Thus the proper receptacle or subject of ecclesiastical power
hath been considered negatively, what it is not, viz: not the
political magistrate, nor yet the community of the faithful, or
body of the people, with or without their eldership. Now this
receptacle of power comes to be evidenced affirmatively, what it
is, viz. (according to the express words of the description of
government,) Christ's own officers. This is the last branch of the
description, the divine right whereof remains to be cleared; which
may most satisfactorily be done by evidencing these three things,
viz: 1. That Jesus Christ our Mediator hath certain peculiar church
guides and officers which he hath erected in his Church. 2. That
Jesus Christ our Mediator hath especially intrusted his own
officers with the government of his Church. 3. How, or in what
sense the ruling officers are intrusted with this government,
severally or jointly?
1. Of the Divine Right of Christ's Church Officers, viz.
Pastors and Teachers, with Ruling Elders.
Touching the first, that Christ hath certain peculiar church
guides and officers, which he hath erected in his Church. Take it
thus:
Jesus Christ our Mediator hath ordained and set in his Church
(besides the apostles and other extraordinary officers that are now
ceased) pastors and teachers, as also ruling elders, as the subject
of the keys for all ordinary ecclesiastical administrations. The
divine right of these ordinary church officers may appear as
followeth:
I. Pastors and teachers are the ordinance of Jesus Christ. This
is generally granted on all sides; and therefore these few
particulars may suffice for the demonstration of it, viz:
1. They are enumerated in the list or catalogue of those church
officers which are of divine institution. "God hath set" (or put,
constituted) "some in the Church, first, apostles; secondarily,
prophets; thirdly, teachers," 1 Cor. xii. 28. These are some of the
triumphant gifts and trophies of Christ's ascension: "Ascending up
on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men: and he
gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and
some pastors and teachers," Eph. iv. 8, 11. Thus in that exact roll
of ordinary officers: "Having, therefore, gifts different according
to the grace given unto us; whether prophecy, let us prophesy
according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on
our ministry;" (here is the general distribution of all ordinary
officers under two heads, prophecy and ministry:) "or
he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on
exhortation," (here is the teacher and the pastor, that come under
the first head of prophecy,) Rom. xii. 6-8. "Take heed to
yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath
made" (or set) "you overseers," Acts xx. 28. Note—God hath
set in the Church; Christ hath given for his body; the Holy Ghost
hath made overseers over the flock, these pastors and teachers: and
are not pastors and teachers church officers by divine right,
having the authority of God, Christ, and of the Holy Ghost?
2. They are to be thus and thus qualified according to divine
direction. The qualifications of these pastors and teachers,
(called presbyters and overseers,) see in 1 Tim. iii. 2-8, "An
overseer," or bishop, "must be blameless," &c.; and Tit. i.
5-10, "To ordain presbyters," or elders, "in every city—If
any be blameless," &c. Now, where God lays down qualifications
for pastors and teachers, there he approves such officers to be his
own ordinance.
3. They have manifold church employments committed to them from
Christ, as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of
God, (1 Cor. iv. 1, 2,) they being intrusted in whole or in part
with the managing of most if not all the ordinances forementioned
in part 2, chap. VII., as there by the texts alleged is evident.
Matters of order and special office are committed to them only
divisim: matters of jurisdiction are committed to them with
ruling elders conjunctim. If Christ hath intrusted them thus
with church ordinances, and the dispensing of them, sure they are
Christ's church officers.
4. The very names and titles given them in Scripture proclaim
them to be Christ's own ordinance; among many take these:
"Ministers of Christ," 1 Cor. iv. 1; "Stewards of the mysteries of
God," 1 Cor. iv. 1; "Ambassadors for Christ," 2 Cor. v. 20;
"Laborers thrust forth into his harvest by the Lord of the
harvest," Matt. ix. 38; "Ruling over you in the Lord,"44 1 Thess. v. 12.
5. The Lord Christ charges their flock and people with many
duties to be performed to their pastors and teachers, because of
their office; as to know them, love them, obey them, submit unto
them, honor them, maintain them, &c., which he would not do
were they not his own ordinance. "But we beseech you, brethren, to
know them that labor among you, and rule over you in the Lord, and
esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake," 1 Thess. v.
12, 13. "Obey your rulers, and submit; for they watch for your
souls as those that must give an account," Heb. xiii. 17. "The
elders that rule well count worthy of double honor; especially them
that labor in the word and doctrine; for the Scripture
saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth
out the corn, and the laborer is worthy of his hire," 1 Tim. v. 17,
18; compared With 1 Cor. ix. 6-15. "Let him that is catechized,
communicate to him that catechizeth him in all good things," Gal.
vi. 6-8.
Thus much for the present may suffice to have been spoken
touching the divine right of pastors and teachers, the ordinary
standing ministers of Christ under the New Testament. But forasmuch
as we observe that in these days some rigid Erastians and Seekers
oppose and deny the very office of the ministry now under the
gospel, and others profess that the ministry of the church of
England is false and antichristian; we intend, (by God's
assistance,) as soon as we can rid our hands from other pressing
employments, to endeavor the asserting and vindicating of the
divine right of the ministers of the New Testament in general, and
of the truth of the ministry of the church of England in
particular.
II. Ruling elders, distinct from all preaching elders and
deacons, are a divine ordinance in the Church of God now under the
New Testament.
The divine right of this church officer, the mere ruling elder,
is much questioned and doubted by some, because they find not the
Scriptures speaking so fully and clearly of the ruling elder as of
the preaching elder and of the deacon. By others it is flatly
denied and opposed, as by divers that adhere too tenaciously to the
Erastian and prelatical principles: who yet are willing to account
the assistance of the ruling elder in matter of church government
to be a very prudential way. But if mere prudence be counted once a
sufficient foundation for a distinct kind of church officer, we
shall open a door for invention of church officers at pleasure;
then welcome commissioners and committee men, &c.; yea, then
let us return to the vomit, and resume prelates, deans,
archdeacons, chancellors, officials, &c., for church officers.
And where shall we stop? who but Christ Jesus himself can establish
new officers in his church? Is it not the fruit of his ascension,
&c.? Eph. iv. 7, 11, 12. Certainly if the Scriptures lay not
before us grounds more than prudential for the ruling elder, it
were better never to have mere ruling elders in the church. Both
the Presbyterians and Independents45 acknowledge the divine right of
the ruling elder. For satisfaction of doubting unprejudiced minds,
(to omit divers considerations that might be produced,) the divine
right of the ruling elder may be evinced by these ensuing
arguments.
Argum. I. The first argument for the divine right of the
ruling elder in the Church of Christ, shall be drawn from Rom. xii.
6-8: "Having, then, gifts differing according to the grace that is
given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the
proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our
ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that
exhorteth, on exhortation; he that giveth, let him do it
with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence," &c. Let the
scope and context of this chapter be a little viewed, and it will
make way for the more clear arguing from this place. Briefly thus:
The apostle having finished the principal part of his epistle,
which was problematical, wherein he disputed—1. About
justification, chap, i.-vi.; 2. Sanctification, chap. vi. 7, 8;
and, 3. Predestination, chap. ix. 10, 11, he comes to the next
branch, which is more practical, about good works, chap. xii.-xvi.
This twelfth chapter is wholly in the way of exhortation, and he
herein exhorts to divers duties. 1. More generally that we should
even consecrate ourselves wholly to the service of God, ver. 1;
that we should not conform to the world, ver. 2. More specially he
descends to particular duties, which are of two sorts, viz: 1. Such
as concern ecclesiastical officers as officers, ver. 3-9; 2. Such
as concern all Christians in common as Christians, both towards one
another and towards their very enemies, verse 9, to the end of the
chapter. Touching ecclesiastical officers, the apostle's evident
scope is to urge them not to be proud of their spiritual gifts,
(which in those days abounded,) but to think soberly,
self-denyingly of themselves, and to use all their gifts well. This
he presseth upon them, 1. From the nature of the Church, which is
as a natural organical body, wherein are many members, having their
several offices for the good of the whole body; so the members of
Christ's body being many, have their several gifts and offices for
the good of the whole, that the superior should not despise the
inferior, nor the inferior envy their superior, ver. 3-5. 2. From
the distribution or enumeration of the several kinds of ordinary
standing officers in this organical body, the Church, who are
severally exhorted duly to discharge those duties that are
specially required of them in their several functions, ver. 6-8.
These officers are reduced first to two general heads, viz:
Prophecy (understand not the extraordinary gift of foretelling
future things, &c., but the ordinary, in the right
understanding and interpreting of Scripture) and ministry; and the
general duties thereof are annexed, ver. 6, 7. Then these generals
are subdivided into the special offices contained under them, the
special duty of every officer being severally pressed upon them.
Under prophecy are contained, 1. He that teacheth, i.e., the
doctor or teacher; 2. He that exhorteth, i.e., the pastor,
ver. 7, 8. Under ministry are comprised, 1. He that giveth,
i.e., the deacon; 2. He that ruleth, i.e., the ruling elder.
The current of our best interpreters to this effect resolve this
context. So that here we have a very excellent and perfect
enumeration of all the ordinary standing officers in the Church of
Christ distinctly laid down. This premised, the argument for the
divine right of the ruling elder may be thus propounded:
Major. Whatsoever members of Christ's organical body have
an ordinary office of ruling therein given them of God, distinct
from all other ordinary standing officers in the church, together
with directions from God how they are to rule; they are the ruling
elders we seek, and that by divine right.
Minor. But he that ruleth, mentioned in Rom. xii.
8, is a member of Christ's organical body, having an ordinary
office of ruling therein given him of God, distinct from all other
standing officers in the church, together with direction how he is
to rule.
Conclusion. Therefore he that ruleth, mentioned in Rom.
xii. 8, is the ruling elder we seek, and that by divine right.
The major proposition is clear. For in the particulars of it,
well compared together, are observable both a plain delineation or
description of the ruling elder's office; and also a firm
foundation for the divine right of that office. The ruling elder's
office is described and delineated by these several clauses, which
set out so many requisites for the making up of a ruling elder,
viz: 1. He must be a member of Christ's organical body. Such as are
without, pagans, heathens, infidels, &c., out of the Church,
they are not fit objects for church government, to have it
exercised by the Church upon them; the Church only judges them that
are within, (1 Cor. v. 12, 13,) much less can they be fit subjects
of church government to exercise it themselves within the Church.
How shall they be officers in the Church that are not so much as
members of the Church? Besides, such as are only members of the
invisible body of Christ, as the glorified saints in heaven, they
cannot be officers in the Church; for not the Church invisible, but
only the Church or body of Christ visible is organical. So that
every church officer must first be a Church member, a member of the
visible organical body: consequently a ruling elder must be such a
member. 2. He must have an office of ruling in this body of Christ.
Membership is not enough, unless that power of rule be superadded
thereto; for the whole office of the ruling elder is contained in
the matter of rule; take away rule, you destroy the very office.
Now, rule belongs not to every member: "Salute all them that have
the rule over you, and all the saints," Heb. xiii. 24, where rulers
and saints are made contradistinct to one another. In the body
natural all the members are not eyes, hands, &c., governing the
body, some are rather governed; so in the body of Christ, 1 Cor.
xii. 3. This his office of ruling must be an ordinary office;
apostles had some power that was extraordinary, as their
apostleship was extraordinary; but when we seek for this ruling
elder, we seek for a fixed, standing, ordinary officer ruling in
the church. 4. All that is not enough, that he be a member of the
church, that he have an office of rule in the church, and that
office also be ordinary; but besides all these it is necessary that
he be also distinct from all other standing officers in the church,
viz. from pastors, teachers, deacons; else all the former will not
make up a peculiar kind of officer, if in all points he fully agree
with any of the said three. But if there can be found such an
officer in whom all these four requisites do meet, viz: That, 1. Is
a member of Christ's organical body; 2. Hath an office of rule
therein; 3, That office is ordinary; and, 4. That ordinary office
is distinct from all other ordinary standing offices in the church;
this must unavoidably be that very ruling elder which we inquire
after. By this it is evident, that in this proposition here is a
plain and clear delineation of the ruling elder's office. Now, in
the next place, touching the foundation for the divine right of
this office; it also is notably expressed in the same proposition,
while it presupposeth, 1. That God is the giver of this office; 2.
That God is the guider of this office. For whatsoever office or
officer God gives for his Church, and having given it, guides and
directs to the right discharge thereof, that must needs be of
divine right beyond all contradiction. Thus this proposition is
firm and cogent. Now let us assume:
Minor. But he that ruleth, mentioned in Rom. xii.
8, is a member of Christ's organical body, having an ordinary
office of ruling therein, given him of God, distinct from all other
ordinary standing officers in the church, together with direction
from God how he is to rule.
This assumption or minor proposition (whereon the main stress of
the argument doth lie) may be thus evidenced by parts, from this
context:
He that ruleth is a member of Christ's organical body.
For, 1. The Church of Christ is here compared to a body, We
being many are one body in Christ, ver. 5. 2. This body is
declared to be organical, i.e. consisting of several members, that
have their several offices in the body, some of teaching, some of
exhorting, and some of ruling, &c. "For as we have many members
in one body, and all members have not the same office, so we being
many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another,"
&c., ver. 4-6, &c. 3. Among the rest of the members of this
body, he that ruleth is reckoned up for one, ver. 5-8; this
is palpably evident.
He that ruleth hath an office of ruling in this body of
Christ. For, 1. This word (translated) he that ruleth, in
the proper signification and use of it, both in the Scriptures and
in other Greek authors, doth signify one that ruleth
authoritatively over another, (as hereafter is manifested in the 3d
argument, § 2.) 2. Our best interpreters and commentators do
render and expound the word generally to this effect: e.g. He that
is over46—one set
over47—he that stands
in the head or front48—as a captain or commander in
the army, to which this phrase seems to allude—he that
ruleth. 3. This word, wherever it is used in a genuine proper
sense, in all the New Testament, notes rule, or government. It is
used metaphorically for taking care (as one set over any business)
of good works, only in two places, Tit. iii. 8, and iii. 14.
Properly for government which superiors have over inferiors; and
that either domestical, in private families, so it is used in 1
Tim. iii. 4, 5, 12, or ecclesiastical, in the church, which is the
public family of God; in this sense it is used, 1 Thes. v. 12, 1
Tim. v. 17, and here, Rom. xii. 8, and these are all the places
where this word is found used in all the New Testament.
3. He that ruleth here, hath an ordinary, not an
extraordinary office of rule in the church. For he is ranked and
reckoned up in the list of Christ's ordinary standing officers,
that are constantly to continue in the church, viz. pastors,
teachers, deacons. Commonly this place is interpreted to speak of
the ordinary church officers, and none other; consequently he that
ruleth is such a one.
4. He that ruleth here, is an officer distinct from all
other ordinary officers in the Church of Christ. For in this place
we have a full enumeration of all Christ's ordinary officers, and
he that ruleth is a distinct officer among them all. 1. Distinct in
name, he only is called he that ruleth, the rest have every
one of them their several distinct name, ver. 7, 8. 2. Distinct in
his work here appropriated to him; the doctor teacheth; the pastor
exhorteth; the deacon giveth; this elder ruleth, as the very
name signifieth, ver. 8. Compare 1 Tim. v. 17, 1 Cor. xii. 28. As
the elder ruleth, so he is distinct from the deacon that hath no
rule in the church; and as he only rules, so he is distinct from
both pastor and teacher, that both teach, exhort, and rule; they
both have power of order and jurisdiction, the ruling elder hath
only power of jurisdiction. 3. Finally, he is distinct among and
from them all in the particular direction here given these officers
about the right discharge of their functions. The teacher must be
exercised in teaching; the pastor in exhortation; the
deacon must give with singleness; and the elder, he must
rule with diligence, studiousness, &c. Now what other
solid reason can be imagined, why he that ruleth should here
have a distinct name, distinct work and employment, and distinct
direction how to manage this work, than this, that the Holy Ghost
might set him out unto us as an ordinary officer in the church,
distinct from all the other standing officers here enumerated?
5. God himself is the author and giver of this office of him
that ruleth, as well as of all the other offices here mentioned.
For, 1. All gifts and endowments in the church in general, and in
every member in particular; they are from God, it is he that gives
and divides them as he will, as God hath dealt to every one the
measure of faith, Rom. xii. 3. 2. All the special offices, and
gifts for these offices in special, are also from the same God,
we having therefore gifts according to the grace given unto us,
differing; whether prophecy, &c., Rom, xii. 6, 7, &c.
Here it is plain that he distinguished betwixt grace and gifts. By
grace here we are to understand that holy office or charge in the
church, which is given to any man by the grace and favor of God.
And in this sense the apostle in this very chapter, ver. 3, useth
the word grace: For I say through the grace given to me,
i.e. through the authority of my apostleship, which by grace I have
received, &c. By gifts, we are to understand those endowments
wherewith God hath freely furnished his officers in the church for
their several offices. Now both these gifts and this grace, both
the endowments and the office, are originally from God, his grace
is the fountain of them; and both the grace of each office, and the
gifts for such office, relate to all these ordinary offices here
enumerated, as is evident by the current and connection of the
whole context, see ver. 6-8; consequently the grace, i.e. the
office of ruling, which is of divine grace, and the gifts for that
office, arise from the same fountain, God himself.
6. Finally, God himself is the guider and director of him that
ruleth, here prescribing to him how he is to rule, viz. with
diligence, with studiousness, &c., ver. 8. Now we may
receive this as a maxim, That of divine right may be done, for
which God gives his divine rule how it is to be done: and that
office must needs be of divine right, which God himself so far
approves as to direct in his word how it shall be discharged.
Now, to sum up all, he that ruleth here, 1. Is a member of
Christ's organical body. 2. Hath an office of ruling in this body.
3. This his office is not extraordinary but ordinary, standing, and
perpetual. 4. He is an officer distinct from all other ordinary
officers in the Church. 5. God himself is the giver and author of
this office. 6. And God himself is the guider and director of this
office: and then see if we may not clearly conclude,
Conclusion. Therefore, he that ruleth, mentioned in Rom.
xii. 8, is the ruling elder we seek, and that by divine right.
The adversaries of ruling elders muster up divers exceptions
against the alleging of Rom. xii. 8, for proof of the divine right
of their office, the weakness of which is to be discovered ere we
pass to another argument. Except. 1. This is an arguing from
a general to a special affirmatively. It doth not follow, because
the apostle here in general mentioneth him that ruleth, therefore
in special it must be the ruling elder.49
Ans. This exception is the same with first exception
against the second argument hereafter laid down. There see. For the
same answer appositely and satisfactorily is applicable to
both.
Except. 2. But the apostle here speaks of them that rule,
but we have nowhere received that such elders have rule over the
church—and he speaks of all that rule in the church, who
therefore would wrest this place only to elders? One cannot rightly
attribute that word translated he that ruleth to elders
only, which is common unto more. If these elders he here meant,
neither pastors nor teachers ought to rule, for this word agrees no
otherwise to him that ruleth, than the word of exhorting to him
that exhorteth.50
Ans. 1. That such elders rule in the church is evident,
both by Rom. xii. 8, where this word implies rule as hath been
showed, and he that ruleth is reckoned up amongst ordinary church
officers, as hath been said, therefore he rules in the church:
these the apostle also calls ruling elders, 1 Tim. v. 17, viz.
officers in the church, and distinct from them that labor in the
word and doctrine; as in the third argument will appear: yea, they
are governments set of God in the church, distinct from other
officers, 1 Cor. xii. 28, as in the second argument shall be
evidenced: there see; therefore these elders have rule.
2. Though in this term the apostle speaks of him that ruleth,
yet he speaks not of every one that ruleth. For, 1. He speaks
singularly, he that ruleth, as of one kind of ruling officer; not
plurally, they that rule, as if he had indefinitely or universally
meant all the ruling officers in the church. 2. He reckons up here
distinct kinds of ordinary officers, pastors, teachers, elders, and
deacons; and pastors and teachers, besides laboring in the word,
have power of rule, 1 Thes. v. 12, Heb. xiii. 7-17, and he that
ruleth, here, is distinct from them both; and therefore this term
cannot mean all church rulers, but only one kind, viz. the ruling
elder.
3. Though this name, he that ruleth, be common unto more
rulers in the church, than to the mere ruling elder; yet it doth
not therefore necessarily follow, that it cannot here particularly
point out only the mere ruling elder, inasmuch, as he that
ruleth, is not here set alone, (for then this objection might
have had some color,) but is enumerated with other officers as
distinct from them.
4. Though the ruling elder here be called he that ruleth,
yet this doth not exclude the pastor from ruling, no more than when
the ordinary ministers are called pastors and teachers, the
apostles and evangelists are excluded from feeding and teaching, in
Eph. iv. 11, 12; 1 Cor. xii. 28. This elder is called, he that
ruleth, not that there is no other ruler than he, but because
he doth no other thing but rule, others rule and preach also.
Except. 3. If this were meant of such elders, then these
elders were as necessary to the church as pastors, being given to
the church by the like reason. Consequently where these elders are
not, there is no church; as there is no church where the word and
sacraments are not.51
Ans. 1. According to this argument deacons are as
necessary as either pastors, teachers, or elders, and without
deacons there should be no church; for they are all enumerated here
alike, Rom. xii. 7, 8, and in 1 Cor. xii. 28; but this would be
absurd, and against experience. 2. Though both pastors and ruling
elders belong to the church by divine right, yet doth it not follow
that the ruling elder is equally as necessary as the pastor. The
ruling elder only rules, the pastor both rules and preaches,
therefore he is more necessary to the church. There are degrees of
necessity; some things are absolutely necessary to the being of a
church, as matter and form, viz. visible saints, and a due
profession of faith, and obedience to Christ, according to the
gospel. Thus it is possible a church may be, and yet want both
deacons, elders, and pastors too, yea, and word and sacraments for
a time: some things are only respectively necessary to the
well-being of a church; thus officers are necessary, yet some more
than others, without which the church is lame, defective, and
miserably imperfect.
Except. 4. Should ruling elders here be meant, then
deacons that obey, should be preferred before the elders that
rule.52
Ans. Priority of order is no infallible argument of
priority of worth and dignity; as is evidenced in answer to the
third exception against Arg. II.—there see; we find Priscilla
a woman named before Aquila a man, and her husband, Acts xviii. 18;
Rom. xvi. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 19; is therefore the woman preferred before
the man? the wife before the husband? And again, Aquila is set
before Priscilla, Acts xviii. 2, 26, 1 Cor. xvi. 19, to let us see
that the Holy Ghost indifferently speaks of superior and inferior
before one another.
Except. 5. But here the apostle speaketh of divers gifts
and graces, for so differing gifts do import, not of divers
offices: for then they might not concur in one man, and
consequently neither might the prophet teach, nor exhort, nor the
deacon distribute, nor show mercy. Many gifts may be common in one
man, many offices cannot;—which of these gifts in the
apostles' times was not common as well to the people as to the
pastors; and to women as well as to men? &c.53
Ans. Divers considerations may be propounded to discover
the vanity of this exception: chiefly take these three.
1. There is no sufficient reason in this exception, proving the
apostle here to speak only of divers gifts and graces, and not of
divers offices also. For, 1. This is not proved by that expression,
differing gifts, ver. 6, for these differing gifts are not
here spoken of abstractly and absolutely, without reference to
their subjects, but relatively with reference to their subjects
wherein they are, viz. in the several officers, ver. 7, 8, and
therefore, as the apostle mentions the differing gifts, so
here he tells us in the same sixth verse, that we have these
"different gifts, according to the grace given unto us," i.e.
according to the office given unto us of God's grace, (as hath been
manifested,) after which immediately is subjoined an enumeration of
offices. 2. Nor is this proved by the inference made, upon the
granting that divers offices are here meant, viz. [Then they might
not concur in one man, the prophet might not teach nor exhort,
&c.; many gifts may be common in one man, many offices cannot.]
For who is so little versed in the Scriptures, but he knows that
apostles, pastors, elders, deacons, are distinct officers one from
another; yet all the inferior offices are virtually comprehended in
the superior, and may be discharged by them: elders may distribute
as well as deacons; and beyond them, rule: pastors may distribute
and rule as well as deacons and elders, and beyond both preach,
dispense sacraments, and ordain ministers. Apostles may do there
all, and many things besides extraordinary. Much more may the
prophet teach and exhort, and the deacon distribute and show mercy;
these being the proper acts of their office. 3. Nor, finally, is
this proved by that suggestion, that all these gifts in the
apostles' times were common to all sorts and sexes, women as well
as men; as he after takes much pains to prove, but to very little
purpose. For not only in the apostles' times, but in our times
also, all Christians may teach, exhort, distribute, show mercy,
&c., privately, occasionally, by bond of charity, and law of
fraternity towards one another mutually: but may not teach, exhort,
rule, distribute, &c., authoritatively by virtue of their
office, so as to give themselves wholly to such employments, which
is the thing here intended; yet it is worth observing how far
Bilson was transported against ruling elders, that rather than
yield to their office, he will make all these gifts common to all
sorts and sexes, men and women. This is new divinity; all sorts and
sexes may both preach and rule. Let Bilson have the credit of
symbolizing with the Separatists, if not of transcending them.
2. Here is good ground in the context to make us think that the
apostle here spoke of distinct church officers, and not only of
distinct gifts. For, 1. In the similitude of a natural body
(whereunto here the church is compared) he speaks of distinct
members, having distinct offices, ver. 4. "For as we have many
members in one body, and all members have not the same office." 2.
In his accommodation of this similitude, he speaks not only of
gifts, but also of offices according to which these gifts are
given, which he calls grace, ver. 6, (as was noted.). This
grace given, or this office given of grace, is branched out, first,
into two general heads, viz. prophecy and ministry,
ver. 6, 7. Then these generals are subdivided into the special
offices contained under them, viz.: Under prophecy the teacher,
he that teacheth; and the pastor, he that exhorteth;
under ministry the deacon, he that distributeth; and the
ruling elder, he that ruleth. Now there is in the text just
ground for this resolution of the text, in making prophecy and
ministry generals, and all the rest special kinds of officers;
forasmuch as prophecy and ministry are expressed abstractly,
whether prophecy, (not, whether we are prophets;) whether
ministry, (not, whether we are deacons, ministers:) and both
prophecy and ministry are put in the accusative case; and both of
them have relation, and are joined unto the participle of the
plural number having, intimating that divers do share in
prophecy, pastor and teacher; divers in ministry, deacon and ruling
elder. But all the other are expressed concretely, and in the
nominative case, and in the singular number, and to every of them
the single article is prefixed, translated He—He that
teacheth—He that exhorteth—He that giveth—He that
ruleth. Hence we have great cause to count prophecy and
ministry as generals; all the rest as special offices under
them.
Argum. II. The second argument for the divine right of
the ruling elder shall be grounded upon 1 Cor. xii. 28: "And God
hath set some in the church, first, apostles, secondly, prophets,
thirdly, teachers, afterwards powers, then gifts of healing, helps,
governments, kinds of tongue." God, in the first founding of
Christianity and of the primitive churches, bestowed many eminent
gifts upon divers Christians; the church of Corinth greatly
excelled in such gifts, 1 Cor. i. 5, 7. Hence their members gifted,
grew spiritually proud, and despised their brethren; to correct
which abuse of gifts, and direct them to the right use thereof for
the common profit of all, is the chief scope of this chapter, see
verse 7, "The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to
profit withal." For, 1. All their gifts flow from one and the same
fountain, the Spirit of God, therefore should be improved for the
common good of all, especially considering no one man hath all
gifts, but several men have several gifts, that all might be
beholden to one another, ver. 8-11. 2. The whole Church of Christ
throughout all the world is but one body, and that body organical,
having several members therein placed for several uses, as eyes,
hands, &c., wherein the meanest members are useful and
necessary to the highest: therefore all members should harmoniously
lay out their gifts for the good of the whole body, without jars or
divisions, ver. 12-28. 3. All the several officers, whether
extraordinary or ordinary, though furnished with several gifts and
several administrations, yet are placed by one and the same God, in
one and the same general Church; and therefore should all level at
the benefit of the whole church, without pride, animosities,
divisions, &c., ver. 28, to the end. These things being briefly
premised for the clearing the context and scope of the chapter, we
may thus argue from ver. 28:
Major. Whatsoever officers God himself, now under the New
Testament, hath set in the Church as governors therein, distinct
from all other church governors, whether extraordinary or ordinary;
they are the ruling elders we inquire after, and that by divine
right.
This proposition is so clear and evident of itself, that much
needs not to be said for any further demonstration of it. For what
can be further desired for proof that there are such distinct
officers as ruling elders in the Church of Christ, and that of
divine right, than to evince, 1. That there are certain officers
set of God in the Church as governors therein. 2. That those
officers so set of God in the Church, are set in the Church under
the New Testament, which immediately concerns us, and not under the
Old Testament. 3. That these officers set of God as governors in
the Church of the New Testament, are distinct from all other church
governors, whether extraordinary or ordinary? For, by the third of
these, we have a distinct church officer delineated and
particularized: by the second we have this distinct church officer
limited to the time and state of the Church only under the New
Testament, which is our case: and by the first of these, we have
this distinct New Testament officer's ruling power in the Church,
and the divine right thereof evidently demonstrated, by God's act
in setting him there in this capacity; (see Part 1. Chap. VI.;) so
that by all put together, the consequence of this major proposition
seems to be strong and unquestionable.
Minor. But the governments named in 1 Cor. xii. 28, are
officers which God himself now under the New Testament hath set in
the Church as governors therein, distinct from all other church
governors, whether extraordinary or ordinary.
This minor or assumption is wholly grounded upon, and plainly
contained in this text, and may thus be evidenced by parts.
1. The church here spoken of [in the church] is the
Church of Christ now under the New Testament: for, 1. The church
here mentioned, ver. 28, is the same with that ONE BODY mentioned,
ver. 12, 13, of this chapter, as the whole context and coherence of
the chapter evinceth; but that ONE BODY denotes not the Church of
God under the Old Testament, but only the Church of Christ under
the New Testament; partly, inasmuch as it is counted the Church of
Christ, yea, (so intimate is the union between head and members,)
it is called CHRIST, so also is CHRIST, ver. 12, (viz. not
Christ personally considered, but Christ mystically considered, as
comprehending head and body;) now this denomination of the Church,
viz. Christ, or the Church of Christ, &c., is peculiar to the
Church under the New Testament: for where in all the Scripture is
the Church of God under the Old Testament called the Church of
Christ, &c.? and partly, inasmuch as all, both Jews and
Gentiles, are incorporated jointly into this ONE BODY, and coalesce
into one Church: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one
body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free," 1 Cor. xii.
13. Now this union or conjunction of Jews and Gentiles into one
body, one Church, is only done under the New Testament; see Eph.
ii. 11, to the end of the chapter. 2. The officers here mentioned
to be set in this Church, are only the New Testament officers, ver.
28. 3. The scope of the whole chapter is to redress abuses of
spiritual gifts in the church of Corinth, which was a church under
the New Testament; and therefore it would have been too remote for
the apostle to have argued from the several distributions of gifts
peculiar to the officers or members of the Church under the Old
Testament.
2. The governments here mentioned are officers set in this
church as governors, or rulers therein: "Hath set some in the
Church, first, apostles—governments." For clearing of this,
consider the enumeration here made; the denomination of these
officers, governments; and the constitution or placing of these
governments in the Church. 1. The enumeration here made is
evidently an enumeration of several sorts of church officers, some
extraordinary, to endure but for a time, some ordinary, to continue
constantly in the Church; to this the current of interpreters doth
easily subscribe: and this the text itself plainly speaks; partly,
if we look at the matter, viz. the several officers enumerated,
which are either extraordinary, these five, viz. apostles,
prophets, powers, or miracles, gifts of healing, and kinds of
tongues: these continued but for a season, during the first
founding of Christian churches: (the proper and peculiar work of
these extraordinary officers, what it was, is not here to be
disputed.) Or ordinary, these three, viz. teachers, (there
is the preaching elder,) governments, (there is the ruling
elder,) helps, (there is the deacon;) these are the officers
enumerated; and however there be some other officers elsewhere
mentioned, whence some conceive this enumeration not to be so
absolutely perfect, yet this is undoubtedly evident, that it is an
enumeration of officers in the church: partly, this is evident, if
we look at the manner of the apostle's speech, which is in an
enumerating form, viz. first, secondly, thirdly, afterwards, then:
and partly, it is evident that he intended to reckon up those
officers that were distinct from all other parts of the mystical
body of Christ, by his recapitulation, "Are all apostles, are all
prophets?" &c., ver. 29, 30, i.e. not all, but only some
members of the body are set apart by God to bear these offices in
the church. Now, if there be here a distinct enumeration of
distinct officers in the church, as is evident; then consequently
governments must needs be one of these distinct church
officers, being reckoned up among the rest; and this is one step,
that governments are in the roll of church officers enumerated. 2.
The denomination of these officers, governments, evidenceth
that they are governing officers, vested with rule in the Church.
This word (as hath been noted in chap. II.) is a metaphor from
pilots or shipmasters governing of their ships by their compass,
helm, &c., James iii. 4, (who is hence called governor,
viz. of the ship, Acts xxvii. 11; Rev. xviii. 17,) and it notes
such officers as sit at the stern of the vessel of the Church, to
govern and guide it in spirituals according to the will and mind of
Christ: governments—the abstract is put for governors, the
concrete: this name of governments hath engraven upon it an evident
character of power for governing. But this will be easily granted
by all. All the doubt will be, whom the apostle intended by these
governments? Thus conceive, negatively, these cannot be meant, viz.
not governors in general, for, besides that a general exists not
but in the particular kinds or individuals thereof, a member of a
body in general exists not but in this or that particular member,
eye, hand, foot, &c.: besides this, it is evident that Christ
hath not only in general appointed governors in his Church, and
left particulars to the church or magistrate's determination, but
hath himself descended to the particular determination of the
several kinds of officers which he will have in his Church; compare
these places together, Eph. iv. 7, 11, 12; 1 Cor. xii. 28; Rom.
xii. 7, 8: though in the ordinance of magistracy God hath only
settled the general, but for the particular kinds of it, whether it
should be monarchical, &c., that is left to the prudence of the
several commonwealths to determine what is fittest for themselves.
(See Part 2, chap. IX.) 2. Not masters of families: for all
families are not in the Church, pagan families are without. No
family as a family is either a church or any part of a church, (in
the notion that church is here spoken of;) and though masters of
families be governors in their own houses, yet their power is not
ecclesiastical but economical or domestical, common to heathens as
well as Christians. Not the political magistrate,54 for the reasons hinted, (Part 1,
chap. I.; see also Part 2, chap. IX.,) and for divers other
arguments that might be propounded. 4. Not the prelatical bishops,
pretending to be an order above preaching presbyters, and to have
the reins of all church government in their hands only; for, in
Scripture language, bishop and presbyter are all one order, (these
words being only names of the same officer;) this is evident by
comparing Tit. i. 5, with ver. 7. Hereunto also the judgment of
antiquity evidently subscribeth, accounting a bishop and a
presbyter to be one and the same officer in the church; as appears
particularly in Ambrose, Theodoret, Hierom, and others. Now, if
there be no such order as prelatical bishops, consequently they
cannot be governments in the church. 5. Not the same with
helps, as the former corrupt impressions of our Bibles
seemed to intimate, which had it thus, helps in governments,
which some moderns seem to favor; but this is contrary to the
original Greek, which signifies helps, governments; contrary
to the ancient Syriac version, which hath it thus, (as Tremel.
renders it,) and helpers, and governments: and therefore
this gross corruption is well amended in our late printed Bible.
Helps, governments, are here generally taken by interpreters
for two distinct officers. 6. Nor, finally, can the teaching elder
here be meant; for that were to make a needless and absurd
tautology, the teacher being formerly mentioned in this same verse.
Consequently, by governments here, what can be intended, but
such a kind of officer in the church as hath rule and government
therein, distinct from all governors forementioned? And doth not
this lead us plainly to the ruling elder?
3. These governments thus set in the Church, as rulers therein,
are set therein by God himself; God hath set some in the Church,
first, apostles—governments—God hath set, put, made,
constituted, &c., (as the word imports,) in the
Church. What hath God set in the Church? viz. apostles
and—governments, as well as apostles themselves. The verb,
hath set, equally relates to all the sorts of officers
enumerated. And is not that officer IA the Church of divine right,
which God himself, by his own act and authority, sets therein? Then
doubtless these governments are of divine right.
4. Finally, these governments set in the Church under the New
Testament as governors therein, and that by God himself, are
distinct from not only all governing officers without the Church,
(as hath been showed,) but also from all other governing officers
within the church. For here the apostles make a notable enumeration
of the several sorts of church officers, both extraordinary and
ordinary, viz. eight in all. Five of these being extraordinary, and
to continue but for a season, for the more effectual spreading and
propagating of the gospel of Christ at first, and planting of
Christian churches, viz. apostles, prophets, powers, gifts of
healings, kinds of tongues: three of these being ordinary, and to
be perpetuated in the Church, as of continual use and necessity
therein, viz. teachers, governments, [i.e. ruling elders,] and
helps, [i.e. deacons, who are to help and relieve the poor and
afflicted.] This is the enumeration. It is not contended, that it
is absolutely and completely perfect, for that some officers seem
to be omitted and left out, which elsewhere are reckoned up, Eph.
iv. 11; Rom. xii. 7, 8. Evangelists are omitted in the list of
extraordinary officers, and pastors are left out of the roll of the
ordinary officers; and yet some conceive that pastors and teachers
point not out two distinct sorts of officers, but rather two
distinct acts of the same officers; and if this will hold, then
pastors are sufficiently comprised under the word teachers; yea,
some think that both evangelists and pastors are comprehended under
the word teacher.55 But,
however, be that as it will, these two things are evident, 1. That
this enumeration (though evangelists and pastors be left out) is
the fullest and completest enumeration of church officers which in
any place is to be found throughout all the New Testament. 2. That
though we should grant this defect in the enumeration, yet this is
no way prejudicial to the present argument, that governments here
mentioned are ruling officers in the Church, distinct from all
other church officers that have rule; for they are plainly and
distinctly recited as distinct kinds of officers, distinct from
apostles, from prophets, from teachers, from all here mentioned.
And thus interpreters56
commonly expound this place, taking governments for a distinct kind
of church officer from all the rest here enumerated.
Now to sum up all that hath been said for the proof of the
assumption; it is evident, 1. That the church here spoken of is the
Church of Christ now under the New Testament. 2. That the
governments here mentioned, are officers set in this church, (not
out of the church,) as rulers governing therein. 3. That these
governments set as rulers or governors in this church, are set
there not by man, but by God himself; God hath set in the
Church—governments. 4. And, finally, That these
governments thus set in the Church, are distinct, not only from all
governors out of the Church, but also from all governing officers
within the Church. And if all this laid together will not clearly
evince the divine right of the ruling elder, what will? Hence we
may strongly conclude,
Conclusion. Therefore these governments in 1 Cor. xii.
28, are the ruling elders we inquire after, and that of divine
right.
Now against the urging of 1 Cor. xii. 28, for the proof of the
divine right of the ruling elders, divers exceptions are made,
which are to be answered before we pass to the third argument.
Except. 1. The allegation of this place is too weak to
prove the thing in question. For will any man that knoweth what it
is to reason, reason from the general to the particular and special
affirmatively? or will ever any man of common sense be persuaded
that this consequence is good: There were governors in the
primitive church mentioned by the Apostles—therefore they
were lay governors? Surely I think not.57
Ans. This exception hath a confident flourish of words,
but they are but words. It may be replied, 1. By way of concession,
that to argue indeed from a general to a special, is no solid
reasoning; as, This is a kingdom, therefore it is England; this is
a city, therefore it is London; the apostle mentions government in
the primitive Church, therefore they are ruling elders: this were
an absurd kind of reasoning. 2. By way of negation. Our reasoning
from this text for the ruling elder, is not from the general to a
special affirmatively—there are governments in the Church,
therefore ruling elders: but this is our arguing—these
governments here mentioned in 1 Cor. xii. 28, are a special kind of
governing officers, set of God in the Church of Christ now under
the New Testament, and distinct from all other church officers,
whether extraordinary or ordinary: and therefore they are the
ruling elders which we seek after, and that by divine right. So
that we argue from the enumeration of several kinds of church
officers affirmatively: here is an enumeration or roll of divers
kinds of church officers of divine right; governments are one kind
in the roll, distinct from the rest; therefore governments are of
divine right, consequently ruling elders; for none but they can be
these governments, as hath been proved in the assumption. If the
apostle had here mentioned governments only, and none other kind of
officers with them, there had been some color for this exception,
and some probability that the apostle had meant governors in
general and not in special: but when the apostle sets himself to
enumerate so many special kinds of officers, apostles, prophets,
teachers, &c., how far from reason is it to think that in the
midst of all these specials, governments only should be a general.
3. As for Dr. Field's scoffing term of lay governors or lay elders,
which he seems in scorn to give to ruling elders; it seems to be
grounded upon that groundless distinction of the ministry and
people into clergy and laity; which is justly rejected by sound
orthodox writers58, as not
only without but against the warrant of Scripture, clergy being
nowhere appropriated to the ministry only, but commonly attributed
to the whole church, 1 Pet. v. 2, 3. The Scripture term given to
these officers is ruling elders, 1 Tim. v. 17; and so far as
such, (though they be elected from among the people,) they are
ecclesiastical officers.
Except. 2. But it is not said here governors in the
concrete, as apostles, prophets, teachers are mentioned concretely,
which are distinct officers: but it is said governments, in the
abstract, to note faculties, not persons. The text may be thus
resolved: The apostle first sets down three distinct orders,
apostles, prophets, and teachers: then he reckons up those common
gifts of the Holy Ghost (and among the rest the gift of governing)
which were common to all three. So that we need not here make
distinct orders in the Church, but only distinct gifts which might
be in one man.59
Ans. 1. As the apostles, prophets, and teachers are here
set down concretely, and not abstractly, and are confessed to be
three distinct orders enumerated: so all the other five, though set
down abstractly, are (by a metonymy of the adjunct for the subject)
to be understood concretely, helps for helpers; governments for
governors, &c.; otherwise we shall here charge the apostle with
a needless impertinent tautology in this chapter, for he had
formerly spoken of these gifts abstractly, ver. 8-10, as being
all given to profit the Church withal, ver. 7; but
here, ver. 28-30, he speaks of these gifts as they are in several
distinct subjects, for the benefit of the organical body the
church; else what saith he here, more than he said before? 2. That
all these eight here enumerated, one as well as another, do denote,
not distinct offices or acts of the same officer, but distinct
officers, having distinct administrations, and distinct gifts for
those administrations, is evident, partly by the apostle's form of
enumeration, first, secondly, thirdly, afterwards, then or
furthermore: if he had intended only three sorts of
officers, he would have stopped at thirdly, but he goes on in an
enumerating way, to show us those that follow are distinct officers
as well as those that go before; partly, by the apostle's
recapitulation, ver. 29, 30, which plainly points out different
officers, persons not gifts, besides those three: Are all
apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? (and here he
stops not, but reckons on) are all workers of miracles? have all
the gifts of healing? &c. If it should be replied, But he
doth not add, Are all helps? are all governments? therefore these
are not to be accounted distinct officers from the rest; otherwise
why should the apostle thus have omitted them, had there been any
such distinct officers in the Church in his time? It may be
replied, These two officers, helps and governments, are omitted in
the recapitulation, ver. 29, 30, not that the Church then had no
such officers, for why then should they have been distinctly
mentioned in the enumeration of church officers, ver. 28? But
either, 1. For that helps and governments were more inferior
ordinary officers, and not furnished with such extraordinary, or at
least, eminent gifts, as the other had, (which they abused greatly
to pride, contention, schism, and contempt of one another, the
evils which the apostle here labors so much to cure,) and so there
was no such danger that these helps and governments should run into
the same distempers that the other did. Or, 2. For that he would
instruct these helps and governments to be content with their own
stations and offices, (without strife and emulation,) though they
be neither apostles, nor prophets, nor teachers, nor any of the
other enumerated, which were so ambitiously coveted after; and the
last verse seems much to favor this consideration, but covet
earnestly the best gifts, viz. which made most for edification,
not for ostentation.60
Except. 3. But helps here are placed before governments,
therefore it is not likely that governments were the ruling elders;
Helps, i.e. deacons, which is an inferior office, seeming here to
be preferred before them.61
Ans. This follows not. Priority of order is not always an
argument of priority of worth, dignity, or authority. Scripture
doth not always observe exactness of order, to put that first which
is of most excellency: sometimes the pastor is put before the
teacher, as Ephes. iv. 11, sometimes the teacher before the pastor,
as Rom. xii. 7, 8. Peter is first named of all the apostles, both
in Matt. x. 2, and in Acts i. 13, but we shall hardly grant the
Papist's arguing thence to be solid—Peter is first named,
therefore he is the chief and head of all the apostles; no more can
we account this any good consequence—helps are set before
governments, therefore governments are officers inferior to helps,
consequently they cannot be ruling elders: this were bad logic.
Except. 4. But the word governments is general, and may
signify either Christian magistrates, or ecclesiastical officers,
as archbishops, bishops, or whatsoever other by lawful authority
are appointed in the Church.62 And some of the semi-Erastians of
our times, by governments understand the Christian magistracy,
holding the Christian magistracy to be an ecclesiastical
administration.63
Ans. 1. Governments, i.e. governors, (though in itself
and singly mentioned, it be a general, yet) here being enumerated
among so many specials, is special, and notes the special kind of
ruling elders, as hath been proved. 2. As for archbishops and
diocesan bishops, they are notoriously known to be, as such, no
officers set in the Church by God, but merely by the invention of
man; therefore they have no part nor lot in this business, nor can
here be meant. And if by others, by lawful authority appointed in
the Church, they mean those officers that God appoints well: if
those whom man sets there without God, as chancellors,
commissioners, &c., such have as much power of government in
the Church, as they are such, as archbishops and bishops, viz. just
none at all by any divine warrant. 3. Nor can the civil Christian
magistrate here be implied. 1. Partly, because this is quite beside
the whole intent and scope of this chapter, treating merely upon
spiritual church-matters, not at all of secular civil matters, viz:
of spiritual gifts for the Church's profit, ver. 1 to 12; of the
Church herself as one organical body, ver. 12 to 28; and of the
officers which God hath set in this organical body, ver. 28,
&c. Now here to crowd in the Christian magistrate, which is a
mere political governor, into the midst of these spiritual matters,
and into the roll of these merely ecclesiastical officers, how
absurd is it! 2. Partly, because the magistrate, as such, is not
set of God in the Church either as a church officer, or as a church
member, (as hath been demonstrated formerly, chap. IX.;) and though
he become a Christian, that adds nothing to the authority of his
magistracy, being the privilege only of his person, not of his
office. 3. Partly, because when this was written to the
Corinthians, the apostle writes of such governments as had at that
time their present actual being and existence in the Church: and
neither then, nor divers hundreds of years after, were there any
magistrates Christian, as hath been evidenced, chap. IX.64
Except. 5. Teachers are here expressed, but pastors
omitted; and therefore well might governors be mentioned instead of
pastors.65
Answ. 1. Then, according to his judgment, pastors were a
distinct kind of officers from teachers; otherwise the naming of
teachers would have sufficiently implied pastors, without the
addition of the word governors, one act or function of the office
being put for the whole office. But prelates did not love to hear
of such a distinction. However, it is the judgment of many others
no less learned or pious than they, that in the same congregation
where there are several ministers, he that excels in exposition of
scriptures, teaching sound doctrine, and convincing gainsayers, may
be designed hereunto, and called a teacher or doctor: he that
excels in application, and designed thereunto, may be called a
pastor; but where there is only one minister in one particular
congregation, he is to perform, as far as he is able, the whole
work of the ministry. 2. If pastors are to be understood by this
term governors, as contradistinct from teachers, formerly
enumerated in the text; doth not this seem to devolve the matter of
government so wholly upon the pastor, as that the teacher hath
nothing to do with it? and hereby both pastor and teacher are
wronged at once: the teacher, while power of governing is denied
him, which belongs to him as well as to the pastor; the teacher
being a minister of the word, hath power of administration of the
sacraments and discipline, as well as the pastor: the pastor, while
he consequently is deprived of the necessary and comfortable
assistance of the teacher in point of government. Therefore the
pastor cannot here be intended by governors. 3. Bilson himself was
not very confident of this gloss, and therefore he immediately
adds, "If this content you not, I then deny they are all
ecclesiastical functions that are there specified," &c. What
then doth he make them? viz. he makes divers of them, and
governments among the rest, to be but several gifts, whereof one
and the same officer might be capable. And a little after he
ingenuously confesses he cannot tell what these governors were,
saying, "I could easily presume, I cannot easily prove what they
were. The manner and order of those wonderful gifts of' God's
Spirit, after so many hundreds may be conjectured, cannot be
demonstrated—governors they were, or rather governments, (for
so the apostle speaketh,) i.e. gifts of wisdom, discretion, and
judgment, to direct and govern the whole church, and every
particular member thereof, in the manifold dangers and distresses
which those days did not want. Governors also they might be called,
that were appointed in every congregation to hear and appease the
private strifes and quarrels that grew betwixt man and man, lest
the Christians, to the shame of themselves, and slander of the
gospel, should pursue each other for things of this life before the
magistrates, who then were infidels; of these St. Paul speaketh, 1
Cor. vi. 1-7. These governors and moderators of their brethren's
quarrels and contentions I find, others I find not in the apostle's
writings, but such as withal were watchmen and feeders of the
flock." Thus inconsistent he is with himself: one while these
governors must be pastors; another while arbitrators or daysmen
about private differences; another while gifts, not officers;
another while he cannot easily prove what they were. But they have
been proved to be ruling elders, and the proof still stands good,
notwithstanding all his or others' exceptions.
Argum. III. The third argument for the divine right of
the mere ruling elder shall be drawn from 1 Tim. v. 17, "Let the
elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honor,
especially they that labor in the word and doctrine." From which
words we may thus argue for the divine right of the ruling
elder:
Major. Whatsoever officers in the Church are, according
to the word of Christ, styled elders, invested with rule in the
Church, approved of God in their rule, and yet distinct from all
them that labor in the word and doctrine; they are the ruling
elders in the Church which we inquire after, and that by divine
right.
This proposition seems clear and unquestionable. For, 1. If
there be a certain kind of church officer which Christ in his word
calls an elder, 2. Declares to have rule in his church, 3. Approves
in this his rule, and, 4. Distinguished from him that labors in the
word and doctrine; this is plainly the ruling elder, and here is
evidently the divine right of his office. Such a divine approbation
of his office, testified in Scripture, implies no less than a
divine institution thereof.
Minor. But the officers mentioned in 1 Tim. v. 17, are,
according to the word of Christ, styled elders, invested with rule
in the church: approved of God in their rule, and yet distinct from
all them that labor in the word and doctrine. This assumption may
be thus evidenced by parts.
1. The officers mentioned here in this word of Christ, are
styled elders. This Greek word translated elder, is used in
the New Testament chiefly in three several senses: 1. For men of
ancient time, not now living; and so it is opposed to modern:
Tradition of elders, Matt. xv. 2, i.e. of them of old time, see
Matt. v. 21. 2. For elders in age now living; so it is opposed to
younger, 1 Tim. v. 1; 1 Pet. v. 5. 3. For elders in function or
office, opposed to private men not in office, as Acts xiv. 23; and
in this last sense it is to be taken in this place, an office of
ruling being here ascribed to these elders. They are called elders,
say some, because for the most part they were chosen out of the
elder sort of men: others better, from the maturity of knowledge,
wisdom, gifts, gravity, piety, &c., which ought to be in them.
This name elder seems to have rule and authority written upon it,
when applied to any church officer; and it is by the Septuagint
often ascribed to rulers political, elders in the gate,
Judges viii. 14; Ruth iv. 2, 3; 1 Sam. v. 3; 1 Chron. xi. 3. In
this place (as it is well noted by some66) the word elders is a genus, a
general attribute, agreeing both to them that rule well, and also
to those that labor in the word and doctrine: the one sort only
rule; the other sort both rule and preach; but both sorts are
elders.
2. The officers here mentioned are not only styled elders, but
invested with rule in the church. For it is plain both by the text
and context duly considered, and the apostle's scope in writing of
this epistle, 1 Tim. iii. 15, that these elders are officers in the
Church. And that in the church they are vested with rule appears
not only by their name of elders, which when applied to officers,
imports rule, authority, &c., as hath been said; but also by
the adjunct participle that rule, or ruling, annexed
to elders—Let the elders ruling well. So that here we
have not only the office, the thing, but the very name of ruling
elders. The word seems to be a military term, for captains and
commanders in an army, foremost slanders, (as the word
imports,) that lead on and command all the rest that follow them:
hence metaphorically used for the foremost-standers, rulers,
governors in the church. It noteth not only those that go before
others by doctrine, or good example: but that govern and rule
others by authority. For, 1. Thus the word is used in Scripture:
"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
subjection with all gravity," 1 Tim. iii. 4: where it plainly notes
an authoritative ruling. Again, "If a man know not how to rule his
own house," 1 Tim. iii. 5. And again, "Ruling their children and
their own houses well," 1 Tim. iii. 12. And can any man be so
absurd as to think that a master of a family hath not a proper
authoritative rule over his own children and family, but rules them
only by doctrine and example?
2. Thus learned divines67
and accurate Grecians68 use
the word to denote authority: so that the Holy Ghost here calling
them ruling elders, implies they are vested with rule: and those
that deny this place to hold out two sorts of elders, yet confess
it holds out two sorts of acts, ruling and preaching.
3. These ruling elders are here approved of God in their rule;
and that two ways, viz: 1. In that God's Spirit here commends their
ruling, being duly discharged, ruling well, excellently,
&c. Did no rule in the Church belong to them for matter, God
would never command or approve them for the matter. He cannot be
accounted with God to do any thing well, that hath no right to do
it at all. 2. In that God's Spirit here commands their well ruling
to be honorably rewarded. Let them be counted worthy of double
honor: or, Let them be dignified with double honor. Here
is not only reward, but an eminent reward appointed them, and that
urged from Scripture, ver. 18. Where God thus appoints rewards, he
approves that for which he rewards; and what God thus approves is
of divine right. See part 1, chap. V.
4. Yet, finally, These elders, vested with rule in the Church,
and divinely approved in their rule, are distinct from all them
that labor in the word and doctrine. This may thus he evidenced
from the text, as some69 have
well observed: For, 1. Here is a general, under which the several
kinds of officers here spoken of are comprehended, elders;
all here mentioned are elders. 2. Here are two distinct kinds of
elders, viz: those that rule well, there is one kind; and
they that labor in the word (as the pastors) and
doctrine, (as the doctors and teachers,) here is the other
kind. 3. Here are two participles expressing these two species or
kinds of elders—ruling, and laboring: those
only rule, that is all their work, and therefore here are called
ruling elders; not because they alone rule, but because
their only work is to rule: but these not only rule, but, over and
besides, they labor in the word and doctrine. 4. Here are
two distinct articles distinctly annexed to these two
participles—they that rule; they that labor. 5.
Finally, here is an eminent disjunctive particle set betwixt these
two kinds of elders, these two participles, these two articles,
evidently distinguishing one from the other, viz. especially
they that labor in the word, &c., intimating, that as
there were some ruling elders that did labor in the word and
doctrine, so there were others that did rule, and not labor in the
word: both were worthy of double honor, but especially they that
both ruled and labored in the word also. And wheresoever this word,
here translated especially, is used in all the New
Testament, it is used to distinguish thing from thing, person from
person, that are spoken of; as, "Let us do good to all, but
especially to those of the household of faith," Gal. vi. 10:
therefore there were some of the household of faith, and some that
were not; and accordingly we must put a difference in doing good to
them. "All the saints salute you, especially those of Cæsar's
household;" some saints not of his household: all saluted them, but
especially those of Cæsar's household. "He that provides not for
his own, especially for them of his own house, he hath denied the
faith," 1 Tim. v. 8. A believer is to provide for his friends and
kindred, but especially for those of his own house, wife and
children. See also 1 Tim. iv. 10; Tit. i. 11; 2 Tim. iv. 13; 2 Pet.
ii. 10; Acts xx. 38, and xxvi. 3; in all which places the word
especially is used as a disjunctive particle, to distinguish
one thing from another, without which distinction we shall but make
nonsense in interpreting those places. And generally the best
interpreters70 do from this
text conclude, that there were two sorts of elders, viz: the ruling
elder, that only ruled; the preaching elder, that besides his
ruling, labored in the word and doctrine also.
Now, therefore, seeing the officers here mentioned are, 1.
According to the word of Christ, (for this is the word of Christ,)
styled elders; 2. Vested with rule; 3. Approved of God in their
rule; and yet, 4. Distinct from all that labor in the word and
doctrine, as hath been particularly proved; we may conclude,
that,
Conclusion. Therefore the officers here mentioned are the
ruling elders in the Church which we inquire after, and that by
divine right.
But against this place of 1 Tim. i. 17, and the argument from
it, divers cavils and exceptions are made; let them have a brief
solution.
Except. 1. There were two sorts of elders, some laboring
in the word and doctrine, some taking care of the poor, viz.
deacons; both were worthy of double honor, especially they that
labored in the word, &c.71
Ans. 1. This is a new distinction of elders without
warrant of Scripture. Deacons are nowhere in all the New Testament
styled elders;72 nay, they
are contradistinguished from elders, both teaching and ruling. "He
that giveth let him do it with simplicity: he that ruleth,
with diligence," Rom. xii. 8. "Helps, governments," 1 Cor. xii. 28.
Compare also Tit. i. 5, 6, &c., 1 Tim. iii. 2, &c., with 1
Tim. iii. 8, &c. 2. As deacons are not elders, so deacons have
no rule in the church. It is true, they are to "rule their children
and their own houses well," 1 Tim. iii. 12; this is only family
rule: but as for the church, their office therein is to be
helps, 1 Cor. xii. 28; to distribute, Rom. xii. 8;
to serve tables, Acts vi. 2, 3; but no rule is ascribed to
them.
Except. 2. But by ruling well, some understand living
well, leading a holy, exemplary life. The apostle would have
ministers not only to live well themselves, but also to feed others
by the word and doctrine; they that live well are to be double
honored, especially they who labor in the word, &c., as 1
Thess. v. 12, 13.73
Ans. 1. The apostle here speaks rather of officers than
of acts of office: of persons rather than of duties, if his phrase
be observed. 2. Living well is not ruling well here in the
apostle's sense, who intends the rule of elders over others; he
that lives well rules well over himself; not over others: else all
that live well were church rulers; they conduct by example, do not
govern by authority, Altar. Damasc. c. xii. 8. If well ruling be
well living, then double honor, double maintenance from the church
is due for well living, (1 Tim. v. 17, 18,) consequently all that
live well deserve this double honor. 4. This seems to intimate that
ministers deserve double honor for living well, though they preach
not. How absurd! 5. D. Downham, once pleased with this
gloss, after confessed it was not safe.
Except. 3. Those that rule well may be meant of aged,
infirm, superannuated bishops, who cannot labor in the word and
doctrine.74
Ans. 1. Here is no speech of prelatical bishops, but of
ruling and preaching elders in this text. 2. How shall old,
decrepit bishops rule well, when they cannot labor in the word and
doctrine? 3. By this gloss, the preaching elders that labor in the
word and doctrine, should be preferred before the most ancient
bishop in double honor; such doctrine would not long since have
been very odious and apocryphal to our late prelates. 4. Those
preachers that have faithfully and constantly spent their strength,
and worn out themselves with ministerial labor, that they cannot
rule nor preach any longer, are yet worthy of double honor for all
their former travels in the service of Christ and his Church.
Except. 4. Among ministers some did preach, others only
administered the sacraments; so Paul showeth that he preached and
"labored more than all the apostles," 1 Cor. xv. 10; but baptized
few or none, 1 Cor i. 14, leaving that to be performed by others;
and when Paul and Barnabas were companions, and their travels were
equal, yet Paul is noted to have been the chief speaker, (Acts xiv.
12:) all were worthy of double honor, but especially they who
labored in the word and doctrine.75
Ans. 1. This gloss imagineth such a ministry in the
apostles' times as the prelates had erected of late in their days,
viz: many dumb dogs that could not bark nor preach at all, yet
could administer the sacraments by the old service-book. But the
apostles, as Cartwright76
observes, allowed no such ministers, will have every bishop or
preaching elder to be both "apt to teach, and able to
convince," 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 9. So that it was far from Paul
to countenance a non-preaching or seldom-preaching ministry, by
allowing any honor at all, much less a double honor, to such. Sure,
preaching is one part, yea, a most principal part or duty of the
minister's office, (as hath been evidenced before, Part 2, Chap.
VII.,) and shall he be counted worthy of double honor that neglects
a principal duty of his office? Nay, he deserves not the very name
of such an officer in the church: why should he be called a pastor
that doth not feed? or a teacher, that doth not teach his flock?
&c., saith Chrysost. Hom. xv. in 1 Timothy. 2. Why should
Paul's laboring be restrained here to his preaching only? when Paul
speaks of his own labor elsewhere, he speaks of it in another
sense, 2 Cor. xi. 17, "in labor and weariness"—compare it
with the context; and in this place judicious Calvin seems rather
to interpret it of other manner of labor, and Pareus extends it,
besides preaching, to divers other labors which Paul did undergo.
3. What warrant doth this exception hold out for two sorts of
ministers here pretended, some preaching, others only
administering the sacraments? Thus, Paul preached much,
baptised but few: therefore, there were some that only
administered the sacraments: well concluded. Yet Paul baptized
some, 1 Cor. i. 14, 16, distributed the Lord's supper to some, Acts
xx. 7, 11; so that he both preached and dispensed the sacraments.
Let any show where any person dispensed the sacraments that was not
a preacher. Again, Paul and Barnabas equally travelled together,
but Paul was chief speaker: what then? therefore some
labored in the word, others in the sacraments only. This is
woful logic. 4. To whomsoever the power of dispensing the
sacraments was given by Christ, to them also the power of preaching
was given; dispensing the word and sacraments are joined in the
same commission, Matt, xxviii. 18-20: what Christ joins together
let not man put asunder. 5. Touching the preaching elder there is
mentioned only one act peculiar to his office, viz. laboring in
the word, &c.; but, taking a part for the whole, we may
understand his dispensing the sacraments also, and what else is
peculiar to the preaching elder's office, though for brevity's sake
it be not here named.77
Except. 5. By elders that rule well may be meant certain
governors, or inferior magistrates, chosen to compose controversies
or civil strifes. Suitable hereunto is the late Erastian gloss,
that by elders ruling well may be meant kings, parliament-men, and
all civil governors.78
Ans. 1. It is well known that in the primitive times
there was no Christian magistrate in the Church, and for the Church
to choose heathen judges or magistrates to be arbitrators or
daysmen in civil controversies, is a thing utterly condemned by the
apostle, 1 Cor. vi. 1, &c. 2. The apostle speaks here of
ecclesiastical, not of civil officers, as the latter phrase
intimates. The main scope of this epistle was to instruct Timothy
how to behave himself, not in the commonwealth, but in the Church
of God, (1 Tim. iii. 15,) and here he speaks of such officers as
were in being in the Church at that time. 3. If kings,
parliament-men, and all civil governors be these ruling elders,
then ministers have not only an equal share with them in government
by this text, which the Erastians will not like well; but also are
to have a superior honor or maintenance to kings, parliament-men,
and all civil governors. Certainly the magistrates will never
triumph in this gloss, nor thank them that devised it. 4. Sutlive
seems to be against this opinion, (though no great friend to ruling
elders,) saying Beza bestows many words to prove that the judges in
1 Cor. vi. were not of the number of presbyters: which truly I
myself should easily grant him. For there were none such ever
constituted. 5. This is a novel interpretation, as some
observe,79 unknown among
ancient writers.
Except. 6. Those words [especially they who labor in
the word and doctrine] are added to the former explanatively,
to teach us who they are that rule well, viz. they who labor
much in the word and doctrine, and not to distinguish them that
labor in the word, from elders ruling well; as if Paul had said,
"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor,
greatly laboring in the word," &c. For the word translated
especially here more aptly signifies much, greatly,
than especially. For though with the adversative but along
with it, it signifieth especially, yet alone (as it is here) it
signifies much, greatly.80
Ans. 1. If this sentence [especially they who
labor, &c.] were added only to explain who are well-ruling
elders, viz. such as greatly labor in the word, &c., then few
of the prelatical bishops were to be counted well-ruling elders,
for very few, if any of them, were guilty of laboring greatly in
the word and doctrine. 2. Then also the apostle would have said,
either who especially labor, or simply without the article,
especially laboring; then especially, they who labor, as here he
doth, carrying his speech rather to distinct persons and officers,
than to distinct duties or actions. 3. This word translated
especially, hath been already in the minor proposition
proved to be rather disjunctive, than explanatory; a term of
distinction to point out a several sort of elders from only ruling
elders, rather than a term of explication, signifying who are to be
reputed these well-ruling elders. 4. The word especially is
used for a term of distinction, even in those places where the
adversative but is not joined to it, as in Tit. i. 10, "For
there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially
they of the circumcision:" where especially distinguishes
them of the circumcision, from all other vain talkers,
and deceivers; and in 1 Tim. iv. 10, "Who is the Saviour of all
men, especially of them that believe;" here especially
without but distinguishes them that believe from all other
men, as capable of a special salvation from God; if here it were
not a note of distinction, according to this gloss, we should thus
read the place, "Who is the Saviour of all men, greatly believing;"
but this were cold comfort to weak Christians of little faith. So
here especially, though but be wanting, distinguished
them that labor in the word and doctrine, from them that labor not
therein, and yet rule well.
Except. 7. It is one thing to preach, another thing to
labor in the word and doctrine. If there be here any distinction of
elders it is between those that labor more abundantly and
painfully, and between those that labor not so much. This objection
takes much with some.81 B.
Bilson much presses this objection from the emphasis of the word
laboring; signifying endeavoring any thing with greater
striving and contention, &c., to this sense, "Let the elders
that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they
who labor and sweat, &c., in the word—who give themselves
even to be tired and broken with labors;" and this, saith he, is
the genuine signification of the word translated laboring, when it
is borrowed from the labor of the body, to denote the contention or
striving of the mind, &c.82
Ans. 1. This gloss takes it for granted, that this text
speaks only of preaching, or the ministry of the word, and therein
of the lesser or greater pains taken: which (besides that it begs
the thing in question) makes the ministry of the word common to
both sorts here distinctly spoken of, whereas rather the plain
current of the text makes ruling common to both, over and beyond
which the preaching elder labors in the word. 2. Doth not
this interpretation allow a double honor to ministers that labor
not so much as others in the word? And can we think that the
laborious Paul intended to dignify, patronize, or encourage idle
drones, lazy, sluggish, seldom preachers? Ministers must be
exceeding instant and laborious in their ministry, 2 Tim. iv. 1-3.
If this were the sense only to prefer the greater before the less
labor in the ministry, the apostle would have used this order of
words, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double
honor, especially they who labor," &c., take upon themselves
more weighty cares. For those words (in the word and doctrine)
should either have been quite omitted, as now was expressed, or
should have been inserted immediately after them that rule well,
and before the word especially, to this effect, "Let the elders
that rule well and preach the word and doctrine well, be counted
worthy of double honor; but especially those who labor much in well
ruling and in well preaching:" in such an expression the case had
been very clear and evident. 4. Should this comment stand, that
they who labor more in the ministry than others should have more
honor, more maintenance, than others, how many emulations and
contentions were this likely to procure? Who shall undertake to
proportion the honor and reward, according to the proportion of
every minister's labor? 5. As for the criticism of the word
laboring, which Bilson lays so much stress upon, these
things are evident, 1. That here laboring, signifies
emphatically nothing else but that labor, care, diligence,
solicitude, &c., which the nature of the pastoral office
requires in every faithful pastor; as is implied 1 Thess. v., 12,
13, "Know them which labor among you, and are over you in the
Lord;" and the apostle saith that every minister "shall receive a
reward according to his own labor," 1 Cor. iii. 8. Such labor and
diligence also is required in them that rule, whilst they are
charged to rule with diligence, Rom. xii. 8, which is as
much as with labor: yea, the common charity of Christians
hath its labor; and this very word labor is ascribed
thereunto, labor of love, 1 Thess. i. 3; Heb. vi. 10. 2.
That if the apostle had here intended the extraordinary labor of
some ministers above others, not ordinarily required of all, he
would have taken a more emphatical word to have set it out, as he
is wont to do in some other cases, as in 2 Cor. xi. 27, "In labor
and weariness." 1 Thess. ii. 9, "For ye remembered, brethren, our
labor and weariness." 6. Finally, "If there be but one kind of
church officers here designed, then," as saith the learned
Cartwright, "the words (especially those that labor) do not
cause the apostle's speech to rise, but to fall; not to go forward,
but to go backward; for to teach worthily and singularly is more
than to teach painfully; for the first doth set forth all that
which may be required in a worthy teacher, where the latter noteth
one virtue only of pains taking."
Except. 8. Though it could be evinced, that here the
apostle speaks of some other elders, besides the ministers of the
word, yet what advantage can this be for the proof of ruling
elders? For the apostle being to prove that the ministers of the
word ought to be honored, i.e. maintained; why might he not use
this general proposition, that all rulers, whether public or
domestic, whether civil or ecclesiastical, are to be honored? And
when the apostle speaketh of the qualifications of deacons, he
requires them to be such as have ruled their own houses
well.83
Ans. 1. This slight gloss might have appeared more
tolerable and plausible, were it not, partly, that the grand scope
of the apostle in this chapter and epistle is to direct about
church officers and church affairs, as both the context, and 1 Tim.
iii. 14, 15, clearly evidence; and partly, had the word rulers been
expressed alone in the text, and the word elders left out: but
seeing that the apostle speaks not generally of them that rule
well, but particularly of the elders that rule well in the Church;
here is no place for this poor faint gloss. 2. Had the apostle here
intended such a lax and general proposition for all sorts of
rulers, then had he also meant that an honorable maintenance is due
from the Church to domestic as well as public, yea, to civil as
well as ecclesiastical rulers: then the Church should have charge
enough: yea, and then should ministers of the word (according to
this interpretation) have more honor and maintenance than any other
rulers, domestic or public, civil or ecclesiastical. Magistrates
will never thank him for this gloss. 3. Though some kind of skill
to rule and govern be required in deacons, yet that is no public
rule in the Church, but a private rule in their own houses only,
which the apostle mentions, 1 Tim. iii. 12.
Except. 9. But these Well-ruling presbyters may be
referred to these pastors and teachers which were resident in every
church, who therefore are properly said to have care and inspection
of the faithful, as being affixed to that place for that end; but
the word laboring, or they that labor, may be
referred to them who travelled up and down for the visiting and
confirming of the churches.84
"There were some that remained in some certain places, for the
guiding and governing of such as were already won by the preaching
of the gospel: others that travelled with great labor and pains
from place to place to spread the knowledge of God into all parts,
and to preach Christ crucified to such as never heard of him
before. Both these were worthy of double honor, but the latter that
builded not upon another man's foundation, more especially than the
former, that did but keep that which others had gotten, and govern
those that others have gained."85
Ans. 1. If this be the sense, that there were some
ministers fixed, and limited to particular places and churches;
others unfixed, having an unlimited commission, and these are to be
especially honored: then the meaning is, that the apostles and
evangelists who were unfixed, and had unlimited commissions, and
laid the foundation, were to be especially honored above pastors
and teachers that were fixed and limited, and only built upon their
foundation. But how should this be the meaning? For this seems a
needless exhortation; what church would not readily yield an
especial honor to apostles and evangelists above pastors and
teachers? This would savor too much of self-seeking in the apostle,
and providing for his own honor. This implies that the text hath
reference to apostles and evangelists, whereas it evidently speaks
only of ordinary ruling and preaching presbyters.
2. If this be the sense of Dr. Field and Bilson, that some mere
ordinary presbyters travelled laboriously to lay the foundation of
Christianity, others were fixed to certain places to build upon
that foundation: this seems to be false; for we read that mere
ordinary presbyters were ordained for several cities and places as
their peculiar charges, whom they were to feed, and with whom they
were to remain, as Acts xiv. 23; Tit. i. 5; herewith compare Acts
xx. 28; 1 Pet. v. 2; 1 Thess. v. 12. But that mere ordinary
presbyters were ordained and employed in the Church without
limitation of commission, where can it be evidenced in all the
Scriptures? Wandering presbyters are nowhere commended; wandering
stars are condemned, Jude, ver. 13.
3. To refer the word laboring to them that travelled from
place to place for visiting and confirming of the churches, is very
weak and unjustifiable in this place; for this clashes with Dr.
Field's former gloss, (mentioned Except. 4, limiting
laboring to preaching.) But any thing for a present shift.
This word is sometimes given to the apostle, as 1 Cor. xv. 10; 2
Cor. xi. 27: but where are apostles and evangelists called
laboring, merely in respect of their travelling from place
to place, to lay the foundation of Christianity, thereby to
distinguish them from ordinary pastors and teachers? Nay, the
apostle himself makes them that rule, and them that
labor, the same, 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. So here in 1 Tim. v. 17,
they that rule—and they that labor—are
the same, i.e. both of them ordinary presbyters, both of them
ruling, only to one of them the office of laboring in the
word and doctrine is superadded; yea, the very women that
were godly were said to labor in the Lord, Rom. xvi.
6, 12, not for their far travels up and down several countries to
propagate the gospel, for where are Mary and Persis reported to
have done this? Yet doubtless such good women privately labored
much to bring in others, especially of their own sex, to hear the
apostles, and entertain the gospel; and if the women may be said to
labor much in the Lord, in respect of their private
endeavors, how much more may labor be ascribed to presbyters in
respect of both their private and public employments! So that this
word laboring, which is applied in Scripture not only to
ordinary presbyters, but also to women, cannot (without violence)
be drawn peculiarly to signify apostles and evangelists, as this
exception intends.
Except. 10. Seeing in every minister of the word three
things are requisite, unblamableness of life, dexterity of
governing, and integrity of doctrine; the two first are commended
here, but especially the labor in doctrine above them both;
therefore here are set down not a two-fold order of presbyters, but
only two parts of the pastoral office, preaching and governing;
both which the apostle joins in the office of pastors, 1 Thes. v.
2-13.86 "The guides of the
church are worthy of double honor, both in respect of governing and
teaching, but especially for their pains in teaching; so noting two
parts or duties of presbyterial offices, not two sorts of
presbyters."87
Ans. 1. It is true, pastors have the power both of ruling
and preaching belonging to their office, as is intimated, 1 Thes.
v. 12, 13, and Heb. xiii. 7, and in other places; but doth it
therefore follow, that none have the power of ruling, but those
that have the power of preaching? or that this text, or 1 Tim. v.
17, intends only those rulers that preach? 2. Bilson, in this
exception, confesseth that laboring belongs to ordinary
fixed pastors, and therefore contradicts himself in his former
objection, wherein he would have appropriated it to unfixed
apostles and evangelists; yea, by this gloss it is granted, that
preaching presbyters are to be more honored than non-preaching
ruling prelates. These are miserable shifts and evasions, whereby
they are necessitated thus to wound their own friends, and to cross
their own principles. 3. According to this gloss, this should be
the sense, "Let the ministers that rule well by good life, and
skilful government, be counted worthy of double honor, especially
they who labor in the word and doctrine." Now doth not this
tacitly insinuate, that some ministers may rule well, and be worthy
of double honor, though they labor not in the word and doctrine?
and how absurd were this? But if the text be interpreted not of
several acts of the same office, but of several sorts of officers,
this absurdity is prevented, Let ruling elders be doubly
honored, especially those that both rule and preach. 4. The
text evidently speaks not of duties, but of persons; not of acts,
but of agents; not of offices, but of officers; for it is not said,
"Let the elders be counted worthy of double honor, for well ruling;
especially for laboring"—but, Let the elders that rule
well, especially they that labor in the word, &c. So that
this gloss is vain, and against the plain letter of the text.
Except. 11. Though the emphasis of the word, they that
labor, be not to be neglected, yet the difference betwixt
presbyters is not put by that word, but by those (in the word
and doctrine.) This does not signify two kinds of presbyters,
but two offices of ministers and pastors; one general, to rule
well; another special, to labor in the word and
doctrine. To rule well, saith Hierom, is to fulfil his office;
or, as the Syriac interpreter expounds it, "to behave themselves
well in their place;" or as the Scripture speaks, To go in and
out before God's people as becomes them, going before them in good
works in their private conversations, and also in their public
administrations; whence the apostle makes here a comparison
betwixt the duties of ministers thus, "All presbyters that
generally discharge their office well are worthy of double honor;
especially they who labor in the word, which is a primary part of
their office."88
Ans. 1. For substance this objection is the same with
objection 10, already answered, therefore much more needs not to be
added. 2. It is to be noted, that the apostle saith not, "Let the
presbyters that rule well be counted worthy of double honor,
especially because they labor in the word—for then he should
have pointed at the distinct offices of ministers;" but he saith,
especially they that labor, which clearly carries the sense
to the distinction of elders themselves, who have distinct
employments. 3. If preaching presbyters only should here be meant,
and under that phrase (that rule well) their whole office in
general, and the right managing thereof, should be contained,
whereas laboring in the word and doctrine (as this exception
implies) is but one part thereof, then hence it would inevitably
follow, that a minister deserves more honor for the well
administration of one part of his office only, than for the well
managing of the whole, which is absurd! Here therefore the apostle
doth not compare one primary part of the pastor's office, with the
whole office and all the parts thereof; but one sort of presbyters
with another, distinguishing the mere ruling presbyter from the
ruling and preaching presbyter, as the acute and learned Whitaker
hath well observed.
Except. 12. It is evident in the text itself, that all
these elders here meant were worthy of double honor, whether they
labored or governed; which by St. Paul's proofs, presently
following, and by the consent of all old and new writers, is meant
of their maintenance at the charges of the Church.89 Now that lay-judges and censors of
manners were in the apostle's time found at the expense of the
Church, or by God's law ought to have their maintenance at the
people's hands, till I see it justly proved, I cannot believe it:
which yet must be proved before this construction can be
admitted.90
Ans. 1. This word honor signifies (after the
custom of the Hebrews, Exod. xx. 12) all pious offices and relief.
This phrase (double honor) interpreters expound either
absolutely or comparatively. Absolutely thus: double honor,
i.e. great honor, so some; maintenance in this life, happiness in
the life to come, so others; honor of reverence to their persons,
and of maintenance for their labors, so Chrysostom, of which saith
Calvin, "That Chrysostom interprets double honor to be maintenance
and reverence, I impugn not." Comparatively thus: double
honor here seems to relate to what was before spoken, ver. 3,
"Honor widows that are widows indeed." Now here he intimates, that
though widows are to be honored, yet these should be much more
honored; they should have single, these double honor. In this last
sense, which seems most genuine, it seems most likely that the
apostle here intended principally, if not only, the honor of
maintenance; partly because the honor appointed for widows, ver. 3,
&c., was only maintenance; partly because the reason of this
charge to honor, &c., refers only to maintenance, ver. 18. Thus
far we grant, that the text speaks of maintenance. 2. It may be
further yielded that all the presbyters here spoken of are to be
counted worthy of double honor, of honorable, liberal maintenance;
even they that rule well (if need require) are to be thus honored,
but the principal care of maintenance ought to be of them that
labor in the word and doctrine, because the apostle saith
especially they that labor, &c.: the like injunction,
see Gal. vi. 6, "Let him that is catechized, communicate to him
that catechizeth him in all good things;" and thus much this text
plainly evidenceth. 3. What then can be inferred hereupon by the
adversaries of ruling elders? "Therefore the ruling elders (in the
reformed churches) that take no maintenance of the church, are not
the elders that rule well here mentioned?" This follows not: the
apostle Paul took no wages of the church of Corinth, 2 Cor. xi.
7-9, and xii. 12, 13, &c., was he therefore not an apostle to
them, as to other churches of whom he took maintenance? Divers
among us in these days labor in the word and doctrine, and are not
sufficiently maintained by their churches, but forced to spend of
their own estates to do others service; are they therefore no
ministers? Forgive them this wrong. Most churches are not
able (or at least not willing) to maintain their very preaching
presbyters and their families comfortably and sufficiently, as the
gospel requireth: if therefore in prudence, that the Church be not
needlessly burdened, those ruling elders are chosen generally that
need no maintenance, doth their not taking maintenance of the
church make their office null and void? Or if the church do not
give them maintenance (when they neither need it, nor desire it,
nor is the church able to do it) is the church therefore defective
in her duty, or an ill observer of the apostolical precepts? Sure
maintenance is not essentially and inseparably necessary to the
calling of either ruling or preaching elder. There may be cases
when not only the preaching, but the ruling elders ought to be
maintained, and there may be cases when not only the ruling but
also the preaching presbyter (as it was with Paul) should not
expect to be maintained by the church. 4. It is as observable that
the apostle here saith, let them be counted worthy of double honor,
though the reformed churches do not actually give double
maintenance to elders that rule well, yet they count them worthy of
double maintenance, though the elders do not take it, though the
churches cannot give it.
Finally, unto these testimonies and arguments from Scripture,
many testimonies of ancient and modern writers (of no small repute
in the Church of God) may be usefully annexed, speaking for ruling
elders in the Church of Christ from time to time: some speaking of
such sort of elders, presbyters, or church-governors, as that
ruling elders may very well be implied in their expressions; some
plainly declaring that the Church of Christ in fact had such
officers for government thereof; and some testifying that of right
such officers ought to be in the Church of Christ now under the New
Testament for the well guiding thereof; by which it may notably
appear, that in asserting the office of the ruling elder in the
Church, we take not upon us to maintain any singular paradox of our
own devising, or to hold forth some new light in this old
opinionative age: and that the ruling elder is not a church officer
first coined at Geneva, and a stranger to the Church of Christ for
the first 1500 years, (as the adversaries of ruling elders
scornfully pretend,) but hath been owned by the Church of Christ as
well in former as in later times.91
Though we cannot find in Scripture that the power of the keys is
committed by Christ unto deacons, with the other church governors,
but conceive that deacons, as other members of the church, are to
be governed, and are not to govern; yet forasmuch as deacons are
ordinary officers in the Church of God, of which she will have
constant use in all ages, and which at first were divinely
appointed, and after frequently mentioned in the New Testament; it
will not be thought unfit, before we conclude this section,
touching the divine right of Christ's church-officers, briefly to
assert the divine right of deacons, as followeth.
Deacons in the church are an ordinance of Jesus Christ. For,
1. They are found in Christ's catalogue of church officers,
distinct from all other officers, both extraordinary and ordinary.
Helps, 1 Cor. xii. 28. The Greek word in the natural
acceptation properly signifies, to lift over against one in taking
up some burden or weight; metaphorically, it here is used for
deacons, whose office it is to help and succor the poor
and sick, to lend them a hand to lift them up, &c., and
this office is here distinctly laid down from all other ordinary
and extraordinary offices in the text. So they are distinguished
from all ordinary officers reckoned up, Rom. xii. 7, 8: under
prophecy, there is the teacher and pastor;
under ministry, the ruling elder, and the
deacon, verse 8. This officer was so well known, and usual
in the primitive churches, that when the apostle writes to the
church at Philippi, he directs his epistle not only to the saints,
but to the officers, viz. to the overseers, and deacons,
Philip, i. 1. The occasion of the first institution of this office,
see in Acts vi. 1, 2, &c. At the first planting of the
Christian Church, the apostles themselves took care to receive the
churches' goods, and to distribute to every one of their members
as they had need, Acts iv. 34, 35; but in the increase of
the church, the burden of this care of distributing alms increasing
also, upon some complaints of the Greeks, that their widows were
neglected, the office of deacons was erected, for better
provision for the poor, Acts vi. 1-7; and because the churches are
never like to want poor and afflicted persons, there will be
constant need of this officer. The pastor and deacon under the New
Testament seem to answer the priests and Levites under the Old
Testament.
2. The qualifications of deacons are laid down by Christ in the
New Testament, at large: 1 Tim. iii. 8-14, Deacons also must be
grave, not double-tongued, &c., and Acts vi. 3, 5.
3. The manner also of deacons' vocation or calling unto their
office is delineated, viz: 1. They must be chosen by the church;
"Look ye out among you seven men of honest report," &c., "and
they chose Stephen," &c., Acts vi. 3, 5. 2. They must first be
proved and tried by the officers of the church, before they may
officiate as deacons; "and let these also first be proved, then let
them use the office of a deacon, being blameless," 1 Tim. iii. 10.
3. They must be appointed by the officers of the church to their
office, and set apart with prayer, Acts vi. 3, 6: "Look ye out
men—whom we may appoint over this business—whom they
set before the apostles, and when they had prayed, they laid their
hands on them."
4. Deacons have by Scripture their work and employment appointed
them. Their work is, to serve tables, (hence the name deacon
seems derived,) Acts vi. 2, 3. To be an help, no hinderance in the
church; called helps, 1 Cor. xii. 18.
5. Deacons have a divine approbation and commendation in
Scripture, if they execute their office well. "For they that have
used the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good
degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus,"
1 Tim. iii. 13. Here the well administration of deaconship is
commended as producing two good effects to such deacons, viz: 1.
A good degree, i.e. great honor, dignity, and reputation,
both to themselves and to their office; they adorn, grace, and
credit their office in the church; not that they purchase to
themselves by desert a higher office in the church, that from
deacons they should be advanced to be presbyters, as some would
interpret this text. 2. Much boldness in the faith which is in
Christ Jesus. For nothing makes a man more bold than a good
conscience in the upright and faithful discharge of our duties in
our callings; innocency and integrity make brave spirits; such with
great confidence and boldness serve Christ and the church, being
men that may be trusted to the uttermost. Now where God thus
approves or commends the well managing of an office, he also
divinely approves and allows the office itself, and the officer
that executes the same.92
2. Of the first receptacle, or subject of the power of church
government from Christ, viz. Christ's own officers.
Touching the second, that Jesus Christ our Mediator hath
peculiarly intrusted his own officers with the power of church
government: take it thus—
Jesus Christ our Mediator did immediately commit the proper,
formal, ministerial, or stewardly authority and power for governing
of his church to his own church guides as the proper immediate
receptacle or first subject thereof.
For explication of this proposition, four things are to be
opened.
1. What is meant by proper, formal, ministerial or stewardly
authority and power for church government? See this already
discussed, Part 2, chapters III., V., and IX., in the beginning of
Section 2, so that here there needs no further addition, as to this
point.
2. What is meant by church guides? By church guides here
understand, negatively, 1. Not the political magistrate. For though
he be the nurse-father of the church, Isa. xlix. 23, the
keeper and avenger of both the tables; and have an outward
care of religion, and may exercise a political power about
sacred things, as did Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah,
&c., yet hath he no proper, inward, formal power in sacred
things, nor is it lawful for him to exercise the same; as Korah,
Num. xvi.; King Saul, 1 Sam. xiii. 9-15; Uzzah, 2 Sam. vi. 6-8, 1
Chron. xiii. 9, 10; and King Uzziah, 2 Chron. xxvi. 16-22, did to
the provoking of God, and to their own destruction. (But see what
power is granted, and what denied to the civil magistrate in
matters of religion, and why, Part 2, Chap. IX. Sect. 1.) 2. Not
any officer of man's mere invention and setting up in the church,
whether papal, as cardinals, &c., prelatical, as deans,
archdeacons, chancellors, officials, &c., or political, as
committees, commissioners, &c. For who can create and institute
a new kind of offices in the church, but Jesus Christ only, who
alone hath the lordly magisterial power as Mediator appropriated to
him? Eph. iv. 8, 11; Rom. xii. 5-8; 1 Cor. xii. 28; and therefore
how can such acts be sufficiently excused from bold usurpation upon
Christ's own prerogative? 3. Nor the deacons themselves, (though
officers of Christ's appointment, as was formerly proved;) for
their office is not to rule and govern, but to serve tables,
&c., Acts vi. 2, 3. None of these are the church guides which
Christ hath committed his proper power unto. But affirmatively
understand all these church guides extraordinary and ordinary,
which Christ hath erected in his Church, vesting them with power
and authority therein, viz. apostles, prophets, evangelists,
pastors and teachers, governments, or ruling elders, mentioned
together in Eph. iv. 8, 11; 1 Cor. xii. 28; 1 Tim. v. 17; Rom. xii.
6-8. These are Christ's own church officers, these Christ hath made
the immediate receptacle and first subject of the keys, or of
ecclesiastical power derived from himself.
3. What is meant by Christ's committing this stewardly power
first and immediately to the church guides? Ans. There is,
1. A priority and immediateness of the donation of the power of the
keys: thus Christ first and immediately gave keys to his own
officers, whom Scripture, therefore, calls the ministers of
Christ, (not of the Church,) 1 Cor. iv. 1, not first and
immediately to the community of the faithful, or Church, and then
by the Church secondarily and mediately to the officers, as her
substitutes and delegates, acting for her, and not in virtue of
their own power from Christ. 2. A priority and immediateness of
designation of particular individual persons to the office of
key-bearing, and this is done by the mediate intervening act of the
church officers in separating of particular persons to the office
which Christ instituted; though it is not denied but that the
church or company of the faithful may lawfully nominate or elect
individual persons to be officers in the congregation, which yet is
no act of authority or power.
4. How hath Christ committed this power of the keys to his
church guides, that thereby they become the most proper receptacle
thereof? Ans. Thus briefly. All absolute lordly power is in
God originally: all lordly magisterial mediatory power is in Christ
dispensatorily: all official, stewardly power is by delegation from
Christ only in the church guides93 ministerially, as the only proper
subject thereof that may exercise the same lawfully in Christ's
name: yet all power, both magisterial in Christ, and ministerial in
Christ's officers, is for the Church of Christ and her edification
objectively and finally.
These things thus explained and stated, we come now to the
confirmation of the proposition. Consider these arguments:
1. Jesus Christ committed immediately ecclesiastical power and
the exercise thereof to his church guides. Thus we may argue:
Major. All those that have ecclesiastical power, and the
exercise thereof, immediately committed to them from Jesus Christ,
are the immediate subject or receptacle of that power.
For what makes any persons the immediate subject of power, but
the immediate derivation and commission of power to them from Jesus
Christ, who is the fountain of all power?
Minor. But the church guides have the ecclesiastical
power and the exercise thereof immediately committed to them from
Jesus Christ. This may be evinced many ways by Scriptures. 1. It is
said expressly, "Of our authority which the Lord hath given us for
your edification," 2 Cor. 10, 8: by us here we are to
understand church guides, for here they are set in opposition to
the church members (for edification,) not destruction of
(you.) Here are edifiers and edified. Now these church guides have
authority given them, and that from the Lord, i.e. Christ; here is
their commission or power, not from the Church or any creature, but
from Christ; hence the apostle calls church guides, "Your rulers or
guides in the Lord," 1 Thes. v. 12; in the Lord, i.e. by the
Lord's authority and commission. So that church officers are
rulers in the Lord, and the churches ruled by them; yea,
ruling elders being one sort of church guides, have such an
undoubted power of governing in the Church divinely committed to
them, that of them it is said, "God hath set in the church
governments", 1 Cor. xii. 28, i.e. governors, the abstract being
put for the concrete. If God have set governors in the
Church, then God vested those governors with a power of
governing, whence they have their name of governments.
2. The keys of the kingdom of heaven, with all their acts, were
immediately committed to the church guides, viz. to the apostles
and their successors to the end of the world; compare these
testimonies, Matt. xvi. 16, 19, and xviii. 18-20; John xx. 21-23;
with Matt, xxviii. 18-20: therefore consequently ecclesiastical
power was committed immediately unto them as the subject thereof.
For, By the kingdom of heaven here we are to understand
(according to the full latitude of the phrase) both the kingdom of
grace in this world, and of glory in the world to come; binding
and loosing both in earth and in heaven, upon the right use of
the keys, being here the privileges promised to church guides; and
by kingdom of heaven—on earth, understand the whole
visible Church of Christ in the earth, not only some single
congregation. By keys of the kingdom of heaven, thus
apprehend, Christ promiseth and giveth not the sword of the
kingdom, any secular power; nor the sceptre of the
kingdom, any sovereign, lordly, magisterial power over the
Church. But the keys, &c. i.e. a stewardly, ministerial
power, and their acts, binding and loosing, i.e.
retaining and remitting sins on earth, (as in John it is
explained;) opening and shutting are proper acts of keys; binding
and loosing but metaphorical, viz. a speech borrowed from bonds or
chains wherewith men's bodies are bound in prison or in captivity,
or from which the body is loosed: we are naturally all under sin,
Rom. v. 12, and therefore liable to death, Rom. vi. 23. Now sins
are to the soul as bonds and cords, Prov. v. 22. The bond of
iniquity, Acts viii. 23; and death with the pains thereof, are
as chains, 2 Pet. ii. 4, Jude 6; in hell as in a prison,
1 Pet. iii. 10: the remission or retaining of these sins, is the
loosing or the binding of the soul under these cords and chains. So
that the keys themselves are not material but metaphorical; a
metaphor from stewards in great men's houses, kings' houses,
&c., into whose hands the whole trust and ordering of household
affairs is committed, who take in and cast out servants, open and
shut doors, &c., do all without control of any in the family
save the master of the family. Such, in the Hebrew phrase, are said
to be over the house, Gen. xliii. 18; Isa. xxii. 15; 2 Kings
xviii. 18: and the keys of the house are committed to them as a
badge of their power. So that when God threatens to put Shebna out
of his office in the king's house, and to place Eliakim, son of
Hilkiah, in his room, he saith, "I will commit thy government into
his hand—and the key of the house of David will I lay upon
his shoulder," Isa. xxii. 21, 22, parallel of that phrase, "and the
government shall be upon his shoulder," Isa. ix. 6. Hence, as key
is in the Old Testament used for stewardly power and government,
Isa. xxii. 21, 22; (only twice properly, Judges iii. 25; 1 Chron.
ix. 27;) so in the New Testament, key is always used,
metaphorically, to denote power, and that about ecclesiasticals or
spirituals, viz. in Matt. xvi. 19; Luke xi. 52; Rev. i. 18, and
iii. 7, and ix. 1, and xx. 1. So that keys, &c., are
metaphorically the ordinances which Christ hath instituted, to be
dispensed in his church, preaching the word, administrations of the
seals and censures: for it is not said key, but keys,
which comprehendeth them all: by the right use of which both the
gates of the Church here, and of heaven hereafter, are opened or
shut to believers or unbelievers; and Christ promising or giving
these keys to Peter and the apostles, and their successors
to the end of the world, Matt. xxviii. 20, doth intrust and
invest them with power and authority of dispensing these ordinances
for this end, and so makes them stewards in his house of
the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. iv. 1, so that we may
conclude:
Conclusion. Therefore the church guides are the immediate
subject and receptacle of that ecclesiastical power, and of the
exercise thereof.
Argum. II. Jesus Christ our Mediator did institute
ecclesiastical offices for church government under the New
Testament before any Christian Church under the New Testament was
gathered or constituted. Therefore those persons that were
intrusted with those offices must needs be the first and immediate
receptacle or subject of the power of the keys. Thus we may
argue:
Major. All those whose ecclesiastical offices for church
government, under the New Testament, were instituted by Christ,
before any formal visible Christian Church was gathered or
constituted, are the first and immediate receptacle or subject of
the power of the keys from Jesus Christ.
Minor. But the ecclesiastical offices of Christ's own
officers for governing of the Church, now under the New Testament,
were instituted by Christ before any formal visible Christian
Church was gathered or constituted.
Conclusion. Therefore Christ's own officers for governing
of the Church now under the New Testament are the first and
immediate receptacle or subject of the keys from Jesus Christ.
The major proposition cannot reasonably be denied, and may be
further cleared by these considerations, viz: 1. That the Church
offices for church government under the New Testament are in their
own nature intrinsically offices of power. The apostle styles it
power, or authority, which is given to these
officers by the Lord, 2 Cor. x. 8, and xiii. 10. The keys
of the kingdom of heaven are committed to them, Matt. xvi. 19,
and keys import a stewardly power: compare Matt. xvi. 19,
and xviii. 18, John xx. 21, 23, with Isa. xxii. 21, 22. Materially,
the acts and exercise of these officers are acts of power, as
binding, loosing, &c., Matt, xviii. 18; not only
preaching, &c., but excommunicating, is an act of
power, 1 Cor. v. 4. Absolving the penitent, and confirming him
again in the Church's love, is an act of power:—to confirm
love unto him, i.e. authoritatively to confirm, &c., as the
word signifies, 2 Cor. ii. 8. Formally, these acts are to be done
as acts of power, in Christ's name, and by his authority, Matt.
xxviii. 19; 1 Cor. v. 4. Now if these offices be in their own
nature offices of power, consequently they that have such offices
conferred upon them by Christ, before the Christian Church had
being or existence, they must needs be the first and immediate
recipient subject of the power of the keys from Christ. 2. Either
those church officers, whose offices were instituted before the
Christian Church was constituted, must be the first subject of the
power, &c., or some others. If any other, then, 1. Either
heathens, or heathen magistrates, who are out of the Church: but
both these were absurd to grant; for then they that are not so much
as church members should be church governors, and the Church be
ecclesiastically judged by them that are without. 2. Or the first
subject of this power was the Christian Church itself before it had
existence; but that were notoriously absurd; and besides these, no
other can be imagined, but the church officers; therefore they must
needs be the first subject of the power of the keys.
The minor proposition (viz. But the ecclesiastical offices of
Christ's own officers for governing of the Church now under the New
Testament, were instituted by Christ before any formal visible
Christian Church was gathered or constituted) is so evident in the
current of the New Testament, that it needs little confirmation.
For, 1. The church offices under the New Testament, as apostleship,
pastorship, &c., were instituted by Christ either before his
death—compare these places together, Mark iii. 13, 14,
&c.; Luke ix. 1, &c., and x. 1, 2, &c.; John xx. 21-23;
Matt, xxviii. 18-20—or presently upon his ascension, Eph. iv.
8, 11, 12, &c.; Acts ii.; 1 Cor. xiii. 28. Now no formal
Christian Church was constituted and gathered till the feast of
Pentecost and afterwards. Then, after the apostles had received the
gifts of the Holy Ghost, &c., Acts ii., great multitudes of
Jews and Gentiles were converted to Christ, and being converted,
incorporated and associated themselves into churches, as the
history of the Acts, chap, ii., and forward, evidenceth abundantly.
2. Church officers, under the New Testament, are for the calling
and gathering men unto Christ, and to his body mystical; and for
admitting of those that believe into that one body, Matt, xxviii.
18, 19; 1 Cor. xii. 28. And is not he that calleth, before them
that are called by them; they that baptize, before the baptized;
and they that gather the churches, before those churches which they
gather? May we not hence conclude, Therefore, &c.
Argum. III. The names, titles, and other denominations
purposely and peculiarly given to the church guides in Scripture,
generally do bear power and authority engraven upon their
foreheads. Therefore, they are the proper, immediate, and
only subjects of ecclesiastical power. Thus we may argue:
Major. All those persons in the Church, that have such
names, titles, or denominations given to them peculiarly in the
Scriptures by the Spirit of Christ, as generally have authority and
power engraven upon them in reference to the Church, are the
immediate and only proper subjects of ecclesiastical power.
Minor. But Christ's officers in the Church have such
names, titles, or denominations given to them peculiarly in the
Scriptures by the Spirit of Christ, as generally have authority and
power engraven upon them in reference to the Church.
Conclusion. Therefore Christ's own officers in the Church
are the proper, immediate, and only subjects or receptacles of
ecclesiastical power.
This major proposition must be granted. For, 1. Is not this the
Holy Ghost's familiar and ordinary manner in Scripture, to give
titles and denominations, which are apt, pertinent, significative
and instructing both to others and themselves that have such
denominations conferred upon them? As in the family, the husband is
called the head of the wife, 1 Cor. xi., because he is to
govern, she is to be subject: the wife is called an
help-meet, &c., Gen. ii.: to teach the wife her duty, to
help his good and comfort every way, to hinder it no way. So in the
commonwealth, magistrates are called heirs of restraint, to put
men to shame, Judges xviii. 7, because they are to restrain
disorders, shame evil-doers: higher powers, to teach others
subjection to them, Rom. xiii. 1. "An ordinance of man or human
creation," 1 Pet. ii. 13: because, though magistracy in general be
an ordinance of God, yet this or that special kind of magistracy,
whether monarchical, aristocratical, &c., is of man. Thus in
the Church: the Church is called Christ's body, Ephes. iv.
12, to show Christ's headship, the Church's subjection to Christ,
and their near union to one another. Christians are called
members, Rom. xii.; 1 Cor. xii., to teach them mutual love,
care, and serviceableness to one another. Ministers are called
ambassadors of Christ, 2 Cor. v. Angels of the
churches, Rev. ii., to teach them to be faithful in their
offices, and others to respect them for their offices. Salt of
the earth, Matt. v. 13, because they are to season others
spiritually. Stars, Rev. i., because they are to shine forth
for the enlightening and guiding of others, &c. 2. If this
proposition be denied, then to what end are such names and
denominations, importing authority, generally given by the Spirit
of God to some sort of persons only, and not to others? Is it for
no end? That would be a dangerous charge upon the Spirit of Christ.
Is it for any end? Then what other can be imagined, than to
signify, hold forth, and instruct both themselves and others in
their duties, and to distinguish them that are vested with
authority in the Church, from them that are not?
The major proposition (viz. But Christ's own officers in
the Church have such names, titles, or denominations given to them
peculiarly in the Scriptures by the Spirit of Christ, as generally
have authority and power engraven upon them in reference to the
Church) may be evinced, 1. By induction of particular names
attributed to Christ's officers. 2. By a denial of them, or the
like, to any other members of the Church.
1. By induction of particular titles or denominations attributed
to Christ's officers, which generally have power and authority
palpably engraven upon them: (yea, the self-same names are given to
them, by which not only heathen writers, but also the Greek version
of the Old Testament by the Septuagint, and the very original of
the New Testament are wont to give to political officers, to
express their political authority, power, and government,) as, for
instance:
1. Presbyter or elder, is ascribed often to Christ's
church officers, as in Acts xiv. 23, and xv. 2, 4, and xx. 17; 1
Tim. v. 17; Tit. v.; 1 Pet. v. 1. This same word is ascribed to
rulers political, to elders in the gate, by the
Septuagint, in Judges viii. 14; Ruth iv. 2, 3; 2 Sam. v. 3; 1
Chron. vi. 3.
2. Overseer or bishop, noting authority and power
in having the charge and oversight of the flock, is ascribed to
church officers in Acts xx. 28; Phil. i. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i.
7. This same word is used by the Septuagint, to denote the power of
the civil magistrate, to whom the care and oversight of the
commonwealth is committed, Numb. xxxi. 14; Judges ix. 28; 2 Kings
xi. 15.
3. Guide, leader, conductor, captain, governor, signifies
them all, and is given to church officers, as contradistinct from
the church and saints, Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24. It is
also attributed to civil rulers to set forth their power, in Deut.
i. 13; Micah iii. 9, 11; 2 Chron. v. 1; Ezek. xliv. 3, and xlv. 7;
Dan. iii. 2; Acts vii. 10. This very word governor, is
attributed to Christ himself, out of thee shall come forth a
governor, that shall rule (or feed) my people
Israel, Matt. ii. 6.
4. Steward, dispenser. "Stewards of the mysteries of
God," is the title given to ministers, 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2. "Steward of
God," Tit. i. 7. "That faithful and wise steward, whom his Lord
shall make ruler over his household," &c., Luke xii. 42. This
also is a title of power given to them that are set over families,
as Gal. iv. 2, "he is under tutors and stewards." And to them that
are set over cities—as Rom. xvi. 23, "Erastus the steward"
(or as we render it, the chamberlain) "of the city saluteth
you."
5. Pastor is ascribed to Christ's officers; Eph. iv. 11,
"and some pastors and teachers." They govern the Church as the
shepherd his flock, feeding, ruling them as well with the
shepherd's staff, as with food. This term is sometimes given to
civil magistrates, Isa. xliv. 28; Micah v. 5: sometimes to Christ
the great shepherd of the sheep, 1 Pet. v. 4; noting his authority,
Matt. xxvi. 31; John x. 2, 11, 14, 16; Heb. xiii. 20; 1 Pet. ii.
25: sometimes to God himself the supreme Ruler of the world, Ps.
lxxx. 1.
6. Governments, a denomination given to ruling
elders, 1 Cor. xii. 28, as hath been proved Sect. 1 of this
Chapter. A metaphor from mariners or pilots, that steer and govern
the ship: translated thence, to signify the power and authority of
church governors, spiritual pilots, steering the ship or ark of
Christ's Church. This word is used also by heathen authors, to
signify political governors.94
Ruler. 1 Tim. v. 17, "Let the elders that rule
well"—and,
"He that ruleth," Rom. xii. 8, and "Your rulers in the Lord," 1
Thes. v. 12, viz. not only in the fear of the Lord,95 nor only in those things that
appertain to God's worship,96
but also in the Lord; i.e. who are over you, to rule according to
the will of the Lord,97 even
by the Lord Christ's power and authority derived to them. Now these
names are among heathen authors ascribed to rulers of cities,
armies, and kingdoms.98
By these among other titles given to Christ's officers in
Scripture, he that runs may read a plain authority and power
enstamped on them in reference to the Church; and consequently on
them that are thus denominated, unless they be applied to them
improperly, unfitly, abusively; which we suppose no sober
intelligent reader dare affirm.
2. By a denial of these and like titles to the whole Church of
Christ, or to any other members of the Church whatsoever, besides
church officers. For where can it be showed in all the book of God,
that in this sense, either the whole Church or any members thereof
besides officers, are ever styled presbyters, bishops,
governors, stewards of God, or of the mysteries of God, pastors,
governments, or rulers? The greatest factors for popular
government must let this alone forever. Thus, from all that hath
been said, we need not fear to conclude:
Conclusion. Therefore Christ's own officers in the Church
are the proper, immediate, and only subjects or receptacles of
ecclesiastical power.
Argum. IV. The relations which Christ's officers have
unto his Church, imply and comprehend in themselves authority and
power in reference to the Church, and therefore they are the proper
subjects of ecclesiastical power. Thus we reason:
Major. Whosoever they are that peculiarly stand in such
relations to the Church of Christ, as imply and comprehend in
themselves authority and power for governing of the Church, they
are the only subject of ecclesiastical power.
This proposition is evident; for, otherwise, to what end are
those peculiar relations to the Church which comprehend government
in them, unless such as are so peculiarly related be the only
subjects of government? Shall all those relations be mere names and
shadows? or shall others in the church be counted the subject of
this authority and power for church government, that have no such
relations to the Church at all implying any such power?
Minor. But the officers of Christ peculiarly stand in
such relations to the Church of Christ as imply and comprehend in
themselves authority and power for the government of the
church.
This assumption or minor proposition will be evident by a due
induction of some of their particular relations that have such
power enstamped on them; as for instance, Christ's officers stand
in these relations of power to the Church and people of God.
1. They are pastors, Eph. iv. 11. The church is the
flock, John x. 16; 1 Cor. ix. 7; flock, Acts xx. 28,
29; 1 Pet. v. 2, 3. Hath not the pastor power to rule and
govern his flock?
2. They are stewards. "Who is that faithful and wise
steward?" Luke xii. 42. "Stewards of the mysteries of God," 1 Cor.
iv. 1, 2. "Stewards of God," Tit. i. 7. The Church and people of
God are the Lord's household, over which these stewards are
set, &c., Luke xii. 42. God's house, 1 Tim. iii. 15;
Heb. iii. 6. Have not stewards power to govern and order those
families over which they are set, and wherewith they are
intrusted? Gal. iv. 1.
3. They are bishops or overseers, Phil. i. 1; 1
Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 7. The Church and people of God are that
charge which the Lord hath committed to their inspection.
"Over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers," Acts xx. 28.
Have not overseers power over that which is committed to
their inspection?
4. They are catechizers and teachers, Rom. xii. 7,
8; Eph. iv. 11. The Church and people are catechized, Gal.
vi. 6; taught. Hath not he that catechizeth power for
government of him that is catechized? He that
teacheth of him that is taught?
5. They are co-workers with God, 1 Cor. iii. 9; 2 Cor.
vi. 1. Architects, builders, &c., 1 Cor. iii. 10; some
of them laying the foundation, others building thereupon.
The Church and people of God are God's building. "Ye are God's
building," 1 Cor. iii. 9. Have not builders power of
disposing and ordering affairs appertaining to the
building?
6. Finally, to add no more, the officers of Christ in the Church
are not only as nurses; "We were gentle among you,
even as a nurse cherisheth her children," 1 Thess. ii. 7: and as
mothers; "My little children, of whom I travail in birth
again," Gal. iv. 19: but also as fathers, 1 Thess. ii. 11; 1
Cor. iv. 15, spiritual fathers in Christ: and the Church and people
of God, they are the sons and daughters, the
spiritual babes and children, begotten, brought
forth, and nursed up by them, 1 Thess. ii. 7, 11; Gal. iv. 19: and
have fathers no authority nor power of government over their
children? See Eph. vi. 1-3; 1 Tim. iii. 4.
Thus Christ's officers stand in such relation to the Church as
do evidently carry power of government along with them; but where
are any other members of the church besides officers, stated in
such relation of pastors, stewards, overseers, catechizers,
builders, husbandmen, nurses, mothers, and fathers to
the Church of God and members of Christ, that can be evidenced by
the Scriptures? Why may we not then clearly conclude,
Conclusion. Therefore the officers of Christ are the only
subjects of ecclesiastical power.
Argum. V. The many divine commands and impositions of
duties of obedience, submission, subjection, &c., upon the
Church and people of God, to be performed by them to Christ's
officers, and that in reference to their office, do plainly
proclaim the officers of Christ to be the proper receptacle and
subject of authority and power from Christ for the government of
his Church. Thus it may be argued:
Major. Whatsoever persons they are to whom the Church and
people of God are peculiarly bound by the commands of Christ, to
perform duties of obedience and subjection, and that in reference
to their office in the church, they are the only subjects of
authority from Christ for the government of his Church.
This proposition needs no proof, unless we will be so absurd as
to say that the Church and people of God are peculiarly obliged by
Christ's command to obey and be subject to them, that yet have no
peculiar authority nor power over them, and that in reference to
their office in the church.
Minor. But the officers of Christ are those to whom the
Church and people of God are peculiarly bound by the commands of
Christ to perform duties of obedience and subjection, and that in
reference to their office in the church.
This assumption or minor proposition may be evidenced, 1. Partly
by induction of some particular instances of Christ's commands,
whereby the Church and people of God are bound to perform duties of
obedience and subjection to the officers of Christ, in reference to
their office in the church. 2. Partly by a denial of the like
commands in reference to all others in the church, except the
officers of the church only.
Touching the first, viz. the instances of such commands,
consider these following. The Church and people of God are
commanded,
1. To know their rulers. "We beseech you, brethren, to know them
that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord," 1 Thess. v.
12. To know, i.e., not simply and merely to know, but to
acknowledge, accept, and approve of them as such rulers over you in
the Lord. This teaches subjection to the office of ruling.
2. To love them exceedingly for their work's sake. "Esteem them
superabundantly in love for their work's sake," 1 Thess. v. 13. For
what work? viz. both laboring and ruling, mentioned verse 12. If
they must love them so exceedingly for ruling over them, must they
not much more be obedient to this rule?
3. To count them worthy of double honor in reference to their
well-ruling. "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of
double honor, especially—," 1 Tim. v. 17: whether we take
double honor here for reverence or maintenance, or both; yet
how can we esteem the elders ruling well worthy of double
honor without some submission to their rule?
4. To obey them that are their rulers and governors. Obey ye
your rulers, or governors, Heb. xiii. 17; where the words
obey ye doth not (as some dream) signify a persuasion, but
obedience, and in this sense it is commonly used, not only in
profane authors, but also in the Holy Scriptures, as James iii. 3,
Gal. iii. 1.
5. Finally, to submit and be subordinate unto them. The Church
and people of God are charged to submit unto them. "Obey your
governors and submit ye," Heb. xiii. 17. The word properly notes a
submissive yielding without opposition or resistance; yea, it
signifies intense obedience. They must not only yield, but yield
with subjection and submission, which relates to authority. They
are also charged to be subordinate to them. "Likewise, ye younger,
submit yourselves to the elders," 1 Pet. v. 5; i.e., be ye
subordinate, (it is a military term,) viz: be ordered, ranked,
guided, governed, disciplined by them, as soldiers are by their
commanders. The word elders here is by some taken only for
elders in age, and not in office. But it seems better to interpret
it of elders in office; and the context well agrees with this; for
the apostle having immediately before charged the ruling preaching
presbyters with their duties towards their flock, ver. 1-4, here he
seems to enjoin the ruled flock (which commonly were younger in age
and gifts) to look to their duties of subjection to their elders in
office.
Touching the second, viz. the denial of like commands, and upon
like grounds to all others in the church, except to the church
officers only: where can it be evidenced in all the Scriptures that
the people of God are commanded to know, to esteem very highly in
love, to count worthy of double honor, to obey, and submit
themselves to any persons in the church but to the ruling officers
thereof in reference to their office, and the due execution
thereof?
Now, seeing the Church and people of God are peculiarly obliged,
by so many commands of Christ, to perform such duties of subjection
and obedience to the officers of Christ, may it not be
concluded,
Therefore the officers of Christ are the only subjects of
authority from Christ for the government of his Church?
Argum. VI. Finally, the directions touching rule and
government in the Church; the encouragements to well-ruling by
commendations, promises, rewards, together with the contrary
deterring discouragements from ill-ruling, by discommendations,
threats, &c., being specially applied and appropriated by the
word of Christ unto Christ's officers, very notably discover to us
that Christ's officers are the only subjects of power from Christ
for the government of his Church. Thus it may be argued:
Major. Whatsoever persons in the Church have directions
for church government, encouragements to well-ruling, and
discouragements from ill-ruling, particularly and peculiarly
applied unto them by the word of Christ; they are the only subjects
of power from Christ for the government of his Church:
This proposition is evident: For, 1. How should it be consistent
with the infinite wisdom of God peculiarly to apply unto them
directions about ruling and governing the church that are not the
only subjects in whom the power of government is intrusted by Jesus
Christ? 2. How can it stand with the justice of God to encourage
them only unto well-ruling, by commendations, promises, rewards,
&c., or to deter them from ill-governing by dispraises,
threats, &c., &c., to whom the power of government doth not
appertain, as to the only subjects thereof? 3. What strange
apprehensions and distractions would this breed in the hearts of
Christ's officers and others, should those that have not the power
of church government committed to them by Christ, be yet directed
by his word how to govern, encouraged in governing well, and
deterred from governing ill?
Minor. But the officers of Christ in the church have
directions for church government, encouragements to well-ruling,
and discouragements from ill-ruling, particularly and peculiarly
applied unto them by the word of God.
This assumption or minor proposition may be cleared by divers
Scriptures according to the particular branches thereof, viz:
1. Directions for church government are particularly applied by
the word of Christ to his own officers: as for instance, they are
directed to bind and loose—to remit and
retain sins on earth, Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 18; John xx.
21, 23. To judge them that are within the Church, not
without, 1 Cor. v. 12. Not to lord it, domineer, or
overrule the flock of Christ, 1 Pet. v. To rule well,
1 Tim. v. 17. To rule with diligence, Rom. xii. 8. To lay
hands suddenly on no man, neither to be partakers of other men's
sins, but to keep themselves pure, 1 Tim. v. 22. Not to
prefer one before another, nor do anything by partiality, 1
Tim. v. 21. To rebuke them that sin before all, that others also
may fear, 1 Tim. v. 20. To reject a heretic after once or
twice admonition, Tit. iii. 10. To use the authority that is
given them from the Lord to the edification, not to the
destruction of the Church, 2 Cor. x. 8, and xiii. 10; with
divers such like rules specially directed to Christ's officers.
2. Encouragements to well-ruling are peculiarly directed to
Christ's officers. For, 1. They are the persons specially commended
in that respect; well-ruling, 1 Tim. v. 17. Good and
faithful steward, Luke xii. 42. The angels of the churches are
praised for their good government, Rev. ii. 2, 3, 6, and ver. 18,
19. 2. They are the persons to whom the promises, in reference to
good government, are directed, as Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 18-20;
John xx. 21, 23; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; Luke xii. 42-44; 1 Pet. v.
4. 3. They are the persons whom the Lord will have peculiarly
rewarded, now with double honor, 1 Tim. v. 17; hereafter
with endless glory, 1 Pet. v. 4.
3. Discouragements, deterring from ill-governing, are also
specially applied to Christ's officers, whether by way of dispraise
or threats, &c., Rev. ii. 12, 14-16, and ver. 18, 20.
Now if, 1. Rules for church government, 2. Encouragements in
reference to well ruling, and, 3. Discouragements in reference to
ill-ruling, be so peculiarly directed by the word of Christ to his
own officers, we may conclude,
Therefore the officers of Christ in the Church are the only
subjects of power from Christ for the government of his Church.
Object. But the church99 of a particular congregation fully
furnished with officers, and rightly walking in judgment and peace,
is the first subject of all church authority, as appears from the
example of the church of Corinth in the excommunication of the
incestuous Corinthian, 1 Cor. v. 1-5; wherein it appears that the
presbytery alone did not put forth this power, but the brethren
also concurred in this sentence with some act of power, (viz. a
negative power:) for, 1. The reproof, for not proceeding to
sentence sooner, is directed to the whole Church, as well as to the
presbytery. They are all blamed for not mourning, &c., 1 Cor.
v. 2. 2. The command is directed to them all, when they are
gathered together, (and what is that but to a church
meeting?) to proceed against him, 1 Cor. v. 4, 13. 3. He
declareth this act of theirs, in putting him out, to be a judicial
act, ver. 12. 4. Upon his repentance the apostle speaketh to the
brethren, as well as to their elders, to forgive him, 2 Cor. ii.
4-10. Consequently, Christ's church officers are not the peculiar,
immediate, or only subject of the power of the keys, as hath been
asserted.
Ans. I. As for the main proposition asserted in this
objection, something hath been formerly laid down to show the
unsoundness of it. (See chap. X. near the end.) Whereunto thus much
may be superadded. 1. What necessity is there that a particular
congregation should be fully furnished with officers, to make it
the subject of all church authority? For deacons are one sort of
officers, yet what authority is added to the Church by the addition
of deacons, whose office it is only to serve tables, Acts vi., not
to rule the Church? or if the Church have no deacons, as once it
had not, Acts i. 2, and before that, all the time from Christ,
wherein is she maimed or defective in her authority? 2. If the
Church, fully furnished with officers, yet walk not in judgment and
peace, then in such case it is granted, that a particular
congregation is not the first subject of all church authority. Then
a congregation that walks in error or heresy, or passion, or
profaneness, all which are contrary to judgment; and that walks in
divisions, schisms, contentions, &c., which are contrary to
peace, loseth her authority. Stick but close to this principle, and
you will quickly lay the church authority of most independent
congregations in the dust. But who shall determine whether they
walk in judgment and peace, or not? Not themselves; for that were
to make parties judges in their own case, and would produce a very
partial sentence. Not sister churches; for all particular churches,
according to them, have equal authority, and none may usurp one
over another. Not a presbyterial church, for such they do not
acknowledge. Then it must be left undetermined, yea undeterminable,
(according to their principles;) consequently, who can tell when
they have any authority at all? 3. Suppose the congregation had all
her officers, and walked in judgment and peace also, yet is she not
the first subject of all authority; for there is a synodal
authority, beyond a congregational authority, as confessed by Mr.
Cotton.100
II. As for the proofs of this proposition asserted here, they
seem extremely invalid and unsatisfying. For,
The instance of the church of Corinth excommunicating the
incestuous person, will not prove the congregation to be the first
subject of all church authority: 1. Partly, because the church of
Corinth was a presbyterial church, having several congregations in
it, (as hereafter is evidenced, chap. XIII.;) now to argue from the
authority of a presbyterial church, to the authority of a
congregational, affirmatively, is not cogent. 2. Partly, because
here were but two acts of power mentioned in this instance, viz.
casting out and receiving again of the incestuous person: suppose
the community had joined the presbytery in these two acts, (which
yet is not proved,) will it follow therefore they are the first
subject of all church authority? Are not ordination of presbyters,
determination in case of appeals, of schism, of heresy, &c.,
acts of authority above the sphere of a single congregation? What
one congregation can be instanced in the New Testament that did
ever execute any of these acts of authority?
The reasons brought, prove not that the brethren did concur with
the presbytery in this sentence with some act of power, as will
appear plainly, if they be considered severally.
1. Not the reproof, 1 Cor. v. 2, "And ye are puffed up, and have
not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken
away from among you." Here they are blamed, that they no more laid
to heart so vile a scandal, which should have been matter of
mourning to the whole congregation; that they instead of mourning
were puffed up, gloried in their shame; and that they sluggishly
neglected to endeavor, in their sphere, his casting out. And all
this blame might justly be charged upon the whole church, the
fraternity as well as the presbytery: the scandal of one member
should be the grief of the whole body of the church. What then?
Hath therefore the fraternity, as well as the presbytery, power to
cast him out? That were a miserable consequence indeed: the people
should not only have mourned for the sin, but have urged the
presbytery to have proceeded to sentence, and after sentence have
withdrawn from him, in obedience to the sentence; but none of all
these can amount to a proper act of church authority in them.
2. Nor doth the apostle's command prove the people's concurrence
in any act of power with the presbytery, 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, "In the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, to
deliver such an one unto Satan," &c.: ver. 7, "Purge out
therefore the old leaven," &c.: and ver. 13, "Therefore put
away from among yourselves that wicked person." In which passages
it is supposed the apostle directs his injunction to them all (as
well as to their presbytery) when they come together in their
church meeting to proceed to sentence.
But against this reason, well ponder upon these considerations,
viz: 1. It is certain beyond all controversy, that the apostle did
not direct these commands to the whole church of Corinth
absolutely, and universally, without all exception and limitation
to any members at all: for by his own rule, "Women must be silent
in their churches, it being a shame for a woman to speak in the
church," 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35, and children or fools were not able to
judge. Hence it is evident that a church absolutely and universally
taken, cannot possibly be the ministerial ruling church which hath
the authority. 2. It is evident to any man that is but moderately
acquainted with the Scriptures, that God useth to direct his
commands, reproofs, and other speeches to a people indifferently,
and as it were collectively and generally, which yet he intends
should be particularly applied and appropriated; not to all, but to
this or that person or persons, only among such a people
distributively and respectively; according to their respective
callings, interests, relations, &c., as in the Old Testament
God directs a command to the people of Israel indefinitely, and as
it were collectively, to kill enticers to idolatry, false prophets,
Deut. xiii. 9; but intended that the judge should sentence him,
finding him guilty by witnesses. The Lord also directs his command
to all the people, as it were collectively, to put out of the camp
"every one that was a leper, and had an issue, or was defiled by
the dead," Numb. v. 2; but intended that the priest should
peculiarly take and apply this command to himself, who was to judge
in these cases. See Lev. xiii. and elsewhere. So in the New
Testament the apostle praised the Corinthians indefinitely, and as
it were collectively, for "remembering him in all things, and
keeping the ordinances as he delivered them to them," 1 Cor. xi. 2;
wherein he intended only to commend the virtuous; and after he
discommends them indefinitely for "coming together not for better,
but for worse," 1 Cor. xi. 17; intending only their dispraise that
were herein particularly delinquent among them. Again, he speaks
indefinitely, and as it were collectively and generally, "Ye may
all prophesy one by one," 1 Cor. xiv. 31; but he intended it only
to the prophets respectively, not to all the members; for he saith
elsewhere, "Are all prophets?" 1 Cor. xii. 29. And writing to the
churches of Galatia, Gal. i. 2, against false teachers he speaks
thus to all those churches collectively, "A little leaven leaveneth
the whole lump," Gal. v. 9. And, "I would they were even cut off
who trouble you," ver. 12. Now every one of these churches were to
apply this to themselves respectively, Independents themselves
being judges. So here in this present case of the church of
Corinth, the apostle directs his commands to them, as it were
collectively, about putting away the incestuous person, which
commands were particularly to be put in execution by the presbytery
in that church in whose hands the church authority was.101
Thus taking these commands, 1 Cor. v. 4, 7, 13, though directed
indefinitely, and as it were collectively to the whole church, yet
intended respectively to be put in execution by the presbytery in
that church, they hold forth no concurrence of the people in any
act of power at all with the church officers or presbytery. And it
is a good note which Cameron102 hath upon this place, "These
things that are written in this epistle are so to be taken of the
presbytery and of the people, that every one both of the presbyters
and of the people, should interpret the command according to the
reason of his office." 3. When the apostle reciteth the proceedings
of the church in this very case of the incestuous person, in his 2d
epistle, he saith, "Sufficient to such a man is this punishment"
(or censure) "which was inflicted of many," 2 Cor. ii. 6. It is
very observable, he saith not, of all; nor of many,
but of the chief ones, viz. the church officers, who had the
rule and government of the church committed to them: (the article
the being emphatical;) for this word translated many
may as well be translated chief, denoting worth, &c., as many,
denoting number. And in this sense the Holy Ghost ofttimes useth
this word in the New Testament; as for instance, "Is not the life
better than meat?" Matt. vi. 25. "Behold, a greater than Jonah is
here," Matt. xii. 41. "And behold, a greater than Solomon is here,"
Matt. xii. 41. "To love him with all the heart," &c., "is more
than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices," Mark xii. 33. And
again, ver. 43, "This poor widow hath cast more than all they,"
&c. And thus it is frequently used to signify quality, worth,
greatness, dignity, eminency, &c., and so it may be
conveniently interpreted in this of the Corinthians. 4. Though all
proper acts of authority appertain only to the church officers, yet
we are not against the people's fraternal concurrence therewith.
People may incite the presbytery to the acts of their office;
people may be present at the administration of censures, &c.,
by the elders, as Cyprian of old would dispatch all public acts,
the people being present; people may judge with a judgment of
discretion, acclamation, and approbation, &c., as the elders
judge with a judgment of power; and people afterwards may, yea
must, withdraw from delinquents sentenced, that the sentence may
attain its proposed end. But none of these are properly any acts of
power.
3. Nor doth the apostle's expression, verse 12, "Do you not
judge them that are within?" prove that the people concur with any
authoritative act in the elders' sentence. For, 1. This being
spoken to them indefinitely, was to be applied distributively and
respectively, only to them to whom it properly appertained, viz.
the elders, as hath been showed. They only have authority to judge.
2. Such a judgment is allowed to the saints in church censures, as
shall be allowed to them when the saints shall judge the world, yea
angels, 1 Cor. vi. 1-3, viz. in both a judgment of acclamation,
approbation, &c., as assessors, as people judge at the assizes;
not in either a judgment of authority, which the judge and jury
only do pronounce.
4. Nor, finally, doth the apostle's direction to forgive the
incestuous, being penitent, 2 Cor. ii. 4-10, which seems to be
given to all, prove the people's concurrence with the elders in any
act of power. For the authoritative forgiving and receiving him
again, belonged only to the elders; the charitable forgiving,
receiving, and comforting of him, belonged also to the people. As
the judge and jury at an assizes, acquit by judgment of authority,
the people only by judgment of discretion and acclamation.
Thus it appears how little strength is in this instance of the
church of Corinth, (though supposed to be the strongest ground the
Independents have,) for the propping up of their popular
government, and authoritative suffrage of the people.
III. Having thus considered the subject of authority and power
for church government: 1. Negatively, what it is not, viz. neither
the political magistrate, nor yet the community of the faithful, or
whole body of the people, Chap. IX. and X. 2. Positively, what it
is, viz. Christ's own officers in his church, as hath been
explained and evidenced, Sect. 2, of this Chap. 3. Now, in the
third and last place, we are to insist a little further upon this
subject of the power, by way of explanation: and to inquire, seeing
Christ's officers are found to be the subject of this power, in
what sense or notion they are the subject and receptacle of this
authority and power from Christ, whether jointly or severally; as
solitarily and single from one another, or associated and
incorporated into assemblies with one another; or in both
respects?
For resolution herein we must remember that distribution of the
keys, or of proper ecclesiastical power, (which was briefly
mentioned before in Part 2, Chap. III.) into that which is,
1. More special and peculiar to the office of some church
governors, which by virtue of their office they are to execute and
discharge: thus it is peculiar to the minister's office, 1. To
preach the word; compare these places together, Matt. xxviii.
18-20, John xx. 21-23, Rom. x. 15, 1 Tim. v. 17, Heb. xiii. 7, 2
Tim. iv. 1, 2, &c. 2. To dispense the sacraments, Matt.
xxviii. 18-20, 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. The word and sacraments were
joined together in the same commission to the same officers, viz.
the preaching presbyters, &c., as is evident in that of Matt.
xxviii. 19.
2. More general and common to the office of all church
governors, as the power of censures, viz. admonishing,
excommunicating, and absolving, and of such other acts as
necessarily depend thereupon; wherein not only the preaching, but
also the ruling elders are to join and contribute their best
assistance; as may be collected from these several testimonies of
Scripture, Matt. xviii. 17, 18, Tell the Church,103 1 Cor. v. 2-13, 2 Cor. ii. 6-12,
compared with Rom. xii. 8, 1 Cor. xii. 28, and 1 Tim. v. 17.
Now these officers of Christ, viz. they that labor in the word
and doctrine, and the ruling elders, are the subject of this power
of jurisdiction as they are united in one body, hence called a
Church, Matth. xviii. 18, viz. the governing or ruling church; for
no other can there be meant; and presbytery,104 i.e. a society or assembly of
presbyters together, 1 Tim. iv. 14.
The presbyters, elderships, or assemblies wherein these officers
are united and associated, are of two sorts, viz: 1. The lesser
assemblies, consisting of the ministers and ruling elders in each
single congregation; which, for distinction's sake, is styled the
congregational eldership. 2. The greater assemblies, consisting of
church governors sent from several churches and united into one
body, for governing of all these churches within their own bounds,
whence their members were sent. These greater assemblies are either
presbyterial or synodal. 1. Presbyterial, consisting of the
ministers and elders of several adjacent or neighboring single
congregations, or parish churches, ruling those several
congregations in common; this kind of assembly is commonly called
the presbytery, or, for distinction's sake, the classical
presbytery, i.e. the presbytery of such a rank of churches. 2.
Synodal, consisting of ministers and elders, sent from presbyterial
assemblies, to consult and conclude about matters of common and
great concernment to the church within their limits. Such was that
assembly mentioned, Acts xv. These synodal assemblies are either,
1. Of ministers and elders from several presbyteries within one
province, called provincial. 2. Or of ministers and elders from
several provinces within one nation, called therefore national. Or,
3. Of ministers and elders from the several nations within the
whole Christian world, therefore called ecumenical: for all which
assemblies, congregational, presbyterial, and synodal, and the
subordination of the lesser to the greater assemblies respectively,
there seems to be good ground and divine warrant in the word of
God, as (God willing) shall be evinced in the xii., xiii., xiv.,
and xv. chapters following.
CHAPTER XII. — Of the Divine Right of Congregational Elderships or Kirk Sessions, for the government of the Church.
Touching congregational elderships, consisting of the ministers
and ruling elders of the several single congregations, which are
called the lesser assemblies, or smaller presbyteries, and which
are to manage and order all ecclesiastical matters within
themselves, which are of more immediate, private, particular
concernment to their own congregations respectively; and
consequently, of more easy dispatch, and of more daily use and
necessity. Concerning these congregational presbyteries, we shall
not now take into consideration either, 1. What are the members
constituting and making up these elderships; whether ruling elders
by divine warrant may be superadded to the pastors and teachers,
and so be associated for the government of the congregation. For
the divine right of the ruling elders, distinct from the preaching
elder for the government of the church, hath been evidenced at
large, Chapter XI., Section 1, foregoing. And if any acts of
government in the church belong to the ruling elder at all, sure
those acts of common jurisdiction, to be dispatched in these least
assemblies, cannot of all other be denied unto him. 2. Nor shall it
here be discussed, what the power of congregational elderships is,
whether it be universally extensive to all acts of government
ecclesiastical whatsoever, without exception or limitation; and
that independently, without subordination to the greater
assemblies, and without all liberty of appeal thereunto in any
cases whatsoever, though of greatest and most common concernment.
Which things are well stated and handled by others;105 and will in some measure be
considered afterwards in Chapter XV.
3. But the thing for the present to be insisted upon, against
the Erastian and prelatical party, is, the divine right of
authority and power for church government, which is in
congregational presbyteries or elderships, in reference to their
respective congregations. Take it thus:
Elderships of single congregations vested and furnished with
ecclesiastical authority and power to exercise and dispense acts of
government in and over those respective congregations whereunto
they do belong, are by divine right warrantable.
For confirmation hereof the light of nature, the institution of
Christ, the apostolical practice, and the law of necessity, seem to
speak sufficiently unto us.
1. The common light of nature thus far directeth all sorts of
smaller societies, whether political or ecclesiastical, to compose
all particular and more private differences and offences within
themselves; and to decide and determine small, common, easy causes
and matters, by smaller courts and judicatories appointed for that
end: a vain thing to trouble more and greater assemblies with those
matters, that may as well be determined by the lesser. It was wise
and grave counsel which Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, gave to
Moses, that he should set up over the people certain judges
inferior to himself, who themselves might judge all smaller
matters, but all great and hard matters to be brought to
Moses, Exod. xviii. 22, 26. And our Saviour seems to insinuate,
that the Jews had their inferior courts for inferior causes,
superior judicatories for greater, in that gradation of his, Matt.
v. 22. Likewise they had lesser and greater ecclesiastical
assemblies, (as after will appear.) Now, to what use are greater
and lesser judicatories, civil or ecclesiastical, but that the
lesser and lighter causes may be judged in the inferior, harder and
greater in the superior?
2. The institution of Christ recorded Matt. xviii. 15-21, seems
to hold forth notably both single congregational elderships, and
their power. And this, whether we consider the Jewish form, unto
which our Saviour seems to refer; or whether we observe the matter
of his discourse.
1. As for the Jewish form of church government (unto which our
Saviour here seems to allude) we may observe it was managed by two,
if not three sorts of ecclesiastical courts, viz: By the Sanhedrin,
presbytery, and synagogue, (much like to the evangelical synod,
presbytery, and congregational eldership since Christ.) 1. They had
their ecclesiastical,106 as
well as their civil Sanhedrin, for high and difficult affairs of
the church; which seems first to be constituted, Exod. xxiv. 1, and
after decay thereof, it was restored by King Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron.
xix. 8; and from this court that national church's reformation
proceeded, Neh. vi. 13. 2. Again, it is very probable they had
between their Sanhedrin and their synagogue a middle ecclesiastical
court called The Presbytery, Luke xxii. 66, and Acts xxii.
5, and the whole presbytery. Let such as are expert in
Jewish antiquities and their polity, consider and judge. 3.
Finally, they had their lesser judicatories in their synagogues, or
congregational meetings: for, their synagogues were not only for
prayer, and the ministry of the word, in reading and expounding the
Scriptures, but also for public censures, correcting of offences,
&c., as that phrase seems to import, "And I punished them oft
in every synagogue," Acts xxvi. 11. His facts and proceedings, it
is true, were cruel, unjust, impious. But why inflicted in every
synagogue, rather than in other places, and that by virtue of
the high priest's letters, Acts ix. 1, 2; but there the Jews
had judicatories, that inflicted public punishments upon persons
ecclesiastically offending? Besides, we read often in the New
Testament of the rulers of the synagogue, as Mark v. 35, 36,
38; Luke viii. 41, and xiii. 14; and of Crispus and Sosthenes the
chief rulers of the synagogue, Acts xviii. 8, 17; whence is
intimated to us, that these synagogues had their rule and
government in themselves; and that this rule was not in one person,
but in divers together; for if there were chief rulers, there were
also inferiors subordinate unto them: but this is put out of doubt,
in Acts xiii. 15, where after the lecture of the law and the
prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto
them—synagogue in the singular number, and rulers
in the plural. Thus analogically there should be ecclesiastical
rulers and governors in every single congregation, for the well
guiding thereof. But if this satisfy not, add hereunto the material
passages in our Saviour's speech.
2. Now touching the matter of our Saviour's discourse, it makes
this very clear to us; for by a gradation he leadeth us from
admonition private and personal, to admonition before two or three
witnesses, and from admonition before two or three witnesses, to
the representative body of one church, (as the phrase tell the
church must here necessarily be interpreted,) if there the
difference can be composed, the offence removed, or the cause
ended; rather than unnecessarily render the offence, and so our
brother's shame, more public and notorious. And that the presbytery
or eldership of a particular congregation, vested with power to
hear and determine such cases as shall be brought before them, is
partly, though not only here intended, seems evident in the words
following, which are added for the strengthening and confirming of
what went before in ver. 17: "Verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye
shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye
shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again, I say unto
you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing
that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which
is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them," Matt. xviii. 18-20. In
which passages these things are to be noted: 1. That this church to
which the complaint is to be made, is invested with power of
binding and loosing, and that so authoritatively that
what by this church shall be bound or loosed on earth shall also be
bound or loosed in heaven, according to Christ's promise. 2. That
these acts of binding or loosing, may be the acts but
of two or three, and therefore consequently of the eldership of a
particular congregation; for where such a juridical act was
dispatched by a classical presbytery, it is said to be done of
many, 2 Cor. ii. 6, because that in such greater
presbyteries there are always more than two or three. And
though some do pretend, that the faults here spoken of by our
Saviour in this place, were injuries, not scandals; and that the
church here mentioned was not any ecclesiastical consistory, or
court, but the civil Sanhedrin, a court of civil judicature; and
yet most absurdly they interpret the binding and loosing here
spoken of, to be doctrinal and declarative; not juridical and
authoritative; as if the doctrinal binding and loosing were in the
power of the civil Sanhedrin:107 yet all these are but vain,
groundless pretences and subterfuges, without substance or
solidity, as the learned and diligent reader may easily find
demonstrated by consulting these judicious authors mentioned in the
foot note,108 to whom for
brevity's sake he is referred for satisfaction in these and divers
such like particulars.
3. The consideration of the apostolical practice, and state of
the Church of God in those times, may serve further to clear this
matter to us. For, 1. We sometimes read of single congregations;
and as the Holy Ghost doth call the whole body of Christ the
Church, Matt. xvi. 18, 1 Cor. xii. 28, and often elsewhere; and
the larger particular members of that body of Christ (partaking the
nature of the whole, as a drop of water is as true water as the
whole ocean) churches; as, the church of Jerusalem, Acts
viii. 1; the church of Antioch, Acts xiii. 1; the church
of Ephesus, Rev. ii. 1; the church of Corinth, 2 Cor. i.
1; (these being the greater presbyterial churches, as after will
appear, Chap. XIII.;) so the same holy Spirit of Christ is pleased
to style single congregations, churches, "Let women keep
silence in the churches," 1 Cor. xiv. 34, i.e. in the single
congregations of this one church of Corinth: and often mention is
made of the church that is in such or such an house, as Rom.
xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Col. iv. 15; Philem. 2; whether this be
interpreted of the church made up only of the members of that
family, or of the church that ordinarily did meet in such houses,
it implies a single congregation. Now shall single congregations
have the name and nature of churches, and shall we imagine they had
not in them the ordinary standing church officers, viz. pastors and
teachers, governments, or elders ruling well, and helps or
deacons? or is it probable they were furnished with these officers,
and yet the officers furnished with no power for the government of
these single congregations at all? 2. We find that the apostles
being crowned with such success in their ministry, as to be
instruments of converting such multitudes to the faith as were
sufficient to make up many several churches from time to time, did
diligently take care to ordain them presbyters, or elders in
every church, Acts xiv. 23; Tit. i. 5. Now can it be clearly
evidenced by any, that these were not ruling as well as preaching
presbyters; especially when it appears by other places that the
primitive churches had both? Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 28;
1 Tim. v. 17. Or can we think that the apostles were not as
careful to erect elderships in several congregations, as to appoint
elders? otherwise how could the apostles have answered it to their
Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in leaving them without that
necessary provision of government, which Christ himself had allowed
to them, at least, in some cases, as hath been evidenced?
4. Finally, necessity (which is a strong and cogent law) plainly
and forcibly pleads for elderships in particular congregations
endowed with authority and power from Christ for government within
themselves. For, 1. How wearisome a thing would it be to all
congregations, should every one of their members be bound to attend
upon synods and greater presbyteries, (which in the country are at
a great distance from them,) in all ecclesiastical matters of
judicature, if they had no relief in their own congregations? How
impossible would it be for the greater presbyteries, not only to
hear and determine all hard and weighty, but also all small and
easy causes that would be brought before them? And what should
become of such a congregation as either voluntarily transplants
itself, or is accidentally cast among heathens or pagans in far
countries, where there are no Christians or churches to join and
associate withal, if they be denied an authoritative presbytery
within themselves, for preventing and healing of scandals, and
preserving themselves from destruction and ruin, which anarchy
would unavoidably bring upon them?
CHAPTER XIII. — Of the Divine Right of Presbyteries, (for distinction's sake called Classical Presbyteries,) for the government of the Church.
Having spoken of the lesser, viz. congregational elderships, we
come now to the greater ruling assemblies, which are either
presbyterial or synodal. And first, of the presbyterial assembly,
or classical presbytery, viz. an assembly made up of the presbyters
of divers neighboring single congregations, for governing of all
those respective congregations in common, whereunto they belong, in
all matters of common concernment and greater difficulty in the
Church. The divine warrant and right of this presbytery, and of the
power thereof for church government, may principally be evidenced,
1. By the light of nature. 2. By the light of Scripture, which
light of Scripture was followed by the Church in the ages after the
apostolical times.
I. The light of nature and right reason may discover to us
(though more dimly) the divine warrant of the greater presbyteries,
and of their power for the governing of the church. For,
1. There are many ecclesiastical matters which are of common
concernment to many single congregations, as trial of church
officers, ordination and deposition of ministers, dispensation of
censures, judicial determination of controversies, resolution in
difficult cases of conscience, ordering of things indifferent,
&c.; here the rule holds well, that which concerns many
congregations, is not to be considered and determined upon only by
one, but those many concerned and interested therein.
2. Single congregational elderships stand in need of all mutual
help and assistance one of another in the Lord, being, 1. Inwardly
weak in themselves; too prone to be turned out of the way, Heb.
xii. 13, Gal. v. 15, and too feeble for divers great tasks: as
examination and ordination of ministers, &c., which weakness is
healed by association with others assisting them. 2. Outwardly
opposed by many dangerous and subtle adversaries: men as grievous
wolves, &c., Acts xx. 28-30; 2 Pet. ii. 1; Phil. iii. 2; 1 Tim.
iv. 1-7; Eph. iv. 14; devils, 1 Pet. v. 8. In such cases two are
better than one: "Wo to them that are alone; if they fall, who
shall take them up?"
3. Such intricate cases may fall out as cannot be determined and
settled by the eldership of a single congregation. As for instance,
some member in the congregation may conceive himself so wronged by
the eldership thereof, that he cannot submit to their unjust
sentence; shall he not in such case have liberty of appeal from
them? If not, then he is left without a remedy, (which is the
calamity of the Independent government.) If he may, whether shall
he appeal regularly but to an associated presbytery? therefore
there must be such a presbytery to appeal unto. Again, there may be
a controversy betwixt the whole congregation, and their presbytery;
yea, the presbytery itself may be equally divided against itself;
yea, one single congregation may have a great and weighty contest
with another sister congregation, (all single congregations being
equal in power and authority, none superior, none inferior to
others.) Now, in these and such like cases, suppose both parties be
resolute and wilful, and will not yield to any bare moral suasion
or advice without some superior authority, what healing is left in
such cases, without the assistance of an authoritative presbytery,
wherein the whole hath power to regulate all the parts?
4. Single congregations, joined in vicinity and neighborhood to
one another, should avoid divisions, (which are destructive to all
societies, as well ecclesiastical as civil,) and maintain peace and
unity among themselves, (which is conservative to all societies;)
neither of which, without associated presbyteries, can be firmly
and durably effected. Both which ought with all diligence to be
endeavored. For, 1. Peace and unity in the Church are in themselves
amiable, and ought to be promoted, Psal. cxxxiii. 1, &c.; Eph.
iv. 3, 13; 1 Cor. i. 10. 2. Schisms and divisions are simply evil,
and all appearance, cause, and occasion thereof, ought carefully to
be avoided, 1 Cor. xii. 25; Rom. xvi. 17; 1 Thes. iv. 22. 3. All
congregations are but as so many branches, members, parts of that
one church, one body, one family, one commonwealth, one kingdom,
whereof Christ is Head, Lord, and King; and therefore they should
communicate together, and harmoniously incorporate and associate
with one another, (so far as may be,) for the common good, peace,
unity, and edification of all. See 1 Cor. xii. 12-29; Eph. ii.
12-16, and iv. 12-14, and v. 23-25.
II. The light of Scripture will hold forth the divine warrant of
greater presbyteries and their power for church government, far
more clearly than the light of nature. Forasmuch as we find in the
Scriptures a pattern of these greater presbyteries, and of their
presbyterial government over divers single congregations in common
in the primitive apostolical churches. For the greater evidence and
perspicuity hereof, take this proposition:
Jesus Christ our Mediator hath laid down in his word a pattern
of presbyterial government in common over divers single
congregations in one Church, for a rule to his Church in all after
ages. For confirmation hereof, there are chiefly these three
positions to make good, which are comprised in this proposition,
viz: 1. That there is in the word a pattern of divers single
congregations in one church. 2. That there is in the word a pattern
of one presbyterial government in common over divers single
congregations in one church. 3. Finally, that the pattern of the
said presbyterial government, is for a rule to the churches of
Christ in all after ages.
That there is in the word a pattern of divers single
congregations in one church, may be plentifully evinced by four
instances of churches, (to mention no more,) viz. the churches of
Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Corinth. Touching which four these
two things are clear in the Scripture, viz: 1. That every of them
was one church. 2. That in every one of these churches there were
more congregations than one. Both which will fully evince a pattern
of divers single congregations in one church held forth in the
word.
1. The former of these, viz. That every one of these was one
church, may be proved by induction of particulars. 1. All the
believers in Jerusalem were one church; hence they are often
comprised under the word church, of the singular
number:—"Against the church which was at Jerusalem," Acts
viii. 1. "Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the
church which was in Jerusalem," Acts ii. 22. "And when they were
come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the
apostles and elders," Acts xv. 4. 2. All the believers in Antioch
were one church. "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch,
certain prophets," Acts xiii. 1. "And when he had found him, he
brought him to Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they
assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people, and
the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch," Acts xi.
26. 3. All the believers in Ephesus were one church: "And from
Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church,"
Acts xx. 17. And after he gives them this charge, "Take heed
therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy
Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God," ver. 28;
all were but one flock, one church. "Unto the angel of the
church of Ephesus, write," Rev. ii. 1. 4. All the believers in
Corinth were one church, and comprised under that singular word,
church: "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth," 1 Cor. i. 2.
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, and Timothy
our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth," 2 Cor. i.
1. Thus in all these four instances it is clear beyond all
contradiction, that they were every of them respectively one
church.
The latter of these, viz. that these primitive apostolical
churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Corinth, were not
every of them severally and respectively only one single
congregation, (as some imagine,) but consisted every of them of
more congregations than one. This shall be manifested in these four
churches severally, as followeth:
The church of Jerusalem in Judea contained in it more
congregations than one. This may be convincingly evidenced divers
ways, particularly from, 1. The multitude of believers in that
church. 2. The multitude of church officers there. 3. The variety
of languages there. 4. The manner of the Christians' public
meetings in those primitive times, both in the church of Jerusalem,
and in other churches.
1. From the multitude of believers in the church of Jerusalem.
For it is palpably evident to any impartial reader that will not
wilfully shut his eyes, and subject his reason unto the groundless
dictates of men, against the clear light of the Scripture, that
there were more believers in the church of Jerusalem, than could
ordinarily meet in one congregation, to partake of all the
ordinances of Christ.
And this may fully appear by these many instances following. 1.
Christ after his resurrection, and before his ascension, "was seen
of above five hundred brethren at once," 1 Cor. xv. 6. 2. "After
that of James, then of all the apostles," ver. 7. 3. At the
election of Matthias, and before Christ's ascension, there were
disciples together, the "company of their names together was as it
were one hundred and twenty," Acts i. 15. 4. At Peter's sermon,
"they that gladly received his word, were baptized. And that day
were added about three thousand souls," Acts ii. 1, 4. 5. And "The
Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved," ver. 27.
6. Afterwards at another of Peter's sermons, "Many of them that
heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five
thousand," Acts iv. 4. 7. After that, "Believers were the more
added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women," Acts v. 14.
8. Furthermore, the disciples multiplying, and the work of the
ministry thereupon much increasing, the apostles were necessitated
to appoint seven deacons for serving of tables, that they might
wholly "give themselves to the ministry of the word and prayer,"
Acts vi. 1 to 7; whence some have thought, that there were seven
congregations in Jerusalem, a deacon for every one. Certainly there
were rather more than fewer, (saith the author of the Assertion of
the Government of the Church of Scotland,109) though we cannot determine how
many. However this, the Holy Ghost clearly testifieth that "The
word of God increased, and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem
multiplied greatly." 9. "And a great company of the priests became
obedient to the faith," Acts vi. 7; and probably the example of the
priests drew on multitudes to the Gospel. All these forementioned
were in a short time converted, and became members of this one
church of Jerusalem, and that before the dispersion occasioned by
the persecution of the Church, Acts viii. 1. Now should we put all
these together, viz. both the number of believers expressed in
particular, which is 8,620, and the multitudes so often expressed
in the general, (which, for aught we know, might be many more than
the former,) what a vast multitude of believers was there in
Jerusalem! and how impossible was it for them to meet all together
in one congregation, to partake of all the ordinances of Jesus
Christ! 10. In like manner, after the dispersion forementioned, the
word so prospered, and the disciples brought into the faith by it,
so multiplied, that it was still far more impossible for all the
believers in the church of Jerusalem to meet in one congregation to
partake of all the ordinances of Christ, than before. For it is
said, "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea" (and the
church of Jerusalem in Judea was doubtless one of those churches)
"and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear
of the Lord, and comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied." 11.
Again, "the word of the Lord increased and multiplied," Acts xii.
24. 12. Furthermore, when Paul, with other disciples, his
fellow-travellers, came to Jerusalem, and "declared to James and
the elders, what things God had wrought by his ministry among the
Gentiles—They glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou
seest, brother, how many" myriads (or ten thousands) "of believing
Jews there are, and they are all zealous of the law"—Acts
xxi. 20. Our translation seems herein very defective, rendering it
how many thousands; whereas it should be, according to the Greek,
how many ten thousands: and these myriads seem to be in the church
of Jerusalem, seeing it is said of them, ver. 22, "The multitude
must needs come together, for they will hear that thou art come."
Now considering this emphatical expression, not only
thousands, but ten thousand: not only ten
thousand in the singular number, but ten thousands,
myriads, in the plural number: nor only myriads, ten
thousands, in the plural number, but how many ten
thousands; we cannot in reason imagine but there were at least
three ten thousands, viz: thirty thousand believers, and how all
they should meet together in one congregation for all ordinances,
let the reader judge. Thus far of the proof, from the multitude of
believers in the church of Jerusalem.
Except. But the five thousand mentioned Acts iv. 4, are
no new number added to the three thousand, but the three thousand
included in the five thousand, as Calvin and Beza think.
Ans. 1. Then it is granted that five thousand one hundred
and twenty, besides an innumerable addition of converts, were in
Jerusalem; which if such a number, and multitudes besides, could
for edification meet in one place, to partake of all the
ordinances, let the reader judge.
2. Though Calvin and Beza think the three thousand formerly
converted to be included in this number of five thousand, Acts iv.
4, yet divers both ancient and modern interpreters are of another
mind, as Augustine. There came unto the body of the Lord in number
three thousand faithful men; also by another miracle wrought, there
came other five thousand.110
These five thousand are altogether diverse from the three thousand
converted at the first sermon: so Lorinus, Aretius, and divers
others.
3. Besides a great number of testimonies, there are reasons to
induce us to believe, that the three thousand are not included in
the five thousand, viz: 1. As the three thousand mentioned in Acts
ii. 41, did not comprehend the one hundred and twenty mentioned
Acts i. 15, so it holds in proportion that the three thousand
mentioned there, are not comprehended here in Acts iv. 4. Besides,
2. This sermon was not by intention to the church, or numbers
already converted, but by occasion of the multitude flocking
together to behold the miracle Peter and John wrought on the "man
that was lame from his mother's womb;" as Acts iii. 10-12; so that
'tis more than probable that the five thousand mentioned Acts iv.
4, are a number superadded besides the three thousand already
converted.
Except. But suppose such a number as three thousand, and
afterwards five thousand were converted in Jerusalem, yet these
remained not constant members of that Church, for the three
thousand were not dwellers at Jerusalem, but strangers who came out
of all countries to keep the feast of Pentecost: yea, Acts ii. 9,
they are said expressly to be "dwellers of Mesopotamia,
Cappadocia," &c., and so might erect churches where they
came.
Ans. 1. 'Tis said, Acts ii. 14, "Peter standing" (when he
began to preach this sermon wherein the three thousand were
converted) "said, Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at
Jerusalem, hearken to my voice;" intimating that these he preached
to dwelt at Jerusalem.
But grant that some of these men that heard Peter's sermon were
formerly dwellers in Mesopotamia and Cappadocia, what hinders but
that they might be now dwellers at Jerusalem?
3. The occasion of their coming up to Jerusalem at this time was
not only the observation of the feast of Pentecost, (which lasted
but a day,) but also the great expectation that the people of the
Jews then had of the appearance of the Messiah in his kingdom, as
we may collect from Luke xix. 11, where it is said, "They thought
the kingdom of God should immediately appear;" so that now they
might choose to take up their dwellings at Jerusalem, and not
return, as they had been wont, at the end of their usual
feasts.
4. The Holy Ghost makes mention that in the particular places
mentioned, ver. 9, 10, that of all those nations there were some
that dwelt at Jerusalem; read Acts ii. 5, "There were dwelling at
Jerusalem Jews, devout men out of every nation under heaven;" if
out of every nation, then out of those nations there specified; and
even there dwelling at Jerusalem. 5. Those who were scattered by
reason of persecution into Judea and Samaria, and other parts of
the world, did not erect new churches, but were still members of
that one church in Jerusalem; so saith the Scripture expressly,
that "they" (of the church of Jerusalem) "were all scattered abroad
throughout the region of Judea and Samaria," Acts viii. 1.
Except. Although it should be granted that before the
dispersion mentioned Acts viii. 1, 2, the number was so great that
they could not meet together in one place, yet the persecution so
wasted and scattered them all, that there were no more left than
might meet in one congregation?
Ans. After the dispersion there were more believers in
Jerusalem than could meet together in one place for all acts of
worship, as appears by Acts ix. 31, "The churches had rest
throughout all Judea," &c., "and were multiplied;" Acts xii.
24, "The word of God grew and multiplied;" and Acts xxi. 20, James
saith of the believers of this church, "how many thousands of the
Jews there are which believe, and are zealous of the law;" or, as
it is in the Greek, thou seest how many ten thousands there
are of the Jews which believe; this text will evince, that there
were many thousands in the church of Jerusalem after the
dispersion, as hath been observed: and if this number were not more
after the dispersion than could meet together to partake of all
ordinances, let the reader judge.
Except. But the text saith expressly, all were scattered
except the apostles.
Ans. All must be understood either of all the
believers, or all the teachers and church officers in the church of
Jerusalem, except believers; but it cannot be understood of all the
believers that they were scattered: and therefore it must be
understood that all the teachers and church officers were
scattered, except the apostles. That all the believers were not
scattered will easily appear: For, 1. 'Tis said that Paul broke
into houses, "haling men and women, committed them to prison," ver.
3, and this he did in Jerusalem, Acts xxvi. 10; therefore all could
not be scattered. 2. "They that were scattered, preached the word,"
ver. 4, which all the members, men and women, could not do;
therefore by all that were scattered must of necessity be meant,
not the body of believers in the church, but only the officers of
the church. 3. If all the believers were scattered, to what end did
the apostles tarry at Jerusalem—to preach to the walls? this
we cannot imagine.
Except. But can any think the teachers were scattered,
and the ordinary believers were not, except we suppose the people
more courageous to stay by it than their teachers?
Ans. It is hard to say, that those that are scattered in
a persecution, are less courageous than those that stay and suffer.
In the time of the bishops' tyranny, many of the Independent
ministers did leave this kingdom, while others of their brethren
did abide by it, endured the heat and burden of the day, "had trial
of cruel mockings, bonds and imprisonments:" now the Independent
ministers that left us, would think we did them wrong, should we
say that they were less courageous than those that stayed behind,
enduring the hot brunt of persecution.
II. From the multitude of church officers in Jerusalem, it may
further appear, that there were more congregations than one in the
church of Jerusalem. For there were many apostles, prophets, and
elders in this church of Jerusalem, as is plain, if we consider
these following passages in the Acts of the Apostles. After
Christ's ascension, "the eleven apostles returned to Jerusalem, and
continued in prayer and supplication," Acts i. 12-14. Matthias
chosen by lot, was also "numbered with the eleven apostles," Acts
i. 26. "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all
with one accord in one place," Acts ii. 1. "Peter standing up with
the eleven, lift up his voice and said," Acts ii. 14. "They were
pricked in their heart, and said to Peter and to the rest of the
apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Acts ii. 37. "And
the same day there were added about three thousand souls, and they
continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and
in breaking of bread, and in prayers," Acts ii. 42. "And with great
power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord
Jesus," Acts iv. 33. "As many as were possessors of lands or
houses, sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were
sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet," Acts iv. 34, 35,
37. "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to
them," Acts vi. 2. "Now, when the apostles which were at
Jerusalem," Acts viii. 14. "They determined that Paul and Barnabas
and certain other of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the
apostles and elders about this question. And when they were come to
Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles
and elders; and the apostles and elders came together," Acts xv. 2,
4, 6, 22, 23; xi. 30. And "in those days came prophets from
Jerusalem unto Antioch," Acts xi. 27. In all which places, the
multitude of apostles, elders, and prophets in this church of
Jerusalem is evident. And it is further observable, that the
apostles devolved the serving of tables upon the seven deacons,
that they might wholly "give themselves to prayer and the ministry
of the word," Acts vi, 2; which needed not, nor would there have
been full employment for the apostles, if there had not been divers
congregations in that one church of Jerusalem.
Except. 'Tis true, the apostles were for a time in
Jerusalem, yet when in Judea or elsewhere any received the gospel,
the apostles went abroad to erect other churches.
Ans. Touching the apostles going abroad, there can be
given but one instance, Acts viii. 14, where the whole twelve went
not forth, but only two were sent, viz. Peter and John: but suppose
it were granted, that upon some special occasions the apostles went
out from Jerusalem, can it be imagined that the apostles' ordinary
abode would be at Jerusalem, to attend only one single
congregation, as if that would fill all their hands with work?
Except. The apostles were well employed when they met in
an upper room, and had but one hundred and twenty for their flock,
and this for forty days together; now if they stayed in Jerusalem
when they had but one hundred and twenty, and yet had their hands
filled with work, the presence of the apostles argues not more
congregations in Jerusalem than could meet in one place for all
acts of worship.
Ans. 1. From Christ's ascension (immediately after which
they went up to the upper chamber) to the feast of Pentecost, there
were but ten days, not forty; so that there is one mistake.
2. During that time betwixt Christ's ascension and the feast of
Pentecost, (whether ten or forty days is not very material,) the
apostles were especially taken up in prayer and supplication,
waiting for the promise of the Spirit to qualify them for the work
of the ministry: now, because the twelve apostles, before they had
received the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, did continue for a
short time in Jerusalem with a small number in prayer, will it
therefore follow that after they had received these extraordinary
gifts, that they were bound up within the limits of one single
congregation?
Except. The argument that there were many teachers in
Jerusalem, proves not that there were more congregations in
Jerusalem than one, because there were then many gifted men, which
were not officers, which yet occasionally instructed others, as
Aquila did Apollos; therefore it seems they were only gifted
persons, not officers.
Ans. 1. Grant that in those times there were many gifted
men, not in office, which might occasionally instruct others, as
Aquila did Apollos; yet it is further to be noted, that,
2. This instructing must be either private, or public; if
private only, then the objection is of no force, (because these
teachers instructed publicly;) if in public, then if this objection
were of force, it would follow, that women might instruct publicly,
because Priscilla, as well as Aquila, instructed Apollos.
3. The current of expositors say, that the seventy disciples
were at Jerusalem among the one hundred and twenty, Acts i. 16, who
were teachers by office.
III. From the variety of languages among the disciples at
Jerusalem, it is evident there were more congregations than one in
that one church: the diversity of languages among them is plainly
mentioned in divers places, "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem,
Jews, devout men out of every nation under heaven. Now every man
heard them speak in his own language," &c., Acts ii. 5, 8-12.
Now, of those that heard this variety of languages, and Peter's
sermon thereupon, "They that gladly received his word, were
baptized, and the same day there were added about three thousand
souls," Acts ii. 41, which diversity of languages necessitated
those members of the church of Jerusalem to enjoy the ordinances in
divers distinct congregations in their own language. And that they
might so do, the Spirit furnished the apostles, &c., with
diversity of languages, which diversity of languages were as well
for edification of them within the Church, as for a sign to them
that were without.
Except. Though the Jews being dispersed were come in from
other countries, yet they were all generally learned, and
understood the Hebrew tongue, the language of their own nation, so
that diversity of tongues proves not, that of necessity there must
be distinct places to meet in.
Ans. 1. It is easier said than proved, that the Jews were
so generally skilled in the Hebrew tongue, when, while they were
scattered in Media and Parthia, and other places, they had no
universities or schools of learning. Besides, it is not to be
forgotten, that the proper language or dialect in those days in use
among the Jews was Syriac; as appears by divers instances of Syriac
words in the New Testament, as of the Jews' own terms: Acts i. 19,
which "in their proper tongue, is called Aceldama;" John xix. 13.
17, Gabbatha, Golgotha, &c.; Mark xv. 34, Eloi, Eloi,
lama-sabachthani; with divers other pure Syriac terms. Grant
they did; yet,
2. There were in Jerusalem proselytes also, Romans,
Cappadocians, Cretians, and Arabians, Acts ii. 10, 11; how could
they be edified in the faith, if only one congregation, where
nothing but Hebrew was spoken, met in Jerusalem; if so be there
were not other congregations for men of other languages, that
understood not the Hebrew tongue?
IV. From the manner of Christians' public meetings in those
primitive times, both in the church of Jerusalem and in other
churches. It is plain that the multitudes of Christians in
Jerusalem, and other churches, could not possibly meet all together
in one single congregation, inasmuch as they had no public temples,
or capacious places for worship and partaking of all ordinances,
(as we now have,) but private places, houses, chambers, or
upper rooms, (as the unsettled state of the Church and
troublesomeness of those times would permit,) which in all
probability were of no great extent, nor any way able to contain in
them so many thousand believers at once, as there were: "They met
from house to house, to break bread," Acts ii. 46. "In an upper
room the apostles with the women and brethren continued in prayer
and supplication," Acts i. 12-14. We read of their meetings in the
house of Mary, Acts xii. 12. In the school of one
Tyrannus, Acts xix. 9. In an upper chamber at Troas,
Acts xx. 8. In Paul's own hired house at Rome, Acts xxviii.
30, 31. In the house of Aquila and Priscilla, where the
church met, therefore called the church in his house, Rom.
xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19. In the house of Nimphas, Col. iv.
15, and in the house of Archippus, Philem. 2. This was their
manner of public meetings in the apostles' times: which also
continued in the next ages, as saith Eusebius,111 till, by indulgence of
succeeding emperors, they had large churches, houses of public
meeting erected for them.
To sum up all: 1. There were in the church at Jerusalem greater
numbers of believers than could possibly meet at once to partake of
all Christ's ordinances. 2. There were more church officers than
one single congregation could need, or than could be fully employed
therein, unless we will say, that they preached but seldom. 3.
There was such diversity of languages among them, that they must
needs rank themselves into several congregations, according to
their languages, else he that spoke in one language to hearers of
many several languages, would be a barbarian to them, and they to
him. 4. Finally, their places of ordinary meeting were private, of
small extent, incapable of containing so many thousands at once as
there were believers; and by all these, how evident is it, that
there must needs be granted that there were more congregations than
one in this one church of Jerusalem!
II. The church of Antioch, in Syria, consisted also of more
congregations than one. This appears,
1. From the multitude of believers at Antioch. For, 1. After the
dispersion upon Saul's persecution, the Lord Jesus was preached
at Antioch, and a great number believed, &c., Acts xi. 21.
2. Upon Barnabas's preaching there, much people was added
to the Lord, Acts xi. 24. 3. Barnabas and Saul
for a year together taught much people there, and disciples there
so mightily multiplied, that there Christ's disciples first
received the eminent and famous denomination of CHRISTIANS, and so
were and still are called throughout the whole world, Acts xi. 25,
26.
2. From the multitudes of prophets and preachers that ministered
at Antioch. For, 1. Upon the dispersion of the Jews at Jerusalem,
divers of them (being men of Cyprus and Cyrene) preached the
Lord Jesus at Antioch, Acts xi. 20; here must be three or four
preachers at least, otherwise they would not be men of Cyprus
and Cyrene. 2. After this Barnabas was sent to preach at
Antioch; there is a fifth, Acts xi. 22-24. 3. Barnabas finds
so much work at Antioch, that he goes to Tarsus to bring
Saul thither to help him; there is a sixth, ver. 25, 26. 4.
Besides these, there came prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch in
those days; there are at least two more, viz. eight in all,
Acts xi. 27, 28. 4. Further, besides Barnabas and
Saul, three more teachers are named, viz. Simon called
Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, Acts xii. 1-3. 6. Yea,
"Paul and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the
word of the Lord, with many others also," Acts xv. 35. Now sum up
all, what a multitude of believers, and what a college of preachers
were here at Antioch! How is it possible that all these preachers
should bustle themselves about one congregation (and doubtless they
abhorred idleness) in dispensing the ordinances of Christ to them
only? or how could so many members meet in one single congregation
at once, ordinarily to partake of all ordinances?
III. The church of Ephesus (in Asia Minor, Acts xix. 22)
had in it more congregations than one: For,
1. The number of prophets and preachers at Ephesus were many.
Paul continued there two years and three months, Acts
xix. 8, 10; and Paul settled there about twelve disciples
who prophesied, Acts xix. 1, 6, 7. And how should these
thirteen ministers be employed, if there were not many
congregations? Compare also Acts xx. 17, 28, 36, 37, where it is
said of the bishops of Ephesus, that "Paul kneeled down and prayed
with them all, and they all wept sore." Here is a good number
implied.
2. The gift of tongues also was given unto all these twelve
prophets, Acts xix. 6, 7. To what end, if they had not several
congregations of several languages, to speak in these several
tongues unto them?
3. The multitude of believers must needs be great at Ephesus:
For, 1. Why should Paul, who had universal commission to
plant churches in all the world, stay above two years
together at Ephesus if no more had been converted there than to
make up one single congregation? Acts xix. 8, 10. 2. During this
space, "all that dwelt in Asia," usually meeting at Ephesus for
worship, "heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks," Acts
xix. 10. 3. At the knowledge of Paul's miracles, "fear fell
upon all the Jews and Greeks dwelling at Ephesus, and the name of
the Lord Jesus was magnified," Acts xix. 17. 4. Many of the
believers came and confessed, and showed their deeds, ver.
18, whereby is intimated that more did believe than did thus. 5.
"Many also of them that used curious arts brought their books
together, and burned them before all men, and they counted the
price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver," (this
they would never have done publicly if the major part, or at least
a very great and considerable part of the city, had not embraced
the faith, that city being so furiously zealous in their
superstition and idolatry,) "so mightily grew the word of God, and
prevailed," Acts xix. 19, 20. 6. Paul testifies that at
Ephesus a great door and effectual was open unto him, viz. a
most advantageous opportunity of bringing in a mighty harvest of
souls to Christ, 1 Cor. xvi. 8, 9. Put all together, 1. The number
of prophets and preachers; 2. The gifts of tongues conferred upon
those prophets; and, 3. The multitude of believers which so
abounded at Ephesus: how is it possible to imagine, upon any solid
ground, that there was no more but one single congregation in the
church of Ephesus?
IV. The church of Corinth in Græcia comprised in it also more
congregations than one, as may be justly concluded from, 1. The
multitude of believers. 2. The plenty of ministers. 3. The
diversity of tongues and languages. 4. And the plurality of
churches at Corinth. Let all these be well compared together.
1. From the multitude of believers. There appears to be a
greater number of believers at Corinth than could all at once meet
together to partake of all the ordinances of Christ: For, 1. At
Paul's first coming to Corinth, and at his first sermon preached in
the house of Justus, it is said, "And Crispus, the chief ruler of
the synagogue, believed on the Lord, and all his house, and many of
the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized," Acts xviii.
1, 7, 8. Here is Crispus and all his house, (which probably was
very great, he being the chief ruler of the synagogue,) and many
of the Corinthians, believing; an excellent first-fruits; for
who can justly say but Paul at his first sermon converted so many
as might be sufficient to make up one single congregation? 2.
Immediately after this (Paul having shook his raiment against the
Jews, who, contrary to his doctrine, opposed themselves and
blasphemed; and having said unto them, "Your blood be upon your own
heads, I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles,"
Acts xviii. 6) the Lord comforts Paul against the obstinacy of the
Jews by the success his ministry should have among the Gentiles in
the city of Corinth: "Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a
vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am
with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have
much people in this city," Acts xviii. 9, 10. Much people
belonging to God, according to his secret predestination, over and
besides those that already were actually his by effectual vocation.
And much people, in respect of the Jews that opposed and
blasphemed, (who were exceeding many,) otherwise it would have been
but small comfort to Paul if by much people should be meant
no more than could meet at once in one small single congregation.
3. Paul himself continued at Corinth "a year and six months
teaching the word of God among them," Acts xviii. 11. To what end
should Paul the apostle of the Gentiles stay so long in one place,
if he had not seen the Lord's blessing upon his ministry, to bring
into the faith many more souls than would make up one congregation,
having so much work to do far and near? 4. "They that believed at
Corinth were baptized," Acts xviii. 8. (Baptism admitted them into
that one body of the Church, 1 Cor. xii. 13.) Some were baptized by
Paul, (though but few in comparison of the number of believers
among them: compare Acts xviii. 8, with 1 Cor. 14-17,) the
generality consequently were baptized by other ministers there, and
that in other congregations wherein Paul preached not, as well as
in such wherein Paul preached; it being unreasonable to deny the
being of divers congregations for the word and sacraments to be
dispensed in, himself dispensing the sacrament of baptism to so
few.
2. From the plenty of ministers and preachers in the church of
Corinth, it is evident it was a presbyterial church, and not only a
single congregation; for to what end should there be many laborers
in a little harvest, many teachers over one single congregation?
&c. That there were many preachers at Corinth is plain: For, 1.
Paul himself was the master-builder there that laid the foundation
of that church, 1 Cor. iii. 10, their spiritual father; "In Christ
Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel," 1 Cor. iv. 15. And
he stayed with them one year and a half, Acts xviii. II. 2.
While the apostle sharply taxeth them as guilty of schism and
division for their carnal crying up of their several teachers: some
doting upon one, some upon another, some upon a third, &c.
"Every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of
Cephas, and I of Christ," 1 Cor. i. 12. Doth not this intimate that
they had plenty of preachers, and these preachers had their several
followers, so prizing some of them as to undervalue the rest? and
was this likely to be without several congregations into which they
were divided? 3. When the apostle saith, "Though ye have ten
thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers," 1
Cor. v. 15; though his words be hyperbolical, yet they imply that
they had great store of teachers and preachers. 4. We have mention
of many prophets in the church of Corinth: "Let the prophets speak
two or three, and let the other judge—And the spirits of the
prophets are subject to the prophets," 1 Cor. xiv. 20, 31. Here are
prophets speaking two or three; and prophets judging
of their doctrine, which sure were more than they that were judged;
it being unreasonable for the minor part to pass judgement upon the
major part. And though these prophets had extraordinary gifts, (as
the church of Corinth excelled all other churches in gifts, 1 Cor.
i. 7,) and were able to preach in an extraordinary singular way;
yet were they the ordinary pastors and ministers of that church of
Corinth, as the whole current of this fourteenth chapter
evidenceth, wherein so many rules and directions, aptly agreeing to
ordinary pastors, are imposed upon them for the well ordering of
their ministerial exercises. Now, where there were so many pastors,
were there not several congregations for them to feed? Or were they
idle, neglecting the exercise and improvement of their talents?
3. From the diversity of tongues and languages, wherein the
church did eminently excel. "In every thing ye are enriched by him,
in all utterance, and in all knowledge—So that you come
behind in no gift," &c., i.e., ye excel in every gift, more
being intended than is expressed, 1 Cor. i. 5, 7. Among other gifts
some of them excelled in tongues which they spake, the right use of
which gift of tongues the apostle doth at large lay down, 1 Cor.
xiv. 2, 4-6, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27. "If any speak in an
unknown tongue let it be by two, or at the most by three, and
that by course, and let one interpret." So that there were many
endued with gifts of tongues in that church. To what end? Not only
for a sign to unbelievers, ver. 22, but also for edification
of divers congregations, of divers tongues and languages within
that church of Corinth.
4. From the plurality of churches mentioned in reference to this
church of Corinth. For the apostle regulating their public
assemblies and their worship there, saith to the church of Corinth,
"Let your women keep silence in the churches." It is not said, in
the church, in the singular number; but in the
churches, in the plural; and this of the churches in
Corinth, for it is said, Let your women, &c., not
indefinitely, Let women, &c. So that according to the
plain letter of the words, here are churches in the church of
Corinth, viz. a plurality of single congregations in this one
presbyterial church. And this plurality of churches in the church
of Corinth is the more confirmed if we take the church of Cenchrea
(which is a harbor or seaport to Corinth) to be comprised within
the church of Corinth, as some learned authors do conceive it
may.112
That there is in the word of Christ a pattern of one
presbyterial government in common over divers single congregations
in one church. This may be evidenced by these following
considerations: For,
1. Divers single congregations are called one church, as hath at
large been proved in the second position immediately foregoing;
inasmuch as all the believers in Jerusalem are counted one church:
yet those believers are more in number than could meet for all
ordinances in any one single congregation. And why are divers
congregations styled one church? 1. Not in regard of that oneness
of heart and soul which was among them, "having all things common,"
&c., Acts iv. 32. For these affections and actions of kindness
belonged to them by the law of brotherhood and Christian charity to
one another, (especially considering the then present condition of
believers,) rather than by any special ecclesiastical obligation,
because they were members of such a church. 2. Not in regard of any
explicit church covenant, knitting them in one body. For we find
neither name nor thing, print nor footstep of any such thing as a
church covenant in the church of Jerusalem, nor in any other
primitive apostolical church in all the New Testament; and to
impose an explicit church covenant upon the saints as a necessary
constituting form of a true visible Church of Christ, and without
which it is no Church, is a mere human invention, without all solid
warrant from the word of God. 3. Not in regard of the ministration
of the word, sacraments, prayers, &c. For these ordinances were
dispensed in their single congregations severally, it being
impossible that such multitudes of believers should meet all in one
congregation, to partake of them jointly, (as hath been evidenced.)
4. But in regard of one joint administration of church government
among them, by one common presbytery, or college of elders,
associated for that end. From this one way of church government, by
one presbytery in common, all the believers in Jerusalem, and so in
other cities respectively, were counted but one church. 2. In every
such presbyterial church made up of divers single congregations,
there were ecclesiastical ruling officers, which are counted or
called the officers of that church, but never counted or called
governors, elders, &c., of any one single congregation therein;
as in the church of Jerusalem, Acts xi. 27, 30, and xv. 2: of
Antioch, compare Acts xiii. 1-3, with xv. 35: of Ephesus, Acts xx.
17, 28: and of the church of Corinth, 1 Cor. i. 12, and iv. 15, and
xiv. 29.
3. The officers of such presbyterial churches met together for
acts of church government: as, to take charge of the church's
goods, and of the due distribution thereof, Acts iv. 35, 37, and
xi. 30: to ordain, appoint, and send forth church officers, Acts
vi. 2, 3, 6, and xiii. 1, 3: to excommunicate notorious offenders,
1 Cor. v. 4, 5, 7, 13, compared with 2 Cor. ii. 6: and to restore
again penitent persons to church communion, 2 Cor. ii. 7-9.
Except. Receiving of alms is no act of government.
Ans. True, the bare receiving of alms is no act of
government, but the ordering and appointing how it shall be best
improved and disposed of, cannot be denied to be an act of
government, and for this did the elders meet together, Acts xi.
30.
4. The apostles themselves, in their joint acts of government in
such churches, acted as ordinary officers, viz. as presbyters or
elders. This is much to be observed, and may be evidenced as
followeth: for, 1. None of their acts of church government can at
all be exemplary or obligatory upon us, if they were not
presbyterial, but merely apostolical; if they acted therein not as
ordinary presbyters, but as extraordinary apostles. For what acts
they dispatched merely as apostles, none may meddle withal but only
apostles. 2. As they were apostles, so they were presbyters, and so
they style themselves, "The elder to the elect lady," 2 John i.
"The elders which are among you I exhort," saith Peter, "who am
also an elder," (i.e. who am a fellow-elder, or co-presbyter,) 1
Pet. v. 1; wherein he ranks himself among ordinary presbyters,
which had been improper, unless he had discharged the offices and
acts of an ordinary presbyter. 3. Their acts were such, for
substance, as ordinary presbyters do perform, as preaching and
prayer, Acts vi. 4: ordaining of officers, Acts vi. 6, and xiv. 23:
dispensing of the sacraments, 1 Cor. i. 14; Acts ii. 42, and xx. 7:
and of church censures, 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, compared with 1 Tim. v.
ver. 1, ult.: which acts of government, and such like, were
committed by Christ to them, and to ordinary presbyters (their
successors) to the end of the world; compare Matt. xvi. 19, and
xviii. 17, 18, to the end, and John xx. 21, 23, with Matt. xxviii.
18-20. 4. They acted not only as ordinary elders, but also they
acted jointly with other elders, being associated with them in the
same assembly, as in that eminent synod at Jerusalem, Acts xv. 6,
22, 23, and xvi. 4, "And as they went through cities, they
delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the
apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem." 5. And, finally, they
took in the church's consent with themselves, wherein it was
needful, as in the election and appointment of deacons, Acts vi. 2,
3. 6. The deacons being specially to be trusted with the church's
goods, and the disposal thereof, according to the direction of the
presbytery, for the good of the church, &c.
Let all these considerations be impartially balanced in the
scales of indifferent unprejudiced judgments; and how plainly do
they delineate in the word, a pattern of one presbyterial
government in common over divers single congregations within one
church!
Except. The apostles' power over many congregations was
founded upon their power over all churches; and so cannot be a
pattern for the power of elders over many.
Ans. 1. The apostles' power over many congregations as
one church, to govern them all as one church jointly and in common,
was not founded upon their power over all churches, but upon the
union of those congregations into one church; which union lays a
foundation for the power of elders governing many
congregations.
2. Besides, the apostles, though extraordinary officers, are
called elders, 1 Pet. v. 1, to intimate to us, that in ordinary
acts of church government, they did act as elders for a pattern to
us in like administrations.
Except. The apostles, it is true, were elders virtually,
that is, their apostleship contained all offices in it, but they
were not elders formally.
Ans. 1. If by formally be meant, that they were not
elders really, then it is false; for the Scripture saith Peter was
an elder, 1 Peter v. 1. If by formally be meant that they were not
elders only, that is 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 can bring nothing of theirs into imitation; and by this we
should cut the sinews, and raze the foundation of church
government, as if there were no footsteps thereof in the holy
Scriptures.
Finally, That the pattern of the said presbytery and
presbyterial government is for a rule to the churches of Christ in
all after ages, may appear as followeth:
1. The first churches were immediately planted and governed by
Christ's own apostles and disciples; 1. Who immediately received
the keys of the kingdom of heaven from Christ himself in person,
Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 17,18; John xx. 21, 23. 2. Who
immediately had the promise of Christ's perpetual presence with
them in their ministry, Matt, xxviii. 18-20; and of the plentiful
donation of the Spirit of Christ to lead them into all truth, John
xiv. 16, and xvi. 13-15; Acts i. 4, 5, 8 3. Who immediately
received from Christ, after his resurrection and before his
ascension, "commandments by the Holy Ghost,"—"Christ being
seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to
the kingdom of God," Acts i. 2, 3; and, 4. Who were first and
immediately baptized by the Holy Ghost, extraordinarily,
Acts ii. 1-5. Now, who can imagine that the apostles and disciples
were not actuated by the Spirit of Christ bestowed upon them? or
did not discharge Christ's commandments, touching his kingdom
imposed upon them? or did not duly use those keys of Christ's
kingdom committed to them in the ordering and governing of the
primitive churches? And if so, then the pattern of their practices
must be a rule for all the succeeding churches, 1 Cor. xi. 1; Phil,
iv. 9.
2. To what end hath the Holy Ghost so carefully recorded a
pattern of the state and government of the primitive churches in
the first and purest times, but for the imitation of successive
churches in after times? "For whatsoever things wore written
aforetime, were written for our learning," or instruction. But what
do such records instruct us? Only in fact, that such things
were done by the first churches? or of right also, that such
things should be done by the after churches? Surely, this is more
proper and profitable for us.
3. If such patterns of Christ's apostles, disciples, and
primitive churches in matters of the government will not amount to
an obligatory rule for all following churches, how shall we justify
sundry other acts of religion commonly received in the best
reformed churches, and founded only or chiefly upon the foundation
of the practice of Christ's apostles and the apostolical churches?
As the receiving of the Lord's supper on the Lord's days, Acts xx.
7, &c.; which notwithstanding are generally embraced without
any considerable opposition or contradiction, and that most
deservedly.
CHAPTER XIV. — Of the Divine Right of Synods, or Synodal Assemblies.
Thus far of the ruling assemblies, which are styled
presbyterial; next come into consideration those greater
assemblies, which are usually called synodal, or synods, or
councils. They are so called from their convening, or coming
together: or rather from their calling together. Both names, viz.
synod and council, are of such latitude of signification, as that
they may be applied to any public convention of people: but in the
common ordinary use of these words, they are appropriated to large
ecclesiastical assemblies, above classical presbyteries in number
and power. These synodal assemblies are made up, (as occasion and
the necessity of the church shall require.) 1. Either of
presbyters, sent from the several classical presbyteries within a
province, hence called provincial synods: 2. Or of presbyters, sent
from the several provincial synods within a nation, hence called
national synods: 3. Or of presbyters, delegated or sent from the
several national churches throughout the Christian world, hence
called ecumenical synods, or universal and general councils.
Touching the divine warrant of synods, and their power in church
affairs, much need not be said, seeing divers learned authors have
so fully stated and handled this matter.113 Yet, that the reader may have a
short view hereof, and not be left wholly unsatisfied, these two
things shall briefly be opened and insisted upon, viz: 1. Certain
considerations shall be propounded, tending to clear the state of
the question about the divine right of synods, and their power. 2.
The proposition itself, with some few arguments adduced, for the
proof thereof.
For the former, viz: The true stating of this question about the
divine right of synods, and of their power, well weigh these few
considerations.
1. Synods differ in some respects from classical presbyteries,
handled in Chap. XIII., though the nature and kind of their power
be the same for substance. For, 1. Synods are more large extensive
assemblies than classical presbyteries, the members of presbyteries
being sent only from several single congregations, the members of
synods being delegated from several presbyteries, and
proportionably their power is extended also. 2. The exercise of
government by presbyteries, is the common ordinary way of
government held forth in Scripture. By synods it is more rare and
extraordinary, at least in great part, as in case of extraordinary
causes that fall out: as, for choosing an apostle, Acts i., healing
of scandals, &c., Acts xv.
2. All synods are of the same nature and kind, whether
provincial, national, or ecumenical, though they differ as lesser
and greater, in respect of extent, from one another, (the
provincial having as full power within their bounds, as the
national or ecumenical within theirs.) So that the proving of the
divine right of synods indefinitely and in general, doth prove also
the divine right of provincial, national, and ecumenical synods in
particular: for, greater and lesser do not vary the species or
kind. What is true of ecclesiastical synods in general, agrees to
every such synod in particular.
Object. But why hath not the Scripture determined these
assemblies in particular?
Ans. 1. It is not necessary the Scripture should in every
case descend to particulars. In things of one and the same kind,
general rules may serve for all particulars; especially seeing
particulars are so innumerable, what volumes would have contained
all particulars? 2. All churches and seasons are not capable of
synods provincial or national: for, in an island there may be no
more Christians than to make up one single congregation, or one
classical presbytery. Or in a nation, the Christian congregations
may be so few, or so dispersed, or so involved in persecution, that
they cannot convene in synods, &c.
3. The power of synods contended for, is, 1. Not civil; they
have no power to take cognizance of civil causes, as such; not to
inflict any civil punishments; as fines, imprisonments,
confiscations, banishments, death, (these being proper to the civil
magistrate:) but merely spiritual; they judge only in
ecclesiastical causes, in a spiritual manner, by spiritual
censures, to spiritual ends, as did that synod, Acts xv. 2. Not
corruptive, privative, or destructive to the power of classical
presbyteries, or single congregations; but rather perfective and
conservative thereunto. As suppose a single congregation should
elect a minister unsound in judgment, or scandalous in
conversation, the synod may annul and make void that election, and
direct them to make a better choice, or appoint them a minister
themselves; hereby this liberty of election is not at all infringed
or violated, but for their own advantage regulated, &c. 3. Not
absolute, and infallible; but limited and fallible: any synod or
council may err, being constituted of men that are weak, frail,
ignorant in part, &c., and therefore all their decrees and
determinations are to be examined by the touchstone of the
Scriptures, nor are they further to be embraced, or counted
obligatory, than they are consonant thereunto, Isa. viii. 20. Hence
there is liberty of appeal, as from congregational elderships to
the classical presbytery, and from thence to the provincial synod,
so from the provincial to the national assembly, &c. 4.
Finally, the power of synods is not only persuasive and
consultative, (as some think,) able to give grave advice, and to
use forcible persuasions in any case, which if accepted and
followed, well; if rejected and declined, there is no further
remedy, but a new non-communion instead of a divine church censure:
but it is a proper authoritative juridical power, which all within
their bounds are obliged reverently to esteem, and dutifully to
submit unto, so far as agreeable to the word of Christ.
4. Finally, this authoritative juridical power of synods is
threefold, viz. doctrinal, regulating, and censuring. 1.
Doctrinal, in reference to matters of faith, and divine
worship; not to coin new articles of faith, or devise new acts of
divine worship: but to explain and apply those articles of faith
and rules of worship which are laid down in the word, and declare
the contrary errors, heresies, corruptions. Hence the Church is
styled, the pillar and ground of truth, 1 Tim. iii. 15. Thus
to the Jewish Church were committed of trust the oracles of
God, Rom. iii. 2. 2. Regulating, in reference to
external order and polity, in matters prudential and
circumstantial, which are determinate according to the true light
of nature, and the general rules of Scripture, such as are in 1
Cor. x. 31, 32; Rom. xiv.; 1 Cor. xiv. 26, 40, &c.; not
according to any arbitrary power of men. 3. Censuring power,
in reference to error, heresy, schism, obstinacy, contempt, or
scandal, and the repressing thereof; which power is put forth
merely in spiritual censures, as admonition, excommunication,
deposition, &c. And these censures exercised, not in a lordly,
domineering, prelatical way: but in an humble, sober, grave, yet
authoritative way, necessary both for preservation of soundness of
doctrine, and incorruptness of conversation; and for extirpation of
the contrary. This is the power which belongs to synods. Thus much
for clearing the right state of this question.
II. For the second thing, viz. the proposition itself, and the
confirmation thereof, take it briefly in these terms.
Jesus Christ our Mediator hath laid down in his word sufficient
ground and warrant for juridical synods, and their authority, for
governing of his Church now under the New Testament. Many arguments
might be produced for proof of this proposition: as, 1. From the
light of nature. 2. From the words of the law, Deut. xvii. 8, 12,
compared with 2 Chron. xix. 8, 11; Ps. cxxii. 4, 5, holding forth
an ecclesiastical Sanhedrin in the Church of the Jews, superior to
other courts. 3. From the words of Christ, Matt, xviii. 15-21. 4.
From the unity of the visible Church of Christ now under the New
Testament. 5. From the primitive apostolical pattern laid down,
Acts xv., &c., and from divers other considerations; but for
brevity's sake, only the two last arguments shall be a little
insisted upon.
Argum. I. The unity or oneness of the visible Church of
Christ now under the New Testament, laid down in Scripture, gives
us a notable foundation for church government by juridical synods.
For, 1. That Jesus Christ our Mediator hath one general, visible
Church on earth now under the New Testament, hath been already
proved, Part 2, Chap. VIII. 2. That in this Church there is a
government settled by divine right, is evidenced, Part 1, Chap. I.
3. That all Christ's ordinances, and particularly church
government, primarily belong to the whole general Church visible,
for her edification, (secondarily to particular churches and single
congregations, as parts or members of the whole,) hath been
manifested, Part 2, Chap. VIII. Now, there being one general
visible Church, having a government set in it of divine right, and
that government belonging primarily to the whole body of Christ;
secondarily, to the parts or members thereof; must it not
necessarily follow, that the more generally and extensively
Christ's ordinance of church government is managed in greater and
more general assemblies, the more fully the perfection and end of
the government, viz. the edification of the whole body of Christ,
is attained; and on the contrary, the more particularly and singly
church government is exercised, as in presbyteries, or single
congregational elderships, the more imperfect it is, and the less
it attains to the principal end: consequently, if there be a divine
warrant for church government by single congregational elderships,
is it not much more for church government by presbyteries, and
synods, or councils, wherein more complete provision is made for
the edification of the general Church or body of Jesus Christ?
Argum. II. The primitive apostolical practice in the
first and purest ages of the Church after Christ, may further
evidence with great strength the divine warrant for church
government by juridical synods or councils. Let this be the
position:
Jesus Christ our Mediator hath laid down in his word a pattern
of a juridical synod, consisting of governing officers of divers
presbyterial churches, for a rule to the Church of Christ in all
succeeding ages.
For proof hereof take these two assertions: 1. That Jesus Christ
hath laid down in his word a pattern of a juridical synod. 2. That
this juridical synod is for a rule to the churches of Christ in all
succeeding ages.
That Jesus Christ hath laid down in his word a pattern of a
synod, yea, of a juridical synod, consisting of governing officers
of divers presbyterial churches, is manifest, Acts xv. and xvi.,
where are plainly set forth: 1. The occasion of the synod. 2. The
proper members of the synod. 3. The equal power and authority
exercised by all those members. 4. The way and method of ordinary
synodal proceeding. 5. The juridical acts of power put forth by the
synod; with the issue and consequent of all upon the churches.
First, Here was a proper ground and occasion for a juridical
synod. For thus the text expressly declareth, that "certain men
which came down from Judea, taught the brethren, and said, Except
ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved;
when therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and
disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and
certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles
and elders about this question," Acts xv. 1, 2, compared with ver.
5—"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees,
which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and
to command them to keep the law of Moses;" and with ver. 23,
24—"The apostles, and elders, and brethren send greeting unto
the brethren which are of the Gentiles, in Antioch, and Syria, and
Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out
from us, have troubled you with words, subverting your souls,
saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep the law." In which passages
these things are evident:
1. That false doctrine, destructive to the doctrine of Christ in
his gospel, did arise in the Church, viz: That circumcision and
keeping of the ceremonial law of Moses was necessary to salvation,
ver. 1, 5, 24; and this false doctrine promoted with lying, as if
the apostles and elders of Jerusalem had sent forth the false
teachers with directions to preach so, as their apology ("to whom
we gave no such commandment," ver. 24) seems to import. Here is
corruption both in doctrine and manners fit for a synod to take
cognizance of.
2. That this corrupt doctrine was vented by certain that came
down from Judea. It is evident, it was by certain of the sect of
the Pharisees that believed; as Paul and Barnabas make the
narrative to the church at Jerusalem, ver. 5, therefore the false
teachers coming from Judea (where the Churches of Christ were first
of all planted, and whence the church plantation spread) published
their doctrines with more credit to their errors and danger to the
churches; and so both the churches of Judea whence they came, and
of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, whither they came, were interested
in the business.
3. That the said false teachers by the leaven of their doctrine
troubled them with words, subverting the souls of the brethren,
both at Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, ver. 23, 24; here was the
disturbance and scandal of divers churches: compare ver. 39 with
41.
4. That Paul and Barnabas at Antioch had no small dissension and
dispute against the false teachers, ver. 1, 2, that so (if
possible) they might be convinced, and the Church's peace
preserved, without craving further assistance in a solemn
synod.
5. That after these disputes, and for the better settling of all
the churches about this matter, (which these disputes could not
effect,) they decreed (or ordained) that Paul and
Barnabas, and some others of themselves, should go up to the
apostles and elders at Jerusalem about this question, ver. 2.
Here was an authoritative mission of delegated officers from the
presbyterial church at Antioch, and from other churches of Syria
and Cilicia also, ver. 23, 41, to a synodal assembly with the
presbyterial church at Jerusalem.
Secondly, Here were proper members of a synod convened to
consider of this question, viz. the officers and delegates of
divers presbyterial churches: of the presbyterial church at
Jerusalem, the apostles and elders, Acts xv. 6: of the presbyterial
church at Antioch, Paul, Barnabas, and others; compare verse 2 and
12. And besides these, there were brethren from other churches,
present as members of the synod; as may appear by these two
considerations, viz:
1. Partly, because it is called "The whole multitude," ver. 12;
"The apostles and elders with the whole church," ver. 22; "The
apostles, and elders, and brethren," ver. 23. This whole multitude,
whole church, and brethren, distinct from the apostles and elders
which were at Jerusalem, cannot be the company of all the
faithful at Jerusalem, for (as hath been evidenced, Chap. XIV.,
Position 2,) they were too many to meet in one house. But it was
the synodal multitude, the synodal church, consisting of apostles,
and elders, and brethren; which brethren seem to be such as were
sent from several churches, as Judas and Silas, ver. 24, who were
assistants to the apostles and evangelists—Judas, Acts xv.
22, 32; Silas, Acts xv. 32, 40, and xvi. 19, and xvii. 4, 14, 15,
and xviii. 5. Some think Titus was of this synod also.
2. Partly because the brethren of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia,
were troubled with this question, ver. 23, 24. Therefore it cannot
be reasonably imagined, but all those places sought out for a
remedy; and to that end, severally and respectively sent their
delegates to the synod at Jerusalem: else they had been very
regardless of their own church peace and welfare. And the epistle
of the synod was directed to them all by name, ver. 23; and so did
formally bind them all, having men of their own members of the
synod, which decrees did but materially, and from the nature of the
thing, bind the other churches at Lystra and Iconium, Acts xvi. 4.
Now, if there were delegates but from two presbyterial churches,
they were sufficient to constitute a synod; and this justifies
delegates from ten or twenty churches, proportionably, when there
shall be like just and necessary occasion.
Thirdly, Here all the members of the synod, as they were
convened by like ordinary authority, so they acted by like ordinary
and equal power in the whole business laid before them; which shows
it was an ordinary, not an extraordinary synod. For though apostles
and evangelists, who had power over all churches, were members of
the synod, as well as ordinary elders; yet they acted not in this
synod by a transcendent, infallible, apostolical power, but by an
ordinary power, as elders. This is evident,
1. Because the Apostle Paul, and Barnabas his colleague, (called
a prophet and teacher, Acts xiii. 1, 2, and an apostle, Acts xiv.
14,) were sent as members to this synod, by order and determination
of the church of Antioch, and they submitted themselves to that
determination, Acts xv. 2, 3; which they could not have submitted
unto as apostles, but as ordinary elders and members of the
presbytery at Antioch: they that send, being greater than those
that are sent by them. Upon which ground it is a good argument
which is urged against Peter's primacy over the rest of the
apostles, because the college of apostles at Jerusalem sent Peter
and John to Samaria, having received the faith, Acts viii. 14.
2. Because the manner of proceeding in this synod convened, was
not extraordinary and apostolical, as when they acted by an
immediate infallible inspiration of the Spirit, in penning the Holy
Scriptures, (without all disputing, examining, or judging of the
matter that they wrote, so far as we can read,) 2 Tim. iii. 16,17;
2 Pet. i. 20, 21; but ordinary, presbyterial, and synodal; by
ordinary helps and means, (as afterwards shall appear more fully;)
stating the question, proving and evidencing from Scripture what
was the good and acceptable will of God concerning the
present controversy, and upon evidence of Scripture concluding,
It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, Acts xv. 28;
which words, any assembly, having like clear evidence of Scripture
for their determination, may without presumption use, as well as
this synod did.114
3. Because the elders and brethren (who are as authoritatively
members of the synod as the apostles) did in all points as
authoritatively act as the apostles themselves. For, 1. Certain
other of the church of Antioch, as well as Paul and
Barnabas, were sent as delegates from the church of
Antioch, Acts xv. 2. 2. They were all sent as well to the
elders, as to the apostles at Jerusalem, about
this matter, ver. 2. 3. They were received at Jerusalem, as
well by the elders, as the apostles, and reported
their case to them both, ver. 4. 4. The elders, as well as
the apostles, met together to consider thereof, ver. 6. 5.
The letters containing the synodal decrees and determinations, were
written in the name of the elders and brethren, as well as
in the name of the apostles, ver. 23. 6. The elders and
brethren, as well as the apostles, blame the false
teachers for troubling of the Church, subverting of souls;
declaring, that they gave the false teachers no such
commandment to preach any such doctrine, ver. 24. 7. The
elders and brethren, as well as the apostles, say,
"It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us," ver. 28. 8. The
elders and brethren, as well as the apostles,
did impose upon the churches "no other burden than these necessary
things," ver. 28. 9. The elders, as well as the
apostles, being assembled, "thought good to send chosen men
of themselves," viz. Judas and Silas, with
Paul and Barnabas, to Antioch, to deliver the
synodal decrees to them, and to tell them the same things by mouth,
ver. 22, 25, 27. 10. And the decrees are said to be ordained as
well by the elders, as by the apostles at Jerusalem,
Acts xvi. 4. So that through this whole synodal transaction, the
elders are declared in the text to go on in a full authoritative
course of judgment with the apostles, from point to point. And
therefore in this synod, the apostles acted as ordinary elders, not
as extraordinary officers.
Fourthly. Here was the ordinary way and method of synodal
proceedings by the apostles, elders, and brethren, when they were
convened unanimously, ver. 25. For,
1. They proceeded deliberatively, by discourses and disputes,
deliberating about the true state of the question, and the remedy
of the scandal. This is laid down, 1. More generally, "and when
there had been much disputing," ver. 7. 2. More particularly, how
they proceeded when they drew towards a synodal determination,
Peter speaks of the Gentiles' conversion, and clears the doctrine
of justification "by faith without the works of the law," ver.
7-12. Then Barnabas and Paul confirm the conversion of the
Gentiles, "declaring the signs and wonders wrought by them among
the Gentiles," ver. 12. After them James speaks, approving what
Peter had spoken touching the conversion of the Gentiles,
confirming it by Scripture; and further adds (which Peter did but
hint, ver. 10, and Paul and Barnabas did not so much as touch upon)
a remedy against the present scandal, ver. 13-22. Here is now an
ordinary way of proceeding by debates, disputes, allegations of
Scripture, and mutual suffrages. What needed all this, if this had
been a transcendent, extraordinary, and not an ordinary synod?
2. They proceeded after all their deliberative inquiries and
disputes decisively to conclude and determine the matter, ver.
20-30. The result of the synod (as there is evident) is threefold.
1. To set down in writing their decrees and determinations. 2. To
signify those decrees in an epistle to the brethren at Antioch,
Syria, and Cilicia. 3. To send these letters by some from among
themselves, viz. Judas and Silas, together with Paul and Barnabas,
to all the churches that were offended or endangered, that both by
written decrees and word of mouth, the churches might be
established in faith and peace.
Fifthly, Here were several authoritative and juridical acts of
power, put forth in this synod, according to the exigency of the
present distempers of the churches. This appears plainly,
1. By the proceedings of the synod in accommodating a suitable
and proportionable remedy to every malady at that time distempering
the Church, viz. a triple medicine for a threefold disease.
1. Against the heresy broached, viz. that they must be
circumcised and keep the ceremonial "law of Moses, or else they
could not be saved," Acts xv. 2. The synod put forth a doctrinal
power, in confutation of the heresy, and clear vindication of the
truth, about the great point of "justification by faith without the
works of the law," Acts xv. 7-23; and (Independents themselves
being judges) a doctrinal decision of matters of faith by a lawful
synod, far surpasseth the doctrinal determination of any single
teacher, or of the presbytery of any single congregation; and is to
be reverently received of the churches as a binding ordinance of
Christ.
2. Against the schism, occasioned by the doctrine of the false
teachers that troubled the Church, Acts xv. 1, 2, the synod put
forth a censuring power, stigmatizing the false teachers with the
infamous brands of troubling the Church with words, subverting of
souls, and (tacitly, as some conceive from that expression, "Unto
whom we gave no such commandment," ver. 24) of belying the apostles
and elders of Jerusalem, as if they had sent them abroad to preach
this doctrine.
Object. But the synod proceeded not properly to censure
the false teachers by any ecclesiastical admonition, or
excommunication; therefore the power exercised in the synod was
only doctrinal, and not properly juridical.
Ans. 1. They censured them in some degree, and that with
a mark of infamy, ver. 24, as was manifested. And this was not only
a warning and hint to the churches, to note such false teachers,
avoid them, and withdraw from them, compare Rom. xvi. 17, 18, with
1 Tim. vi. 3-5; but also was a virtual admonition to the false
teachers themselves, while their doctrines and ways were so
expressly condemned. 2. They proceeded not to present
excommunication, it is granted; nor was it at first dash
seasonable, prudent, or needful. But the synod knew well, that if
these false teachers, after this synodal mark of disgrace set upon
them, should still persist in their course, incurably and
incorrigibly obstinate, they might in due time be excommunicated by
course; it being a clear case in itself that such heretics or
schismatics, as otherwise cannot be reduced, are not to be
suffered, but to be cast out of the churches. "An heretic, after
once or twice admonition, reject," Tit. iii. 10, 11; see Rev. ii.
2, 14, 20.
3. Against the scandal of the weak Jews, and their
heart-estrangement from the Gentiles, who neglected their
ceremonial observances, as also against the scandal of the
Gentiles, who were much troubled and offended at the urging of
circumcision, and the keeping of the law as necessary to salvation,
ver. 1, 2, 19, 24, the synod put forth an ordering or regulating
power, framing practical rules or constitutions for the healing of
the scandal, and for prevention of the spreading of it, commanding
the brethren of the several churches to abstain from divers things
that might any way occasion the same: "It seemed good to the Holy
Ghost, and to us, to impose" (or lay) "upon you no further burden
than these necessary things," Acts xv. 28, 29. Here is
burden and necessary things, (so judged to be
necessary for those times, and that state of the Church,) and
imposing of these upon the churches: will not this amount to a
plain ordering power and authority? Especially considering that the
word to impose, or lay on, when it is used of the
judgment, act, or sentence of an assembly, ordinarily signifies an
authoritative judgment, or decree, as, "Why tempt ye God, to lay,
or impose, a yoke upon the neck of the disciples?" Acts xv. 10. Thus
some in the synod endeavored to carry the synod with themselves,
authoritatively to have imposed the ceremonies upon the churches;
whom Peter thus withstands. So, "They bind heavy burdens, and hard
to be borne, and impose them upon men's shoulders," Matt, xxiii. 4:
and this laying on of burdens by the Pharisees, was not by a bare
doctrinal declaring, but by an authoritative commanding, as seems
by that, "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," Matt.
xv. 9.
2. By the title or denomination given to the synodal results
contained in their letters sent to the brethren. They are styled,
"The decrees ordained, or judged," Acts xvi. 4. Here are plainly
juridical authoritative constitutions. For it is very
observable,
That wheresoever the words translated decree or
decrees are found in the New Testament, thereby are denoted,
laws, statutes, or decrees: as "Decrees of Cæsar," Acts xvii. 7:
"A decree from Cæsar," Luke ii. 1: Moses' ceremonial law, "The
hand-writing to ordinances," Col. ii. 14: "The law of commandments
in ordinances," Eph. ii. 15: and this word is found used only in
these five places in the whole New Testament: and the Septuagint
interpreters often use the word in the Old Testament to this
purpose; for laws, Dan. vi. 8; for decrees, Dan. ii.
13, and iii. 10, 29, and iv. 3, and vi. 9.
And the other word translated ordained, when applied to
an assembly by the Septuagint, is used for a judgment of authority,
as, "And what was decreed against her," Esth. ii. 1; and so a word
derived from it, signifies a decree, Dan. iv. 14, 21.
In this sense also the word is sometimes used in the New
Testament, when applied to assemblies; as, "Take ye him, and judge
him according to your law," John xviii. 31; "Whom we laid hold
upon, and would have judged according to our law," Acts xxiv.
6.
Now, if there be so much power and authority engraven upon these
two words severally, how strongly do they hold forth authority,
when they are applied to any thing jointly, as here to the synodal
decisions!
3. By the consequent of these synodal proceedings, viz. the
cheerful submission of the churches thereunto. This appears both in
the church of Antioch, where the troubles first were raised by the
false teachers; where, "when the epistle" of the synod "was read,
they rejoiced for the consolation," Acts xv. 30, 31; and Judas and
Silas exhorted and confirmed the brethren by word of mouth,
according to the synod's direction, ver. 32; and in other churches,
to which Paul and Timothy delivered the "decrees ordained by the
apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem; and so were the
churches confirmed in the faith, and abounded in number daily,"
Acts xvi. 4, 5; whence we have these evidences of the churches'
submission to the synodal decrees: 1. The decrees are counted by
the churches a consolation. 2. They were so welcome to them, that
they rejoiced for the consolation. 3. They were hereby
notably confirmed in the faith, against the false doctrines
broached among them. 4. The churches abounded in number
daily, the scandal and stumbling-blocks that troubled the
Church being removed out of the way. How should such effects so
quickly have followed upon the publication of the synodal decrees,
in the several churches, had not the churches looked upon that
synod as vested with juridical power and authority for composing
and imposing of these their determinations?
That this juridical synod is for a rule to the churches of
Christ in all succeeding ages, there need no new considerations for
proof hereof; only let the reader please to look back to Position
iv. of the last chapter, where the substance of those
considerations which urge the pattern of presbyteries and
presbyterial government for a rule to succeeding churches, is
applicable (by change of terms) to the pattern of juridical
synods.115
CHAPTER XV. — Of the subordination of particular churches to greater assemblies for their authoritative and judicial determination of causes ecclesiastical, and the divine right thereof.
The divine right of ecclesiastical assemblies, congregational,
classical, and synodal, and of their power for church government,
being thus evidenced by the Scriptures, now in the last place take
a few words briefly touching the subordination of the lesser to the
greater assemblies, and the divine warrant thereof. In asserting
the subordination of particular churches to higher assemblies,
whether classical or synodal,
1. It is not denied, but particular churches have within
themselves power of discipline entirely, so far as any cause in
debate particularly and peculiarly concerneth themselves, and not
others.
2. It is granted, that where there is no consociation, or
neighborhood of single churches, whereby they may mutually aid one
another, there a single congregation must not be denied entire
jurisdiction; but this falls not within the compass of ordinary
rules of church government left us by Christ. If there be but one
congregation in a kingdom or province, that particular congregation
may do much by itself alone, which it ought not to do where there
are neighboring and adjacent churches that might associate
therewith for mutual assistance.
3. It is granted, that every single congregation hath equal
power, one as much as another, and that there is no subordination
of one to another; according to that common and known axiom, An
equal hath no power or rule over an equal. Subordination
prelatical, which is of one or more parishes to the prelate and his
cathedral, is denied; all particular churches being collateral, and
of the same authority.
4. It is granted, that classical or synodal authority cannot be
by Scripture introduced over a particular church in a privative or
destructive way to that power which God hath bestowed upon it; but
contrarily it is affirmed, that all the power of assemblies, which
are above particular congregations, is cumulative and perfective to
the power of those inferior congregations.
5. It is granted, that the highest ecclesiastical assembly in
the world cannot require from the lowest a subordination absolute,
and at their own mere will and pleasure, but only in some respect;
subordination absolute being only to the law of God laid down in
Scripture. We detest popish tyranny, which claims a power of giving
their will for a law. 'Tis subjection in the Lord that is pleaded
for: the straightest rule in the world, unless the holy Scripture,
we affirm to be a rule to be regulated; peace being only in walking
according to Scripture canon, Gal. vi. ver. 16.
6. Nor is it the question whether friendly, consultative,
fraternal, Christian advice or direction, be either to be desired
or bestowed by neighboring churches, either apart or in their
synodal meetings, for the mutual benefit of one another, by reason
of that holy profession in which they are all conjoined and knit
together: for this will be granted on all hands, though when it is
obtained, it will not amount to a sufficient remedy in many
cases.
But this is that which we maintain, viz. that the law of God
holdeth forth a subordination of a particular church to greater
assemblies, consisting of divers choice members, taken out of
several single congregations: which assemblies have authoritative
power and ecclesiastical jurisdiction over that particular church,
by way of giving sentence in and deciding of causes ecclesiastical.
For confirmation of this assertion, thus:
Argum. I. The light of nature may be alleged to prove,
that there ought to be this subordination: this is warranted not
only by God's positive law, but even by nature's law. The church is
a company of people who are not outlawed by nature. The visible
church being an ecclesiastical polity, and the perfection of all
polity, doth comprehend in it whatsoever is excellent in all other
bodies political. The church must resemble the commonwealth's
government in things common to both, and which have the same use in
both. The law of nature directs unto diversities of courts in the
commonwealth, and the greater to have authority over the lesser.
The church is not only to be considered as employed in holy
services, or as having assemblies exercised in spiritual things,
and after a spiritual manner, but it is also to be considered as
consisting of companies and societies of men to be regularly
ordered, and so far nature agreeth to it, that it should have
divers sorts of assemblies, and the lower subordinate to the
higher. That particular parts should be subject to the whole for
the good of the whole, is found necessary both in bodies natural
and politic. Is the foot to be lanced? though it have a particular
use of its own, and a peculiar employment, yet it is to be ordered
by the eye, the hand, and the rest. Kingdoms have their several
cities and towns, which all have their governments apart by
themselves; yet for the preservation of the whole, all join
together in the Parliament. Armies and navies have their several
companies and ships, yet in any danger every particular company and
ship is ordered by the counsels and directions of the officers and
guides of the whole army or navy. The Church is spiritual, but yet
a kingdom, a body, an army, &c. D. Ames himself affirms that
the light of nature requires that particular churches ought to
combine in synods for things of greater moment. The God of nature
and reason hath not left in his word a government against the light
of nature and right reason. Appeals are of divine and natural
right, and certainly very necessary in every society, because of
the iniquity and ignorance of judges. That they are so, the
practices of all ages and nations sufficiently testify.
Argum. II. The Jewish church government affords a second
argument. If in that they had synagogues in every city, which were
subordinate to the supreme ecclesiastical court at Jerusalem, then
there ought to be a subordination of particular churches among us
to higher assemblies; but so it was among them: therefore,
That the subordination was among them of the particular
synagogues to the assembly at Jerusalem, is clear—Deut. xvii.
8, 12; 2 Chron. xix. 8, 11; Exod. xviii. 22, 26.
That therefore it ought to be so among us, is as plain: for the
dangers and difficulties that they were involved in without a
government, and for which God caused that government to be set up
among them, are as great if not greater among us, and therefore why
should we want the same means of prevention and cure? Are not we in
greater danger of heresies now in the time of the New Testament,
the churches therein being thereby to be exercised by way of trial,
as the apostle foretells, 1 Cor. xi. 19? Doth not ungodliness in
these last times abound, according to the same apostle's
prediction? Is there not now a more free and permitted intercourse
of society with infidels than in those times?
Nor are the exceptions against this argument of any strength:
as, 1. That arguments for the form of church government must yet be
fetched from the Jewish Church; the government of the Jews was
ceremonial and typical, and Christians must not Judaize, nor use
that Judaical compound of subordination of churches: the Mosaical
polity is abrogated now under the New Testament. Not to tell those
that make this exception, 1. That none argue so much from the
Jewish government as themselves for the power of congregations,
both in ordination and excommunication, because the people of
Israel laid hands on the Levites, and all Israel were to remove the
unclean; 2. We answer, the laws of the Jewish church, whether
ceremonial or judicial, so far are in force, even at this day, as
they were grounded upon common equity, the principles of reason and
nature, and were serving to the maintenance of the moral law. 'Tis
of especial right, that the party unjustly aggrieved should have
redress, that the adverse party should not be sole judge and party
too, that judgment ought not to be rashly or partially passed upon
any. The Jewish polity is only abrogated in regard of what was in
it of particular right, not of common right: so far as there was in
their laws either a typicalness proper to their church, or a
peculiarness of respect to their state in that land of promise
given unto them. Whatsoever was in their laws of moral concernment
or general equity, is still obliging; whatsoever the Jewish Church
had not as Jewish, but as it was a political church, or an
ecclesiastical republic, (among which is the subordination of
ecclesiastical courts to be reckoned,) doth belong to the Christian
Church: that all judgments were to be determined by an high-priest,
was typical of Christ's supremacy in judicature; but that there
were gradual judicatories for the ease of an oppressed or grieved
party, there can be no ceremony or type in this. This was not
learned by Moses in the pattern of the Mount, but was taught by the
light of nature to Jethro, Exod. xviii. 22, and by him given in
advice to Moses. This did not belong unto the peculiar dispensation
of the Jews, but unto the good order of the church.
To conclude our answer to this exception, if the benefit of
appeals be not as free to us as to the Jews, the yoke of the gospel
should be more intolerable than the yoke of the law; the poor
afflicted Christian might groan and cry under an unjust and
tyrannical eldership, and no ecclesiastical judicatory to relieve
him; whereas the poor oppressed Jew might appeal to the Sanhedrin:
certainly this is contrary to that prophecy of Christ, Psal. lxxii.
12, 14.
Argum. III. A third argument to prove the subordination
of particular congregations, is taken from the institution of our
Saviour Christ, of gradual appeals, Matt, xviii. 17, 18, where our
Saviour hath appointed a particular member of a church (if
scandalous) to be gradually dealt withal; first to be reproved in
private, then to be admonished before two or three witnesses, and
last of all to be complained of to the church: whence we thus
argue:
If Christ hath instituted that the offence of an obstinate
brother should be complained of to the church; then much more is it
intended that the obstinacy of a great number, suppose of a whole
church, should be brought before a higher assembly: but the former
is true, therefore the latter. The consequence, wherein the
strength of the argument lies, is proved several ways.
1. From the rule of proportion: by what proportion one or two
are subject to a particular church, by the same proportion is that
church subject to a provincial or a national assembly; and by the
same proportion that one congregation is governed by the particular
eldership representing it, by the same proportion are ten or twelve
congregations governed by a classical presbytery representing them
all.
2. From the sufficiency of that remedy that Christ here
prescribes for those emergent exigencies under which the Church may
lie; since, therefore, offences may as well arise between two
persons in the same congregation, Christ hath appointed that
particular congregations, as well as members, shall have liberty to
complain and appeal to a more general judgment for redress: the
salve here prescribed by Christ is equal to the sore; if the sore
of scandal may overspread whole churches, as well as particular
persons, then certainly the salve of appeals and subordination is
here also appointed. If a man be scandalized by the
neighbor-church, to whom shall he complain? The church offending
must not be both judge and party.
3. From that ecclesiastical communion that is between churches
and churches in one and the same province or nation, whereby
churches are joined and united together in doctrine and discipline
into one body, as well as divers particular persons in a particular
congregation; since, therefore, scandals may be committed among
them that are in that holy communion one with another, most
unworthy of and destructive to that sacred league, certainly those
scandals should be redressed by a superior judicatory, as well as
offences between brother and brother.
4. He that careth for a part of a church must much more care for
the whole; he whose love extends itself to regard the conversion of
one, is certainly very careful of the spiritual welfare of many,
the edification of a whole church; the influence of Christ's love
being poured upon the whole body, bride and spouse, by order of
nature, before it redound to the benefit of a finger or toe, viz.
some one single person or other. Nor are the exceptions against
this institution of gradual appeals of any moment.
The grand one, and that makes directly against our position is,
that our Saviour would have the controversy between brother and
brother to be terminated in a peculiar church, and that its
judgment should be ultimately requested, he saith, Tell the
church, not churches. The subordination here appointed by
Christ is of fewer to more, but still within the same church, not
without it. To which we answer, our Saviour means not by church
only one single particular congregation, but also several, combined
in their officers, as appears by these following reasons.
1. A particular church in sundry cases cannot decide the
difference, or heal the distemper our Saviour prescribes against;
as when a particular church is divided into two parts, both in
opposition one to the other; or when one church is at variance with
another; if Christ here limits only to a particular church, how
shall such distempers be remedied?
2. When Christ bids tell the church, he speaks in
allusion to the Jewish Church, which was represented not only by
parts in the single synagogue or congregation, but wholly in their
sanhedrin, consisting of select persons, appointed by God, for
deciding controversies incident to their particular congregations,
and their members. So that we may thus reason: the subordination
here established by Christ is so far to be extended in the
Christian Church, as in the Church of the Jews, for Christ alludeth
to the Jewish practice; but in the Jewish Church there was a
subordination of fewer to more, not only within the same synagogue
or congregation, but within the whole nation, for all synagogues
were under the great council at Jerusalem. Now that Christ gives
here the same rule that was of old given to the Jews for church
government, is clear, 1. From the censure of the obstinate, who was
to be reputed a heathen and a publican; wherein is a manifest
allusion to the present estate of the Church of the Jews; and, 2.
From the familiarity and plainness of Christ's speech, Tell the
church, which church could not have been understood by the
disciples had not Christ spoken of the Jewish judicatory; besides
which they knew none for such offences as Christ spake of to them,
there being no particular church which had given its name to
Christ: as also, 3. From his citing the words of that text, Deut.
xix. 15, where the witnesses and offenders were, by way of further
appeal, to stand before the Lord, before the priests for judgment,
ver. 17.
3. It is plain that our Saviour intended a liberty of going
beyond a particular congregation for determining cases of
controversy, from the reason of that subordination which Christ
enjoins, of one to two or three, and of them to the church. The
reason of that gradual progress there set down, was because in the
increase of numbers and greatness of assemblies, more wisdom,
judgment, and gravity is supposed to be, than in the admonitions of
a few and smaller number; now, then, this power of right admonition
increaseth with the number of admonishers, as well without as
within the same congregation; if ten go beyond two in wisdom and
gravity, forty will go beyond ten, and be more likely to win upon
the offender, and regain him.
Argum. IV. A fourth argument is taken from the pattern of
the apostolical churches, Acts xv.
The church of Antioch (though presbyterial, as was proved
Chapter XIII., Position II.) was subordinate to the synod at
Jerusalem; therefore a particular church is subordinate to higher
assemblies, &c.
If a synodal decree did bind them in those times, then may it
bind particular churches now, and these ought even still to be
subject to synods.
The consequence is undeniable, unless we hold that what the
synod there imposed was unjust, or that we have now less need of
those remedies than they had; nay, since the apostles (who were
assisted with an extraordinary spirit of inspiration) would
nevertheless in a doubtful business have synodal conventions for
determining of controversies, much more ought we to do so whose
gifts are far inferior to theirs; and unless it had been in their
determination to leave us their example of a synodal way of church
government for our pattern, they had not wanted the meeting
together of so many with them for decision of the doubt, whose
doctrine was infallible, and of itself, without an assembly, to be
believed.
The exceptions against this pattern of church polity are of no
validity, e.g.
1. This was no synod. First, that it was no synod appears, in
that we read of no word of a synod. Secondly, no commissioners from
Syria and Cilicia, which churches should have sent their delegates,
had they been a synod, and had their decrees been to have bound in
a synodal way. Thirdly, all the believers had voices here.
2. If it were a synod, yet it is no pattern for us, in regard it
was consisting of members guided by an infallible and apostolical
spirit.
We answer, 1. Here is the thing synod, though not the word,
which is a meeting consisting of the deputies of many single
churches.
2. That Jerusalem and Antioch had their commissioners there, is
evident; and by consequence many single churches had their
commissioners, for there were many single congregations at
Jerusalem and Antioch, as hath been proved, Chapter XIII., Position
II.; that these met together, the word used, verse 6, they came
together, evidenceth, and verse 25. For the churches of Syria
and Cilicia not sending their commissioners, it follows not that
because they are not named, therefore they were not
there; and if they were not there, therefore they
ought not to have been: but it is rather thought Syria and
Cilicia had commissioners there, in regard the synodal decrees are
directed to them as well as others, and the decrees bound them,
which they could not do as formal Scripture; for the words, it
seemeth good to us, and their submitting the matter to
disputation, argue the contrary; therefore as synodal decrees,
which inasmuch as they bound those churches, they either were
present, or were obliged to be present by their commissioners.
3. To that exception, that the multitude of believers had voices
there, and therefore it is not one of our synods, ver.
22—
We answer, it can nowise be proved that every particular
believer had a suffrage in the assembly.
Eminent divines116
understand by multitude and church, the multitude and
whole church of apostles and elders, who are said to be gathered
together, verse 6, to consider of the matter; besides
which no other multitude is said to be gathered together, while the
matter was in debate; yet we shall not deny even to other members
the liberty of their consent and approbation, and freedom to
examine all determinations by the rule of God's word: but the
ordaining and forming those decrees is here evinced to be by the
apostles and elders, when as they are called their decrees,
Acts xvi. 4,6.
3. Those only had definitive votes, who met together synodically
to consider of the question; but they were only the apostles and
elders, Acts xv. 6. That the epistle is sent in the name of all, is
granted; because it was sent by common consent, and withal thereby
was added some more weight to the message.
4. Further, if the believers of Jerusalem voted in that
assembly, by what authority was it? How could they impose a
burden upon, and command decrees unto the churches of Syria and
Cilicia, and other churches, who, according to our brethren's
opinion, were not only absent in their commissioners, but
independent in their power?
To the exception, that other synods may not pretend to the
privileges of that, since its decrees were indited by the Holy
Ghost; and therefore no pattern for our imitation—
Ans. The decrees of this assembly did oblige, as synodal
decrees, not as apostolical and canonical Scripture: this appears
several ways:
1. The apostles, in framing these canons, did proceed in a way
synodal and ecclesiastical, and far different from that which they
used in dictating of Scripture, and publishing divine truths; their
decrees were brought forth by much disputation, human disquisition,
but divine oracles are published without human reasonings, from the
immediate inditing of the Spirit, 2 Pet. i. 2.
2. Besides the apostles, there were here commissioned elders and
other brethren, men of ordinary rank, not divinely and infallibly
inspired. The apostles in the penning of Scripture consult not with
elders and brethren, (as our opposites here say they did:) our
brethren make mandates of ordinary believers divine and canonical
Scripture.
3. Divine writ is published only in the name of the Lord; but
these in the name of man also, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost
and to us," Acts xv. 28.
4. Canonical and apostolical writing of new Scripture shall not
continue till Christ's coming, because the canon is complete, Rev.
xxii. 18, 19, &c.; but thus to decree through the assistance of
the Holy Ghost, who remaineth with the Church to the end, and to be
directed by Scripture, shall still continue. Therefore this
decreeing is not as the inditing of the Holy Scripture. The minor
is clear both from Christ's promise, "Where two or three are met
together," Matt. xvii. 18-20; Matt. viii. 20; as also by the
Spirit's inspiring those councils of Nice of old, and Dort of late:
Therefore the apostles here laid aside their apostolical
extraordinary power, descending to the places of ordinary pastors,
to give them examples in future ages.
To conclude, it is plain, that all the essentials in this
assembly were synodal, as whether we consider: 1. The occasion of
the meeting, a controversy; 2. The deputation of commissioners from
particular churches, for the deciding of that controversy; or 3.
The convention of those that were deputed; or 4. The discussion of
the question, they being so convened; or 5. The determination of
the question so discussed; or 6. The imposition of the thing so
determined; or 7. The subjection to the thing so imposed.
1 Tim. i. 17
TO THE IMMORTAL GOD ALONE BE GLORY FOR EVER AND EVER.