Part 12
If thus the bounds cannot be fixed, we are still to seek even in cities what should be the bounds, and are as uncertain as in villages.
80 as the conclusion is, the bounds according to this measure are uncertain.
8. God doth not shape a spiritual government unto the political, and the bounds thereof.
Political government goes by the bounds of the soil, so doth not the spiritual.
All that do live within such a place, or within such a country, because they are of that soil, fall under the same political government ; but there is no reason that they should fall under the same spiritual.
4. If the frame of the church were to be conformed to the city government, then, as the city did take in the suburban towns, the daughters round about,
80 the charch should not be confined only to the compass of the city, but extend to # whole province, as the bishops argue for a diocesan church.
5. Christ's government is suitable to all ages, times, and places; but now in all ages and places there is not the city government, and there could not be the same rale for the government of charches in villages, and therefore it did not suit all places.
6. Jesus Christ's way is rather conformed to the synagogue way, for so the churches are called, and it is therefore conformed to the government of the synagogues, although in cities.
; 7. If this were the ordinance of God, to conform church government to the government of cities, then all in London should make one church, because it is but one city; and Alexandria and Grand Cairo, if it were converted, would be so too, nay, Rome itself (whereof the present Rome is but the tenth part of what it was, as Lipsins shews) must have been but one church if they had been all converted ; and there should have been but one classical presbytery to have governed all the churches there.
Yea, in some ' places there are two cities built together that have the privileges of cities, as Constantinople and Galata, London and Westminster, the two Pragues ;
. yea, Jerusalem had the city of David within it, and so there must have been two classical presbyteries in Jerusalem from the first ; for those of the city of David might have challenged the privilege of it if the church had been conformed to a city government; and perhaps that was the reason why we read of two companies of the three-and-twenty elders that did sit in Jerasalem, because each city had an eldership of twenty-three; and so there being two cities in that one, that of David and the other of Jerusalem itself, there might be two elderships for those two cities, besides their great
8. When cities are decayed and do lessen, and are brought low, it may be to as small a number of inhabitants as villages ; yet they often retain their privileges as cities, as many decayed incorporations do.
Now then, if there Cur. I.) THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. were bat one congregation left in such a lessened city, it would claim, by virtue of this city, privilege to be entire within itself.
04. But the apostle hath said, in Tit.i., 'Ordain elders in every city,' and that is parallel with that in Acts xiv., ' They ordain elders in every chureh,' holding forth the pattern of a city, and the government thereof for the bounds of it, to be set for that ofa church.
Ans. 1. That place in Acts xiv., 'in every church,' hath relation, as well to charehes in villages as in cities; and eo to churches in those first times of the gospel, that consisted of no more than might meet in one place ; and, therefore, as well it may be interpreted, that there was but as many as would make but one church in every city, as suiting the phrase of his direction, in relation to what number of Christians were supposed to be in each city of Crete, when first Titus came thither in the beginning of the gospel ; and this number may well be supposed to be no more than could make up one congregation, and it was Well if so too.
Ans. 2. Ordinary elders in every church implies farther, that if there were more churches to be in a city, that then he should ordain the elders, Kar' ixxAgsiay, to every church apart.
Ans. 8. That it is so appears ; because, as hath been shewn, byauc, city, is meant small towns as well as cities. dns. 4, The reason why his direction runs to ordain elders in every city, was because, though they did preach the gospel in villages, yet principally in cities at the first, because they were to leaven the countries.
And the apostles, when they did write to churches in a province, did use to write to the church of the head city, a8 more eminent, not because that was either a mother ehureh, as the bishops say, or a classical church of more churches, as the presbyterians say, but because it was more eminent, and from it the epistle might be spread to others, as Paul's Epistle to the Colossians was ordered to be sent to Laodicea, which was, in all likelihood, a less city than
And thus, when they write to the churches of Syria and Cilicia, Acta xv., they write especially to Antioch.
So when he would write to all the churches about Corinth, he nameth especially the church of Corinth, together with them ; and wrappeth up all the rest thus, 'and all that call upon the name of the Lord.'
Obj. It was the ordination of the apostles in the primitive times, that all in a city should be one church, both because the distinction of churches, and also their names, are taken from the city, as the church of Ephesus, &.
And therefore, whether in one consideration or more, whether for the present or for the time to come, the saints, in such and such a city, were to be one church; and a congregational church they could not be, therefore a distine-' tion of a elagsical church was intended by a church in cities. And the eldera had charge given them, to take care of that whole city to convert them. And to this pattern of a city government were the villages also to be conformed, several villages making an association into one church, as those cities did.
Ans, 1. To the first part of the objection I answer, that they are called one chureh in a city,and so distinguished. Because there was but one church for the present, as in Acts xiii. 1, Kara riv dusay ixxAnotay, ' the church existing at' Antioch, that is, which at present was there; it doth not follow that allthe churches, that should afterwards be there, should be but one church.
So ag Bains saith, there is an adequate acception of these phrases, per accidens, not because the city and church was to make but one church, but because the Christians, by occasion of their number, not being then too great, were formed into one church, not because there was to be but one.
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boos IV. who thus useth them promiscuously, doth imply that one church was as yet constituted ; not that there was to be but one, through the circuit of a city, suburbs, and country.
Thus likewise it is easily answered to the purpose of the proposition, for thus the multitude of citizens, converted and unconverted, could not be a church of one congregation; yet the number of those who, in city, suburbs, or territories, were actually converted, was no more than might be ordered into.one church ; and the apostles framing these into one, on the present occasion, did not exclude the after-constituting of any other within the same local bounds.
But if there had been more, there would have been other ways to have-distinguished them ; as when there were many synagogues in a city, they were distinguished (for all the synagogues could not have been called by the name of that one city, se ner the congregations); and perhaps that was the reason why that a school, which was a kind of a synagogue, was, for distinction's sake, called the school of Tyrannus, as being the ruler of it.
Ans, 2. If that were a reason, then also the name ofa village or smaller : town, as that ef Cenchrea, would make.a8 strong an argument, that in every
: small town, if there be a church there, that it should be one entire church (having the government wholly in itself), aa wellas that many congregations in a city should become one church for government.
Ans. 8. The name of a-church, in a city, is not taken simply frem the city, but from the people; as in the Revelation, the church of the Smyrnians, and of the Laodiceans, &c.
Suppose they had removed (as in those times, through persecution, they often did) to some other city, they would have been the church of the :Smyrnians, as well as the church at Arnheim was called the English church; so as the name doth not refer simply to a city, and the bounds thereof.
And when there was a church of strangers, of Aquila and Priscilla, &c., in 'Rome, it is called the church in their house; and so also when they ware removed to Ephesus, it bore the same name, to distinguish it from the church of the Ephesians.
It is one exception against us, that when we say the bounds of a church should be so many as can meet in one place, we hereby do fetch the constitution of a church from what is merely external and accidental to it; and the exception were true, if we fetch it from any one set or standing place, or house of meeting; but we feteh it from that which is essential to a church, which is oneness of communion in ordinances together, meeting with one accord, as in the Acts their meetings are characterised, which, because it cannot be done anless they do meet in some place or other, hence we so express it, not as that thing the ordination is set upon, but as the necessary consequent or adjunct.
But this exception made against us falls folly and directly upon them that would make a city the extent, either of the local bounds or the government thereof, a pattern or measure of @ classical church, and the institution of it.
If many churches had been in one city, they might have been distinguished by the names of some of the rulers, or as now they are by the streets, or places of their constant meetings; foras if the Holy Ghost doth write to the angel of the charch of Ephesus, as if the king doth write to the city of London, he should entitle his letter to the mayor and aldermen, as writing to the whole corporation in their names, so also might several churches in cities have been as well distinguished by the names of their rulers, and of their elders and pastors, as Tyrannus his school was.
And there are other reasons why in that case the names should be taken from the place ; for cohabitation and dwelling together in a place, we acknowledge is a ground why the saints, so far as possibly they can, should meet in one church-fellowship, and not make several fellowships.
And we much rather think that still the denomiCar. IT.) THE CHUROHES OF CHRIST. nation of one chureh in a city did hold forth this rule, that in all cities, the saints dwelling together, and so elsewhere, should make as big churches as they could, to shew their unity, and to make the worship more solemn, and to have more of the assistance of the Holy Ghost; and therefore they should not make many congregations where there might be one only.
Ans. 4. To the second part of the objection, concerning the conversion which the elders are to take care of, I answer, 1. To preach is one thing, to censure is another.
And, besides, at that rate of arguing, all those that a man begets to Christ, he hath therefore authority over, to rule them, to be their minister.
2. The elders at Ephesus indeed had a charge as elders, by way of government over the whole flock, the church that God had redeemed by his blood, that is, of those that were converted; and although that they were to endeavour to conyert others (for how should the gospel otherwise be propagated), yet if more had been converted, then there must have been churches multiplied, but still in the uniform frame that this first church was, having the same privileges, and so to have new elders placed over them, as over a new flock.
And, besides, they are not called elders of Ephesus, but elders of the charch at Ephesus.
The care of elders set in a city to convert, was to be extended as well to the neighbour villages as to the cities, especially then when they had gained as yet but few in a city, and then by this reason those in the villages were obliged to be associated with them, as well as those in a city, although all the city should also be converted, especially if those in the villages were the first converts; and this is one of the episcopal grounds for a diocesan church; they in effect tell the same story for the rearing up of episcopal government.
Ans. 5. To the third part of the objection we reply, that the way of constitation of churches under the gospel, being uniform according to Christ's institation, both in villages and cities, it is therefore squared as well to the condition of the one as the other, and therefore a church in a village may as well be made the pattern for the constituting of churches in a city, as a church in a city for forming one in a village.
But Christ hath framed his institution so as will serve both; and thecertain rules for both are the due bounds of a church set (whereof there are many sure and certain characters
| in the word, from the nature and thing itself), that so many as dwell to- | gether, that can conveniently meet in one place, should become one church.
| We grant (as Bains in the like case, page 12, conclusion 2, concerning a | diocesan church) that God might have made this pattern of city government an ordinance of church government, as he did once take a family government under the old law, and made that a church, and extended the bounds
~ still by a family, as they grew either greater or lesser; but as then, ifa man's family had spread into many families, though he was the priest of all these families in public worship, because he was the eldest of the family, vhilst he lived, yet that would not have been a binding law to several other families living together, that had not sprung one from another, that they should have eome under the same law of association that the others did.
And therefore, thongh this were granted concerning cities, it would not follow that the villages must be conformed thereunto.
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox IV.
That the external institutions of Christ, for the government of his saints under the New Testament, are not the same that was under the law, nor can the government of the Jewish church be made a certain rulefor the government of the church of Christ.
There are many things that were commanded to the Jews which are obligatory to us Christians, though there are also many things which were rales and laws to them which are not so to us.
It will therefore be necessary, in stating the case first, to shew what is equally binding to us both.
1. All such duties as depend not upon institation, but are duties belonging to the first commandment, as to pray, to hear the word, to give thanks, must needs continue as well under the New Testament as under the Old, and are the same.
2. Such things as then had a morality in them, yet if the morality was only by mero institution, which depends upon the will of God (which divines call moral positions), even such institutions, in their own individual nature, cannot be urged upon us as rules.
As to instance in that of the Sabbath day: if any should infer that that seventh day should be the Sabbath day under the New Testament which was the seventh after the creation, it would be a false reasoning, although, indeed, the institution of the seventh day to be the Sabbath was not ceremonial merely, but had a morality in it, for it was from the creation.
The two sacraments of circumcision and the passover had assuredly, besides the ceremonialness annexed to them, the institution of typifying of.Christ to come (which circumeision did by blood, and being administered the eighth day); these sacraments signifying Jesus Christ, the substance of them must needs be moral, and that by institution, as well as ours are now, as in 1 Cor.x. 1, 2, ' They did all eat of the same spiritual meat (the same spiritual manna), and all drank of the same spiritual
But yet it doth not follow that the same sacraments for substance (cutting off the ceremonial part) should continue, but God was pleased to institute other two in their rooms.
8. Yet whatsoever was moral in the substance of the Jewish institution then, there is this equality, that Jesus Christ should institute something in the room of it in the New Testament.
As for example, because there was an high priest, because there was an house of God then, the apostle therefore argues (Heb. xx. 21-26), that we, having an high priest over the house of God, there are assemblies to be now as well as then ; but that these assemblies should be formed up, and cast into the same latitude and extent, and the like, which their assemblies had then, herein a new institution putteth the difference.
They had national assemblies then, not so now; the priests were maintained by tithes and offerings then; the equity of this continueth, and the apostle urgeth it in his epistle to the Corinthians, but yet it followeth not that their maintenance now should be the same way.
And although i there was a moral equality in it, yet the apostle superaddeth, 'So I ordain in all the churches,' 1 Cor. vii. 17.
4, When the gospel hath once made an institution in the room of what was under the law (as it hath done baptism instead of circumcision, though
. not exactly on the same moral ground, yet on the same evangelical ground, as baptism was the substance extant, under the type of circumcision), this will warrant the application of baptism unto like infant children now, when the gospel itself also holds forth the same privilege for substance unto such children now as it did then, and renews the same promise to them, though
Cuap. Il.) THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. in an evangelical way, far differing from that in the Old Testament, which contained a typicalness in it.
And this is not to raise ap a new institution, it is only the application of an institution to a person, and that also when the gospel holds forth the same ground which the law did.
But if any would reason, that because there was a circumeision under the law, a sacrament of initiation into the church, therefore there must be the same under the gospel
(if they cannot shew that Jesus hath appointed it for the continuing of such an institution), the argument from the Old will not hold; or if they would argue, that it should be administered in the same latitude; or that the same persons who did administer circumcision under the Old Testament may administer baptism now, we believe our brethren will not concede to it, though the argument will be as strong one way as the other, for the father of the family might circumcise them, and did, but they would have only ministers to baptize now ; and they too circumcised them in their families, and did not bring their children to the temple.
5. That the laws of the Old Testament do help up to regulate many institutions in the New, we acknowledge (as likewise the laws of nature do), but they will not be warrant sufficient to set up the like.
So the rules of the judicial law, concerning the punishments of criminal acts, that none should be condemned under two or three witnesses ; these rules will serve unto, and perhaps ought to be received by, every state (as. some have held) to regulate their proceedings against malefactors.
But yet unto Jewish policy (take it for the government of it, and the ranks of officers among them, and power they had), nations are not bound so, as though the rules of equity, whereby that policy did proceed, were perpetual, yet the question remains still of the power.
That ministers should be maintained, as they were then, the equity of the law holds, but it will no way follow, that there should be the same ranks of ministers.
6. That the New Testament entitles some of those ordinances that itself hath anew instituted, with the same names and words used in the Old Testament, argues not that those ordinances are to be framed and formed according to the analogy of the old, but they-have the same names, because that the old were types of these.
Thus that our ordinances now are called sacrifices ; that Christ is called an high priest; that the officers of the church are called a presbytery ; that excommunication is called 8 purging out the old leaven, and many such like, in the evangelist: all this will not prove that there should be sacrifices, high priests, &., under the New Testament.
In the evangelist, Christ, speaking of the teachers of the New Testament, saith, Mat. xxiii. 84, 'I will send you wise men, and scribes,'
&e. ; but yet it follows not that the orders of the officers of the New Testament should be answerable to the wise men, and the scribes; so when a believer or a church is called the temple of God, when the saints are called a royal nation, and the like, no inference can be made, that there should be now a temple and a national chureh.
7. There were many things which are moral now, that were not moral then.
To cast out of the church for moral sins, as such, gua moral, is the law of Christ now; but under the old law, they did not keep men from ordinances for sins as moral, but as having a ceremonial uncleanness annexed to them.
No man is to put his wife away now because she is a heathen, bnt they were to put their wives away then, if heathens, after Moses his law was settled.
In destroying matters of idolatry, they were to be much stricter than we are bound to be, as meats sacrificed to idols, they were in no place to eat thereof.
Daniel refased the king's meat; but out of the idol's temple, we may eat things that have been sacrificed to idols, as the THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox IV. apostle saith.
They were to destroy all the temples and groves, &c., but if places have been abused to idolatry, we under the gospel may make use of them; they were to destroy the Canaanites out of the land, not we so now ; they were to burn idolaters' goods, as in Jericho, &c., not s0 now.
Having thus made way by these particulars premised, I shall now prove my proposition, that the Jewish economy is no pattern or rule for modelling the church of Christ, under the gospel.
1, 'The priesthood being changed, there is a necessity of a change of the law,' Heb. vii. 12, and so of the law of the government, which depends on Christ's priestly office.
We having a new high priest over the house of God, we have a new order in this house.
For he is the apostle and high priest of our profession, and it was meet it should appear he was the new high priest, by altering the institution for worship and government.
So then that old law, which depended upon institutions, as the high priesthood itself did, is to be changed, and a new law of institutions is to come in the room of it; and therefore in the Heb. ix. 10, it is called a reformation, and the time of the gospel is called ' the time of reformation.'
2. That Jewish frame and form of government is called the elements of the world; and therefore, both in Col. ii. and Rom. xii., the apostle bids us under the gospel not to be conformed, neither for worship nor government (farther than as Jesus Christ hath been pleased to take what was before and make it anew) to the elements of the world.
80 in Gal. iv. 2, 8, he saith, they were under tutors and governors till they came to be of man's estate, or to be of age; which under the gospel they are in comparison.
And, indeed, the gospel being more spiritual, the frame of the government, and institutions of it, are not formed to a worldly way to governments of nations and of kingdoms, as that was then, to an outward external glory, as their worship also was.
As God hath chosen the preaching of the word, which is foolishness, 0 he hath also chosen many of those things which are vile, and base, and contemptible, and a foolishness of government in comparison of what was then.
And this is it deceiveth the world; for the gospel is a mystery throughout.
He chooseth the synagogue, and not the temple; he chooseth a congregation and eldership, and not the Sanhedrim ; he chooseth baptism, and not circumcision, &c.
8. Our Lord and Saviour speaks altogether of a new church to be made, a church gathered in his name : as when he instituted baptism, to shew that it was a new ordinance, he bids them baptize in his name; so, to shew that he erected a frame of a new church, he bids that it should be gathered in his name.
4. Our brethren's principles, that hold the universal church to be the seat and subject of Christ's institution, argue' this
; for as his church now over all nations, both Jew and Gentile, is a differing seat from that of the Jew only, so answerably, to set in his church apostles and prophets, &c., instead of chief priests, &c., is a new institution ; and it is certain, that that church whereof the apostle speaks, 1 Cor. xii. Eph. iv., is the church of the New
And therefore, if the church universal being a politic, be argued from thence, it is by a new institution differing from the former, because the church of the New Testament, which he speaks of there, begau with the apostles.
And besides the institution fell upon the church of the Jews qua national, but this falls upon the church gua universal, in all nations, else it would not extend to all nations to be equal standers in it; whereas, under the law, they were not to be so with the Jews, but were to come under that national covenant only when proselyted.
4. There seems to have been several sorts of policies and orders extant Cuur. IIT.) THE OHURCHES OF OBRIST. under the Old Testament; and unto which of these should the conformity now be made?
By what rules should we now judge?
(1.) There were chief rulers over several bodies of the priests and Levites, to which government, the bishops say, their order is an allusion.
There was also a power in these priests and Levites, proper and peculiar to them, to judge of the clean and unclean, and concerning the matters of worship in the temple.
And this government was purely ecclesiastical; and unto this therefore, rather should the analogy refer of matters in the church, seeing that these were purely such.
(2.) Again, there were the civil judicatures in their cities and towns, and in their great Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, for all controversies within their gates, as the distinction is in Deut. xvii.
Yet these wore all* ecclesiastical, but indeed mixed both in respect of causes and persons ; their church and commonwealth being so mixed, as it is hard to distinguish what belonged to them merely as a commonwealth, and what belonged to them as a charch, in respect of what came under the cognizance and power of those courts.
(8.) Then again, there was their synagogical government, which seems to be differing from what either the priests had in the temple, in respect of persons clean and unclean ceremonially, or over one another; or from courts of judicatare in their gates.
A government those synagogues had, for there are the rulers of them mentioned ; and also punishments they had, for when the Romans took away their government in their gates, they scourged in their synagogues.
There were admonitions also, or excommunications, or casting men out of their synagogues.
The great Sanhedrim, and their other courts, did punish by civil mulcts, and the Sanhedrim did put to death.
In the temple, the priests kept owt the unclean, and the judgment of that was not by the Sanhedrim, but by the priests, that did look to the worship of the temple; but the synagogues did cast a man out, and the priests did not supervise the government of the synagogues.
And that all this was a matter of a differing eognisance from what was transacted in their other courts, is evident by this, that for many sins (besides the civil punishments that were adjudged in the courts of their gates, as to restore, and the like) a man was farther obliged to come to the temple with confession, and with a sacrifice ; so as the charge of the things of the temple, and the order and discipline thereof, was another thing than that of their civil courts.
And although a man was cast out of the synagogues, and was in respect of such © communion as a heathen and a publican, yet he might still come to the temple and partake in the worship thereof.
But that the Sanhedrim did at any time pronounce that sentence, thata man should be as an heathen or publican, that this was proper to their courts, we believe not.
Now, it is left very uncertain to which of these the analogy of the government of a gospel church should be accommodated.
Obj. It is said that our Saviour Christ, in Mat. xviii., reflected upon some bench or court, the next then extant, to which the people were wont to resort among the Jews, and so intimated that his will was that the church under the gospel should be formed up conformably to us, and that so it should be like to that of the Jews, and so the policy of the church of the New Testament should be conformed to the policy of the Old by virtue of that institution.
And from thence it is argued that there should be ruling elders that are not teachers, because there were such among the Jews; from thence it is argued that there should be a national church, 9 national sanhedrim or assembly, as was among the Jews; from thence it is argued that the power is in the elders alone, because it was so among the Jews, who * Qu. 'were not all' ?—Ep.
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox IV. are called the church.
And so this analogy of the Jewish church is one of the great foundations of the presbyterian government, and of classical and national assemblies.
Ans. But besides that it was not necessary that Jesus Christ should allude to it, though he useth the same phrase; the deformity of that pattern, and the policy of the government of the New Testament, is such as that that cannot be Christ's intent.
For, 1, if we take the Jewish pattern in matter of government, we shall be worse put to it, to judge what is ceremonial and what is perpetual, or what was a judicial appendix to the ceremonial, and added upon a supposition of it, more than we are put to it to jadge what was ordinary, and what was extraordinary in the apostles' practices.
If that our Saviour Christ alluded to it in the gross and in the lump, who shall be able to distinguish?
If that policy should thereby be established, it would as well serve for the erecting of episcopal government over ministers; for although it is said that Aaron's high priesthood was Christ's type, and not the type of bishops, yet that the priests and the Levites (several companies of them) should have one that was the chief overseer over all,* who is, by the Septuagint called
'Esioxoros, bishop and overseer, was no way typical.
There were four sorts of Levites: priests, Kohathites, Gershonites, Merarites, Num. iii. 80, 85; and over each of these were four eminent persons, whereof Eleazar was one,
And when Eleazar was made high priest, then Phinehas was governor of the Levites, and had oversight of them, ruling of them, as | 1 Chron ix. 20, and Nom. iv. 88.
Ithamar was over the sons of Gershon and Merari.
And in Neh. xi. 14, 22, they are called overseers, or, as the Septuagint translates it, "Ex/exero, bishops; the same word is used of the apostles, Acts i. 20, and their office, unto which (say the episcopal party) bishops do succeed as rulers over other ministers (though perhaps called bishops also), as the apostles were over the seventy, and all other ministers.
And for this, will the Jewish pattern and policy (if that were alluded to) serve as well as for the presbyterian government.
And in 2 Chron. xrxxv. 8, we read of the three rulers of the house of God, whereof but one was the high priest.
Now, although that the high priest, for his going into the holy of holies, was a type of Christ, yet not all those other that were the rulers of the priests and of the house of God.
And if it be replied, as it is by some, that this was but the law of nature, the heads of these families being rulers over the rest, it is answered,
1. So was not Korah, Num. xvi. 1.
2. The law of nature makes as well for one man to govern over many, and so for a monarchical government, as for an aristocratical; and so episcopal government might be argued to be suited to the law of' nature as well as to the Jewish.
8. It belonged not to the ceremonial law, but it served only for order; and although the eldest of the family were those governors that were set over the rest of a company of priests of the same family, and so that the eldest had it by birth, and by the law of nature, yet that one should be set over the rest was merely a matter of order, and therefore will plead for iteelf as strongly (if we take the Jewish pattern) as for any other way of government.
It may be objected, that upon this ground, that one man makes not the . church, episcopal power is cut off, and that therefore the allusion of our Lord
Christ in Mat. xviii. is to those courts that were erected among the Jews.
Ans. 1. In the first place, either there were two sorts of courts, one civil, and the other purely ecclesiastical, two kind of Sanhedrims, both in each
* These wore called the chief priests, Mat. ii. 4 and xxvii. 1, Acts xix. 4.
Cmap. IIT.J THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST.
. city, and in Jerusalem, which can never be proved; and if two, which of these two Christ should allade to will still be the question.
Or if there were bat one kind ofcourt, that was both for civil and ecclesiastical government, then the Jewish pattern will not serve the turn, for then, by that reason, persons ecclesiastical now should deal in civil causes (for so they did then), and persons eivil should deal in ecclesiastical.
Yea, and those that hold there were two courts, the one for causes civil, the other for ecclesiastical, yet they say the persons in both were mixed.
And because that both were thus mixed, therefore in Deut. xvii. 9, speaking of the Sanhedrim, he saith, ' When thou shalt come to the priest, or the judges, which shall be in those days,' &c. ; forsometime a priest was the president of that council, and sometimes a civil person, that was not of the priest's office, whom therefore he calleth a jadge.
It was by institution that there should be some priests, Ezek. aliv, 24, Deut. xxiv. 8, 2 Chron. xviii. 18, Deut. xvi. 18; and also that others than priests and Levites were of the Sanhedrim, and also judges of particular cities, as all sides acknowledge.
For from hence all presbyterian divines argue the pattern of lay elders, which yet, if there be not an institution for it in the New Testament, would never be able to be argued from hence; and therefore many of our brethren that acknowledge persons civil, that were not priests and Levites, to have been mingled in those courts, yet deny the consequence of that argument unto ruling elders now, which, if the Jewish pattern had held, it would have argued it,
And it appears further, that therefore the elders and the priests are mentioned.
Pharisees that were not of the tribe of Levi threw off* their rulers, and the priest or the judge, ; and the judges, elders, and priests, are usually put together in their cities and courts.
And the reason why both were mixed thus, to become but one court, was because that then the church was mingled with the commonwealth, and both were but one ; therefore the charch of Israel is called the commonwealth of Israel.
And the laws of their commonwealth were given immediately by God ; and therefore the Levites, as well as the civil authority, were the interpreters of that law.
If, therefore, this should now be the pattern, as when, according to our brethren's assertion, the church grows up to a nation, there should be a national church, because that was the pattern of the Jews, so when the churches grew up to a nation, the ecclesiastical state and the civil should become mingled, and ministers should judge in civil causes, and those that are not ministers should judge in ecclesiastical, for so in that Sanhedrim they did.
If it be said that all the acts were not church acts, as sending ambassadors, making wars, and the like, the answer is, that all such acts as were towards other nations might not so properly be called church acts, but the question is, what was among themselves?
And yet even their wars were holy, and their God was called the Lord of hosts; and the priests wait} withtrampets, to encourage the people to fight, as if it had been an ecclesiastical business.
Ans, 2. Again, secondly, if that be the pattern that Christ alludeth to, then if that state had, whilst it stood in the apostles' times, turned Christian, it might have been conformed to the Jewish pattern of government as it then stood; and so the persons of the Sanhedrim, that were judges of the Jewish church, should have continued judges of the Christian church.
8. If that the Jewish government had been the pattern, then there should be but two courts, subordinate one to another; for so there was no more among the Jews in a way of subordination.
There was the court in * Qu, 'though of '?—Ep. t Qu. 'went '?—Ep.
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox IV. each city and town, consisting some of more, some of less, according to their proportion and bigness, that did judge of all causes within themselves
; and | then there was the great Sanhedrim, and appeals were made immediately from each of the inferior courts unto this superior.
And whereas it is said by some that there were three courts at Jerusalem for appeals, we find not by the Scriptures that there were three such courts, although some of the rabbins say there were.
And when the text saith, in Deut. xvii., that whosoever would not obey the sentence of the judge that should bein that place should be put to death; then when they brought it fo the first court, the judges of the twenty-three at Jerusalem, according to that notion, they should have been put to death, and never have come to the great Sanhedrim.
And if there were two such courts of the twenty-three, besides the Sanhedrim, yet they were not for appeals ; but they were either the one of that city of Jerusalem, which as a city had the privilege to have a judicatare within itself, besides the Sanhedrim for the whole nation ; and the other of the priests for the matters of the temple (for the temple was an enctosure) ;
. or else the one was for Jerusalem, and the other for the city of David (each having the privilege of a city, although in two places, as Westminster and London have) ; the one was at the door of the mountain of the Lord, the other at the door of the temple.
If, then, the form of the Jewish government be the pattern, then all those subordinate congregational, classical, provincial, and national assembles, they shall be cut off; for the Jewish pattern will not suit these.
4. If that were the pattern, then the national assembly should be the supreme judge, and there should be none above that; but over national assemblies, presbyterian divines do place an universal general council, and make that to be the supreme; whereas the national Sanhedrim of the Jews, qua national, was the highest court.
6. If that be the pattern, the matters brought to that Sanhedrim, so far as we have a rule in the word for it, were only matters that were too difficult; and when they were too difficult for those particular courte in the cities or towns, they were brought to the general assembly: Deut. xvii.,
'Ifa matter be too hard for thee,' &. ; even as the hard matters, which none could determine but God, were brought to Moses, Exod. xviii. 21.
6. When the inferior court itself did find it to be too hard for them, it was not by way of appeal that they brought it to the superior; so in Deut. xvii., 'If it be too hard for thee.'
So, as it was not in the liberty of any person to appeal, but the court, finding themselves not able to decide the controversy, they were to carry it to the Sanhedrim (therefore the rabbins say that that place, Deut. xvii., belongs only to a rebellious elder); and, if 80, then this place will not serve to have ecclesiastical courts for appeals.
7. The Sanhedrim did only judge of the matter of the law and right in a doctrinal way in such and such a case ; but it was still left, after their sentence, unto the inferior court to judge of the matter of fact, and to apply the sentence ; so as by this rule the greater assemblies of synods and councils should not at all excommunicate, but only doctrinally deliver the sentence, still leaving to the particular churches the application of that rule, by the sentence of excommunication, in whose power alone it is.
Therefore, speaking to the judges of the inferior courts, he says, ' Thou shalt do according to the sentence of the law, which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgments which they shall tell thee,' Deut. xvii. 10, 11.
8. The Sanhedrim executed civil punishments, as putting to death, &., if their sentence was not obeyed; so that they excommunicated not, bat punishment was civil, which their court inflicted.
Cua. III.J THE CHURCHES OF OBRIST.
9. If appeals were made, and things were carried to the higher courts from the lower, there was an high punishment for the neglecting of the sentenee (supposing there were an appeal), merely because the sentence of that court was contemned.
The man was to be put to death, although the matter wherein he disobeyed did deserve a lesser punishment.
But in the ecclesiastical government that Christ hath set up, there is no higher punishment than exeommunication and delivering to Satan ; therefore this pattern will not serve.
10. In that Sanhedrim persons were still the same men, continually resident.
They were officers on purpose that were set and constant for that church (even as bishops are amongst us), and they resided at Jerusalem.
And go the foundation of the calling of the one to that national assembly, and the calling of ministers to our national assemblies (which they would pattern by this), do wholly differ; for ours are called by a new choice for that special assembly, as occasion is, and by a choice too, residing in their particular congregations and charges.
Obj. It is said, 2 Chron. xix. 8, ' They returned to Jerusalem.'
It seems, therefore, they rode circuit.
Ans. That was occasional, when first religion was to be reformed, and the people instructed, after a neglect of all order and government amongst them.
Otherwise they were constant at Jerusalem, and had therefore a peculiar title, being called ' elders of the people ;' whereas others were called ' elders of the cities.'
And so the pattern of bishops, who were constant officers for . & national church, and attended wholly upon the public (as the same persons did always here in the high commission), will much better suit the Jewish pattern.
11. They had always a chief, whom they called the nasi, or the prince, in imitation of the first court, wherein Moses was chief, and the number with him, seventy-one; and so it is too, Ezek. viii. 11, seventy elders in the midst of them, Jaazaniah as the prince ; and if the Jewish pattern should hold, there should be such now.
Therefore, in Deut. xvii., the court, being denominated from some one, is called the priest or the judge ; and it would, according to that, much better suit Rome than Zion, the popish government than that of the reformed churches ; it being a nearer pattern to have one nasi, one prince, one high priest, with a constant number of cardinals, in a place which they pretend the promise is made to.
And accordingly Bellarmine urgeth it for the state of antichrist, and with more reason and strength, and more likelihood, than for the presbyterian pattern ; for the high priests were ordinarily over that Sanhedrim; so the Asmones in the time of the Maccabees, Mat. xxvi. 5-7, and Acts xxiii. 5, compared with Exod. xxii. 28.
12. There was a peculiar place which God did then sanctify at Jerusalem, in which the great Sanhedrim was always to sit.
Therefore it is still said, in Deut. xvii., Thou shalt go to the place that God shall choose, as well as that they should go to the judge or to the priest, because it was God's promise to be in that place, and with the court sitting there
; and therefore also it is said, 'If they should not do according to the sentence of the priest that standeth before the Lord.'
And if they shew us any one place that God hath so peculiarly sanctified, and set up such a court, as the papists would pretend to do, then it would be a pattern, or else not.
But God hath not sanctified any place now, therefore the pattern will not hold.
It may much better, in a type, be transferred to the general assembly in heaven, even to which we under the gospel are come, or to the general judgment of the great day, when all causes shall be judged over again.
18. Neither were all causes ecclesiastical brought to this Sanhedrim ; therefore it is said, 'Thou shalt bring all causes within thy gates,' not all
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox IV. canses in God's house.
Therefore the high priest is said to be over the house of God, and the charge of that honse belonged unto the priests ; and there were three rulers over the house of God.
Therefore to the Sanhedrim belonged judicials, and such ceremonials as did not appertain to the temple, as the cutting off of a man that had leaven in his house, Exod. xii.
But yet the ceremonial belonged to the temple, and the priests themselves were judges thereof.
And the order of priests and Levites had a pecaliar power to judge of leprosy, and of persons that were unclean, and to keep them out of the temple, Levit. x. 10, 11; Ezek. xliv. 28; Hag. ii. 11-18.
Therefore the priests of the temple put out Uzziah when he was struck with the leprosy.
So Christ answerably speaks: Mat. viii. 4, 'Go shew thyself to the priest,' saith Christ to the man that he cured of the leprosy, that he might jadge of it whether he were whole or no.
Neither were there any persons that we read of, but those that were priests, that were to do this.
Yea, the leprosy was so infectious, that there was'no warrant or promise that any that conversed with or came to a leper should be kept from it, but only the priest; and in Num. iii. 7, they were to keep the whole charge about the tabernacle of the congregation ; and in Ezek. xliv. 27, they were to look to the Sabbath.
Now it is evident that others besides the priests made up that great court at Jerusalem.
14, If that this were the pattern, then the church in each village or city now should have an immediate and entire government within themselves ; and so it would suit the congregational government.
For each town in Judea _ had elders in their gates: in the smaller, there were three to judge their causes ; in the greater cities, there were twenty-three.
15. The number of the persons were all set, they were seventy; so that in the conclusion we may say, as Paul of those of the circumcision, and observing the law, that they themselves keep not the law, so nor those that are for the analogy of the Jewish pattern here ; being these so great, so essential, and many differences between the Jewish and presbyterial government as to a national assembly.
And if it be said by them, We urge not the identity, that it should be the same ; we reply, 1, Why not the identity in things that were not ceremonial
(for such they pretend to make a pattern), but matters of mere order and policy, suited to them as to a national church, and that by God's institation?
If they make the institution of God the pattern in one thing, why not in another?
2. If it be only a mere analogy, they themselves must shew some other warrant, first, for the like things instituted anew by Christ under the New Testament, which, being so instituted, doth bear analogy with what was under the Old.
For otherwise it is left unto the pleasure of man to take and refuse what he pleaseth, and set it up as analogous to the old ; and so others may set up other things, and indeed pick another form of government out of other things that were analogous to the government of that pattern.
As when they argue out of Mat. xviii. that Christ alludeth to the courts that were then in Jewry, where he saith, 'Go tell the church,' and urge the analogy to hold in this, that as their courts, which were called ecclesia, were a college of elders and judges, and that, therefore, the church that Christ means under the New Testament must be a consistory of elders and national assemblies, as the lesser and greater Sanhedrim was distinct and apart from the people, we have just reason to reply, Why should the analogy hold in this only, unless the New Testamant hold forth that the assembly of a company of elders, apart from the 'people, are called a church ?
If that were first found, then, indeed, this analogy might be applied thereunto; but to pick and choose out one piece of the model, and leave out the Czar. IIT.] THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. rest, and to say that Christ intends this rather than the rest, without a special warrant of his so to do, is but human and arbitrary, under the colour of divine institution.
To us this is an infallible rule, that where God hath applied s type or anything out of the Old Testament to an institution under the New, we should so far be led by it as he hath in this or that particular applied it, for otherwise the analogy of those chief priests which are called iwicxozo:, overvrs, s8 the Septuagint rendereth it, Ps. cix. 8, Acts i. 20, Zech, xi. 14, 22, would hold for the order of bishops by way of analogy, as strong as any argument can be framed from the analogy of their courts to the like ecclesiastical now.
It is urged by some, that that which belonged to that church, as a church, is moral in all ages, as that which belongs to a child, as he is animal rationale, belongs to a man, though what agreeth to him as a child agrees not to all men, but what agrees to a child, as it is animal rationale, is common to all men. Now this church, say they, did not belong to the church as Jewish, and sa in its infant condition in a typical respect, but as a politic national church.
We answer, 1, that their being a national church was in a typical respect, . and therefore all their laws, ceremonial, judicial, moral, the laws that were given the state, were given by God. Jus civile Judaicum purs theologia Suit, the Jews' civil law was part of their divinity; and therefore the commonwealth of Israel isealled the charch; and in 2 Peter i., Peter, speaking to the saints, saith, applying the type, you are 'a holy nation, a royal people.'
He speaks not to them ag they were a nation under a government, one national ehureh, although he writes to the Jews that were dispersed over many provinces, 1 Peter i. 1.
Totus status illius populi fust figuralis (Aquinas, Prima secundes, quest. 104, art. 2).
Yea, 2, that great Sanhedrim at Jerusalem seems to have a typical respect upon it, it being restrained to the place that God should choose, and was a type ofthe general assembly in heaven, or at the day ofjudgment, for to that assembly doth Christ seem to allude when he saith they shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel; and the great Sanhedrim at Jerusalem was only that court that did judge the twelve tribes, and no other court besides.
8. There was that peculiar ground of the Jews being a national church, which was the main ground why God made them a national church, as is compatible to no nation under heaven ; they were a national church, not only as men living under the same government, and under the game prince, sad in the same land, or of the same language, but chiefly and principally as they were the children of Abraham, to whom the promises were made as to one common father, whose seed did grow up into a nation, whom God did sever from all other nations as such, and made a nation of them dwelling alone, so ag they were not to marry out of their own nation. And herein
Abraham was Christ's type, Jesus Christ being now the Father of all the faithfal in all nations, who are become one royal nation unto him, but a royal nation spiritually, and a royal kindred, although out of several nations, but not as formed into a national government.
And when they did grow up into a nation, then God gave them laws for the government of them as a nation, God did institute them to a national church and kingdom, and made a new covenant with them, and gave them laws. And if now, under the gospel, we should come to s national church and have a like government, it may have an institation under the New Testament as that had then.
And there is likewise this difference between our churches under the gospel and that of the Jews, that theprimanotio, the first notion of achurch,
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox IV. fell upon them as they were a nation, but now doth not fall upon the saints as they are a nation in that sense that they were; but it falls either upon the church universal, which is the church mystical, or upon congregational, but upon none, qua nation, as it did upon them; and therefore, their being a national church was a type of the universal, and not of this or that particular nation now, qua nation; but we can shew too, that, qua nation, they were the type of particular churches and congregations.
5. There is a great fallacy in this argument.
It is true, that that which agreeth to a church, qua talis, as such, is in every church that is such; and so what was in that church as national, purely so considered, may be and ought to be in any other church that is national in a political respect, as whatsoever belongeth to a man qua rationalis, belongeth to every man.
When, therefore, it is said this government did belong to it gua church, 80 we deny it, for it' belonged only to it gua national church in the general, and hath many specifical differences annexed.
There is a church national, such indeed was the Jews; and there is a church congregational, and such are those under the New Testament ; there,is a church universal, which is the church mystical.
But what belongs to the church of the Jews as national and cast into a kingdom, will not belong to the church universal, nor will it belong to the church congregational, for it belongs to it only as national; and so we might as well argue, that what belongs to one species under a genus, belongs to the other species; or that what belongs to a man gua animal rationale, should belong to a beast because he also is animal.
So that this remaineth first to be proved, that Jesus Christ hath made national churches under the New Testament to be politic bodies, and then the argument might have some show in it, that what belongs to a church as a natidnal church, should belong to a national church under the New Testament for matter of government.
But otherwise, it may as well be argued, that what form of government agrees to a kingdom as a body politic, must be found in every corporation, and that the same government must be in the one that is in the other;whereas a body politic is the genus, as also church is, and national, presbyterial, &c., are but specifical differences annexed, and also that what belongs to the commonwealth of Venice as an aristocratical commonwealth must belong to all commonwealths ; whereas there are commonwealths that are monarchical, which we call kingdoms, others that are demoeratical, and what belongs to the one, with these differences, belongs not to the other.
What belongs simply to a monarchy as a monarchical commonwealth, must not be said to belong to a democratical commonwealth.
In a monarchy there are differing degrees of marquesses, and earls, and lords; it will not therefore "follow, that in a democracy, or in a commonwealth whose government is by several Hanse towns, there should be the same too.
6. And if Christ had appointed national churches under the New Testament in a political respect, it was not necessary that the analogy of the Jewish government should be observed; no more than that, in every kingdom and commonwealth, the analogy of the Jews' political government should also be observed.
And the analogy, too, might be kept and observed in its proportion in every congregational church, as the analogy of the three estates in the superior court in parliament is shadowed out in many corporations, where there is the mayor, aldermen, and common council ; but it is not necessary that there should be the same subordination of courts, all keeping the same analogy as was amongst the Jews; for churches depending immediately upon the magistrates in every kingdom might be well governed, as we see the church in Geneva is, and the Helvetians are.
But we answer, 7. Whereas the argument runs that that government was not ceremonial, i} Cup. IIT.) "THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST.
| suppose that their having such a form of government with courts of appeals, i having judicature in them, were not typical and ceremonial, yet it will not follow that the like must be in the churches in nations under the gospel; therefore Gersom Bucerus* distingnisheth that some things were merely ceremonial, and they were cut off; other things were perpetually moral, and other things, though they were not ceremonial, yet they did peculiarly serve to the conservation of that policy, and were annexed for order's sake to the preservation of what was ceremonial.
Now, that national sanhedrim was of that latter sort; for suppose it were not ceremonial altogether, yet that church being constituted a national church as 8 politic body ecclesiastical, it must have a national sanhedrim that was suitable and answerable ; for, if we suppose & national church, it must have a national government proportionable to it, and officers accordingly; and so that there should be those heads of the priests, and that imparity accordingly amongst the priests, was a thing proper to the policy of the Levites, and yet not typical ; for multitades of them meeting in their ranks and courses for the service of the temple, it was necessary that there should be one that should order those maltitades of them that in their courses came up.
It must be acknowledged, that whatever constitution of churches as politic bodies Jesus Christ hath made, he hath took a suitable order for the preservation of order among them; so, having made congregational churches those politic bodies, he hath taken order for the government of them as such.
And if he had made churches national, as politic bodies, he would have took suitable order for them also, as he did among the Jews, and he would have done it afore such time as churches were multiplied, so as to come up to a tation, for so he did with the church of the Jews afore they came into the land of Canaan ; but so he hath not done in the New Testament, nor did the apostles live to see it settled; and it were strange that that form should be erected by Christ that the apostles lived not to see.
So that the conclusion of all it must be this; that Jesus Christ did still suit the government of his church to the condition of the matter.
Thus the church, when in families, had a family government, and when a nation was singled out and chosen, it had a pational government ; but the saints being to be dispersed over all nations (as the Jews themselves were when they had their synagogues dispersed), he hath established a government answerable.
A ehurch is said to be national, either, 1, in respect of the members, that all that are of the nation are members of the church, which was the constitation of the Jewish church
; or, 2, in respect of government, that, because they are a nation, they are cast therefore into a national government.
Now, indeed, the national government of the Jews did follow upon their national constitution of members, and answerably under the gospel, even in nations, the government of Christ's church doth follow the condition of the members.
Now, the condition of those that are saints (which are only fit to be members of churehes) is to be scattered up and down, and to be few, for they are redeemed out of nations.
There are few cities in England will afford more saints than will make one church, but London.
So as the reason why that under the gospel, there is not this national government for churches, is beeanse a nation comes not up to Christ's terms; and if it should, there are other respects that make the alteration ; for it was fit that the body of the saints, the people, should have interest of presence and of a virtual concurrence, and of edification, yea, of suffrage in the government.
It was for the honour of the saints that are come out of their nonage that it should be so, * De Guber. Eccl. p. 51.
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox IV. and that worship and government, and communion in both, should be commensurable, God loving more the spiritual communion that saints have in public worship under the gospel than the national sacrifices under the old law, and did therefore cast the government under the gospel thus to attain this end, without which it could not be attained, and also because that churches, as churches, would be more sweetly ordered by the law of communion of churches without jurisdiction, than by a jurisdiction placed in combination of many churches over each, seeing that government could not be transacted in the presence of the saints, but by delegated messengers and representative elders.
Whether a fixed and constant assembly of presbyters or elders have a right of authority over particular congregations.—The question stated.
Though those who have stood up and written for the presbyterial government (as it is practised in the reformed churches), do assert it to be the only ordinary standing and perpetual government which onght to be embraced in all churches and Christian states, yet the wisdom of the assembly of divines at Westminster thought meet to propound it to this debate, that the Scripture holds forth it may be.
And whereas, when the asserting thejus divinum of it is waived, that yet it | is a government the nearest, and in 8 conspicuous eminency most conformed
| to the Scripture rules and examples in the New Testament, is a position in | succession the next, though a far lower step than the former.
And less could not have been expected to have been held forth, when all other governments are laid aside, to give room for its entertainment.
Yet this first and leading proposition to all the other that follow about it, viz., that the Scriptare intimates that such a government may be, falls as low in its undertaking as avy government that can be supposed to pretend the least for itself.
And in the like manner the rest of the propositions that follow ran but in the same style, that it is lawfal and agreeable to the word that things should be ordered thos or thus.
Though the reverend assembly would not venture so far, yet the next fairest way left for deciding this controversy had been to have patterned the practices and directions which the several ways of church government pretend to for their warrant, and to have compared these each with the other, and by an harmonious draught and platform of either, when set together, it would easily have been discerned, not only which of them may be, but which of them rather should be ; and that of the two which appeared to hold the greatest likeness to the primitive picture, drawn in the stories of the New
Testament, and in the rules and commands in the epistles similar thereunto, let that have been esteemed the true child there.
But the proposition is so cast that we must directly oppose it with such grounds as may shew that this preabyterian may not be, without troubling ourselves to consider which of the forms of government this should be.
The proposition as thus stated for the dispute upon a more it may be, as it allows the greatest latitude and compass to the affirmers of it for their way of defending it, and paves the way for passableness with all men, of all sides whatever, whose judgments are not bound up with the opinion of a jus divinum in church government, ao it did put the greatest difficulty upon those that were negative in judgment to disprove it.
The difficulty lay in Cuar. IV.] THE CHUROBES OF OBRIST. this, that the most direct and punctual way to overthrow the proposition is first to prove and make good this other more general assertion, s0 much controverted, that there is a certain standing ordinary form of church government held forth in the directions given to the apostles, or the examples of those churches we read of in the Scripture erected by their guidance, and that also seconded by this negative, that there ought to be no other than what is by institution. Which two general principles, if supposed or gained, then indeed this alone had been argument sufficient to disprove the presbyterial government, that if it be not held forth in the Scriptures as the ordinary standing government for the churches, that then it may not be. These aforesaid general propositions having been determined, there needed no more words to have been on the opponent's part, but to examine the assembly's proofs, whether therein there appeared this standing government instituted.
Bat the diseugsion of the general propositions was denied by the assembly (in the very first entrance into the dispute of discipline) to be so much as debated, and therefore could not be assumed here nor anywhere else into any debate, but against the former order of the assembly; so that they stood upon this advantage, to maintain their assertion upon Erastian principles, and yet left us to disprove it upon the contrary principles, which yet are common to them and us, and which (es one said when it was laid aside) would require a quarter of a year's debate, and also would have been left wholly upon us to make good, although it be laid as the foundation by the chareh of Scotland and other reformed churches of the presbyterial government, and made use of against the episcopal to prove that the government of the churgh by bishops may not be.
And whereas it may be said that yet this was left us, that by proving the congregational way to be by institution, we might by that, as another medium, have shewed that the presbyterial government may not be, we were in this disadvantaged also (if we would have introduced the debate thereof as against the proposition), that though we had never so sufficiently proved all (that is,