granted; they were so elders, as they were still apostles, and so
apostles as they were yet elders: their eldership did not exclude their
apostleship, nor their apostleship swallow up their eldership.

2. Besides, two distinct offices may be formally in one and the same
person; as Melchisedec was formally a king and priest, and David
formally a king and prophet; and why then might not Peter or John, or
any of the twelve, be formally apostles and elders? And ministers are
formally pastors and ruling elders.

_Except_. 'Tis true, the apostles acted together with elders, because
it so fell out they met together; but that they should meet jointly to
give a pattern for an eldership, is not easy to prove; one apostle might
have done that alone, which all here did.

_Ans_. 1. 'Tis true, the apostles as apostles had power to act singly
what they did jointly; yet, when they acted jointly, their acts might
have more authority in the Church: upon which ground they of Antioch may
be conceived to have sent to the whole college of apostles and elders at
Jerusalem, (rather than to any one singly;) why was this, but to add
more authority to their acts and determinations?

2. Why should not their meeting together be a pattern of a presbytery,
as well as their meeting together when they took in the consent of the
people, Acts vi., in the choice of the deacons, to be a pattern or
warrant that the people have a power in the choice of their officers?
(as those of contrary judgment argue:) if one be taken in as an
inimitable practice, why not the other?

3. If the apostles joining with elders, acted nothing as elders, then we