and by this means there are two sorts of mere ruling Elders, whereas in a particular Congregation, a Pastor though he rules, yet he ruleth as a Pastor to that Congregation. And this disorder and confusion is further set out, in that, by this means the same Officer hath a full relation to one Church, and but half a relation to another, and causeth him to perform the whole of his Office to one Church (the particular Church) he hath relation to, and but the half thereof to the other.  
Fourthly, It makes an incongruous disproportion between the Extent of the relation of those two Offices of Elders and Deacons unto a Church. If the Scriptures had intended many Churches making one Church, and the Elders of those many Churchers to have been Elders in common to those Churches as one Church, then in like manner the Deacons of all those Churches should make up a common deaconry, and be Deacons in common unto all those Churches in an ordinary way as the other are Elders: But this is contrary to the practice of the Reformed Churches, though subject to the presbyterial Government, in which the Deacons have the ordinary relation of Deacons in no respect extended further than to a particular Congregation, nor do they exercise Acts of that Office in an ordinary way to other Congregations, nor otherwise to neighbour Congregations then to any other; much less is there a common Deaconship of them all, and why should not the later be erected over all those Churches as one Church, as well as a common Eldership? especially if in matters of this nature, par ratio should carry it; every Church, quâ Church, being a body, hath relation to all its Officers as organical members thereof; So. Rom. 12. and the 4th. And the Apostle writing to Philippi, a Church in a City, he writes to the Bishops [the Elders] and the Deacons as both alike Officers of that Church. And Acts Chap. 6th. The Deacons of the Church of Jerusalem (if there were many Congregations as our brethren suppose) were chosen by the whole multitude when gathered together by the 12. And therefore were Deacons of that whole Church as well as the Elders, Elders thereof. Now if the Deacons Office should thus be extended to all the Congregations as the Elders is, then why should not each Church be bound to bring contributions to the Deacons of each Church, and to be distributed in common? and so our purses should be subject to the Deacons in common, as far as our persons to the Elders in common, and they might challenge the same power in their Office over the one that the Elders do over the other, and then also each Congregation were in an ordinary and standing obligation bound to relieve all the poor in those Churches, as well as those in their own Parishes, not only by the common law of Charity, but by virtue of special relation of their being one Church, which relation in all these things, doth beget the like Obligation that it doth in government, and so all things of this nature should be alike common to all and each, and there should be a common Treasury for this one great Diaconat Church, as we may in a parallel allusion to that other name of presbyterial call it.  
A second head of Incongruities and Inconsistencies which will follow upon it, are in the mutual duties required, and that do necessarily follow upon this standing relation for a constant government of these Elders to all this people of these Churches, and of the people to these Elders.  
1. From the People to all these Elders, according unto what the Scripture speaks of as due to standing Elders, they owe at least honour and esteem; yea, maintenance to all their Elders, whether those that ordinarily rule them or preach to them, and they owe it for both, Tim. Epist. 1. Chap. 5. ver. 17. and 18. Let the Elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, especially those that labour in the word and Doctrine. Which honour is expressed by the analogy of that law, ver. 18. not to mussel up the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. And this is certainly due to Elders, for all, that is the work or Elders, whether performed apart or together by way of jurisdiction in a presbytery; And it cannot be denied, but that their constant ruling as in the presbytery, is one great part of the work of Elders, and so must be here intended, for which an especial honour is due. And as they are to feed all and every one in the flock, as Acts 20. ver. 28. so maintenance and honour is due from all this people to all and every one of these Elders, as well to those that rule, as those that labour in the word and Doctrine. And in reason, if the Elders that rule well (and perform the lesser acts of ruling) in their particular Congregations, and the Presbyteries thereof are to have this honour in their relations, than all those Elders that rule well in the common presbytery (and perform the greatest acts of ruling) are to have the like from all that classical Church, the emphasis being put upon ruling well, and in those acts done by them the excellency of ruling consisteth, and the precept is not to honour Presbyteries in some abstract notion, but Elders: because the particular persons of the Elders are to be the object of it, and those most who excel most in that rule, that rule well or best; but when there are many Congregations that have their proper fixed Pastors and Elders whom they maintain for performing one part of the Elders work (for they perform but one part of it) how shall they perform this due to all the rest for that other part of it? and it is due from every person as he is able, or he cannot perform his duty, how burdensome, how confused would this be? And then how to proportion this, suppose it should not be maintenance, but honour and esteem, this people will not be able to judge, not only for that they cannot be present at their work and so cannot judge of it, but because either it must be proportioned to them as constant Preaching-Elders, or as Ruling; not as to Preaching Elders, for they labour not to them as such; the ground upon which it is required is, That they tread out their corn, and to honour and esteem them as Ruling Elders only, were to honour preaching Elders below the rank and degree of their Office. So  
Secondly, It brings the like Incongruities upon the performance of those duties of Elders, which the New Testament indifferently requires of all those that it acknowledgeth to be Elders unto a people, and therefore no such constant relation of Elders to so many Churches may be. As first, Praying with the sick, Send for the Elders of the Church to pray for them, James chap. 5. ver. 14. What, are these Elders of a presbyterial Church bound hereto? this duty lies in common upon Elders of Churches, and how shall we distinguish when the Scripture doth not. Secondly, Visiting from house to house, as Paul in his example instructs the Elders of Ephesus, Acts chap. 20. ver. 20. Thirdly, Watching over men's souls, as those that must give an account, Heb. chap. 13. ver. 17. To watch, is not to stay till causes are brought by appeals or so from the Congregations, but personally to observe and oversee them, as souls committed to them, which they must give an account for. Fourthly, Of Preaching, If Preaching Elders in season and out of season. The Bishops, they said the flock was theirs, and the whole care committed to them: and to salve the incongruity of not being able to preach themselves to them, they professed a derivative delegated power to inferior Pastors, whom they called their curates. This was plain dealing: but these Elders make all the whole flock theirs, and this from those Scriptures that speak of Elders and flock, and themselves not curates, and so personally obliged according to the rules in Scripture, and yet cannot perform it, which is a worse incongruity.  
If it be said, that they may part these duties among them, ubi Scriptura non distinguit, nec nos debemus distinguere. Now all those duties that are spoken of Elders to the flocks, they are without distinction, as in respect of the object to whom they are extended. Paul saith to those of Ephesus, Feed the flock. Peter the like to those he writes to, The flock, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} respectively, To feed and to take the oversight of them. The author to the Hebrews, To watch over their souls; And to the Thessalonians, he describes them to be those that are over them, and labour and admonish them. When those Injunctions are thus laid upon all, how shall the conscience of Elders be able to part and distinguish their discharge of them, and to say, though I am an Elder in common to all in these Congregations, yet I am bound but to govern them in greater matters, and to admonish them as with others, when publicly met in a consistory, and am bound to no other acts of Eldership; and yet to this particular Congregation, I am obliged to private admonition, rule, watchfulness, &c. Where hath the Scripture set these bounds, or thus parted them? And therefore certainly all these places hold forth singly, only the Elders and their duties of a particular Church fixed thereto, as knowing no other: 'Twas necessary Christ should have set the bounds and given the distinction, and not indifferently lay all these upon all. And either in these places the duties of Elders in a common presbytery are contained, and that, under the notion of Elders to those, or they are not to be found in the New Testament; And all these may be brought in several Arguments alone by themselves against the main Proposition, though here they come in only as branches of the Minor.  
Lastly, This is inconsistent with the ordinary way of the Call of Elders held forth in the word, and the Principles of the Reformed Churches.  
There are two parts of this Call. First, Choice. Secondly, Ordination.  
First for Choice, Chamier in the name of all the Reformed Churches, allows the people this, the approbation of their Elders, and so in Scotland. And if the Apostles themselves allowed them the choice of the Deacons that had the charge of the Church treasury, and took care of their bodies; then much more of their Elders that have to do with their consciences. Look what ever right of the people is in the choice of them that should preach to them, there is as much reason they should have the exercise of it in the choice of those Elders that in a common presbytery do rule over them, for they perform one part of the Elders duty, namely Ruling, as the Preaching Elders do the other; and therefore by the equity of the same law, that speaks of Elders indefinitely, if they choose any Elders as Elders to them, they are to choose these also, there being no distinction put of choosing Preaching Elders only, but Elders indefinitely▪ And further, the greatest and highest acts of power over them, are committed in an ordinary way unto them, as of Excommunication, of all punishments the most formidable, there is put as much, if not more than every man's life (that is a member of that classical Church) into their hands, the enjoyment of all Ordinances for ever: And so the power of deposing their Ministers already fixed to them, and of refusing to ordain them, they shall approve; And therefore in antiquity, of all other the persons of the Bishops, who had the power of all those, were chosen by all the people, and by panegyrical meetings▪ And it is strengthened by this further parallel; A Ministers Call hath two parts, first, Ordination, which belongs to the Elders. Secondly Choice, in which the people have some interest: These Elders as Elders in common, and these Congregations as one Church be relatives, and so that interest which a Church, quâ Church hath, is commensurable to the interest of these Elders, quâ Elders: If therefore in ordaining, all the Elders in a common presbytery, do join to ordain an Officer, than all the people, quâ Church, must join in choosing or approving him; neither can their common right of choosing be swallowed up by the interest of their Elders ordaining him. And if it be said they all choose by virtue of the general law of combination, as in the Shires Parliament men; The constitution of the State makes the one, if the like be found in Scripture it will be sufficient; but if not, but that this interest must be common to the people of the classical Church, it is asked when a fixed Pastor is to be chosen to a particular charge, what Office he shall be chosen to by the people of the other Congregation? Not to a pastor's Office, he is not to be such to them; if to be a Ruling Elder only, then besides that he hath two Offices as afore; so now he must have two choices and two Ordinations: We choose him for our Pastor, says the particular Church he belongs to, and we, say the other, to Ruling. And besides, in his Ordination, the people have an interest of presence and joining in the fasting and prayer at his Ordination: and this therefore must be performed, either in a panegyrical meeting of all, which cannot be, or in all the several Churches, which will multiply the Ordination of them.   

The major Proposition confirmed.  
IN regard that the main Argumentation of such as contend for a presbyterial government (as in their writings and otherways appears) is from the mention of the Elders of such and such a Church as, Jerusalem, &c. having many Congregations (as they suppose) the consequence of the Major was taken so much for granted as on all sides agreed on, as it was less insisted upon the first day; but being denied and answered thus, that they bear not the relation of Elders, but of a presbytery, because, quod convenit toti quâ toti non convenit cuilibet parti; And that if Elders, yet in sensu composito non diviso, As a colonel is a colonel to a particular Regiment, but in a council of War, not so to all Regiments: A head of a particular Tribe is an head to his own Tribe divisively, but not so to all the Tribes, and the like.  
For that logical axiom, 'tis true, quod convenit toti quâ toti non convenit cuilibet parti, and so here, that which doth competere toti, to the whole of these Elders, belongs not to every part; for take them all as met together, they are a presbytery, and accordingly each Elder is not a presbytery to all these Congregations, nor doth the Argument suppose it, but only that if they be a common presbytery to all these Congregations, that they then bear the relation of Elders. As take an heap of stones, 'tis true each stone is not an heap of stones, but each stone is a stone in that heap. So this Company of Elders, must be supposed both a presbytery, and also Elders to this whole people and every member of them: which is farther proved thus;  
1. The Scriptures would have the people look at them and honour them as Elders in all acts of ruling as well as in preaching, and especially wherein the most and chief of ruling lies, and wherein the excellency of their ruling is seen; They rule most and best when met in this common presbytery; upon that relation we are to honour them, as performing this rule, and under that relation they must be said to perform it: The Elders that rule well, are worthy of double honour, especially those that labour in the word and Doctrine. Tim. Epist. 1. chap. 5. ver. 17. And besides, otherwise we destroy the relation of Elders, quâ Elders, in the highest acts of governing, which are exercised only in a presbytery.  
2. The New Testament doth indifferently and promiscuously use the word presbytery and the word Elders, of the same persons in relation to the same people; and therefore to whom these Elders are supposed to be a presbytery, they must bear the relation of Elders, Matthew chap. 21. 23. those that are called Elders of the people, are called, Luke 22. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the presbytery of the people: so as if they related as a presbytery to the people, to the same people they related as Elders.  
Secondly, For that distinction of their being Elders only in a community to all those Congregations as one Church, in sensu aggregato, but not in sensu diviso, to every person thereof, as was instanced in Burgesses, &c. First, This Church as it is totum aggregatum, is but an abstract notion, but the rule and government of the Elders in a presbytery, falls upon persons in particular, and every member of that Church; if therefore they be Elders in the presbytery to that Church, it must be that they are Elders to every person therein. Again it must be remembered where we are, namely upon what the Scriptures hold forth, so the Proposition runneth. And if there had been those differing relations of Elders, which from those similitudes in commonwealths, Armies, and the Universities are given, it were necessary the Scripture should have held it forth by like differing names and respects, or by differing charges whereby it might appear that this relation obligeth them to this duty, and this other relation to that, which being not done is therefore to us a fiction. That it was necessary appears from the instances themselves, As in that of the Tribes, there were general Elders of all the Tribes, and there were (and perhaps some of them the same men) that were Heads and Elders of the particular Tribes. But as this was a differing relation and respect in the same, or diverse persons, so they had names and titles of difference and distinction: For the Heads general as we may call them, were called Elders of the people. The particular Elders of particular 
Matth. 21. 33.  Tribes, were called by way of distinction from them, Elders of such Cities, Families, &c. And there were as distinct laws given in such cases, the Elders of the several Tribes did such and such particulars in their Tribes respectively, and the general Elders had reserved cases of Blasphemy, &c. set down by the Law. So in that instance of the Heads of colleges, and Heads of the University, there is as a differing, so a distinguishing Character: the names are changed, the particular bodies are called colleges, the general Body the University, and their several special relations to their colleges is expressed by the Title of Masters of such and such colleges, and the other by the title of Heads to the University. Yea, and accordingly there are differing statutes, the local statutes for each college a part, or for colleges as colleges, and the duties of Masters in their special relations, and there are statutes for the University and their duties as Heads thereof: and this distinction and difference was necessary, if there were this differing relation. But for the case in hand, if we come to the New Testament to find out these several jurisdictions and relations of Elders, therein we still read but simply and singly Elders and Churches as Relatives, no such note of distinction. And also speaking of the duties of Elders to the people, and people to Elders, it speaks simularly and univocally: so as whoever will take upon them to be Elders, all those duties fall upon them, let them distinguish how they can. And to confirm this, the Instances in the Minor serve. And where the Scripture doth not distinguish, we are not to distinguish. And if the Elders of a particular Congregation are Elders to that Church, both in sensu diviso and every member thereof, and also in sensu composito, in their Presbyteries unto the whole, than those general Elders must bear the like relation to that classical Church and every Member of it, else the difference is so vast, and the consequent difference of duties thereupon depending such, as it was necessary a distinction should have been made in Scripture, that each might know their duties.  
If all the Records, laws, and Ruled cases of this kingdom, should in setting down the ordinary government thereof, have made mention only and singly of Burgesses (as the Rulers) and of Corporations (as the Correlate to them) and used no other distinguishing word, and there were undeniably Burgesses of every Incorporate town continued from antiquity: if any would afterwards pretend that this word Corporation was intended by our Ancestors to import an Association or Community of many of these Corporations into one Shire, and that by Burgesses of those Corporations were meant a community of all those Burgesses in one body for government, and so pretend the same names without distinction, and say they were also meant: yea, and further, if the laws and Charters concerning such Burgesses in each Corporation, the duties given them in charge by the laws in their relations to their Corporations, did run without any distinction of what the Burgesses in the supposed greater Corporation should do, in that relation and community from what the same Burgesses in their lesser Corporations in a more proper relation: Yea, and if the Duties set down in those laws mutually between Corporations and those Burgesses should argue an inconsistency with the government of Burgesses over many Corporations in common (as the minor here shows it to be in our case) but all naturally fall in with that of Burgesses over single Corporations: In this case to say that therefore this kingdom did hold forth, there might not be (that is according to the laws thereof) such a government of the Burgesses of Corporations over many, were not this a right way of arguing to overthrow such a pretence.  
And if in answer to such arguments it should be said, that both these might be consistent: For that in foreign States, and kingdoms, and Societies, there are Burgesses of particular Corporations, and there are Burgesses in an Assembly of Parliament, so called by way of distinction, met in common, for the ordinary government of all those Corporations in common, and therefore the like may be here in this. The reply were easy, that what ever such distinction there is in other States, yet the question is of such Burgesses as the laws of this State hold forth, the question is of such Burgesses as this kingdom hath set up, where there is no distinction of Burgesses of Corporations, and Burgesses in Parliament mentioned. But on the contrary only, one single uniform stile and title in the laws, namely, Burgesses of the Corporation, and duties suited thereunto. Now parallel to this case are our Arguments, and the Answers given thereto. Lastly, if they be Elders only in sensu aggregato, yet so far as they are acknowledged thus Elders, so far will many of the incongruities in the minor follow them, and fall upon them, as that still they are but merely ruling Elders, and that there be Deacons in sensu aggregato.   

Reasons against, and exceptions to the first proof of the first Assertion. viz. That the Church of Jerusalem consisteth of more Congregations than one from the multitude of Believers.  
FIrst Reasons to show there were not more than could meet in one place.  
The Holy Ghost hath from first to last as on purpose showed this, as if his scope had been aforehand to prevent and to preclude all reasonings to the contrary.  
1. In the beginnings of that Church, their meetings are set out to us by two Adjuncts. First, that they met {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, with one accord in the same duty of prayer, Acts Chap. 1. Verse 14. And secondly, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, together in one and the same company, Verse 15. Which therefore is there and usually translated in one place. And that here by these words the intent of the Holy Ghost is to show their meeting in one and the same Assembly, is evident. For whereas in the 15 Verse 'tis said, Peter stood up in the midst of them, as therefore being present together in one company, he adds, And the number of them that were {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that is, Present together in company, were an hundred and twenty.  
2. Then Chap. 2. Verse 1. Another meeting of theirs for worship at Pentecost is continued to be expressed in the same phrases a second time, They were all with one accord in one place.  
3. Then when about three thousand, yet still some of their meetings then for some acts of worship are recorded to have been as before with one accord, as joining unanimously in the same duty, and in stead of that former expression {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} used of the former meetings, there is the mention of the place itself, where they met, set down to supply it, and so to interpret it, and shows it was still in one Assembly, Verse 46. They continued daily with one accord in the Temple, as mentioning the very place where they had their most frequent meetings which were for hearing, as being there altogether in one Assembly; and not as coming thither only for Jewish worship: For it is said of these as of the former meetings mentioned, which were proper to themselves, That they continued with one accord. And though they held these meetings in this place for preaching, that the Jews might be present to hear, &c. Yet that hindered not, but it was a Church meeting to them, wherein they continued with one accord; which expression is still used of all their Christian meetings throughout this Story, Acts 1. 14. Acts 4. 24. Acts 5. 12. Acts 15. 25.  
4. When there was a further addition to these, Chap. 5. Verse 1. (whether to five thousand or no is spoken to afterwards) yet in that Chapter, he making a description of their State, in almost all the very same particulars by which he had done it before, Chap. 2. from Verse 43. unto the end (as by the parallel comparing of these two passages of the Story will appear;) he lastly speaking of a meeting of theirs (which is the point in hand) as carefully puts in, as in the former. Verse 14. And they were all with one accord in Solomon's Porch, the same words he had used Chap. 2. Verse 46. Their union and joining together with one accord being carefully indigitated, and the place named in stead of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as was observed before. And that the [All that met] were not the Apostles only, appears not only by the forementioned parallel of this with Chap. 2. Verse 46. where their being with one accord in the Temple, is spoken of all the multitude, and so here. But secondly, that all the Apostles should be met with one accord in any duty, and not the people who are said to continue in the Apostles Doctrine and Prayer, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or with one accord still in the story of this Church referring to communion in some holy duty, as Chap. 1. Verse 14. and Chap. 4. Verse 24. is most unlikely. And Solomon's Porch was a place large enough to hold them, and fitted for preaching and to hear, which in John 10. Verse 22. is called the Temple; and so is the place intended in Acts 2. Verse 46. They met in the Temple, that is, in the Porch of Solomon. It was the outer Court as Josephus lib. 20. cap. 8. It was the place where CHRIST used to walk and preach, and the Apostles also, Chap. 3. Verse 11. The multitude ran to Solomon's Porch.  
5. When again upon mention of this multiplication of Disciples, the Deacons are to be chosen, the Apostles called the multitude Chap. 6. Ver. 2. and not persons selected, but all; for Verse 5. they are called the whole multitude, and they are spoken to as together, For the saying pleased the whole, and the whole chose seven men out from among them, and set them before the Apostles, Ver▪ 6. as being in one place together, and they prayed (in which the multitude had an interest to join with them) and laid on them hands. And this meeting was certainly a Church meeting, and yet still in some one place; and therefore though it might follow that always they should not have met together in one, yet they both did and could.  
6. After that great dispersion mentioned Chap. 8. ver. 1. Then as they might more conveniently meet in one place and assembly, so that they did so, it is as carefully recorded, that so the Holy Ghost might hold forth this from the first unto the last mention of this Church, Acts 15. Acts 21. 22. The multitude must needs come together. And to interpret {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or with one accord, which the Holy Ghost carries through all, to be intended of the joining of the same persons in the same act of worship (for which they still did meet) is genuine; for it imports that which is the spirit and life of public worship, which of all other actions done by a multitude is to have the nearest union of spirits, as that wherein the Communion of Saints in worship consists. And then naming the place where they met also it must needs import oneness of Assembly, which also holds forth in this example this duty▪ That as Saints when met in worship should join with one accord, so living in a place together, should as far as possibly may, join themselves to one Assembly; and this carries with it such an appearance as is not in the other sense. And that the Holy Ghost should in the same Story of the same Church set forth the unity of their first meetings, as in one and the same individual Assembly, by this expression of being in one, and with one accord, Acts▪ Chap. 1. Chap. 2. and in the next mention not far off, carry along one of the same expressions, namely [with one accord] and together therewith shall name the place of their meeting, and yet in the latter intend not One, but meetings in several companies in that place. This we humbly submit to better judgements.   

Secondly Exceptions.  
1. For the mention of five thousand, Chap. 4. Verse 4. This cannot be evinced from that place that the five thousand were a new number added to the three thousand. The words are these, Howbeit many of them that heard the word, believed, and the number of the men was about five thousand. But that this number of five thousand should refer to them that believed, is not certain; seeing both the Greek will bear it and favour it, as well to be meant of the number that heard, as of the men that believed; and of the two, that former is the more probable, that he should say of the men that heard they were five thousand, and that of them that heard many believed, this sounds well, and is no way forced; but five thousand men to be converted at once, is that which was never afore nor since. And the great conversion that our Divines have instanced in, is the three thousand, Acts Chap. 2. and not in this five thousand. And if the scope of the Holy Ghost therein, why the number of the men that heard should be here reckoned to be five thousand be asked after, it was to show what had occasioned the persecution which he had spoken of in the Verse before. Namely this, that such a multitude of the people should be taught and preached to; this fretted the Pharisees that came upon Peter and John; and with this agrees 
Beza in 2 Cor. ●. ●3 Steph. Budeus, Eu●●ath.  the second Verse, that they were grieved they taught the people; the effect whereof is, that many of them that heard believed, notwithstanding this persecution, but how many of these is not certain. And Beza and Calvin and many others of our protestant Writers judge this number not to be of this new accession of Converts, but the total number including the former, and the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, although translated men, is when put alone (as there) all one with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Females, as well as Males, which especially may be so taken, because it is spoken of such a promiscuous auditory. And if any should affirm it meant of Males only, and them now converted, it would make a greater Miracle than any other recorded, especially when the people are said to be converted, Verse 2. that did alike run to see the Miracle.  
2 Exception is, That it may be supposed that all that are mentioned to be converted remained not constant members of that Church abiding at Jerusalem until the dispersion; and so, though the Holy Ghosts scope may be to show the increase of Converts to the faith, yet not of such as continued all that while at Jerusalem; and our reasons for that are these.  
First those three thousand who were converted, Chap. 2. were not settled dwellers at Jerusalem, but strangers, Commorants of the ten Tribes, which were dispersed in all those Countries mentioned in the 2 Chapter, Verse 9 who came up to the feast of Pentecost, as the manner of the Jews was, Acts 21. 20, 27, 28. Jews that lived in Asia came to the feast of Pentecost as Paul also did, compared with Acts 20. 16. And the word which is translated Dwellers at Jerusalem, is interpreted by an eminent critic, Sojourners at Jerusalem during this Feast, although the word 
Mede Diatribe.  signifies both, and to that end quotes the Septuagint in 1. King's 17. 20. where Elijah cries unto the Lord, saying, O Lord my God hast thou also brought evil upon the Widow, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} with whom I sojourn only? and that which confirms it is, that they are said to be dwellers or inhabitants of Mesopotamia and Judea, and Capadocea, Verse 9 They could not fixedly belong as dwellers to both, they were therefore rather sojourners in Jerusalem now at the Feast, though fixed dwellers in all those places: For if they were fixed dwellers in Jerusalem, to what end whilst they were at Jerusalem should the Evangelist tell us they were sojourners in Mesopotamia; and they must needs rather be dwellers there, because they are said to understand every one his own language. And that which strengthens this is, that in the Greek there is this difference in the words in Verses 5 and 9 in that they are said {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Jerusalem. As for the present there, yea, and as to come {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from out of every Nation: but in the 9 Verse he changeth it, and says, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as inhabiters of Mesopotamia, and those other Countries where their fixed possessions were. And therefore Verse 14. he calls them Men, Jews and Dwellers at Jerusalem, as two sorts, and Verse 22. Men of Israel; the stile given those of the ten Tribes scattered, Men devout, as Verse 5. who came up at those solemn times, having wives and children and their families at home, to whom they used after a time to return. Now although these were added and made members of that Church, and are said to continue in the Apostles doctrine: yet that will not necessarily imply that they continued all the time till the dispersion at Jerusalem; but whilst they were there, they were {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that is, they cleaved to the Apostles: but to think that many of them coming as strangers should not go down to their wives and children, which Nature taught them to provide for, and religion taught them to take care of their souls, or fetch them up to them: so as this might well be a fluid Church, ebbing and flowing as touching the residence of its members: yea, some of these were of Judea, Verse 9 and so of the Country about; and of them might be Churches erected in their proper dwellings is rationally supposable. For in that persecution in Acts 8. 1. it is said that Paul persecuted Disciples in other places then at Jerusalem, Acts 26. 10. Which things I also did at Jerusalem, (Says he) and in other places at Damascus. And also it is confirmed by this, that upon the ceasing of Paul's persecution it is said Acts 9 31. then had the church's rest through Judea and Galilee, and are said to be at rest in distinction from the persecution raised, Chap. 8. 1.  
3 Exception is, that they in those Countries and times had often great Assemblies consisting of many thousands hearers at once, that did and could hear, Luke 12. 1. Christ preached to Myriads, many thousands; and Acts 13. 45. almost a whole City came to hear the word of God by Paul. And at Charenton, how many thousands may and do hear, is well known; and so in many places of England. And Moses sometime spoke in the ears of all the people, and so Ezra Chapter 10. Verse 9 and 10. And 'tis known by experience, that as in hot Countries they may see as far again, through the pureness of the air, so they may hear at a far greater distance, then in our colder Climate.  
4 Exception is, that this being the first Church, and whereof all the Apostles were the Officers, those therefore that dwelled there would certainly abide together as one Church without parting or dividing, even till they came to the utmost proportion that the constitution of a Church was capable of; and so Maximum quod sic, And continue together in one, for the more united strength and glory of holding forth the name of Christ in one body, united for the honour of Religion and communicating in Ordinances together.  
5 Exception is, that they had during all this time of their multitudes until the persecution of Paul arose, the greatest freedom and liberty even to the utmost; for the people magnified them, Chap. 5. Verse 12. they had favour with all the people, Chap. 2. Verse 47. Insomuch, that although the Rulers fell upon two of them, John and Peter, yet they were enforced to let them go, finding nothing how to punish them, because of the people, Chapter 4. 21. Besides that, it was no new thing amongst the Jews for Sects to have great multitudes to follow and cleave to them, and to preach in any place, as in Spain and Italy, and to baptize openly as John and Christ did.   

Reasons and Answers to the Appendix added to the former proofs, viz. That the dispersion mentioned in Acts 8. 1. doth not simply prove such a scattering, as that there might not remain more Congregations than one in that Church, Acts 9 31. Acts 12. 24. Acts 21. 20.  
THus having showed the multitudes not arising to that number, but, that they might meet in one, now after the dispersion much less, and to that end let the greatness of the Persecution be considered to demonstrate the greatness of this dispersion; It's called not a Persecution only, but a great Persecution, both extensively and intensively, for the extent of it to all sorts of persons, entering into every house, vers 3. and for the height of it, it being to imprisonment, even unto death, Chap. 22. 4. Acts 26. 10. It is also called, a making havoc of the Church, vers. 9 The object of this Persecution was not Preachers only but Christians of all sorts indifferently, for it is said indefinitely to be upon the Church, vers. 1. and vers. 3. It is called an entering into every house, hailing men and women: and in Chap. 26. Paul speaking of this very Persecution (wherein he had a special hand) says vers. 10. that he imprisoned many of the Saints (not Preachers only) and ver. 9 his aim was promiscuously against the Name of Jesus, and so any that professed his Name: Unto this end compare the varying the expression used by the Holy Ghost, when speaking of this Persecution, and of another mentioned Acts 12. 1. there it is said, Herod stretched forth his hand to vex certain of the Church; but here it is against the Church in Jerusalem, Men and women in every house, and all except the Apostles; the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} [except] there is to show, that none of the Apostles were scattered, though the generality of others were; if men guifted fled away, than others also, except we suppose the people more courageous to stay by it then the Teachers. And whereas it is said, that these that were dispersed, went about preaching the word, vers. 4. First, It argueth not that Preachers only or chiefly were dispersed; for (as Calvin saith) it comes in to show what was the fruit of the dispersion; and we may well suppose women and whole families to have been scattered abroad, who yet preached not: And secondly, It was ordinary in those times, for men that were not by Office Ministers, occasionally to teach the word in private ways of converse, yea and otherwise; And that is not called teaching, which is by way of Sermon to a multitude, for vers. 25. of this chap. Philip in private conference taught the Eunuch, as Aquila and Priscilla taught Apollo's; and they are not called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as having an Office, but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as referring to the act, the work they did; And that the word seems to sound as if they made it their work. It may well be attributed to the zeal of those days to gain proselytes, and not to an Office committed to them; they went not forth by mission but persecution; And here the many Congregations are brought but to an (it might be) and the grand Proposition itself, is but an (it may be,) And how can it may be, be proved by an it might be? especially in such things as need have a strong foundation for matters upon which so great alterations are like to be made: But it is said, that it appears that there were multitudes of believers there after that time, by Acts 9 31. Acts 12. 24. Acts 21. 20.  
First, For Acts 9 31. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, signifies not ordinarily a great number made up, but an increase (Matth. 21. 12. & 1 Pet. 1. 2. Grace be multiplied, it is the same word) not in number, but in measure. Again they are the Churches of Judea, Galilee, and of Samaria; But what is all this to prove that there were so many in the Church of Jerusalem as could not meet in one? For Acts 21. 20. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} how many thousands doth not argue it; For first it was the Feast of Pentecost, when Paul came now up to Jerusalem in Acts 20. 16. it is said of this journey, that he ●asted if possible, to be at Jerusalem upon the day of Pentecost: When the Jews out of all quarters came to Jerusalem, and the great concourse that then would be there at the Feast, moved him to aim to be there at that time; And by the journal of Paul thither, from his first setting out from Philippi, chap. 20. ver. 6. which was when the Passeover was ended, eight weeks before this ensuing Feast of Pentecost, and also by computing the days of his travailing, which the Holy Ghost hath recorded, vers. 16. 21. Acts 21. 2. it appears he came in few weeks unto Tyre, but 40. miles off from Jerusalem, time enough to come to the Feast; and no wonder if at the Feast he found thousands of the Jews, and this is confirmed by the 27 verse, for the Jews which laid hold on him in the Temple, were as it is said, Jews of Asia, not of Judea. Secondly, The word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, being put without any other word of number, signifies no more than a great multitude; as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or a greatness, as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as Plato hath it; and being put indefinitely, is all one to say thousands, or many; as the Latins also use a definite for an indefinite, as Sexcenta possum proferr● decreta, as Tully speaks.   

To the second proof of the first Head.  
By the many Apostles and other Preachers in this Church of Jerusalem; For if there were but one Congregation, than each Apostle preached but seldom, which will not stand with Acts 6. 2.  

First, For the Apostles.  
THey took all opportunities to fill their hands with work, preaching daily in the Temple and in every house, Acts 5. 42. Chap. 2. 46. Paul also taught in Ephesus, as publicly in the Congregation, so from house to house, Acts 20. 20. Also when any in the places abroad in Judea, or else where, were converted (and many Churches were then erected in Judea) the Apostles went abroad, as Chap. 8. shows; and besides, how were the twelve employed, when for forty days they met in an upper room, Acts 1. and had but an hundred and twenty for their flock.   

Secondly, For the many Teachers.  
In those times there were many guifted men that were not Officers, who occasionally instructed others, as Aquila did Apollo's, yea those gifts were so plentiful, that in that one Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 14. 23. almost all of them had Doctrines, prophesying, speaking with tongues, and yet these were not Officers, so as if Congregations should be multiplied according to the number of such guifted men, than there would have been almost as many Teachers as members of Congregations. And the pouring out of the Holy Ghost, which was more ordinary then, did not make every man a Teacher by Office, for then all those in Samaria should have been made teachers, Acts 8. And that not any of those were in Office, seems evident by this; That when the Deacons were chosen, Chap. 6. there is no mention made of Elders in their Ordination, in which if any Elders had been, they had had an interest: We read Acts 15. When there were Elders, though Apostles were also then in that Church, both are mentioned together. And it appears the Apostles had managed all the affairs of that Church until then; those Deacons being the first choice of any sort of Officers, the work of Administration of all sorts having lain on the Apostles hands.    

To the third proof of the first Head.  
The diversity of Languages amongst the believers, Acts 2. 8, 9, 10, 11. and Acts the 6. doth argue more Congregations than one in the Church of Jerusalem.  
FIrst, 'Tis true, there were in that second of the Acts, Out of all Nations that heard the Apostles speak in the several Languages of the Countries they were borne in; but yet these were all either Jews or proselytes, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, worshippers, as ver. 5. who came up to worship, and some parts of the worship were audible; and though borne in other Countries (the Jews being dispersed) yet all were generally learned, and understood the Hebrew tongue, the language of their own Nation, even as to this day the Jews and their Children do; which seems evident from the story in the 20, 21, and 22. Chapters of the Acts, Paul came up with divers Grecians to the Feast of Pentecost, Chap. 20. ver. 4. unto which the Jews out of all quarters came, and being all at a solemn meeting in the Temple, chap. 21. ver. 27. The Jews out of Asia, strangers, stirred up all the people against him, and when, chap. 22. ver. 2. He made a speech to them, and they heard he spoke the Hebrew tongue, they kept silence and heard him patiently: And further those mentioned Acts 2. did understand all of them Peter's Sermon; and though others spoke besides Peter to them in their own language, the wonderful things of God, yet that was but a preparatory sign to them; as 1 Cor. 14. 22. making way for their Conversion, vers. 11, 12, and 13. but the means of their Conversion was Peter's Sermon after; and it was he also, that gave direction to them all what to do to be saved: and therefore it must be spoken of some one common tongue, they all understood, and those gifts of languages given to the Apostles, were not out of a necessity to instruct those new Converts only, but to fit them when they should go abroad into all the world, and to be a sign to the Jews at present to convince them.  
Secondly, for the Grecian widows, Acts 6. the Hellenists that lived amongst the Jews, might well be supposed to understand Hebrew; and that these had not several Congregations from the rest, appears by this; That the whole multitude together met, and chose the Deacons, It was a joint act, and if of differing languages, wherein the one understand not the other, occasioning such a distinction of Congregations (as the proof would hold forth) how could they all have agreed in one meeting on the same man? but the argument as well holds against the presbyterial Association of those Congregations into one Church, people and Elders, unto which and in the communion and exercise whereof such Correspondencies and Intercourses are needful, as they require one common language.   

To the second Branch of this Argument.  
That all these Congregations were under one presbyterial GOVERNMENT.  
Proofs.  
1. Because they were but one Church.  
Though it be one, yet they not being more than could meet in one, the Argument concludes not.  
2 proof. The Elders of that Church are mentioned.  
There is no mention of any Elders in this Church, until after the aforesaid Dispersion, Act. 8. And so the weight of this Argument will depend upon the proof of this; That after the dispersion there were many Congregations, which the Reverend Assembly doth not so positively affirm. The proof of their being such a Presbytery as the Proposition intends, doth depend upon this their being called Elders to that Church, we nowhere read them called a Presbytery, and that therefore they are Elders, but they are therefore a Presbytery (as here it is argued) because they are Elders to that Church; Now if they be Elders in common, because a Presbytery, (as was said in answer to the first Argument) than they are not to be argued a Presbytery only, because they are Elders in Common; For than the Argument runs in Circulo; And the chief and first reason of their being Elders (for no other is mentioned) is accordingly held forth in their being Elders to that Church in common, whereas according to presbyterial Principles, there is a primary relation of Elders, quà Elders, to their particular fixed Congregations.   

Reasons against the third proof of the second Branch, viz. That the Apostles did the ordinary Acts of Presbyters as Presbyters in the Church of Jerusalem, doth prove a presbyterial Government in that Church before the dispersion.  
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 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.  
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, than 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.  
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, 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 joining with the Eldership thereof, 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.  
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 styles 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 moneys 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 Christ's 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.  
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 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 third, viz. That they in their Proceedings did join 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 than 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, than 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▪  
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, than the correlate to it, namely, Church, could not be considered as presbyterial.   

Reasons against the fourth and last proof of the second Branch. Viz. That the Elders did meet together for Acts of Government, Act. 11. ult. Act. 15. 4. 6. 22. Act. 21. 17, 18.  
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 Paul's 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  
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 than 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 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.  

Reasons against the alleging, Act. 15. for the meeting of the Elders of Jerusalem, for presbyterial Acts of Government.  
1. If it were a meeting of Elders for Acts of Government, than 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.  
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.  
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 aught 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 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 secondly, we deny it to have been such an ordinary formal Synod. The jurisdiction of Synods is founded upon this necessary requisite thereunto, That there be Commissioners from all those Churches representing them, present, or called to be so. And the power of the jurisdiction cannot reach nor extend further than to such Churches as have sent Commissioners thereunto. The weight then of this synodical power depends on the proof of this, That all those Churches sent Commissioners to this Assembly, which if either it be not proved, or the contrary thereunto found true, the authority of those decrees (as from those Elders here) will prove not to have been Acts of Government, further than the Apostles authority, who joined in it, was stamped on it; to affirm that Commissioners from them all were present, because the decrees did bind them, is to beg what is denied, when another just reason may be given of their binding, if any such authority were in them: and our reasons to the contrary are these.  
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 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.  
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 everywhere attributed to the Elders in Jerusalem, So Chap. 16. 4. The Decrees of the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. 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, than what Christ commanded, as Matth. 28. ult. And to say the Denomination was from the more eminent part, namely, the Elders of that Church 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 than 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 Paul's 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 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 judgement 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 fall'n 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 them then, (viz. matter of offence) that then they would bind us now: but the things being enjoined, but as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 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 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.  
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 pupunishments in which, Government doth properly lie 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 than 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 judgement of the other Apostles; For indeed Paul and Barnabas did declare their judgements, the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 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 dogmatic authority as a Minister to rebuke, exhort, and yet acts of Jurisdiction are not his alone, but of others conjoined with him.  
Neither, secondly, doth the titles given to these results of theirs argue a Jurisdiction in that they are called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Act. 16. 4. For although the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (Verse 19 of this 15. Chap.) This is my judgement, which being voted and agreed upon by the rest they are called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. 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 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 Syriack 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 men's 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, 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 men's 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 men's shoulders; which is spoken but of a doctrinal declaring and pressing men's 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 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.  
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.  
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 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 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.  
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 alotment small enough to be set apart for the pains 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 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.    

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

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 than 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 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, & 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 Burrough 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 Scripture holds not forth two sorts of Presbyteries thus specifically distinct, may be 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, than gifts of Healings, &c. They have not only particular names and titles, but special notes of distinction added, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 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.  
Throughout the New Testament we find this word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 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 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 Colloquel, and Synods: so in the episcopal republic there was the like variety.   

Sect. 4.  
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, 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, than Consistories? Or is there any thing in the word directing a different composition or constitution in these?   

Sect. 5.  
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 any thing 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 then in the other, this altars not the state in respect of the matter; for if the number be competent, that is, so many as two or three may agree, Matth. 18. 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: practise many times maketh them equal.   

Sect. 6.  
Secondly, Now for the Formale, the uniting of this matter into a Consessus or Caetus, 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 or difference between Presbytery and Presbytery in respect either of the matter or the form.   

Sect. 7.  
Thirdly, Nor thirdly, do we find any thing in the Scriptures making them, as from different employments, or functions, to differ; first, we 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 avouches Zepperus, Zanchy, and others as of this opinion. The Congregation, though but minima Ecclesiola, yet may reform, that is, suspend, excommunicate, &c. Renitentibus correspondentiis. So Voetius in his Theses, & desperata causa Papatus, lib. 2. Sect. 2. c. 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.   

Sect. 8.  
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 are left to the parochial Presbytery: Thus some Presbyterians divide the work. Others possibly otherwise. But how can we 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 the Scripture mentioneth, which doubtless they may, 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.   

Sect. 9  
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 of 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.   

Sect. 10.  
It hath been the wisdom of States to keep and preserve the bounds and limits of their Judicatures evident, and distinct, and as free from controversy as may be. If Laws and Ordinances about matters of m●um and ●uum, 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 then the dividing of a kingdom within itself.  
Is man wiser in his Generation than Jesus Christ? He is our lawgiver, the Government is laid upon his shoulders; he is the wonderful 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 he hath ordered Authority and Jurisdiction with the Officers and Offices, for the managing of it so evident, as not to put us to search in a dark corner for directions. We cannot be said to be clear in our rule when we are thus enforced out of one word, and but once used, to raise so many Thrones, or forms of Government, especially it being foreseen by Christ that such is the nature of man as nothing occasions more bitter contention than that lusting which is in us to have Authority and jurisdiction over others.    
Sic subscribitur: 

Tho. Goodwin,  
Philip Nye.  
Jer. Burroughes,  
Sidrach Sympson.  
William Bridge,  
William Greenhill,  
William Carter.    
Concordat cum Originali.  
Adoniram Byfield, Scriba.