Reader
The Government of the Churches of Christ · Thomas Goodwin

The Government of the Churches of Christ, Book 4 · Chapter 5

CHAP. V.

That if a Presbytery of Elders be erected, having po… over many Congregations, besides their General Relation, they would also bear a particular Relation to each Congregation.

THat no company of Elders Assembled together, hath a Power and Rule over many Congregations, will appear, if we do but consider what the New Testament declares concerning Elders in their Relations to their Flocks committed to them; and concerning the Exhortations and charges to them, of Duties towards those Flocks, founded upon that Relation; as also the Duties of their Flocks to them, all which is like to be the surest measure to find out the extent of their power, and bounds of their Flocks, and whether that power for the ordinary way, be limited to one Congregation or many. For those Exhortations and Charges, must needs be supposed, suited to that boundary of Churches, and that constitution and extent of Relation, that the Elders of those Primitive times were placed in over them: Like as in the question about Polygamy, what the Scripture hath said of the Duties between Man and Wife, which were given and suited to the extent of that Relation, as God from the beginning bounded it; manifestly evinceth, that one Man cannot have many Wives, but one.

We have hitherto taken this for an undoubted Maxim; that as a Mutual Relation, is the ordinary Foundation of all power, whether Oeconomical, Civil, or Ecclesiastical; so the extent of all power, is commensurable with the extent of that Relation. A Master, as a Master, hath power but over such Servants, of whom he may say, I am your Master, and they of him, we are your Servants; for what hath any Man to do to Judge another Mans Servant? As the Apostle speaks. And the same is true correspondently here; those Elders that assume to be over either one or many Congregations, must have, as the Office of Elders, so the Relation of Elders unto that one, or those many Congregations; that they may be able to say, we are your Elders, and you all are our Church; which two are in Scripture expression, the Relate and the Correlate, as King and Kingdom, Magistrates and Common-wealth.

Now against this standing Government of these Elders in greater Presbyteries (as the Question hath been stated) We shall Humbly make use of the forementioned Maxim, for a Medium to overthrow this Government, by presenting together therewith, the Incongruities and Inconsistencies of it, and also by Arguing what the New Testament speaks of the Elders and their Duties, in relation to the Flocks committed to them; which all do argue, that according to the Scriptures, such a Government May not be. And we frame our Argument thus.

If many Congregations, having all Elders already affixed Respectively unto them, may be under such a standing Presbyterial Government: Then all those Elders, must also (according to the Scriptures) sustain a special Relation of ordinary and standing Elders to all the People of those Congregations, as one Church their Flock, 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 Inconsistences, with what the Scripture speaks of Elders, in their Relation to a Flock or 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.

That according to the Scriptures, such a standing Presbyterial Government, necessarily draws such a standing special Relation, we endeavour to evince by parts, thus.

1. They must have the Relation of Elders, for Church and Elders are Relatives. And the Argument, for the Presbyterial Government, is taken by the Presbyterial Divine from this; That many Congregations in Scripture, are made one Church, and the Elders thereof Elders of that Church. This we had the greatest reason to take for granted, from the former Writings and Expressions of the Presbyterial Divines: Yea, the main Arguments, by which themselves have proved this Government, have been taken from this; that many Congregations, in the New Testament, do make one Church, and the Elders thereof, Elders of that one Church; and therefore are to govern that Church. And this we have the greatest reason to take for granted still, for in the proof which was presented to the Honourable Houses of Parliament, by the Reverend Assembly (and before we entred into the Debate, was brought in by the Committee, in the instance of the Church of Jerusalem) this is one Medium, that mention is made of the Multitudes there, as of one Church, and of Elders, as the Elders of that Church. Yea, and there being no mention made, of any distinct particular Congregations or Churches therein, but of a Church, and the Elders thereof; as thereby the prime Notion of a Church is held forth and Attributed thereto; So the prime and more principle Relation of Elders, as Elders to this one Church, and every Member of them is imported, and so as true and as Genuine a Relation (according to the Scripture's intent and expression) must be supposed to be intended, as can be supposed between any particular Congregation and their Elders. Yea, and moreover, to make out the Presbyterial Government over those many Congregations, as one Church, whilst the Apostles were the Rulers of it, the Apostles themselves are made to act and become, as ordinary Elders to that Church. It was therefore desired, that they who should deny this Proposition, would rase out of their Writings for ever, all such expressions; and that in the proofs after, to be brought to Establish the Presbytery, they would forbear that Medium, which yet as a main studd in this Building, cannot be wanting.

2. This Relation, which these Elders 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 Deanries, the Elders (though Neighbours) of a bordering Presbytery, intermeddle not with the Congregations under another Presbytery; and yet they are for their Office Elders. It is therefore a special Relation, puts the difference, that those of these Presbyteries, Judge the Congregations under them, as having a special Relation to them, such as not to other Congregations. So the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem, as they all had the Relation of Elders to that Church, so they had a special Relation to that Church; and the Church was an intire distinct Church within it self, from the rest of the Churches in Judea, and the Elders of that Church were in such a special manner Elders thereof, as of no Church else in Judea; yea, in such a sense as they might be said not to be Elders of those other Churches, but of this.

3. It is an ordinary standing Relation: For they exercise and assume a constant and ordinary power, as the Presbyters of lesser Congregations do. Their meetings as Elders, in a Presbytery, are constant and ordinary, as those of the lesser Presbyteries are; and as these are Established for the smaller matters of Government, so these always are for the greater, and most Solemn; and they are both alike ordinary: For their Meeting, Work, and Exercise of power, being standing their relation must be suitable and answerable, to that of Elders in their Congregations respectively.

Unto the Argument, several Answers were given by the Reverend Respondents. 1. Some said, that they meet not Qua Elders, only Qui: They, meet, as Commissioners, but not as Elders. But this answer is taken away, by the first and second Argument; which proves, they have the Relation of Elders in Ruling. 2. It was denyed by others, that if they make up a Presbytery to these Congregations, and all the people of them, that then they must bear the Relation of Elders to these Congregations, and every Member of them: For though they are Elders taken singly and apart, as in Relation to their several Congregations, which they are affixed unto; yet in this their conjunction into a common Presbytery over them all, they bear the Relation of Elders, but of a Presbytery or Eldership acting all in common: For as all these Congregations, under this Government, are to be considered as one Body, and as making up one Church, so all these Elders, met in this community, are to be considered as one Body and community; and therefore although they be considered altogether a Presbytery to that whole Church; yet it follows not, that they bear the Relation of Elders to each Congregation or Person they Govern; for according to that Logick Rule, Quod convenit toti qua toti, non convenit cuilibet parti, what agrees to the whole, as a whole, doth not agree to every part; these Elders, as in a Presbytery, make one Totum aggregatum; and these Congregations, as making up one Church, make another Totum aggregatum correlative thereunto: But take any Elder out of this Presbytery, and consider him in a single Relation to any of those Churches under the Presbytery; and he is not an Elder of any of those Churches, no more than if you take any Member of all those Congregations, that make up a classical Church; it would follow, that therefore he is a Member of all those many Congregations, whereas he is only a Member of that Community, as making one Church. And it was exemplified thus; that in Juda, the Heads of the Tribes Governed the Tribes; but so, as the Heads of the Tribe of Benjamin were not the Heads of the Tribe of Manasses; and so in the University, the particular Heads of Trinity Colledge, and of Queen's Colledge, are altogether Heads of the University, as a common Body; but it follows not, that the Head of Trinity Colledge, is Head of Queen's, and of all the other Colledges: And so in Parliament, a Burgess of Warwickshire acts for all England; yet it follows not, he is a Burgess of Norfolk: So the case is here, they are Elders in sensu composito, as united into one Presbytery or Community; but not in sensu diviso, to each of these Congregations, but each to their proper Congregations, to which they are affixed: As the Collonels in an Army, are Collonels but to their several Regiments; yet they all joyn in one Body, as a Councel of War to the whole Army. And so these are Elders here in sensu aggregato, collectively to all the Congregations, though apart with a more special Relation to each. It was Retorted also, that in a particular Congregation, according to our Principles, the community of all the Brethren have power over any particular Member, as Thomas and Peter, with the rest over John; but it follows not, that Peter hath power over John apart, but only as in this Community considered; and so in this Presbytery, all these Elders are a Presbytery to the whole; but yet bear not the Relation of Elders to each apart considered. But we answer,

1. That we had the greatest reason to take it for granted (from the former Writings and Expressions of the Presbyterial Divines; as also because the main Arguments, by which themselves had proved this Government, have been taken from it) that many Congregations, in the New Testament, do make one Church; and that the Elders thereof, are Elders of that one Church, and therefore they are to Govern that Church.

2. That Logical Axiom is indeed true, Quod convenit toti, qua toti, non convenit cuilibet parti, and so here, that which doth competere toti, to the whole of those 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 all be a common Presbytery to all these Congregations, that then they bear the Relation of Elders to them. Thus in a particular Congregation, though all the Elders are acknowledged by all, to be Elders to every Member of the Congregation; yet each cannot be said to be a Presbytery to the whole, or each Member; for that which belongs to the whole, as the whole belongs not to every part. That indeed which belongs to an aggregate whole, or collective community, formally considered as such, cannot be Attributed to every part; but what materially belongs to them, belongs to each apart. As take an heap of Stones, 'tis true, each Stone, is not an heap of Stones: but each Stone is a Stone; and both the Stones apart, and as an heap may be said to be such or such a Man's propriety, and to relate to him; so this company of Elders must be supposed both a Presbytery, and also Elders to this whole People, and every Member of them,

3. If they be a Presbytery in common to those Congregations, then according to the Scripture Notion and Expression (and what the Scriptures hold forth, is the Subject matter of this Debate) they bear the Relation of Elders also; and then they must be such Elders, as the Exhortations and Duties of Elders mentioned do concern. Now this consequence we make good by these Arguments:

1. The Scriptures would have the people look at them, and Honour them as Elders in all Acts of Ruling and Governing, those especially wherein the most and chief of Government lies, and wherein the excellency of their Ruling is seen: Now the chief of the Acts of Government, and the most excellent thereof, are assumed and exercised by these Elders, met in a common Presbytery, as Excommunication, &c. And therefore they that exercise such Acts of Government over Congregations, must bear the Relation of Elders to them; for 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, 1 Tim. 5. 17. From whom are they to have this Honour given them, but from the People under them, and to be Honoured in their Relation; and this, as well in Ruling as in Preaching, though an Especially is put upon that. And therefore if in giving this Honour to them that labour in Preaching to them; they are to look at them, under the Relation of Elders, and their Elders labouring in the Word to them; then in giving that Honour to them that Rule them, they are so to look upon them, and therefore they must sustain that Relation in that Ruling; and besides, otherwise we destroy the Relation of Elders, as Elders in the Highest Acts of Governing, which are exercised in a Presbytery, whereas the Apostle calls them Elders in Ruling, as well as in Preaching.

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 the Elders are supposed to be a Presbytery, to them they must bear the Relation of Elders. That the phrase is promiscuously used, is evident by Matth. 21. 33. where those that are called Elders of the People, are called, Luke 22. 66. foreign, the Presbytery of the People, so that if they were Related as a Presbytery to the people, to the same people they were Related as Elders. Neither are they said to be Elders in Relation to their being a Presbytery, but to the people; therefore it is not said the Elders of the Presbytery, but of the people, as bearing a direct Relation as Elders to the people: And so in Analogy thereunto, if they be a presbytery to many Congregations, they must be supposed Elders of those Congregations; for to whom ever they are a Presbytery, to them they are Elders; and to whom ever they are Elders, to them upon occasion they are a Presbytery. And in Analogy, the New Testament useth the word Presbytery, as under the Gospel but once, and in all places else, the Holy Ghost still when he exhorts them to their Duties, calls them Elders, or them that have the Rule over you, and yet in all those places, he intends to involve the Duty of Elders, as met in a Presbytery, as well as those singly performed to each person.

3. It is evident from the like parallel instance of the Eldership of a particular Congregation, where the Elders bear the Relation of Elders to each Member, and when met in common, they are an Eldership or Presbytery in common to that Church, and each Member of it. And then this their being a Community, takes not away their Relation of being Elders, as if the answer given by the Respondents, should hold, it would; for they would only be a Presbytery, and not Elders in that Community, when as they never are Elders more than then, and are not Elders of that Church, because met in a Presbytery; but therefore meet in a Presbytery over that Congregation, because they personally bear the Relation of Elders to it. And when they meet in that Presbytery, they are Elders particularly to each Member, as well as are Universal Elders in the Assembled presbytery. The Scripture commits the care of Churches, to these as in a presbytery, as well as out of it; and therefore they are Elders of their particular Flock in this presbytery, as well as when out of it. Thus (Acts 20. 28.) all the care of the Flock was committed to them as Elders, and having Relation to it as such; and therefore when met in a presbytery (therein to have care of the Flock, or any Member of it) they were Elders to it. And they are therefore to meet in a presbytery; because they were first Elders to their several Respective Congregations; and that they must be acknowledged Elders of all the people in those Congregations, the very instance it self alledged by our Brethren, will evidently clear; for the General Elders of all the Tribes, were called Elders of the people, Mat. 21. So as suppose the same individual persons, had been Members of the General Sanhedrim, or common Eldership of the people, and also Elders of the Tribes Respectively; yet they might as justly be called Elders of all those Tribes in their General Relation, for such ends and purposes, as truly as they were Elders to their particular Tribes, for other ends and purposes. Now therefore by like Reason, must all the Elders in this common Presbytery, have the Relation of Elders to all the Congregations, as well as severally they have their proper Relations to their several Congregations. For if in the instance given of the Jewish Government, we take all causes common to all the Tribes, as the Elders of Manasses, were Elders to the Tribe of Benjamin, so in like manner must these Elders of a Presbytery, in common to all these Congregations, be supposed to be to each Congregation, when any cause comes afore them in their cognisance.

Lastly, Those places and exhortations of Scripture, concerning the Duties of Elders, &c. to their Flocks, and their Flocks to them, may be alledged to strengthen the Argument, Heb. 13. 7. Remember them that have the Rule over you, and have spoken the Word of God to you. And 1 Thess. 5. 12. Know them which labour among you, and are over you, and Admonish you. And to the same purpose is the charge, Acts 20. To the Elders of Ephesus, Feed the Flock, &c. These are all spoken of them, and to them, under the very Notion and Relation of Elders and Rulers, (which is Equivalent) and as their Rulers and Elders. And surely if any Person in a Congregation, were called afore one of those Presbyteries, over many Congregations, they would urge upon the Conscience of the Person, these and the like places to obey them, by vertue of these commands. If he should Reply, that these places speak of such as have the Relation of Elders to their Flocks, and every Person therein; and that by vertue of their being such to them, this Obedience is urged upon them; but you of the Presbytery, do not own the Elders of your Prebytery to have a Relation to the Congregation I am of, and so I am quit of Obedience to you; how could they by vertue of these places, holding this principle, that they have not the Relation of Elders to him, enforce Obedience from him? And how will his conscience ever be brought to a Submission to their Sentence against him, if not satisfied of this Relation to him thus Specified? And yet would not these Elders by the Presbyterial Principles expect equal, if not more Obedience from him, than the Elders of that particular Congregation he is a Member of would do? I am sure that in practice, they assume more; and I doubt not, but any one of these Elders, or all of them apart, would as Authoritatively Admonish him (as an Elder to him) in private after the cause is brought afore the Presbytery, to obey and submit to them, as any of his own Elders would do before or after their publick Admonition, and would require Obedience to him as an Elder, by vertue of these places of Scripture before mentioned. If therefore they would require it; then the Relation must be the same. Yea, do not often some few of the Elders of a common Presbytery, come into particular Congregations, and perform Acts of Government, and ordain Elders to them; and in case of obstinacy, Excommunicate the Elders of any particular Congregation? Upon what plea of Authority do they this, as Elders to that particular Congregation, or not?

4. We come now to consider the other Distinction. 1. Of their being Elders only in a community to all these Congregations as one Church, in sensu aggregato: And 2. Of their being apart, Elders unto their particular Congregations respectively: And so the Duties mentioned of Feeding the Flock, &c. concern them only as considered apart; but Acts of Government, belong to them as Elders in a Presbytery. We reply 1. That this Answer supposeth two distinct differing Relations, the one a more particular Relation of Elders, as proper Elders to their several Congregations apart; and another more common Relation of the same persons considered as Elders meerly, as in a Presbytery. Now for the confirmation or Establishment of this Distinction, by the one side or the other, the Foundation on which we proceed, must be remembred, viz. what the Scriptures hold forth; and therefore what ev… Suppositions or Instances may be found in other constitutions, to Illustrate such Distinctions here; yet if what the New Testament speaks of Elders in Relation to their Flock, warranteth it not, yea crosseth it, it may not be. Now then it is to be considered, that when the New Testament speaks of Elders and Churches, it speaks Universally, and without Distinction of a different Relation. It calls them simply and simply Elders of the Church, and delivers (in that Relation to their Church, they were Elders of) Exhortations to their Duties, which that Relation specially called for; and in those exhortations intends their Duties, as their Elders, met in a Presbytery; as well as those they are to perform in other Ministrations towards their Flocks, and on the other side, exhorts the people in like simular expressions, to Obey and Honour their Elders that Preach the Word, Rule them, and Admonish them, prescribing Obedience to them, in their Rule in a Presbytery, as well as in other Administrations; and all this without any Distinction of this Relation of Elders in common, and in special. And farther 'tis enjoyned, that these presbyterial Elders, must perform those Duties which belong to their Office, unto all those they are thus Elders unto, without any Manifest Distinction of any several bounds of this so differing Relation. This evidently argueth, that there is but one single Relation of Elders, to one Flock, to whom they perform these Duties; and that the same that Preach, ought to Rule them in publick; and that the same Persons that Admonish them privately, do also in the publick Presbytery Rule them; and that the same Persons that Rule them in those publick Presbyteries, do Admonish them in private. So then, the same Persons sustain in the Holy Ghosts intention, and view when he made those exhortations, one and the same Univocal Relation of Elders to their Flocks, committed by him to them, whether they be met in a Presbytery for Acts of Government, or otherwise perform the Duties of Elders apart. And it is evident, that in a particular Congregation, they are Elders in one Univocal Simular Relation, unto the whole Flock, and every Member thereof. But now this is the wonder, that when Elders are thus affixed to particular Congregations; and that their Relation is a differing Relation from that other in common Presbyteries (yea, so vastly differing, that our Brethren dare scarce acknowledge them Elders, calling them rather a Presbytery, than Elders of those Churches) that yet the exhortations in the Scriptures, should so univocally fall on them, to so differing Duties, founded on differing Relations; and that yet this only Genuine Relation of Elders to their particular Congregations, should not be mentioned apart; and the Duties accompanying it, singled out from the rest, seems to us very strange. Yea, and to direct the Discharge of the Duties of the People likewise, to either of these Elders (that they might know what Duties to perform to their more proper Elders, acknowledged theirs by way of so eminent and differing a Relation, and what to those more common; and that all confusion might be prevented, that the one assume not the Duties of the other) it was as necessary to have set the differing Limits of these, as to set the bounds of Officers in the Church, which the Holy Ghost hath done.

2. And Secondly, If there had been this differing Relation of Elders, which from those Similitudes in Common-wealths, Armies, and the Universities is given; it was necessary that the Scripture should have held it forth, either by differing Names and Respects, or by differing charges, whereby it might appear, that this Relation obligeth them to this Duty, and the other Relation to that; which being not done in Scripture, the Distinction will not pass upon us. That it is thought necessary, that the Scripture should prescribe herein, appears from the instances brought by the Reverend Respondents. As 1. That of the Tribes, where there were General Elders of all the Tribes, and there were (and perhaps some of them the same Men) Heads and Elders of 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 Tribes, were called by way of Distinction from them, Elders of such Cities, Families, &c. And there were as Distinct Laws given, so that in some causes the Elders of the several Tribes did judge such and such particulars in their Tribes Respectively: And the General Elders had reserved cases, of War, Blasphemy, &c.

So in that Instance of Heads of Colledges, and Heads of the University; there is as a differing Relation, so a Distinguishing Character. For the Names are changed, since the particular Bodies are called Colledges; and the General Body the University: And their several special Relation to their Colledges, is expressed by the Title of Masters of such or such Colledges; and the other by the Title of Heads to the University. Yea, and accordingly there are differing Statutes, the Local Statutes for each Colledge apart, or for Colledges as Colledges, and the Duties of Masters in their special Relations; and there are Statutes for the University, and for their Duties as Heads of it. And this Distinction or Difference was necessary here too, if there were this differing Relation: But for the case in hand, if we come to the New Testament, to find out the several Modifications and Relations of Elders therein, we still read but simply and singly, Elders and Churches, as Relatives, without any such Note of Distinction of a classical Church, and the Presbytery thereof; and the Congregational Church, and the Elders thereof. The New Testament in all its mentioning of Elders, speaks uniformly of them, as Elders of the Church, and this Rule is to us certain, Ʋbi Scriptura non distinguit, nec debemus distinguere, Where the Scripture makes no Distinction, we ought not to make any.

But however, I will Represent the difference between us and our Brethren, by the Proposition of such a Case in Law as this is: If all the Records and Ruled Cases and Laws of this Kingdom, should, in setting down the ordinary Government thereof, have made mention only and singly, of Burgesses (as the Rulers) of Corporations (as the Correlate to them) and used no other Distinguishing Word (when yet there were undeniably Burgesses of every incorporate Town, continued from Antiquity) might any one afterwards pretend, that this Word Corporation, was intended by our Ancestors, to import an Association or Community of many of these Corporations in one Shire; and that by Burgesses of these Corporations, were meant a community of all these Burgesses in one Body for Government; and so pretend to the same Name without Distinction, and say, that these Communities were also meant, and to prove it, give instance in some Foreign Government, where there are States General of Provinces, and States particular of Cities; when as they have in their Laws, a Distinction and Differencing Character; but in the Laws of this Kingdom, there is no such Distinction made? But now if the Laws about the choice of such Burgesses in each Corporation, and the Duties given them in charge, and their Relation to their Corporations, do run without any Distinction of what the Burgesses in the supposed greater Corporations should do, in that Relation and Community; from what the same Burgesses in their lesser Corporations do in their more proper Relations: 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; but should all naturally fall in with that of Burgesses over single Corporations, and argue such a Relation: Would not this plainly evidence, that therefore the Laws of the 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 others? And if in answer to such Arguments, it should be said, that both these might be consistent; for that in other 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 holds forth, and as this Kingdom hath set up, where there is no such 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 Corporations; and further, the Rules about their choice and duties mutually between them, and the Corporations they have Relation to, be also delivered without any difference; which doth argue them to have been Anciently the Relation of Burgesses to some one Corporation, and not many; yea, to be utterly incongruous and inconsistent, with such a manifold Relation. Now Parallel to this case, are our Arguments; and the Answers given to the Arguments of our Presbyterian Brethren.

But they Retort the Argument upon us, and say, that it follows no more, that they are to be Elders to each Congregation, because joyned in a common Presbytery, than that in a particular Congregation; Peter or one Member apart, hath a power over John; because in community with the rest of the Brethren, he hath power over any one.

We answer, That let this Parallel decide it; and then as the Foundation of any one Members having an interest in that community over John, or any other, consists, in this that he stands in the Relation of a Brother to John, as a Member of that Church; and …o in like manner to all the rest of the Members in that community: So likewise all and every one, when in that common Fraternity, stand in the very same Relation of Brethren to John, as well as when they are apart out of it; and do not become Brethren, having power over him, because met in a community; but therefore meet, because as Brethren; this Duty lies on them in common, to Judge him as much as in private to Admonish him; and so one and the same Relation, puts them upon both these Duties. And in Scripture, the Exhortations run to the same Persons to perform these Duties, though of differing sort; because of their Relation as Brethren. Let this Parallel be applyed to the thing in hand, and as it answers the Instance, so it strengthens our Argument.

Lastly, If they be acknowledged to have the Relation of Elders, as Assembled in a Presbytery; and in that respect, to have a Relation to all the People in the several Congregations: Yet still the same Incongruities mentioned will follow upon it. For many of those Duties from all the Congregation, as Honour, Maintenance, &c. are due to them, as well as to their own Elders, for that their Works sake: And the Acts too also of these Elders in this Presbytery, though in common, are the most eminent Acts that belong to the Office of Elders; and in which the Consciences and Interest of the People, and each Member, is as much concerned, as in the daily Preaching of their more proper Elders (as for Distinction sake, we now call them) for they have power, and they alone to cut them off from all Ordinances, and to deliver them unto Satan. Now then, if they are to be interested in the choice of their proper Elders, to Rule them in smaller things, then their concern ought to be, as much in the choice of, and consenting to these their General Elders, and they should be present at the Ordination of all of them; for one great part of their Function, is to be exercised towards any, and all of those Congregations in a standing way; yea, and to Rule them in matters of the greatest concernment. Thus then so far, as they are acknowledged Elders, so far these Inconveniences will still follow upon the Heels of that acknowledgment; and the Scriptures indifferently speaking the same things, without Distinction of both these kind of Relations, under the common Name of Elders, the People have as much cause to challenge their right about the one, as they have about the other; and these Elders may expect the same (by vertue of those Scriptures) from the People.