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 Corne-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 Presbyteriall 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 injoyned at his perill not to Print more then Three hundred of them It is further Ordered That no man presume to Re-print 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 Elsynge Cler. Parl. D. Com. REASONS against the Third Proposition concerning Presbyteriall Government and the Proofes thereof Viz. The Scripture holds forth that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyteriall Governement Humbly Presented If many Congregations having all Elders already affixed respectively unto them may be under a Presbyteriall government Then all those Elders must sustaine a speciall 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 sustaine 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 Presbyteriall Government necessarily drawes such a speciall 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 Presbyteriall government is taken by the Presbyteriall 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 speciall relation as is evident from the practise and principles of this government For when the Congregations in Shires are divided into severall Presbyteries or Deanries the Elders though Neighbours of a bordering Presbyterie intermeddle not with the Congregations under another Presbyterie and yet Neighbour Elders It is therefore a speciall relation puts the difference that those of these Presbyteries do judge the Congregations under them as having a speciall relation to them such as not to other Congregations The minor Proposition For the proofe 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 Pastors 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 it selfe 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 your selves 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 speciall 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 then 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 counsell 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 severall 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 respectivenesse 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 faithfull Minister that is your proper Pastor So the flock {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is your severall 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 soules as those that must give an accompt 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 severall acts of the same Office however if but one yet still the ordinary rule over them was not farther extendible then their ordinary preaching if two sorts of Officers they being Officers together in the same Church if the Pastors power of ruling extends no farther then his preaching then the meere ruling Elders power or his that is assistant to him must extend no farther then the Pastors also this is the naturall obligation to obedience and so is the measure to set the bounds of the extent of ordinary Church power 'T is one argument used against Episcopall power that they are inforced to obey him that speakes not the word to them nor watches over their soules And this holds as well against these Presbyteriall Officers when a man to be excommunicated comes before such if he sayes I am not bound to obey you in such authoritative way nor doe I owe a subjection as to a power of censure in you for many yea most of you never spake the word unto me nor did watch over my soule nay perhaps the man can say he never saw their faces afore And it availes not to say that they may occasionally preach for take two places more the 1 to the Thes. chap. 5. ver.
flock and themselves not Curats and so personally obliged according to the rules in Scripture and yet cannot performe it which is a worse Incongruitie 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 Hebrewes To watch over their soules 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 governe them in greater matters and to admonish them as with others when publickly met in a Consistorie and am bound to no other acts of Eldership and yet to this particular Congregation I am obliged to private admonition rule watchfulnesse c. Where hath the Scripture set these bounds or thus parted them And therfore certainly all these places hold forth singly only the Elders and their duties of a particular Church fixed thereto as knowing no other 'T was 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 Presbyterie 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 severall Arguments alone by themselves against the maine 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 allowes 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 doe with their consciences Looke 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 Presbyterie doe rule over them for they performe one part of the Elders duty namely Ruling as the Preaching Elders doe the other and therefore by the equity of the same law that speakes 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 then every mans life that is a member of that Classicall Church into their hands the enjoyment of all Ordinances for ever And so the power of deposing their Ministers already fix'd to them and of refusing to ordaine 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 Panegyricall meetings And it is strengthened by this further paralell 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 Presbyterie doe joyne to ordaine an Officer then all the people quâ Church must joyne in choosing or approving him neither can their common right of chusing be swallowed up by the interest of their Elders ordaining him And if it be said they all choose by vertue of the generall 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 Classicall Church it is asked when a fix'd 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 Pastors 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 sayes 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 joyning in the fasting and prayer at his Ordination and this therefore must be performed either in a panegyricall meeting of all which cannot be or in all the severall Churches which will multiply the Ordination of them The major Proposition confirmed IN regard that the maine Argumentation of such as contend for a Presbyteriall government as in their writings and otherwayes appeares 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 lesse insisted upon the first day but being denied and answered thus that they bear not the relation of Elders but of a Presbyterie because quod convenit toti quâ toti non convenit cuilibet parti And that if Elders yet in sensu composito non diviso As a Colonell is a Colonell to a particular Regiment but in a Councell 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 Logicall Axiome 't is 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 Presbyterie and accordingly each Elder is not a Presbyterie to all these Congregations nor doth the Argument suppose it but only that if they be a common Presbyterie to all these Congregations that they then beare the relation of Elders As take an heape
that therefore two Elders associated may doe the like Secondly it is hard to suppose that these Apostles when all together should act with an inferiour power to what they put forth in a like case alone If Peter had beene himselfe alone in a Church new planted then and there hee must bee supposed to act as an Apostle because hee alone governed And shall these Apostles when they are all in one and joyne all together in one Act bee yet supposed to fall lower in their power under the formall exercise of it Thirdly if they had acted as Elders in a Colledge they might miscarry as Elders doe 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 hee was in that Office had power over all Churches To the third viz. That they in their Proceedings did joyne with others As in this choyce of the Deacons they did joyne with the multitude as also when they came to any other Churches they used to doe Neither doth that argue that they acted not as Apostles but as Elders For first they joyned in Acts with others and joyned others with themselves wherein they yet acted as Apostles thus in writing Scripture they joyned others with them as Paul joyned Silvanus and Timotheus in his Epistle to the Thessalonians and not meerely in the salutation for the expressions runne in their names also in that Epistle and Act. 15. The Apostles Elders yea and Brethren joyned in a Letter to the Churches But these as Apostles therefore so called in distinction from the Elders and the rest according to their severall 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 ordaine 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 joyned with them neither did therein lie their Apostolicall authority to doe all alone for then they seldome 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 Canonicall Scripture and therefore although that this Church of Hierusalem should choose their Deacons is a just example of the priviledge of a Church for if the Apostles when they were present allowed this interest to Churches then Elders should much more yet what the Apostles did by an Apostolicall power in these Congregations cannot bee drawn into example for Officers in that thing wherein their power Apostolicall lay which was to exercise acts of jurisdiction in severall Churches Neither fourthly will that helpe it That they exercised this Government in these Congregations supposed many as considered to bee one Church For if they acted not as Elders then the correlate to it namely Church could not bee considered as Presbyteriall Reasons against the fourth and last Proofe 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 Almes verse 29 30. compared Therefore the Elders of Jerusalem did meet together for Acts of Government In this Argument as the persons are mistaken so the Act for the Elders of Hierusalem are not mentioned but of Iudea as by comparing verses 29 30. it appeares And by this it might bee as well argued that the Elders in Judea met for Presbyteriall Government as that the Elders of Jerusalem seeing their Almes were carryed to the Elders of Judea as it is there said The receiving Almes which is the onely Act that is mentioned was not an Act of Government for Deacons may meet to receive Almes and yet meet not for Acts of government For that second place mentioned Acts 21. 20. where it is said Paul came in to James and all the Elders were present although wee read that all the Elders were present yet that they met for Acts of Presbyteriall government appeares not the occasion of the meeting was Pauls entertainment whom some of the brethren had received at his first comming verse 17. and now the Elders meet to receive him also A Christian duty of love and respect due to so great and famous an Apostle and Paul went not as cited but to visit and salute them as vers. 19. Secondly The Acts that passed were none of them Presbyteriall for Paul gave them an Historicall relation of what things God had wrought by his Ministery the matter of which relation was intended to provoke them as Brethren and fellow-labourers to glorify God as ver. 20. is said they did and not to give them an account as to a Consistory that met for Government Such narrations the Apostles made even to whole Churches as Paul and Barnabas at Antioch Act. 14. 27. When they had gathered the whole Church together which Church was of no more then to meet in one Assembly they rehearsed in like manner as here all that God had done by them and how hee had opened a doore of Faith to the Gentiles Neither will the advice they gave to Paul to prevent the scandall and offence the people would take at him argue authority much lesse government Neither was there any Act of Government put forth over their own Churches if supposed many Reasons against the alledging Act. 15. for the meeting of the Elders of Jerusalem for Presbyteriall Acts of Government 1. If it were a meeting of Elders for Acts of Government then it was a Presbyteriall meeting for Acts of Government But that it was no such meeting appeares because there was nothing done in it that may seem to have any bond in it but such as bound the Churches of Antioch Syria Cilicia as much as Jerusalem but this cannot bee in any Presbyteriall meeting for Acts of Government For such meetings have onely authoritative power over their own Church 2. The scope and end of this meeting was to give satisfaction to the offended Brethren of Antioch and dogmatically to declare their judgements in a difficult case of Conscience not to put forth any Act of Juridicall power upon any as appeares in the matter of their debate and the issue of all Of which more fully afterward And if it bee said that Peter reproved some of their own Members present such as had taught the necessity of the Ceremoniall Law Why tempt you God c. This was not delivered as an Act of Government formally by any vote of the Presbytery but in the way of Discourse But it was affirmed to bee sufficient to confirme the Proposition if it bee a Synodicall meeting Presbyteriall and Synodicall both it cannot
Honourable House of Commons is to all Parliamentary purposes as much a House when but two or three above forty as when foure hundred Nor doth this alwayes fall out that all Classicall Presbyteries have a greater number then some Parochiall Scriptures have determined neither how few will constitute a Classicall Presbytery nor how many may bee in a Parochiall Practice many times maketh them equall 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 Classicall by having Pastorall charges in such a division whosoever commeth so to be disposed of hee is no sooner Pastor to such a Parish but hee is eo nomine Member of such a Classis The Presbyters of a Parochiall Presbytery are as neerely united and more They are united in the choyce and call of the same Congregation they governe and united in the whole work of the Ministery over the same people so that they are not onely fellow Governours 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 forme Sect. 7. Thirdly Nor thirdly do wee finde any thing in the Scriptures making them as from different imployments or functions to differ first wee pretend and so it is in the proposition the one is superiour the other inferiour 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 doe 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 reforme 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 bee said which of these Presbyteries hath the greater or superiour power Sect. 8. Secondly the imployment or work of a Presbytery is to ordain excommunicate suspend admit Members appoint times for worship and the like The Classicall Presbytery reserve ordination and excommunication to themselves but the other are left to the Parochiall Presbytery Thus some Presbyterians divide the work Others possibly otherwise But how can wee affirm any such designment from the Scriptures if you have not two sorts either in name or nature to bee found there and none of these Acts or Administrations but may bee done by that one the Scripture mentioneth which doubtlesse they may seeing Ordination seemeth to bee specifyed in the Text if the greater then doubtlesse the lesser The Pastor in one place is said to exhort in another to comfort in another to visit the sicke this will not warrant distinct sorts of Pastors for there being but one sort spoken of in Scriptures wee must interpret all these severall Administrations to belong to that one Sect. 9. It was not found an easie work in this Assembly to finde two sorts of Elders teaching and ruling Notwithstanding all the Scripture hath said of these and in some places so plaine as if of purpose to distinguish them If it bee so hard a matter by Scripture light to hold forth two sorts of Presbyters it must needs bee more difficult to finde out two sorts of Presbyteries especially seeing as it is generally granted and this by the Presbyterians themselves that for above fifty yeeres after Christ and in the Apostles times there was but one kinde of Presbytery Sect. 10. It hath been the wisdome of States to keep and preserve the bounds and limits of their Judicatures evident and distinct and as free from controversie as may bee If Laws and Ordinances about matters of mâ—um and â—uum and such inferiour claimes should not bee so evident the authority of these Courts will bee in a readinesse to relieve wrongs and injuries through such mistakings But Controversies and clashings about these high and publique interests are no other in the issue then the dividing of a Kingdome within it selfe Is man wiser in his Generation then Jesus Christ Hee is our Law-giver the Government is laid upon his shoulders hee is the wonderfull 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 hee 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 Wee cannot bee said to bee cleere in our rule when wee are thus inforced out of one word and but once used to raise so many Thrones or Formes of Government especially it being foreseen by Christ that such is the nature of man as nothing occasions more bitter contention then 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 Matth. 21. 33. Beza in 2 Cor. â— â—3 Steph. Budeus Euâ—â—ath Mede Diatribe