Mr.Cottonof theKeyes.
3. Because in the Synod, the Apostles did not determine the thing in question, byApostolical Authority, from immediate revelation, but assembled together with the Elders to consider of the matter,Act.15.6. and a Multitude of the Brethren together with them,Act.15.12, 22, 23. And there the question was stated, and debated from Scripture in an ordinary way.Peterproves it by thewitnesse of the Spirit to his Ministry, inCorneliushis Family, PaulandBarnabasby the like effect of their Ministry amongst the Gentiles.Jamesconfirmed the same by the testimony of the Prophets; with which, the whole Synod being satisfied, they determine of a judicial sentence, and of a way to publish it by letters and messages.
4. Because the Decrees of the Synod are put forth in the name,not only of the Apostles, but of the Apostles and Elders,Act.15.22, 23.Act.16.4.Act.21.25.
The second thing to be observed in that Chapter, is,
That the Apostles and Elders did put forth Acts of Ecclesiasticall Authority in that Synod.This appears plainly fromAct.15.28.to lay no other burden. To bind burdens, is anact of the binding power of the Keyes. And it appears likewise fromAct.16.4. where mention is made ofDecrees ordained by the Apostles & Elders. And it is observeable, that wheresoeverδογμα, is used in theNew Testament, it is put either forDecreesorLaws, and so frequently by theSeptuagint in the old Testament, as is abundantlyproved by the ReverendAssembly of Divines, in their answer to the Reasons of the Dissenting-Brethren, against the instance of the Church ofJerusalem, pag. 66.
3. That the Scripture holds forth a subordination of Congregations unto Synods, together with Appeals thereunto. To prove this, we will bring two places: The first isDeut.17.8. to 12. together with 2Chron.19.8, 10, 11. Out of which two places, compared together, we gather these two conclusions:
1.That the Jews had two supream Judicatories in Jerusalem; the oneEcclesiasticall, for thematters of the Lord; the othercivill, for thematters of the King. This appears byDeut.17. ver. 8. where we have a distinction of causes; someforensicallbetweenbloodandblood, belonging to the civilJudicatory; some ceremonial, between stroak, and stroak; that is, (as not onlyHierome, but the Chaldy and Septuagint read the words, and as appears by the frequent use of the word in that sense,Levit.13. and elsewhere,) between leprosie, and leprosie, belonging to the cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Judicatory. And in the 12 verse, these two Judicatories are distinguished, by the disjunctiveOr;And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest, (that standeth to minister before the Lord thy God,)or unto the Judge, &c. This further appears, by 2Chr.19.8, 10, 11. In which we have clear mention; first of two sorts of Judges, theLevites and Priests, and chief of the Fathers, vers. 8. secondly, of two sorts of causes, somespirituall and Ecclesiasticall, called thejudgment of the Lord, ver. 8. and thematters of the Lord, ver. 11. others civill, asbetween blood and blood, ver. 10. And thirdly, of twoPresidents;Amariahthe chiefPriest, in allmatters of the Lord; andZebadiahthe Ruler of the house ofJudah, in all thematters of the King. And this distinction between the civil and Ecclesiastical Judicatory, is the opinion of many Orthodox & learned Authors, which are cited by Mr.Gelaspy,Aaronsrod blossom, cap. 3. pag. 8. where this conclusion is largely and learnedly debated & asserted.
2.That there was a subordination in the Jewish Church, of the Synagogues, in all hard and difficult controversies, and in all the matters of the Lord, unto the Ecclesiastical Judicatory at Jerusalem, and appeals thereunto; this appears evidently,Deut.17.8, 9. 2 Chron. 19.8, 10.
Now that thisSubordination, together withappeals, did not belong to theJewish Church, asJewishonly, but as it was anEcclesiastical Republique, is evident. For though thehigh Priest, amongst the Jews, was atype of Christ, yet thesegradual Judicatories, wherein theaggrieved party did appeal, from the lesser to the greater; (that against the very light of nature, the adverse party might not be the sole Judge and party too, in his own cause) were not in any kind ceremonial or typicall.
Appeals, (saith Dr.Whitaker,)they are of divine and natural light, and certainly very necessary in every necessity, because of the iniquity and ignorance of Judges, Whit. Contr. 4. de Romano Pontific. lib. 4. cap. 2. And generally, allProtestant Writersagainst appeals to the Pope, acknowledge yet, their necessary usefulness to aSynod. So did that renowned MartyrCranmer, the form of whose appeal to a Council, three several times urged by him, with much instance, we have recorded by Mr.Foxeat large, Acts and Monuments.
And indeed, if thebenefit of appeals, and consociation of Churches, should not be as free to us, as to theJews, how muchmore defective & improvidentwere theGospel, then theLaw, contrary to allancient Prophesies of Gospel-Communion? How wereour Saviour King of Peace and Righteousnesse, should he have ordained now under theGospelsuch agovernment, as by makingParties sole Judges,were neitherrighteous, nor peaceable? whatJudaicall type or ceremony, can there be in this communion and mutual assistance in government, which God (as by his Word, so) by the very light of nature, teacheth all societies whatsoever, whether Common-Wealth, Armies, Universities, or Navies? &c. as learnedly Mr.Herle, in his Independency, &c.
The second place is Matth. 18.15, 16, 17, 18. which text, by aparity of reason, proves asubordination of Congregations unto Synods. For there is the same relation betweenChurch and Church, as betweenbrother and brother; and if abrotheroffending issubordinateunto aparticular Congregation; then by alike reason, anoffending Congregationissubordinateuntogreater Assemblies. And the reason of it is, because thegrounds,reasons, andendsofsubordination, are the same in both.That God might be glorified, the offendor shamed, humbled, reduced, and sin not suffered to rest upon him. That others may be preserved from contagion, and made to fear. That scandal and pollution of the Ordinances, may be prevented, or removed.All which argue as strongly and fully forsubordination of an offending Congregation to superiour and greater Assemblies, as of an offending brother to a particular Congregation: And the truth is, whosoever denyes the subordination of a Congregation unto a Synod, together with appeals thereunto, doth in plain tearms affirm these three things,
1.That the Government of Christ in his Church under the New Testament, is a Government directly contrary to the very light of nature making the same men parties, and finall Judges in their own cause.
2.That the Government of the Church in the Old Testament, was more equal and just, then under the New.
3.That Jesus Christ hath in his Government appointed no effectual remedy to heal the scandals of an offending Congregation, or at least, a more effectual remedy to redresse an offending Brother, then an offending Congregation.All which are greatderogations, anddisparagementsto theKingly Office and Government of Jesus Christ. And thus we have shewed that the Presbyterial Government is not new to the Word of God, as some falsly object. We proceed to justifie it in other particulars.
3. The Presbyterial Governmentchallengeth no power over mens bodies or estates. It medleth not in civil affairs, or with inflicting civil mulcts, or corporal punishments. It is a governmentpurely spirituall, dispensing the Keyes of theKingdom of heaven, not of earth; and how then can it be cruel and tyrannical, in fineing and imprisoning mens persons, as was objected?
4. It is not aGovernmentthat hathLordshipsand greatRevenuesannexed to it, as the Prelatical had. It is notgainfulandprofitable, butburdensomeandtroublesome: What do the ruling Elders gain by their office, but reproach and contempt? And is not the condition of the teaching Elder worse, in regard of maintenance, since he ingaged in this discipline, then ever it was? This is a government that hath no outward advantages to induce men to accept of it.It is conscience, and (as we hope)pure conscience, that ingageth any in it, andtherefore it is, that it hath so few friends, because there are so few that are truly conscientious.
5. It is not aDomineering Hierarchicall magisteriall Government, that lords it over peoples consciences, requiring subjection to the decrees of it, with blind and slavish obedience. But it is aStewardship, aMinistry, a painful and laborious service. We say, That all the determinations, even of Nationall Synods, are to be obeyed no further, then they agree with the Word of God. And that a Synod isJudex judicandus. That Congregations are to examine with the judgment of discretion, what is sent to them from Synods. There isno more obedience required to the Decrees of a Nationall Synod, then the Independents claim to the decrees of a particular Congregation.
6. It is not anArbitrary illimited Government, butbounded and limited: 1.By the Word of God; for in this Government, everything is to be administred according to the pattern in the Mount. We desire none to follow, but where the Word goeth before. 2.By the civill Magistrate, in regard of the exercise of it. For we acknowledg our selves (as we have said) accountable to the civill Magistrate, to punish us with civil mulcts, if we abuse our power.
7. It is not aGovernment, that doth rob and spoyl particular Congregations of their just power and priviledges, but helps and strengthens them. For it is not (as the Prelatical was)extrinsecallto the severall Congregations; (which had no vote in the government, nor consent to it, but were sufferers only of it, and under it:) Neither doth it assume to it self thesole power of Ordination and jurisdiction: (as the Prelatical likewise did, and in this, was lordly and tyrannical over all particular Congregations in each Diocess:) But it isintrinsecall to the Congregation, consisting of the Pastors and Elders of every Congregation, governing one another by their own Officers: For we hold (which few of our Adversaries will understand or consider)That all Congregations are equal. No one Congregation over another.That all Ministers are equall, No one Minister, by divine right, over another.
That which concerns all, must be managed by all.
We hold noMother-Church, on which all other Churches should depend. But our Government, so far as it is distinct from the Congregational, consisteth ofdivers Sister-Churches, combined by mutuall concernment, and governing one another in matters of mutuall concernment, by the common agreement of Pastors and Elders, according to that Golden Rule,Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debet. In the Presbyterial Government everyCongregation hath a voyce, by the Pastors and Elders thereof, and so is governed by apower intrinsecall to it self, which cannot in its own nature be tyrannicall. Though there is no power in the world so just, but by abuse may prove tyrannicall.
To illustrate this by a simile.The Presbyterial Government is like the Government of theCityby theCommon-councell,wherein there areCommon-Councell-mensent from everyWard,to judg and determine of matters, that concern the good of the wholeCity;which certainly in its own nature, cannot be prejudicall to the severallWards,but every helpfull and commodious; whereas thePrelatical-Government,was just as if the City should be governed by aHigh-Commissionchosen ofForreiners;and theIndependent-Governmentis just as if everyWardshould undertake to govern it self, divided from one another, and not at all to be under the power and authority of theCommon-councell.
Adde besides this, thePresbyteriall-Governmentdoth give unto people of particular Congregations all that is by Christ left them. For,
1. We allow unto every Congregation a particular Eldership, where it may be had.
2. We impose upon no Congregation a Minister against whom they can give a rationall dissent.
3. We allow the Congregationall Eldership to judg in all matters which concern that particular Church; and to keep from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, all those whom they finde to be ignorant or scandalous.
4. In thegreat Censure of Excommunication, we say, That it ought not to beexecuted against the consent of that particular Congregation, to which the party to be excommunicated belongs. And in all other matters of importance, the Presbyterian-Government hath great respect to that Congregation which is particularly concerned therein. And therefore, it is so far fromrobbing,that it is a greatPillar to uphold and support Congregational Government; as for example:
1. When a particular Congregation is destitute of a Minister, then the Neighbour-Ministers of the Classis help what in them lies to make up that defect, by sending supply in the mean time, and afterwards by joyning in the ordination of another.
2. When there is an insufficient Eldership, then the Classical Presbytery contributes light and strength.
3. When an Eldership proves Heretical, then the Classical Presbytery helps to convince them of their Heresies, which the people are not able ordinarily to do, and thereby to preserve the Congregation from spiritual contagion.
4. When any member is wronged by the Eldership, the Classis, or Synod, contributes ayd and relief, as will appear further in the next particular.
8. The Presbyterial-Governmentis so far from being tyrannical, as that it is the greatest remedy against Church-tyranny, because it is as a city of refuge for all those that are oppressed in their particular Congregations, to fly unto. For under the Congregational-Government, when a brother is (as he conceives) wronged by the major part of the Church of which he is a member, he is for ever lock't up, and hath no authoritative way to relieve himself. (Indeed, he hath moral wayes, by advice and counsel, which are altogether insufficient;) But the Presbyterian-Government is aZoar, and anArkfor the wronged party to fly unto, from the Particular Congregation, to a Classical, Provinciall, or National Assembly. Give us leave to shew you the difference by this example: Suppose in the civil Government every Corporation should plead apower independentfrom aParliament, and challenge to be unaccountable, would not this make as manyParliaments, asCorporations? And if any member should be wronged by the major part of the Corporation to which he belongs, were he not left without remedy? And if these Corporations should cry down theParliamentspower over them as tyrannical, would it not be said, that this is therefore only done, that they themselves might become petty Tyrants? So is it here;
TheCongregationall Governmentis aSpiritual Corporationindependent from all otherEcclesiasticall Assembliesin point ofChurch-power. As thePopeclaims a power over allChurch-Assemblies, so this claims an exemption from the power of allChurch-Assemblies, and cryeth down allClassical,Provinciall, orNationall-Assemblieswith power, as tyrannical; but is not this, that in the mean time it may become absolute, and as it were a petty Tyranny?
There are in the Congregational Government these six great defects, besides many others which we could name.
1. There is (as hath been said) noauthoritative way to relieve a Brother oppressed by the major part of his Congregation, which granted, would make the Government of Christ in theNew Testament, to be inferiour to theJewish Government, in which they had the liberty of Appeals. And also to be against thelight of right reason, in making the same men to be parties and judges in their own cause, (as hath been formerly shewed.)
2. There is noauthoritative wayto heal the major part of a Congregation, when it falls into fundamental errours, which is a great disparagement to the Government of Jesus Christ, and reflects deeply upon the wisdomeand care of the great King of his Church.For it makes Christ to provide a more efficatious remedy to cure an erring member, (to wit, by the great Ordinance of excommunication,) then an erring Church.
3. There is noAuthoritative wayto keep out pluralities of Religions. For if the wholepowerof Church-Government be in theCongregation-Independently, then let a Congregation set up what Religion they think fit, there is noAuthoritative Church-remedyleft to hinder them.
4. There is noAuthoritative way for unity and uniformity in Church-administrations, which doth inevitably lay stumbling blocks before weak Christians, and holds them in suspence, not knowing to what Congregation to joyn, because they see such different wayes of administration of Ordinances.
5. There is norelief when a Congregation is destitute of a Minister, in point of Ordination, but the succeeding Minister is left to be examined and ordained by the people of the Congregation that chose him. And so also when a Congregation becomes hereticall, and in other such cases.
6.If any of their Ministers preach out of their own Congregation, he preacheth only as a gifted brother; neither can he, (as we conceive) according to their own Principles, administer the Sacraments out of his own Congregation, or perform any other act of office. Although we believe some of them do so, contrary to their own principles herein.
9.That the Presbyteriall Government is a Government that tends not at all to the destruction of any, but for the good and edification of all.There are three chief ends of this Government.
1.To keep the Churches of Christ in unity amongst themselves.
2.To keep them in purity and holinesse; it isChristsFan, to purge his floor; and his Beesom to sweep out of his house every thing that offends.
3.To keep them in verity, it isChrists Weeding-hookto weed out heresies; and therefore KingJames(though no great friend to this Government) would often say, that it wasMalleus hæreticorum, a Hammer to beat down Heresies: And we find, that wheresoever it is set up in strength, there the Churches are kept in unity, verity, and purity; and that (which is very observeable) where this Government hath once got possession, it hath for ever after kept out Popery and all Popish Innovations. The Prelatical Government with all its Lordships and Revenues annexed, as it was managed of late years inEngland, was an in-let to Popery, and it hadtantùmnonbrought it in. Butwheresoever thePresbyterian-Governmentis setled, there Popery, root and branch, is plucked up and destroyed, and that without any hope of recovery.
Object.
But it will be objected, that notwithstanding all that hath been said to render the Presbyterial Government amiable and acceptable; yet there are two great Mountains which do lye in the way which do hinder, and (as some say) will for ever hinder people from submitting unto it: The one is,
1.Because it sets up a new officer in theChurch,which is a meer humaneCreature, having no authority from the Word of God, nor was ever heard of in the Church of Christ, tillCalvin's time, & that is the LAY-ELDER.
2.Because it requireth all, of all sorts, to come to theMinisterand theseLay-Eldersto be examined, before they can be admitted to theSacramentof theLords Supper.
Answer.
We cannot deny, but that these two objections are greatRemora's to the Government, and do hinder the general receiving of it, and therefore we shall be a little the larger in answering of them.
For the first of them, we do here freely confesse, that if we were of opinion, as some are, that the Ruling-Elder hath no foundation in the Word of God, but is a meer humane Ordinance brought into the Church only in a prudential way; we should heartily desire the utter abolition of him: For we are not ignorant, that the Ruling Prelate was brought into the Church upon the same account, for the avoiding of Schism and Division, and afterwards proved the great Author and Fomenter of Schism and Division. And if we should decline the Ruling Prelate, and take in the Ruling Elder upon the same prudential grounds, it were just with God to make him as mischievous to the Church, as ever the Ruling Prelate was: And therefore let us consider what may be said out of the Word of God, for the justification of this so muchdecryed Officer: Yet first we cannot but take notice that the name ofLay-Elderwas affixed to this Officer by way of reproach and scorn, by the adversaries of him, and that it ought not to be continued. For though it be evident by Scripture[45], that there is a great difference betwixt the Ministry usually called the Clergy, and the people commonly called the Laity: yet its also as manifest, that the Scripture[46]distinguisheth them not by the names of Clergy and Laity; forasmuch as all Gods people are therein stiled the Lords Clergy, or Inheritance, and the Lord is called their Inheritance. And when persons are duly chosen from amongst the people to be Governours in the Church, as such, they are no longer Lay-men, but Ecclesiastical persons. Andtherefore we profess a dislike of the name Lay-Elder, and conceive they ought to be called either governours in the Church, 1Cor.12.23. or Ruling-Elders, as 1 Tim. 5.17. not because their Office is to rule alone (for the Teaching-Elder is a Ruler also,Heb.13.17. 1Thess.5.12.) but because their Office is only to rule.[47]Now concerning these Ruling-Elders, we confess, that they are Officers somewhat new and strange to the Church ofEngland; yet not new nor strange to the Word of God, nor to the Primitive times, nor (as all know) to theReformed Churches.
First, they arenot new nor strange to the Word of God, neither in the Old Testament, nor in the New. The Jews in theOld Testament, had two sorts ofElders;Elders of the Priests, andElders of the people, suitable to ourteaching and Ruling-Elders; as appears,Jer.19.1. And theseEldersof the people did sit and vote with the Priests and Levites in all their Ecclesiasticall Consistories, and that by divine appointment. That they wereconstituentmembers of the greatSanhedrim, appears, 2Chron.19.8. where we reade,That some of the chief of the Fathers were joyned with the Priests, to judge in the matters if the Lord. And howsoever, many things among the Jews after the captivity, did decline to disorder and confusion; yet we finde even in the dayes of Christ, and his Apostles, That the Elders of the people still sate and voyced in the Councell with the Priests, according to the ancient form, as is clear fromMatth.26.57, 59.Matth.27.1, 12.Matth.16.21.Matth.21.23.Mar.14.43.Luk.22.66. andSaraviahimself,[48]who disputeth so much againstRuling Elders, acknowledgeth thus much:I finde indeed, (saith he)Elders in the Assembly of the Priests of the old Synagogue, which were not Priests; and their suffrages and authorityin all Judgments, were equal with the suffrages of the Priests. But he adds; That these Elders of the people were civill Magistrates; which is a poor shift, directly against many Scriptures, which contradistinguish theseEldersfrom the civilMagistrate; as appears;Act.4.5.Judg.8.14.Deut.5.23.Josh.8.33. 2King.10.15.Ezra10.14. And though it were possible, that some of them might be civill Magistrates, as someEldersamongst Us, are Justices of the Peace: Yet they did not sit under that capacity, in the EcclesiasticalSanhedrim, but as Ecclesiastical Elders.
And that the Jews also hadElders of the people, sitting and voting in their inferiour Consistories, appears (as we humbly conceive) fromAct.13.15.Act.18.8, 17.Mar.5.22. In which places, we read of the Rulers of the Synagogue, who were neither Priests nor Levites, and yet were Rulers in Church-matters, and had power, together with the Priests, of casting men out of the Synagogue, and of ordering Synagogue-worship,Joh.12.42.Act.13.15.
Now thisAssociationof theElders of the people, with the Priest, in the Jewish Church-Government, was by divine appointment; for Moses first instituted it, and afterwardsJehosaphatrestored it, according as they were directed by God, Num. 11.16. 2 Chron. 19.8. And it did belong to theJewish Church, not as it was Jewish, but as it was a Church, and therefore belongeth to the Christian Church, as well as Jewish.For whatsoever agreeth to a Church, as a Church; agreeth to every Church.There was nothing Judaical or typical in this institution, but it was founded upon the light of nature, and right reason, which is alike in all ages.
But leaving the Old Testament, let us consider whatmay be said for the divine right of theRuling-Elder, out of the New Testament. For this purpose, we have already produced three places, which we shall now briefly open; and shew how the Ruling Elder is proved out of them. The places are, 1Cor.12.28.Rom.12.7, 8. 1Tim.5.17.
The first place is, 1Cor.12.28.And God hath set some in the Church, first, Apostles; secondarily, Prophets; thirdly, Teachers; After that, Miracles; then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues; Where we have an enumeration of sundry Officers of the Church; and amongst others, there areHelps,Governments. ByHelps, are meantDeacons; (as not only ourReformedDivines, butChrysostome, andEstius, and others observe,[49]) and byGovernments, are meant theRuling-Elder, which that it may the better appear, we will propound, and prove these six things.
1. That byGovernments, are meantmen exercising Government, theAbstractput for theConcrete. The intent of theApostle, is not to speak ofofficesdistinct frompersons, but ofpersons exercising offices. This appears first, by the beginning of the verse,God hath set some in his Church; this relates to persons, not unto offices. Secondly, by the 29. and 30. verses, where the Apostle speaksconcretively, of those things which he had spoken beforeabstractively.Are all workers of miracles? have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues, &c? and so by consequence,Are all helpers, are all Governours?And therefore it is, that the Syriack instead ofhelps, Governments, reads ithelpers, Governours.[50]
2. That theGovernourhere meant, must needs be aChurch-Governour; for it is expresly said, that he is seated in the Church, and therefore the civil Magistratecannot be meant by this Governour, as some would have it; partly, because this is quite besides the whole intent and scope of the Chapter, treating meerly uponspirituall Church-matters, not at all of secular civil matters; and partly, because the Magistrate, as such, is not placed by God in theChurch, but in theCommon-Wealth: and partly, because the Apostle writes of such Governours, that had at that time actual existence in the Church; and neither then, nor divers hundred years after, were there anyChristian Magistrates.
3. That thisChurch-Governouris seated by God in his Church; It is aplant of Gods own planting, and therefore shall stand firme, maugre all opposition. For it is expresly said,God hath set some in his Church, first Apostles, &c.then helps, then Governments.
4. That this Church-Governour thus seated by God in his Churches, not only aChurch-member, but aChurch-Officer. For though it be a question amongst the learned, whether some of the persons here named, as theworkers of miracles, and those that had thegift of healing, and of tongues, were seated by God, as officers in the Church, and not rather, only as eminent members indued with these eminent gifts; yet it is most certain, that whosoever is seated by God in his Church, as aChurch Governour, must needs be aChurch officer; for the nature of the gift, doth necessarily imply an office. The Greek word[51]for Governments, is a metaphor fromPilots, orShip-masters, governing their ships; (hence the Master of a ship is calledΚυβερνητης, a Governour,Jam.3.4.) 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, which is the direct office of ourRuling-Elder.
5. This Church-Governour thus seated by God in his Church as a Church-officer, is anordinary and perpetuall officer in his Church. Indeed, here is mention made of Officers extraordinary, as Apostles, Prophets; and of gifts extraordinary, as the gift of miracles, healing, and of tongues; but here is also mention made of ordinary Officers, perpetually to abide, asTeachers,Helpers, and theChurch-Governour, or Ruling-Elder. And that this Officer is ordinary and perpetual, appears from the perpetual necessity of him in the Church; for a Church without government, is as a ship without a Pilot, as a Kingdom without a Magistrate, and a world without a Sun.
6. That this Church-Governour thus seated by God in his Church, as a perpetual Officer, is an officercontradistinguished in the Text from theApostles, Prophets, Teachers,and all otherOfficersin theChurch. This appears; 1. By the Apostles manner of expressing these officers in anenumerativeform;First, Apostles; Secondarily, Prophets; Thirdly, Teachers; After that, miracles, then gifts of healing, &c. 2. By the recapitulation, vers. 29, 30.Are all Apostles? Are all Prophets? Are all Teachers? Are all workers of miracles?&c. 3. By the scope of the whole Chapter, which is to set down different gifts and offices in different subjects; It is said, ver. 8, 9.To one is given by the Spirit, the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledg by the same Spirit; to another, faith, &c. And for this purpose, the Apostle draweth a simile from the members of mans body: As there are different members in mans body, and every member hath its different office, and every member stands in need one of another; the Eye cannot say to the Hand, I have no need of thee; nor again, the head to the foot,I have no need of thee, &c. So it is in the Church ministerial, which is the body of Christ. God hath set different Officers in his Church; some ordinary and perpetual; some extraordinary and temporary: And these different Officers have different Offices, some to teach, others to distribute to the poor Saints, others to govern. Are all Teachers? are all Deacons? are all Church-Governours? and these have all need one of another. The Teacher cannot say to the Deacon, I have no need of thee; nor to the Church Governour, I have no need of thee: But if all these Offices were in the Pastor alone, and only, then might he truly say to the Deacon and Ruling-Elder, I have no need of thee. But now God hath so set the members in his body which is his Church, that every member stands in need one of anothers help and support.
Object.
If it be objected, that the Apostles had all these offices and gifts here mentioned, eminently seated in them, for they were Prophets, Teachers, Workers of Miracles; and therefore why may not all these be understood of one and the same person?
Answ.
Though it be true, that the Apostles had eminently all these; yet it is as true, that there are many here named, which had but one of these gifts formally seated in them: And it is also apparent, that some of the persons here named were distinct Officers in the Church, as the Prophet, and the Teacher. Though the Apostles were Prophets and Teachers, yet the Prophet & the Teacher were Officers distinct from the Apostles; and by a parity of Reason, so were the Governors from the Apostle, Prophet, and Teacher; the scope of the Apostle being (as hath been said) to set out distinct Offices in distinct Officers: are all Apostles? are all Prophets? areall Teachers? The sum of what we have said from this Scripture, then, is this,That God hath seated some men in his Church which have a gift and office to govern, which are neither Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, nor Pastors; and therefore they are Ruling-Elders, which is the Officer which we are enquiring after.
Now this Interpretation which we have given, is not only the interpretation of Reformed Divines, bothLutheraneandCalvinists, but of the ancient Fathers, and even the Papists themselves, as appears by the quotations in the Margent.[52]
The second text is,Rom.12.6, 7, 8.Having then gifts differing according to the grace given, whether Prophesie, let us prophesie according to the proportion of Faith; or Ministry, let us wait on our Ministring; 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. He that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.In which words, we have a perfect enumeration of all the ordinary Offices of the Church. These offices are reduced, first, to two general heads,ProphesieandMinistry, and are therefore set down in theAbstract. ByProphesieis meant the faculty of right understanding, interpreting, and expounding the Scriptures. Ministry comprehends all other employments in the Church. Then these generals are subdivided into the special offices contained under them, and are therefore put down in the concrete. UnderProphesieare contained, 1.He that teacheth, that is, the Doctor or Teacher. 2.He that exhorteth, i. e.the Pastor. UnderMinistryare comprized, 1.He that giveth,that is, the Deacon. 2.He that ruleth, that is, the Ruling Elder. 3.He that sheweth mercy, which[53]Office pertained unto them, who in those days had care of the sick: So that in these words, we have theRuling-Elderplainly set down, andcontra-distinguished from theteachingandexhorting Elder(as appears by the distributive particles,ειτε ὁ διδασκων, ειτε ὁ παρακαλων,Whether he that teacheth;Whether he that exhorteth;Whether he that ruleth, &c.) And here likewise we have the divine institution of the Ruling-Elder, for so the words hold forth.Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given unto us; and thus also in the third verse,according as God hath dealt to every man, &c. This officer is the gift of Gods free grace to the Church, for the good of it.
Against this Exposition of the Text, it is objected by those that oppose the divine right of the Ruling-Elder, that the Apostle speaks, in these words, not of several offices in several persons, but of severall Gifts in one and the same person; for he saith,having then Gifts differing according, &c. But we answer:
1. That the wordGiftis often in Scripture taken forOffice; asEph.4.8, 11.When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men; and v. 11.He sheweth what these gifts were, some to be Apostles, some Evangelists, &c.
2. That the Apostle in theProtasisspeaks not of severall Gifts, but of severall Offices, and these not in the same, but in several members,v.4.As we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office.And therefore theapodosismust also be understood not only ofseverall gifts, but ofseverall Offices, and these inseveral subjects. And this further appears by the very similitude which the Apostle here useth, whichis the same he used, 1Cor.12. from the body natural, wherein there are many distinct members, and every member hath its distinct Office; and so it is in the Church of Christ.
3. These gifts here mentioned, and the waiting upon them, do necessarily imply an Office in whomsoever they are; and therefore they are set down emphatically with an Article,ειτε ὁ διδασκων ὁ προισταμενος. He that hath the gift of teaching, and exhorting, and ruling, and waiteth upon this gift, what is he but a Teacher, Pastor, and Ruling-Elder? And this must either be granted, or else we must open a door for all members of the Church, even women, not only to preach and teach, but to rule also, and to wait upon preaching and ruling: This truth is so clear, as that the Papists themselves being convinced of it, do say[54]upon this text, that the Apostle here first speaks of gifts in general; and secondly, applyeth these gifts to Ecclesiastical Officers, v. 6. and afterwards directs his exhortation to all Christians in general.
The third text for the divine right of theRuling-Elder, is, 1Tim.5.17.Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine.For the understanding of which words, we will lay down this rule, That every text of Scripture is to be interpreted according to the literall and grammatical construction; unless it be contrary to the analogie of Faith, or the rule of Life, or the circumstances of the Text: otherwise, we shall make a nose of wax of the Scriptures, and drawquidlibet ex quolibet. Now according to theGrammatical construction, here are plainly held forthtwo sorts of Elders; the one,onely ruling; and the other,also labouring in Word and Doctrine. Give us leave to give you the true analysis of the words.
1. Here is aGenus, a general, and that isElders.
2. Two distinct species, or kinds of Elders,Those that rule well, andthose that labour in word and doctrine; as Pastor and Doctor.
3. Here we have two participles, expressing these two kinds of Elders,Ruling,Labouring, the first do only rule, the second do also labour in Word and Doctrine.
4. Here are two distinct Articles, distinctly annexed to these two participles,ὁι προεστωτες, ὁι κοπιωντες. They that rule, They that labour.
5. Here is aneminent discretive particle, set betwixt these two kinds of Elders; these two participles, these two Articles evidently distinguishing one from the other,viz.μαλισταespecially they that labour, &c. And wheresoever this wordμαλισταis used in the New Testament, it is used, to distinguish thing from thing, or person from person; asGal.6.10.Phil.4.22. 1Tim.5.8. 1Tim.4.10.Tit.1.10. 2Tim.4.13. 2Pet.2.20.Act.20.38. In all which places, the word [especially] is used as a discretive particle, to distinguish one thing from another, or one person from another; and therefore being applyed here to persons, must necessarily distinguish person from person, officer from officer. It is absurd to say, (saith Dr.Whitaker,[55]) that this text is to be understood of one and the same Elder. If a man should say,All the Students in the University are worthy of double honour, especially, They that are Professors of Divinity; He must necessarily understand it of two sorts of Students. Or if a man should say,All Gentlemen that do service for the Kingdom in their Counties, are worthy of double honour, especially they that do service in the Parliament; this must needs be understood of different persons. We are not ignorant, that ArchbishopWhitgift, BishopKing, BishopBilson,BishopDowname, & others, labour to fasten divers other interpretations upon these words, which would be over-tedious here to rehearse. Only thus much we crave leave to say, which we desire may be seriously weighed; That all other senses that are given of these words, are either such as are disagreeing from the literall and Grammatical construction, or such as fall into one of these two absurdities, either to maintain anon-preaching Ministry, or alazy-preaching Ministryto deserve double honour. Archbishop[56]Whitgiftby the Elder that rules well, understands a Reader that is not a Preacher.[57]Dr.King, a Bishop ruling, and not preaching; which is to say, that a non-preaching Minister deserves double honour. Dr.Bilson[58]saith, that the words are to be understood of two sorts of Elders, and that the meaning is, That the Elder that rules well, and preacheth, is worthy of double honour, especially they that labour, that is,that preach abundantly, that doκοπιαν, labour as a Waterman at his Oar; which is as much as if he had said, that alazy Minister, or aseldome-preaching Minister, deserves double honour. For all Preachers are in Scripture requiredκοπιαν,to labour abundantly, 1 Thess.5.11.1 Cor.3.8. where the same word is used that is here expressed. If the Apostle had meant to have distinguished them by their extraordinary labour, he would rather have said,μοχθουντες, thenκοπιωντες, for other-where he usethμοχθος, as a degree of painful labour, aboveκοπος, which is put for common labour,Rom.16.12.[59]Dr.Downameand others, interpret the words of one and the same Elder, thus, The Elders that rule well, are worthy of double honour, especially they that labour; that is, (say they)especially they labouring, or especially because they labour. And so they make their labouring, to be the chief causeof their double honour. But this interpretation is against the literal meaning, for the Greek is notει κοπιωσιν,if they labour, butμαλιστα ὁι κοπιωντες,especially they that labour. Here is a participle with an Article, and adiscretive particle, which can never be rightly and literally translatedcausatively. And therefore we conclude, together with our Reformed Divines[60], that this text according to the proper and Grammatical construction of it, doth hold forth unto all unprejudiced Christians, a Ruling Elder, distinct from a teaching Elder, which is the thing we undertook to prove.
Besides these three Scriptures thus expounded, we shall briefly offer one more; and that is, Matth. 18.17. where the offended Brother is bidto tell the Church, &c. In which words, the whole power of excommunication is placed by Christ in theChurch. The great question is, what is meant by Church? Here we take for granted: 1. That by Church, is not meant the civil Magistrate, asErastusfondly imagineth; for this is utterly contrary to the purpose of Christ, and the aym of that discipline here recommended to be used, which is thegaining of our brother unto repentance; whereas the aym of the civil Magistrate, is not the spiritual good properly and formally of the offender, but the publique good of the Common-Wealth. And besides, it is a language unknown in Scripture, to call the Magistrate the Church; and it is an exposition purposely invented, to overthrow all Ecclesiastical government.
2. That by Church, is meantprimarily and especiallythe particular Congregation; we do not sayonely, but firstly and especially. Hence we argue; If the power of Excommunication be placed in the particular Church, then either in the Minister alone, or in theMinister and whole Congregation, or in the Minister and Elders chosen by the congregation.
But not in the Minister alone, who being but one man, can no more be called a Church, then one man can be called many, or a member called a body. For one person cannot be called a Church, (saithBellarminehimself[61],) seeing the Church is the people and Kingdome of God. It is certain, that the Church here spoken of, is a certain number met together; for it is said,Where two or three are gathered together, &c.
Nor in the Minister and whole Congregation; for God who is the God of order, not of confusion, hath never committed the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, to a promiscuous multitude; the Scripture[62]divides a Congregation into Rulers and Saints, into Governours, and governed; and if all be Governours, who will be left to be governed? And besides, if the collective body of a Church be the Governours, then women and servants must govern as well as others.
And therefore we conclude, that by Church, must needs be meant, the Minister and Ruling-Elders, which are the Officers we are enquiring after.
And this is no new interpretation, but agreed unto by ancient and modern Writers.Chrysostomesaith[63], by Church, is meant theπροεστωτες,the Rulers of the Church, Camer.[64]the Colledg of Presbyters; others, theEcclesiacall Senate. These are called a Church, for four Reasons:
1. Because it is usual in the Old Testament, (to which our Saviour here alludeth, as appears by the words Publican and Heathen,) to call the Assembly of Princes and Elders a Church, Numb. 35.12, 24, 25. with Deut. 1.16. 1 Chron. 13.2, 3. with 28.1, 2. & 29.1, 6. Deut. 31.28, 30. 1 King. 8.1, 2, 55. Num. 5.2. compared with Levit. 13.15.
2. Because they manage Church affaires in the name of Christ, and of the Church, and are servants of the Church, as well as of Christ.
3. Because they are, as it were, the eyes and ears of the Church; and therefore as the body is said to see or hear, when as the eyes and eares alone do see and hear; so the Church is said to see, hear, and act, that which thisSenate Ecclesiasticalldoth see, hear, and act.
4. Because they represent the Church; and it is a common form of speech, to give the name of that which is represented, to that which represents it; as we say, that to be done by the whole Kingdome, which is done by a full and free Parliament. Hence we might further argue:
If the Colledge of Presbyters represent the Church, then it must be made up of Ruling-Elders, as well as Ministers.For Ministers alone cannot represent the Church; the Church consisting not of Ministers alone, but of Ministers and people, who are part of the Church as well as Ministers, and are so called,Act.15.3, 4.
This is all we shall say, for the Scriptural part.
As for thePrimitive times of the Church, we should have wholly waved the mention of any thing about them, were it not for the base calumnies & reproaches which the Prelatical party cast upon the Ruling-Elder, in saying, That it isthe new fangled device of Calvin at Geneva; and never known in the Church of Christ before his dayes. There is a Bishop|Episcopacy by Divine right.|thatmakes offer to forfeit his life to justice, and his reputation to shame, if any man living can shew, that ever there was a Ruling-Elder in the Christian world, tillFarellandViretfirst created them. But he hath been abundantly answered bySmectymnuus, insomuch, that whereas in his Episcopacy by Divine Right, heboldly averreth, that the name of the Elders of the Church, comprehendeth none but preachers,[65]and that therefore none but they may be calledSeniores Ecclesiæ, Elders of the Church; though some others haply may have the title ofSeniores populi, Elders of the people, because of theircivill Authority. Yet notwithstanding afterward, the same Bishop in his[66]reply toSmectymnuusacknowledgeth, that besidesPastors and Doctors, and besidesMagistrates and Elders of the City, there are to be found in Antiquity,Seniores Ecclesiastici, Ecclesiastical Eldersalso; only he alledgeth, they were but as our Church-Wardens, or rather, as our vestry-men; whereas in truth,They were Judges in Ecclesiasticall controversies, and did assist the Pastor in ruling and governing the Church; witnesse that famous place in[67]Ambrose, which testifies,that both in the Jewish and in the Christian Church, there were these Ecclesiasticall Rulers. This is also the judgment of[68]Tertullian,[69]Origen,[70]Basil,[71]Optatus,[72]Hierome,[73]Augustine,[74]Gregorythe great, and divers others cited byJustellusin his Annotations inCan. Eccl. Affricanæ, and byVoetius, and bySmectymnuus, and by the Author of theAssertion of the Scotch Discipline, some of which are rehearsed in the Margent. We will conclude this Discourse, with the confession of ArchbishopWhitgift, a great Writer against the Presbyterial-Government;I know (saith he) that in the Primitive Church, they had in every Church Seniors, to whom the Government of the Church was committed, but that was before there was any Christian Prince or Magistrate.
And therefore, let not our respective Congregations suffer themselves to be abused any longer with a falsebelief, that theRuling-Elderis a new device, and anOfficernever known in theChurch of God, norWord of God. For we have sufficiently (as we conceive) proved it to be warranted by the Word, and to have been of use in the purer times of the Church.
Three things we shall desire to adde, as a conclusion of this discourse.
1.That there are prints of the Ruling-Elder remaining amongst us even at this day; for as theOverseersof every Parish, have aresemblance of the Deacon; so theChurch-wardenhath somefoot-stepsof ourRuling-Elder; though we must needs confess, that thisOffice hath been much abused; and we could desire it might be laid aside, and the trueScripture-Ruling-Elderset up in his place.
2. That the Prelatical Divines,[75]which are such great adversaries to theRuling-Elder, do yet notwithstanding, hold and prove, that men of abilities which are not Ministers, are to be admitted intoGenerall Councels; because that in the Synod ofJerusalem, not only theApostles, butEldersandBrethrendid sit and vote, because this was practised in theOld Testament; and because that this was practised in the Councels held afterwards in the Church of Christ, as appears out ofEusebius,SozomenandTheodoret, and by the subscriptions of those Councels done by men, not Ministers, as well as others.
Hence we might argue;
If other men, besides Ministers, are by Gods word, even in the judgment of the Prelaticall Divines, to be admitted into the greatest Assemblies, and Councels of the Church, much more are they by the same right to be admitted into particular Congregations, to sit and vote with the Minister in the Government of the Church.
3. Adde thirdly, that even in the Bishops days, for these many hundred years, there have beenRuling-Eldersin the Church; for theChancellours,Commissaries,Officials, and such others, were all of themGovernours of the Church, and had thepower of suspension and excommunication; and yet were few of them, if any,Ministers of the Word: And it seems to us, to be a greatcurse of God, that lyeth upon mens spirits, that could willingly submit toChancellours&Commissaries, who did nothing else butpick their purses, and tyrannize over their bodies and estates, and yet will not submit unto theRuling-Eldernow established, whoseeks no other interest, but the interest of Christ, and medleth not with mens bodies or estates, and desireth nothing but to be helpfull to the Ministers of Christ, to keep their Congregations in unity, piety, and verity. This is all we shall say, in answer to the first Objection.
The second grand Objection against thePresbyteriall-Government, is, that it requires all, of all sorts, to come to theMinisterandEldersto be examined, before they can be admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which is (as some ignorantly say) to bring in auricular confession again into the Church, to bring the people of God into a spirituall slavery and bondage unto the Eldership, and which is an usurpation more then prelaticall, and a tyrannicall domineering over mens consciences, and hath no footing in the Word; for the Scripture saith,Let a man examine himself, and so let him eate, &c. It is not said,Let him first be examined by the Ministers and Elders: the Scripture addes,He that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not to the Eldership. And why then must a man submit himself unto the examination of the Eldership?and how come the Eldership to be guilty of another mans unworthy receiving? It is further added by some, that for their parts, they will willingly come before the Minister, and submit to his examination, but they will rather for ever be without the Sacrament, then submit to come before theLay-Elder, for whom, they see no warrant in the Word of God: Others say, that they will freely yield that theyounger sort, that never have received the Sacrament, should present themselves to theEldershipto be catechized, and instructed, and fitted for the Sacrament; but they will never yield, that old men and women, that heretofore have divers times received, should now in their old age be required to come, to be examined not only by their Minister, but by the Elders also, who oftentimes are very unfit for that Office: Others adde, that though some Ministers rigidly keep all from the Sacrament, that will not come before the Elderships; yet there are others, that arePresbyterians, and have Elders chosen, that act without them, and will receive us to the Sacrament without comming before them. These, and such like Objections, are brought against this way of Examination, that is so happily begun amongst us. Now that we might satisfie these Objections, and make good our practice out of the Word of God, we shall briefly do these four things.
1.We will declare what our practice is in this particular.
2.We will prove, that he that will come to the Sacrament, ought first to submit to examination.
3.That the power to examine, belongs not to the Minister alone, nor to the Minister with the whole Church, but to the Minister and Elders.
4.We will answer the Objections, that are brought against this way of examination by the Minister and Elders.
For the first of these, we say;
First, That thePresbyterial-Government, doth not precisely & peremptorily require of those that come to the Sacrament, that they should first be examined by questions and answers, but if any man or woman shall make a good profession of their Faith in a continued discourse, without beingasked any questions, it will be as well accepted, as if they were examined by particular questions.
Secondly, that thisexaminationorprofessionis not required every time men come tothe Sacrament, but onlyat their first admission.
3. That he that is duly admitted into compleatChurch-fellowship in the Presbyterian-way, is not only by vertue of his first admission, freed from allafter-examination(unless it be when he falls into any scandalous transgression) in the Congregation, to which he belongs; but he is inabled by a certificate from his Eldership, to receive the Sacrament in any Church of the Christian world of the same constitution, without any new examination.
Fourthly, that the reason why ancient men and women, and others, that have formerly under thePrelatical Governmentbeen admitted to the Sacrament, are now required to submit to examination, before they can be again admitted, doth notproceed from the nature of the Presbyterian Government, but chiefly from the neglect of the Prelaticall: For it is so evident, that it cannot be denyed, that under the former Government, men and women of all sorts, though never so ignorant or scandalous, were in most places admitted promiscuously to the Sacrament without any examination. Now this grievous disorder, and great iniquity in the Prelatical Government, is the principal cause of all the trouble we meetwithal in ours; and we desire earnestly our people to distinguish with us, between a Church deformed, and reformed. If the Churches of God inEnglandwere once so reformed, that there were an orderly admission, by examination or profession, unto the Lords Table by the Eldership; then we should require none to come to examination, but such only as never yet communicated, whom we would endeavour to train up in knowledge, by catechizing, and by Gods blessing, make fit in time, to be partakers of such heavenly mysteries. But now because our Churches, through want of Discipline, are deformed, & all sorts have been sinfully admitted without tryal: Hence it is, that we are forced, even out of tender regard to the souls of old people, and to free our selves from the guilt of their sins, and out of desire to keep the Sacrament from prophanation, to examine even aged people (many of whom we find very ignorant) and all sorts as have been formerly admitted (many of whom we find to be very unworthy) that so we may bring our Congregations into Gospel-order. This we say,we are absolutely necessitated to do upon conscientious grounds, which we cannot recede from, though we find it very prejudiciall to our selves, and to our Government. But in the mean time, we desire our respective Congregations to consider, that this is a necessity, that the iniquity of former times hath brought upon us; and that it doth not flow from the principles of our Government, but only from the negligence and sinfulness of Prelatical Governours.
The second thing propounded, is to prove, that he that will come to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, ought first to submit to examination, and tryal, as it hath been formerly explained: For this purpose, we will laydown these three Propositions.
1.It is the Will of Jesus Christ, that no grosly ignorant, or scandalous person should come to the Sacrament.
2.That it is the Will of Jesus Christ, that those who are grosly ignorant, or scandalous, should be kept from the Sacrament (if they offer to come) by the Officers of the Church.
3.That it is the Will of Jesus Christ, that Church-Governours have some sufficient way to find out who are such ignorant and scandalous persons, that they may be kept away.