DIVINE RIGHT

CHURCH GOVERNMENT:

WHEREIN IT IS PROVED

THAT THE PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT, BY PREACHING AND RULING
ELDERS, IN SESSIONAL, PRESBYTERIAL, AND SYNODICAL
ASSEMBLIES, MAY LAY THE ONLY LAWFUL CLAIM TO A
DIVINE RIGHT, ACCORDING TO THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

TO WHICH IS ADDED

AN APPENDIX,

CONTAINING

EXTRACTS FROM SOME OF THE BEST AUTHORS WHO HAVE WRITTEN
ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT,

CONCERNING THE SCRIPTURAL QUALIFICATIONS AND DUTIES OF CHURCH
MEMBERS;
THE SOLE RIGHT OF GOSPEL MINISTERS TO PREACH THE GOSPEL; THE
PEOPLE’S DIVINE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN PASTORS;

TOGETHER WITH

AN ABSTRACT OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE GREAT DR. OWEN
(THOUGH A PROFESSED INDEPENDENT)
IN FAVOUR OF THE DIVINE RIGHT OF THE OFFICE OF THE RULING
ELDER.

NEW YORK:
R. MARTIN & CO., 26 JOHN-STREET.

CONTENTS.

THE EDITOR TO THE
READER.

PREFACE

THE DIVINE RIGHT OF CHURCH
GOVERNMENT.

PART I.

CHAPTER I.

CHAPTER II.

CHAPTER III.

CHAPTER IV.

CHAPTER V.

CHAPTER VI.

CHAPTER VII.

PART II.

CHAPTER I.

CHAPTER II.

CHAPTER III.

CHAPTER IV.

CHAPTER V.

CHAPTER VI.

CHAPTER VII.

CHAPTER VIII.

CHAPTER IX.

SECTION I.

SECTION II.

CHAPTER X.

SECTION I.

SECTION II.

CHAPTER XI.

SECTION II.

SECTION III.

CHAPTER XII.

CHAPTER XIII.

CHAPTER XIV.

CHAPTER XV.

FOOTNOTES

APPENDICES

NO. I.

NO. II.

NO. III.

NO. IV.

NO. V.

NO. VI.

CONCLUSION.

FOOTNOTES

THE EDITOR TO THE READER.

After what the authors of the following Treatise have said in
their preface, the Editor judges it unnecessary for him to detain
the reader long with any observations of his upon the subject. He,
however, could sincerely wish that the friends of Christ would pay
that attention to the government and discipline of his Church which
it justly deserves. Although this subject should not be placed
among the things essential to the being of a Christian; yet if it
be found among the things that Christ has commanded, it is at our
peril if we continue wilfully ignorant of, or despise it. He has
expressly declared, that he who breaks one of the least of
his commandments, and teacheth men to do so, shall be called least
in the kingdom of heaven. It is an opinion too common, that if we
believe the essentials of religion, there is no occasion for
so much preciseness about the forms of church government, which are
only circumstantials, as there will be no inquiry made about
these at the tribunal of Christ. But whatever relative importance
the things of religion may have, when compared with one another, we
ought to reckon nothing which God hath appointed, nothing which
Jesus hath ratified with his blood, nothing which the Holy Spirit
hath indited, so circumstantial, as to be unworthy of our
serious regard. It is at least very rash, if not presumptuous, to
say, that nothing about the circumstantials of religion will be
inquired into at the tribunal of Christ. God has expressly said,
that every work, good or evil, every idle word, and every deed done
in the body, shall be brought into judgment; and false worshippers
will, perhaps, find that their form of worship consisted in
something worse than idle words, or sinful words either, even in
sinful deeds, for which they will be accountable at the judgment.
As Christ laid down his life for his people, has instructed them,
and has set a hedge about all that they have, it would be most
ungrateful to requite him with pouring the highest contempt on his
kingly honor and authority; and when his worship is polluted, his
truth perverted, and the walls of his New Testament Zion broken
down, to care for none of those things. Government and discipline
are the hedge of his garden, the Church; and how will what men call
the essentials of religion remain in their glory, when this is
broken down, the present state of affairs can sufficiently attest,
when the most damnable errors are propagated with impunity.

In our times the enemies of the scriptural order of the house of
God are very numerous and very active, exerting all their power to
break down the carved work of God’s sanctuary. The present spirit
for novelty and innovation, together with the rage for infidelity
so prevalent, strongly favors the opposition made to every thing
which has a tendency to bind men closely to God, to his truths, to
the purity of his worship and ordinances, or to one another by a
holy profession. The design, therefore, of republishing this
Treatise is to assist Presbyterians of all denominations in the
understanding of those passages of Scripture upon which their wall
is built, that they be not led aside by the cunning speeches of
false teachers, whereby they deceive and draw aside the hearts of
the simple.

This work was first published at London, at the time when the
controversy between the Presbyterians and ancient Independents ran
very high, and every intelligent and unprejudiced reader will see,
that the Holy Scriptures have been carefully perused, accurately
compared, wisely collected, and judiciously explained, in order to
evince that the Presbyterian government has the only lawful claim
to a divine right, and is the only form appointed by Christ in his
Church. It is, therefore, to be wished, that all his people would
endeavor, in the strength of Divine grace, to observe the laws of
his house, and to walk in all his ordinances and commandments
blameless.

Considerable pains have been taken to make this edition more
easily understood by common readers than the former, and yet
several difficult and hard words have passed unnoticed. The Latin
quotations from the Fathers have been omitted, because they contain
nothing materially different from what is in the body of the work,
and modern Independents pay little regard to any human authorities
but their own. It was proposed to have added a few extracts from
Messrs. Rutherford and Gillespie, but upon looking into their works
nothing of consequence was observed, that tended to cast any new
light upon the subject. It is hoped, however, that the Appendix is
filled up with extracts from other authors upon subjects of
considerable importance, and very necessary for these times,
concerning the scriptural qualifications and duties of church
members; the divine right of the gospel ministry; the people’s
divine right to choose their own pastors; with an abstract of Dr.
Owen’s arguments in favor of the divine right of the ruling elder:
and as there are many serious Christians who have not a capacity to
take up and retain a long chain of reasoning, a summary of the
whole Treatise is given by way of question and answer as a
conclusion.

The Editor is not to be understood as approving of, or
vindicating every single sentiment, or mode of expression, used in
this Treatise: at the same time, next to the Holy Scriptures, he
recommends it as one of the best defences of presbytery which he
has seen.

That it may be blessed of God for informing the ignorant,
settling the wavering, and establishing the believers of the
present Truth, is the earnest desire of,

Christian reader,

Your humble servant in the Gospel,

T.H.

Paisley, 28th February, 1799.

PREFACE

TO THE PIOUS AND JUDICIOUS READER.

CHRISTIAN READER:

Thou hast in the ensuing treatise, 1st, a brief delineation of
the nature of a divine right, wherein it consists, and how many
ways a thing may be accounted of divine right, according to the
Scriptures; as also, 2d, a plain and familiar description of that
church government which seems to have the clearest divine right for
it, and (of all other contended for) to be the most consonant and
agreeable to the word of Christ; which description (comprehending
in itself the whole frame and system of the government) is in the
several branches thereof explained and confirmed by testimonies or
arguments from Scripture; more briefly, in particulars which are
easily granted; more largely, in particulars which are commonly
controverted; yet as perspicuously and concisely in both as the
nature of this unusual and comprehensive subject insisted upon
would permit. Things are handled rather by way of positive
assertion, than of polemical dissertation, (which too commonly
degenerates into verbal strifes, 1 Tim. vi. 3, 4; 2 Tim. ii. 23;
and vain-jangling, 1 Tim. i. 6,) and where any dissenting opinions
or objections are refuted, we hope it is with that sobriety,
meekness, and moderation of spirit, that any unprejudiced judgment
may perceive, that we had rather gain than grieve those who dissent
from us; that we endeavor rather to heal up than to tear open the
rent; and that we contend more for truth than for victory.

To the publication hereof we have been inclinable (after much
importunity) principally upon deliberate and serious consideration
of, 1st, the necessity of a treatise of this kind; 2d, the
advantage likely to accrue thereupon; and, 3d, the seasonable
opportunity of sending it abroad at such a time as this is.

I. The necessity of a treatise of this nature, is evident and
urgent. For,

1. We hold ourselves obliged, not only by the common duty of our
ministerial calling, but also by the special bond of our solemn
covenant with God, especially in Art. 1, to bend all our best
endeavors to help forward a reformation of religion according to
the word of God, which can never be effected without a due
establishment of the scripture-government and discipline in the
Church of God. And to make known what this government is from the
law and testimony, by preaching or writing, comes properly and
peculiarly within the sphere of our place and vocation.

2. A cloud of darkness and prejudice, in reference to this
matter of church government, too generally rests upon the judgments
and apprehensions of men (yea of God’s own people) among us,
either, 1st, through the difficulty or uncommonness of this matter
of church government, (though ancient and familiar in other
reformed churches, yet new and strange to us;) or, 2d, through the
strange misrepresentations that are made hereof, by those that are
small friends to the true presbyterial government, or that are
enemies to all church government whatsoever; or, 3d, through the
different opinions about church government, which are to be found
among pious people and ministers: by all which the weak and
unstable minds of many are cast into a maze of many confused
thoughts and irresolutions.

3. Though many learned treatises have been published, some
whereof have positively asserted, others have polemically
vindicated divers parts of church government, and the divine right
thereof, yet hitherto no treatise of this nature is extant,
positively laying open the nature of a divine right, what it is,
and a system of that government, which is so, and proving both by
the Scriptures; without which, how shall the judgments and
consciences of men be satisfied, that this is that church
government, according to the word of God, which they have
covenanted to endeavor to promote, and whereto they are obliged to
submit? And since it is our lot to travel in an unbeaten path, we,
therefore, promise to ourselves, from all sober and judicious
readers, the greater candor and ingenuity in their measuring of our
steps and progress herein.

II. The advantage which may probably accrue hereupon, we hope
shall be manifold: For, 1. Who can tell but that some of them, that
in some things are misled and contrary-minded, may be convinced and
regained? and it will be no small reward of our labors if but one
erring brother may be brought back. 2. Some satisfaction may
redound to such as are of doubtful, unresolved minds, by removing
of their doubts and scruples, and ripening of their resolutions, to
settle more safely in point of church government. 3. Those that as
yet are unseen in the matter of church government, or that want
money to buy, or leisure to read many books upon this subject, may
here have much in a little, and competently inform themselves of
the whole body of the government. 4. Consequently upon the
attaining of the former ends, the work of reformation will be much
facilitated and smoothed, the hearts of the people being prepared
for the Lord and his ordinances. 5. The present attempt (if it
reach not to that completeness and satisfactoriness which is
desired) may yet incite some of our brethren of more acute and
polished judgments to embark themselves in some further discoveries
for the public benefit of the Church. 6. But though it should fall
out that in all the former we should be utterly disappointed, we
shall have this peace and comfort upon our own spirits, that we
have not hid our talent in the earth, nor neglected to bear witness
to this part of Christ’s truth, touching the government of his
Church, by his kingly power, wherein Christ was opposed so much in
all ages, Psalm ii. 1, 2, 3; Luke xix. 14, 27; Acts iv., and for
which Christ did suffer so much in a special and immediate manner,
as1 some have observed. For
this end Christ came into the world, (and for this end we came into
the ministerial calling,) to bear witness to the truth.

III. Finally, the present opportunity of publishing a treatise
on this subject doth much incite and encourage us therein. For at
this time we are beginning, in this province of London, (and we
hope the whole kingdom will, with all convenient speed, and due
caution, second us,) to put that covenanted church government into
actual execution, which we have a long time intended in our
deliberate resolutions. So that generally we shall be engaged in
the government one way or other, either as acting in it as the
church officers, or as submitting to it as church members: now, how
shall any truly conscientious person, either act in it, or conform
and submit unto it with faith, judgment, and alacrity, till he be
in some competent measure satisfied of the divine right
thereof?

Will mere prudence, without a divine right, be a sufficient
basis to erect the whole frame of church government upon, as some
conceive? Prudentials, according to general rules of Scripture, may
be of use in circumstantials, but will bare prudentials in
substantials also satisfy either our God, our covenant, our
consciences, or our end in this great work of reformation? What
conscientious person durst have a hand in acting as a ruling elder,
did he not apprehend the word of God holds forth a divine right for
the ruling elder? Who durst have a hand in the censures of
admonishing the unruly, excommunicating the scandalous and
obstinate, and of restoring the penitent, were there not a divine
right hereof revealed in the Scripture, &c. Now, therefore,
that ruling elders, and the rest of the people, may begin this
happy work conscientiously, judiciously, cheerfully, in some
measure perceiving the divine right of the whole government,
wherein they engage themselves, cleared by Scripture, we hope, by
God’s blessing, that this small tract will afford some seasonable
assistance, which will be unto us a very acceptable recompense.

Thus far of the nature of this treatise, and the grounds of our
publishing thereof. In the next place, a few doubts or scruples
touching church government here asserted, being succinctly
resolved, we shall preface no further.

Doubt 1. Many scruple, and much question the divine right
of the whole frame of church government; as, 1. Whether there be
any particular church government of divine right? 2. What that
government is? 3. What church officers or members of elderships are
of divine right? 4. Whether parochial or congregational elderships
be of divine right? 5. Whether classical presbyteries be of divine
right? 6. Whether provincial, national, and ecumenical assemblies
be of divine right? 7. Whether appeals from congregational to
classical, provincial, national, and ecumenical assemblies, and
their power to determine upon such appeals, be of divine right? 8.
Whether the power of censures in the congregational eldership, or
any other assembly, be of divine right? 9. Whether there be any
particular rules in the Scripture directing persons or assemblies
in the exercise of their power? 10. Whether the civil magistrates,
or their committees’ and commissioners’ execution of church
censures be contrary to that way of government which Christ hath
appointed in his Church?

Resol. To all or most of these doubts some competent
satisfaction may be had from this treatise ensuing, if seriously
considered. For, 1. That there is a church government of divine
right, now under the New Testament, declared in Scripture, is
proved, Part I. 2. What that government is in particular, is
evidenced both by the description of church government, and the
confirmation of the parts thereof by Scripture, Part. II. chap. 1,
and so to the end of the book: whereby it is cleared that the
presbyterial government is that particular government which is of
divine right, according to the word of God. 3. What ordinary church
officers, (members of the several elderships,) are of divine right,
is proved, Part II, chap. 11, sect. 1, viz. pastors and teachers,
with ruling elders. 4. That parochial or congregational elderships,
consisting of preaching and ruling elders, are of divine right, is
manifested, Part II. chap. 12. 5. That classical presbyteries, or
assemblies, and their power in church government, are of divine
right, is demonstrated, Part II. chap. 13. 6. That synodical
assemblies, or councils in general, (consequently provincial,
national, or ecumenical councils in particular,) and their power in
church government, are of divine right, is cleared, Part II. chap.
14. 7. That appeals from congregational elderships, to classical
and synodical assemblies, from lesser to greater assemblies
associated, and power in those assemblies to determine
authoritatively in such, appeals, are of divine right, is proved,
Part II. chap. 15. 8. That the power of church censures is in
Christ’s own church officers only as the first subject and proper
receptacle there of divine right, is cleared, Part II. chap. 11,
sect. 2, which officers of Christ have and execute the said power
respectively, in all the ruling assemblies, congregational,
classical, or synodical. See section 3, and chap. 12, 13, 14, 15.
9. That the Scriptures hold forth, touching church government, not
only general, but also many particular rules, sufficiently
directing both persons and assemblies how they should duly put in
execution their power of church, government. This is made good,
Part II. chap. 4; and those that desire to know which are these
rules in particular, may consult those learned2 centuriators of Magdeburg, who have
collected and methodically digested, in the very words of the
Scripture, a system of canons or rules, touching church government,
as in the preface to those rules they do profess, saying, touching
things pertaining to the government of the Church, the apostles
delivered certain canons, which we will add in order, &c., the
very heads of which would be too prolix to recite. 10. Finally,
that neither the supreme civil magistrate, as such, nor
consequently any commissioner or committees whatsoever, devised and
erected by his authority, are the proper subject of the formal
power of church government, nor may lawfully, by any virtue of the
magistratical office, dispense any ecclesiastical censures or
ordinances: but that such undertakings are inconsistent with that
way of government which Christ hath appointed in his Church, is
evidenced, Part II. chap. 9, well compared with chap. 11.

Doubt 2. But this presbyterial government is likely to be
an arbitrary and tyrannical government, forasmuch as the presbyters
of the assembly of divines and others (who, Diotrephes-like,
generally affect domineering) have desired an unlimited power,
according to their own judgments and prudence, in excommunicating
men from the ordinances in cases of scandal.

Resol. A heinous charge, could it be proved against the
presbyterial government. Now for wiping off this black aspersion,
consider two things, viz: I. The imputation itself, which is unjust
and groundless; II. The pretended ground hereof, which is false or
frivolous.

I. The imputation itself is, that the presbyterial government is
likely to be an arbitrary and tyrannical government. Ans.
How unjust this aspersion! I. What likelihood of arbitrary conduct
in this government, that is, that it should be managed and carried
on according to men’s mere will and pleasure? For, 1. The
presbyterial government (truly so called) is not in the nature of
it any invention of man, but an ordinance of Christ; nor in the
execution of it to be stated by the will of man, but only by the
sure word of prophecy, the sacred Scriptures. This government
allows not of one church officer at all; nor of one ruling assembly
made up of those officers; nor of one censure or act of power to be
done by any officer or assembly; nor of one ordinance to be managed
in the Church of God, but what are grounded upon, and warranted by
the word of God. This government allows no execution of any part
thereof, neither in substantials, nor circumstantials, but
according to the particular, or at least, the general rules of
Scripture respectively. And can that be arbitrary, which is not at
all according to man’s will, but only according to Christ’s rule,
limiting and ordering man’s will? Or is not the Scripture a better
and safer provision against all arbitrary government in the Church,
than all the ordinances, decrees, statutes, or whatsoever municipal
laws in the world of man’s devising, can be against all arbitrary
government in the commonwealth? Let not men put out their own eyes,
though others would cast a mist before them. 2. Who can justly
challenge the reformed presbyterial churches for arbitrary
proceedings in matters of church government, practised in some of
them for above these fourscore years? Or where are their accusers?
3. Why should the presbyterial government, to be erected in
England, be prejudged as arbitrary, before the government be put in
execution? When arbitrary conduct appears, let the adversaries
complain. 4. If any arbitrary conduct hath been discovered in any
reformed church, or shall fall out in ours, it is or shall be more
justly reputed the infirmity and fault of the governors, than of
the government itself.

II. What probability or possibility of tyranny in the
presbyterial government? For, 1. Who should tyrannize, what
persons, what ruling assemblies? Not the ministers; for, hitherto
they have given no just cause of any suspicion, since this
government was in hand: and they are counterpoised in all
assemblies with a plurality of ruling elders, it being already
studiously3 provided that
there be always two ruling elders to one minister: if there be
still two to one, how should they tyrannize if they would? Neither
ministers nor ruling elders are likely to tyrannize, if due care be
taken by them, whom it doth concern, to elect, place, and appoint,
conscientious, prudent, and gracious ministers and ruling elders
over all congregations. Nor yet the ruling assemblies, lesser or
greater; for in the presbyterial government all lesser ruling
assemblies (though now at first, perhaps, some of them consisting
of more weak and less experienced members) are subordinate to the
greater authoritatively; and persons aggrieved by any
mal-administrations have liberty to appeal from inferior to
superior: and the very national assembly itself, though not
properly subordinate, yet is it to be responsible to the supreme
political magistracy in all their proceedings so far as subjects
and members of the commonwealth.

III. How can they tyrannize over any? Or in what respects? Not
over their estates: for they claim no secular power at all over
men’s estates, by fines, penalties, forfeitures, or confiscations.
Not over their bodies, for they inflict no corporal punishment, by
banishment, imprisonment, branding, slitting, cropping, striking,
whipping, dismembering, or killing. Not over their souls; for, them
they desire by this government to gain, Matth. xviii. 15; to edify,
2 Cor. x. 8, and xiii. 10; and to save, 1 Cor. v. 5. Only this
government ought to be impartial and severe against sin, that the
flesh may be destroyed, 1 Cor. v. 5. It is only destructive to
corruption, which is deadly and destructive to the soul. Thus the
imputation itself of arbitrary conduct and tyranny to the
presbyterial government is unjust and groundless.

II. The pretended ground of this aspersion is false and
frivolous. The presbyters of the Assembly of Divines, and others
(Diotrephes-like, affecting pre-eminence) have desired an
unlimited power, according to their own prudence and judgment, in
keeping men from the ordinances in cases of scandal not enumerated.
Ans. 1. The presbyters of the Assembly and others, are so
far from the domineering humor of Diotrephes, that they could
gladly and heartily have quitted all intermeddling in church
government, if Jesus Christ had not by office engaged them thereto;
only to have dispensed the word and sacraments would have procured
them less hatred, and more case. 2. They desired liberty to keep
from the ordinances, not only persons guilty of the scandals
enumerated, but of all such like scandals, (and to judge which are
those scandals, not according to their minds unlimitedly, but
according to the mind of Christ in his word, more sure than all
ordinances or acts of Parliament in the world.) And was this so
hideous a desire? This liberty was desired, not for themselves, but
for well-constituted elderships. As great power was granted by the
very service-book to every single curate; (see the Rubric before
the communion.) A perfect enumeration and description of scandals
can be made in no book but in the Scriptures; and when all is done,
must we not refer thither? All scandals are punishable, as well as
any, and to inflict penalties on some, and not on others as bad or
worse, is inexcusable partiality. Why should not presbyteries duly
constituted, especially the greater, be accounted, at least, as
faithful, intelligent, prudent, and every way as competent judges
of what is scandal, and what not, according to the Scriptures, and
that without arbitrary conduct and tyranny, as any civil court,
committees, or commissioners whatsoever? Ruling church assemblies
are intrusted with the whole government in the church, consequently
with this, and every part. The best reformed churches allow to
their presbyteries power to keep from the ordinances scandalous
persons, not only for scandals enumerated, but for scandals of like
nature not enumerated, with some general clause or other, as may
appear in eight several churches, according to the allegations here
in the foot-note;4 and,
therefore, no new thing is desired, but what is commonly practised
in the reformed churches, whom we should imitate so far as they
lead us on towards purity and perfection.

Doubt 3. But the independent government seems to be a far
more excellent way, and it is embraced by many godly and precious
people and ministers.

Ans. 1. What true excellency is there at all in the whole
independent government, save only in those particulars wherein it
agrees with the presbyterial government; and only so far as it is
presbyterial? Therefore, the presbyterial government is equally,
yea, primarily and principally excellent. Wherein is the excellency
of the independent way of government? 1st. Have they only those
officers which Christ himself hath appointed, pastors and teachers,
ruling elders and deacons? So the Presbyterians. 2d. Have they
those spiritual censures, of admonishing, excommunicating, and
receiving again into communion, which Christ ordained in his
Church, for guarding his ordinances, and well guiding of the flock?
So the Presbyterians. 3d. Have they congregational presbyteries
duly elected, and constituted for the exercise of all acts of
government, proper and necessary for their respective
congregations? So the Presbyterians. 4th. Have they liberty of
electing their own5 officers,
pastors, elders, and deacons? So the Presbyterians. 5th. Have they
power to keep the whole lump of the Church from being leavened, and
purely to preserve the ordinances of Christ, from pollution and
profanation, &c.? So the Presbyterians, &c. So that
whereinsoever the independent government is truly excellent, the
presbyterial government stands in a full equipage and equality of
excellence.

II. What one true excellence is there in the whole independent
government in any one point, wherein it really differs from the
presbyterial government? Take for instance a few points of
difference.

Let these and such like particulars in the independent way,
differing from the presbyterial, be duly pondered, and then let the
impartial and indifferent reader judge, whether they be not the
deformities, at least the infirmities of that way.

III. How many true excellences are there in the way of the
presbyterial government, wherein it utterly surpasses the
independent government! Read but the particulars of the former
parallel in the presbyterial government, and then consider how far
this transcends, yea, how the independent government is indeed no
government at all, to the presbyterial government; wherein is to be
found such ample provision, and that according to the word of God,
for comely order against confusion; for peace and unity of the
Church against schism and division; for truth of the faith against
all error and heresy; for piety and unblamableness against all
impiety and scandal of conversation; for equity and right against
all mal-administrations, whether ignorant, arbitrary, or
tyrannical; for the honor and purity of all Christ’s ordinances
against all contempt, pollution, and profanation; for comfort,
quickening, and encouragement of the saints in all the ways of
Christ; and consequently for the honor of God and our Lord Jesus
Christ in all the mysterious services of his spiritual sanctuary:
all which rich advantages, how impossible is it they should ever be
found in the independent government so long as it continues
independent? And what though some pious minister and people embrace
the independent way! This dazzles not the eyes of the intelligent,
but of the infirm; we are to be regulated by Scripture warrant, not
by human examples. The best of saints have failed in the
ecclesiastical affairs; what a sharp contention was there between
Paul and Barnabas, Acts xv. 39, &c.; what a dangerous
dissimulation was there in Peter, the Jews, and Barnabas! Gal. ii.
11, 12, 13, &c.; and, therefore, it is not safe, prudent, or
conscientious, to imitate all the examples of the best, and yet how
few are those that have engaged themselves in the independent way,
in comparison to the multitude of precious ministers and people,
inferior to them neither in parts, learning, piety, nor any other
spiritual gift, who are for the presbyterial way of church
government! Notwithstanding, let all the true Israel of God
constantly follow, not the doubtful practices of unglorified
saints, but the written pleasure of the most glorious King of
saints; and as many as walk according to this rule, peace shall be
on them, and upon the Israel of God.

THE DIVINE RIGHT OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

PART I.

OF THE NATURE OF A DIVINE RIGHT: AND HOW MANY WAYS A THING MAY
BE OF DIVINE RIGHT.

CHAPTER I.

That there is a Government in the Church of DIVINE RIGHT
now under the New Testament.

Jesus Christ our Mediator hath the government (both of
the Church, and of all things for the Church) laid upon his
shoulder, Isa. ix. 6, and to that end hath all power in
heaven and earth given to him, Matth. xxviii. 18, John v. 22,
Ephes. i. 22. But lapsed man (being full of pride, Psal. x. 2, 4,
and enmity against the law of God, Rom. viii. 7) is most impatient
of all government of God and of Christ, Ps. ii. 1, 2, 3, with Luke
xix. 14, 27; whence it comes to pass, that the governing and
kingly power of Christ hath been opposed in all ages, and
especially in this of ours, by quarrelsome queries, wrangling
disputes, plausible pretences, subtle policies, strong
self-interests, and mere violent wilfulness of many in England,
even after they are brought under the oath of God to reform
church government according to the word of God. Yet it will be
easily granted that there should be a government in the Church
of God, otherwise the Church would become a mere Babel
and chaos of confusion, and be in a far worse condition than
all human societies in the whole world: and that some one church
government is much to be preferred before another, yea, before all
other; as being most desirable in itself, and most suitable to
this state; otherwise, why is the Prelatical government
rejected, that another and a better may be erected instead thereof?
But the pinch lies in this, Whether there be any government in
the Church visible of divine right? And, if so, which of
those church governments (which lay claim to a divine right for
their foundation) may be most clearly evinced by the Scriptures
to be of divine right indeed? If the former be
convincingly affirmed, the fancy of the Erastians and
semi-Erastians of these things will vanish, that deny all
government to the Church distinct from that of the civil
magistrate. If the latter be solidly proved by Scripture, it will
appear, whether the monarchical government of the pope and
prelates; or the mere democratical government of all the
people in an equal level of authority, as among the Brownists; or
the mixed democratical government of both elders and people
within their own single congregation only, without all
subordination of Assemblies, and benefit of appeals, as among the
Independents; or rather the pure representative government
of the presbytery or church rulers only, chosen by the people, in
subordination to superior synodical assemblies, and with appeals
thereto, as it is among the Presbyterians, be that peculiar
government which Jesus Christ hath left unto his church, by divine
right, and in comparison of which all others are to be
rejected.

To draw things therefore to a clear and speedy issue about the
divine right of church government, let this general proposition be
laid down—

The Scriptures declare, That there is a government of
DIVINE RIGHT in the visible Church of Christ now under the New
Testament.

This is evident, 1 Cor. xii. 28, God hath set some in the
Church, first, Apostles, secondly, Prophets, thirdly,
Teachers—Helps, Governments; in which place these things
are plain: 1. That here the Apostle speaks of the visible Church:
for he had formerly spoken of visible gifts and manifestations
of the Spirit given to profit this Church withal, ver. 7
to 12. He also compares this Church of God to a visible organical
body, consisting of many visible members, ver. 12, 13, &c. And
in this 28th verse he enumerates the visible officers of this
Church. 2. That here the Apostle speaks of one general visible
Church; for he saith not churches, but church, in the
singular number, that is, of one; besides, he speaks here of the
Church in such a latitude as to comprehend in itself all gifts of
the Spirit, all members, and all officers, both extraordinary and
ordinary, which cannot be meant of the church of Corinth, or any
one particular church, but only of that one general Church on
earth. 3. That this general visible Church here meant, is the
Church of Christ now under the New Testament, and not under the Old
Testament; for he mentions here the New Testament officers only,
ver. 28. 4. That in the visible Church now under the New Testament,
there is a government settled; for besides Apostles,
Prophets, and Teachers, here is mention of another sort
of officer distinct from them all, called, in the abstract,
Governments, a metaphor from pilots, mariners, or
shipmasters, who by their helm, card, or compass, cables, and other
tacklings, guide, and order, turn and twine the ship as necessity
shall require; so these officers called Governments, have a
power of governing and steering the spiritual vessel of the Church;
thus, Beza on this place, says he declares the order of Presbyters,
who are keepers of discipline and church polity. For how
improperly should these, or any officers be styled Governments
in the Church, if they had not a power of government in the
Church settled upon them? Nor can this be interpreted of the civil
magistrate; for, when the Apostle wrote this, the Church had her
government, when yet she had no civil magistrate to protect her;
and when did God ever take this power from the Church and settle it
upon the civil magistrate? Besides, all the other officers here
enumerated are purely ecclesiastical officers; how groundless then
and inconsistent is it under this name of Governments to
introduce a foreign power, viz. the political magistrate, into the
list and roll of mere church officers? Finally, the civil
magistrate, as a magistrate, is not so much as a member of the
visible Church, (for then all Pagan magistrates should be members
of the Church,) much less a governor in the Church of Christ. 5.
That this government settled in the Church is of divine right; for,
of those Governments, as well as of Apostles,
Prophets, and Teachers, it is said, God hath set
them in the Church. God hath set them, hath put,
set—Tremellius out of the Syriac. Hath constituted,
ordained—Beza out of the Greek. Now, if they be set in
the Church and God hath set them there, here is a plain divine
right for government in the Church.

Add hereto, 2 Cor. x. 8, “Of our authority, which the Lord hath
given to us for the edification, and not for the destruction of
you.” Here are mentioned—1. Church power or authority for
government in the Church. 2. The end of this
power—positively, for the edification; negatively, not for
the destruction of the Church. 3. The Author or Fountain of this
authority—the Lord Christ hath given it, dispensed it; there
is the divine right. 4. The proper subjects intrusted with this
authority, viz: the church guides, our authority, which he hath
given to us. They are the receptacle of power for the Church, and
the government thereof. Compare also 1 Thes. v. 12, Matth. xvi. 19,
20, with xviii. 11, and John xx. 21, 22, 23. In which and divers
like places the divine right of church government is apparently
vouched by the Scripture, as will hereafter more fully appear; but
this may suffice in general for the confirmation of this general
proposition.

CHAPTER II.

Of the Nature of a DIVINE RIGHT in general.

Now touching this divine right of church government, two things
are yet more particularly to be opened and proved, for the more
satisfactory clearing thereof unto sober minds, to unprejudiced and
unpre-engaged judgments, viz:—1. What the nature of a divine
right is, and how many ways a thing may be said to be of divine
right, and that by warrant of Scripture. 2. What the nature of the
government of the Church under the New Testament is, which is
vouched by the Scripture to be of divine right.

For the first—viz. What the nature of a divine right
is—consider both what a divine right is in general, and how
many ways a thing may be said by Scripture warrant to be of divine
right in particular.

Right is that which is most proper, just, or equal; or
that which is prescribed or commanded by some statute law, and is
just to be received in virtue of said law.

Divine sometimes points out a divine warrant or authority
from God, engraven or enstamped upon any thing, whereby it is
exalted above all human or created authority and power. And thus,
all Scripture is styled divinely breathed or inspired of God. Hence
is the divine authority of Scripture asserted, 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17;
and in this sense divine right is here spoken of, in reference to
church government, as it signifies a divine warrant and authority
from God himself, engraven upon that church government and
discipline, (hereafter to be handled,) and revealed to us in his
holy Scriptures, the infallible and perfect oracles. So that divine
right, according to this interpretation of the terms, is that which
is either just, meet, and equal; or commanded and enjoined by any
divine warrant or authority. And generally, a thing may be said to
be of divine right, which is any way divinely just, equal, &c.;
or divinely commanded by any law of God, or by that which is
equivalent to a divine law. And whatsoever matters in church
government can be proved by Scripture to have this stamp of divine
warrant and authority set upon them, they may properly be said to
be of divine right, and that by the will and appointment of Jesus
Christ, to whom God hath delegated all power and authority for the
government of his Church, Matth. xxviii. 18, 19, 20, Isa. ix. 6,
John v. 22, Eph. i. 22. In this sense, if church government, or any
part of it, be found to be of divine right, then
consequently—1. It is above all mere human power and created
authority in the world whatsoever, and that supereminently.A divine
right is the highest and best tenure whereby the Church can hold of
Christ any doctrine, worship, or government; only God can stamp
such a divine right upon any of these things, whereby conscience
shall be obliged. All human inventions herein, whether devised of
our own hearts, or derived as traditions from others, are
incompatible and inconsistent herewith; vain in themselves, and to
all that use them, and condemned of God. See 1 Kings xii. 32, 33,
Isa. xxix. 4, Matth. xv. 6, 7, 8, 9. 2. It is beyond all just,
human, or created power, to abolish or oppose the same, or the due
execution thereof in the Church of Christ; for what is of divine
right, is held of God, and not of man; and to oppose that, were to
fight against God. The supreme magistrates in such cases should be
nurse-fathers, Isa. xlix. 23, not step-fathers to the Church; their
power being cumulative and perfective, not privative and
destructive unto her; for she both had and exercised a power in
church government, long before there was any Christian magistrate
in the world; and it cannot be proved that ever Christ took away
that power from his Church, or translated it to the political
magistrate, when he became Christian. 3. It is so obligatory upon
all churches in the whole Christian world, that they ought
uniformly to submit themselves unto it; for a divine right is
equally obligatory on one church as well as on another. And it is
so obligatory on all persons, states, and degrees, that none ought
to be exempted from that church government which is of divine
right, nor to be tolerated in another church government,
which is but of human invention; nor ought any Christian to seek
after, or content himself with any such exemption or
toleration; for in so doing, the inventions of men should be
preferred before the ordinances of God; our own wisdom, will, and
authority, before the wisdom, will, and authority of Christ: and we
should in effect say, We will not have this man to reign over
us, Luke xix. 27. Let us break their bands asunder, and cast
their cords away from us, Psalm ii. 3.

CHAPTER III.

Of the Nature of a DIVINE RIGHT in particular. How
many ways a thing may be of DIVINE RIGHT. And first, of
a DIVINE RIGHT by the true light of nature.

Thus we see in general what a divine right is: now in particular
let us come to consider how many ways a thing may be said to be of
divine right by scripture-warrant, keeping still our eye upon this
subject of church government, at which all particulars are to be
levelled for the clearing of it.

A thing may be said to be of divine right, or (which is the same
for substance) of divine institution, divers ways. 1. By the
true light of nature. 2. By obligatory scripture
examples. 3. By divine approbation. 4. By divine
acts. 5. By divine precepts or mandates. All may be
reduced to these five heads, ascending by degrees from the lowest
to the highest divine right.

I. By light of nature. That which is evident by, and
consonant to the true light of nature, or natural reason, is to be
accounted of divine right in matters of religion. Hence two things
are to be made out by Scripture. 1. What is meant by the true light
of nature. 2. How it may be proved, that what things in religion
are evident by, or consonant to this true light of nature, are of
divine right.

1. For the first, What is meant by the true light of nature, or
natural reason? Thus conceive. The light of nature may be
considered two ways. 1. As it was in man before the fall, and so it
was that image and similitude of God, in which man was at first
created, Gen. i. 26, 27, or at least part of that image; which
image of God, and light of nature, was con-created with man, and
was perfect: viz. so perfect as the sphere of humanity and state of
innocency did require; there was no sinful darkness, crookedness,
or imperfection in it; and whatsoever was evident by, or consonant
to this pure and perfect light of nature, in respect either of
theory or practice, was doubtless of divine right, because
correspondent to that divine law of God’s image naturally engraved
in Adam’s heart. But man being lapsed, this will not be now our
question, as it is not our case. 2. As it is now in man after the
fall. The light of nature and image of God in man is not totally
abolished and utterly razed by the fall; there remain still some
relics and fragments thereof, some glimmerings, dawnings, and
common principles of light, both touching piety to God, equity to
man, and sobriety to a man’s self, &c., as is evident by
comparing these places, Psal. xix. 1, 2, &c., Acts xiv. 17, and
xvii. 27, 28; Rom. i. 18-21, and ii. 12, 14, 15; 2 Cor. v. 1: in
which places it is plain, 1. That the book of the creature is able
(without the scriptures, or divine revelations) to make known to
man much of God, his invisible Godhead and attributes, Psalm xix.
1, 2, &c.; Acts xiv. 17, and xvii. 27, 28; yea, so far as to
leave them without excuse, Rom. i. 18-21. 2. That there remained so
much natural light in the minds even of the heathens, as to render
them capable of instruction by the creature in the invisible things
of God; yea, and that they actually in some measure did know God,
and because they walked not up to this knowledge, were plagued,
Rom. i. 18-21, 24, &c. 3. That the work of the law (though not
the right ground, manner, and end of that work, which is the
blessing of the new covenant, Jer. xxxi. 33; Heb. viii. 10) was
materially written in some measure in their hearts. Partly because
they did by nature without the law the things contained in the law,
so being a law to themselves, Rom. ii. 14, 15; partly, because they
by nature forbore some of those sins which were forbidden in the
law, and were practised by some that had the law, as 2 Cor. v. 1;
and partly, because according to the good and bad they did,
&c., their conscience did accuse or excuse, Rom. ii. 15. Now
conscience doth not accuse or excuse but according to some rule,
principle, or law of God, (which is above the conscience,) or at
least so supposed to be. And they had no law but the imperfect
characters thereof in their own hearts, which were not quite
obliterated by the fall. Now so far as this light of nature after
the fall, is a true relic of the light of nature before the fall,
that which is according to this light may be counted of divine
right in matters of religion, which is the next thing to be
proved.

For the second, how it may be proved that what things in
religion are evident by, or consonant to this true light of nature,
are of divine right. Thus briefly,

1. Because that knowledge which by the light of nature Gentiles
have of the invisible things of God, is a beam of divine light, as
the apostle, speaking of the Gentiles’ light of nature, saith, That
which may be known of God is manifest in them—for God hath
showed it to them. For the invisible things, &c., Rom. i. 19,
20. God himself is the Fountain and Author of the true light of
nature; hence some not unfitly call it the divine light of nature,
not only because it hath God for its object, but also God for its
principle; now that which is according to God’s manifestation, must
needs be of divine right.

2. Because the Spirit of God and of Christ in the New Testament
is pleased often to argue from the light of nature in condemning of
sin, in commending and urging of duty, as in the case of the
incestuous Corinthian; “It is reported commonly, that there is
fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as
named among the Gentiles,” (who had only the light of nature to
guide them,) 1 Cor. v. 1. In case of the habits of men and women in
their public church assemblies, that women’s heads should be
covered, men’s uncovered in praying or prophesying. “Judge in
yourselves, is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth
not even nature itself teach you, that if a man hath long hair, it
is a shame to him? but if a woman have long hair it is a glory to
her,” &c., 1 Cor. xi. 13-15. Here the apostle appeals plainly
to the very light of nature for the regulating and directing of
their habits in church assemblies; and thus, in case of praying or
prophesying in the congregation in an unknown tongue, (unless some
do interpret,) he strongly argues against it from the light of
nature, 1 Cor. xiv. 7-11, and afterwards urges that women be silent
in their churches, from the natural uncomeliness of their speaking
there, for it is a shame for women to speak in the church, 1 Cor.
xiv. 34, 35.

Now, if the Spirit of God condemn things as vicious, and commend
things as virtuous from the light of nature, is there not divine
right in the light of nature? May we not say, that which is
repugnant to the light of nature in matters of religion, is
condemned by divine right; and what is correspondent to the light
of nature, is prescribed by divine right? And if not, where is the
strength or force of this kind of arguing from the light of
nature?

Consequently, in the present case of church government, that
which is agreeable to the true light of nature, must needs be
confessed to be of divine right. Though the light of nature be but
dim, yet it will lend some help in this particular: e.g. the light
of nature teaches, 1. That as every society in the world hath a
distinct government of its own within itself, without which it
could not subsist, so must the Church, which is a society, have its
own distinct government within itself, without which it cannot
subsist more than any other society. 2. That in all matters of
difference the lesser number in every society should give way to,
and the matters controverted be determined and concluded by the
major part; else there would never be an end: and why not so in the
Church? 3. That in every ill administration in inferior societies
the parties aggrieved should have liberty to appeal from them to
superior societies, that equity may take place; and why not from
inferior to superior church assemblies?

CHAPTER IV.

II. Of a Divine Right by obligatory Scripture
Examples.

II. By obligatory scripture examples (which God’s people are
bound to follow and imitate) matters of religion become of divine
right, and by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, by whose
Spirit those examples were recorded in Scripture, and propounded
for imitation to the saints. The light of nature in this case helps
something; but the light of obligatory scripture examples helps
much more, as being more clear, distinct, and particular. We say
scripture examples; for only these examples are held forth to us by
an infallible, impartial, divine hand, and those scripture examples
obligatory, or binding; for there are many sorts of scripture
examples that oblige not us to imitation of them, being written for
other uses and purposes.

Great use is to be made of such examples in matters of religion,
and particularly in matters of church government, for the clearing
of the divine right thereof; and great opposition is made by some
against the binding force of examples, especially by men of
perverse spirits, (as too many of the Erastian party are;)
therefore it will be of great consequence to unfold and clear this
matter of scripture examples, and the obliging power thereof, that
we may see how far examples are to be a law and rule for us by
divine right. In general, this proposition seems to be
unquestionable, that whatsoever matter or act of religion Jesus
Christ makes known to his Church and people, by or under any
binding scripture example, that matter or act of religion so made
known, is of divine right, and by the will and appointment of Jesus
Christ: But to evince this more satisfactorily, these several
particulars are to be distinctly made good and manifested: 1. That
some scripture examples are obligatory and binding on Christians in
matters of religion. 2. Which are those obligatory scripture
examples? These things being made out, we shall see with what
strength scripture examples hold forth a divine right to us in the
mysteries of religion, and particularly in church government.

I. That some scripture examples in matters of religion are
obligatory on Christians, as patterns and rules, which they are
bound in conscience to follow and imitate, is evident,

1. By the divine intention of the Spirit of God, in recording
and propounding of examples in Scripture: for he records and
propounds them for this very end, that they may be imitated. Thus
Christ’s humility, in washing the feet of his disciples, was
intentionally propounded as an obligatory example, binding both the
disciples, and us after them, to perform the meanest offices of
love in humility to one another. “If I then, your Lord and Master,
have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another’s feet.
For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done
to you,” John xiii. 4, &c., 13-15. Thus Christ’s suffering with
innocence and unprovoked patience, not reviling again, &c., is
purposely propounded for all Christians to imitate, and they are
bound in conscience as well as they can to follow it—”Christ
suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his
steps,” &c., 1 Pet. ii. 21-23. Hence, the apostle so urges the
example of Christ for the Corinthians to follow in their bounty to
the poor saints, yea, though to their own impoverishing, “For you
know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich,
yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty
might be rich,” 2 Cor. viii. 9. Nor was the example of Christ only
written for our imitation; but the examples of the apostles also in
the primitive churches were intentionally left upon record for this
end, that they might be binding patterns for us to follow in like
cases in after ages. And in particular, this seems to be one
singular ground, scope, and intention of Christ’s Spirit in writing
the history of the Acts of the Apostles, that the apostles’ acts in
the primitive churches might be our rules in successive churches.
For, 1. Though this book contain in it many things dogmatical, that
is, divers doctrines of the apostles, yet it is not styled the book
of the doctrine, but of the Acts of the Apostles, that we may learn
to act as they acted. This being one main difference between
profane and sacred histories; those are for speculation, these also
for admonition and imitation, 1 Cor. x. 11. The history, therefore,
of the Acts propounds examples admonitory and obligatory upon us,
that we should express like acts in like cases. 2. Luke (the penman
of the Acts) makes such a transition from his history of Christ, to
this history of Christ’s apostles, as to unite and knit them into
one volume, Acts i. 1; whence we are given to understand, that if
the Church wanted this history of the apostles, she should want
that perfect direction which the Spirit intended for her: as also
that this book is useful and needful to her as well as the other.
3. In the very front of the Acts it is said, that Christ after
his resurrection (and before his ascension) gave
commandments to the apostles—and spake of the things
pertaining to the kingdom of God, Acts i. 2, 3; viz. of the
polity of the Church, say some.6
Of the kingdom of grace, say others.7 Judicious Calvin8 interprets it partly of church
government, saying, Luke admonisheth us, that Christ did not so
depart out of the world, as to cast off all care of us: for by this
doctrine he shows that he hath constituted a perpetual government
in his Church. Therefore Luke signifies, that Christ departed not,
before he had provided for his Church’s government. Now those
expressions are set in the frontispiece, to stamp the greater
authority and obligatory power upon the acts after recorded, being
done according to Christ’s commandments; Christ intending their
acts in the first founding of his kingdom and polity ecclesiastic
to be the rule for after churches. For what Christ spoke of his
kingdom to the apostles is like that, “What I say to you, I say to
all,” Matt. xiii. 37, as what was said to the apostles touching
preaching and baptizing, remitting and retaining of sins, was said
to all the apostles’ successors, “to the end of the world,” John
xx. 21, 23, with Matt, xxviii. 18-20.

2. By God’s approving and commending such as were followers not
only of the doctrine, but also of the examples of the Lord, his
apostles, and primitive churches; “And ye became followers” (or
imitators) “of us and of the Lord,” 1 Thess. i. 6, 7; and again,
“Ye, brethren, became followers” (or imitators) “of the churches of
God, which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered
like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews,”
1 Thess. ii. 14. In which places the Holy Ghost recites the
Thessalonians imitating of the Lord, of the apostles, and of the
churches, to the praise of the Thessalonians, by which they are
given to understand that they did well, and discharged their duty
in such imitations: for God’s condemning or commending any thing,
is virtually a prohibiting or prescribing thereof.

3. By the Lord’s commanding some examples to be imitated.
Commands of this nature are frequent. In general, “Beloved, imitate
not that which is evil, but that which is good,” 3 John 11. In
particular, 1. Imitating of God and Christ; “Be ye, therefore,
followers of God as dear children: and walk in love, as Christ also
hath loved us,” Eph. v. 1, 2, with Eph. iv. 32. “He that saith he
abideth in him, ought himself also to walk, even as he walked,” 1
John ii. 6. 2. Imitating the apostles and other saints of God. “I
beseech you, be ye imitators of me: for this cause have I sent unto
you Timothy—who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways
which be in Christ,” 1 Cor. iv. 16, 17. “Be ye imitators of me,
even as I also am of Christ,” 1 Cor. xi. 1.

“Those things which you have both learned, and received, and
heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you,”
Phil. iv. 9. “Be not slothful, but imitators of them who through
faith and patience inherit the promises,” Heb. vi. 12. “Whose faith
imitate, considering the end of their conversation,” Heb. xiii. 7.
“Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of
the Lord, for an example” (or pattern) “of suffering affliction,
and of patience,” James v. 10. These and like divine commands
infallibly evidence that many scripture examples are obligatory,
and do bind our consciences to the imitation of them.

4. By consent of orthodox and learned writers, both ancient and
modern, acknowledging an obligatory force in some scripture
examples, as being left upon record for our imitation. As among
others Chrysostom,9 and Greg.
Nyssen10 well observe.

Among modern writers, Mr. Perkins excellently observes, This is
a rule in divinity, that the ordinary examples of the godly
approved in Scripture, being against no general precept, have the
force of a general rule, and are to be followed. See also Pet.
Martyr, Calvin, and others.11

II. Thus, it is clear that some scripture examples are
obligatory. Now (to come closer to the matter) consider which
scripture examples are obligatory. 1. How many sorts of binding
examples are propounded to us in Scripture. 2. What rules we may
walk by for finding out the obligatory force of such examples.

How many sorts of binding examples are propounded unto us in
Scripture, and which are those examples? Ans. There are principally
three sorts, viz: Examples of God, of Christ, of Christians.

I. Of God. The example of God is propounded in Scripture as
obligatory on us in all moral excellencies and actions: e.g. Matt.
v. 44, 45, 48; Eph. v. 1; 1 Pet. i. 14-16; 1 John iv. 10, 11.

II. Of Christ. That the example of Christ is obligatory, and a
binding rule to us for imitation, is evident by these and like
testimonies of Scripture, Matt. xi. 29; 1 Cor. xi. 11; Eph. v. 2,
3, 25, &c.; 1 John ii. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 21-23. “If I then, your
Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one
another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do
as I have done to you,” John xiii. 14, 15. In this place we must
follow the reason of the example, rather than the individual act,
viz: after Christ’s example, we must be ready to perform the lowest
and meanest offices of love and service to one another.

But which of Christ’s examples are obligatory on Christians,
will better appear, by distinguishing the several sorts of Christ’s
actions. Christ’s actions were of several kinds; and to imitate
them all is neither needful, nor possible, nor warrantable.
Orthodox writers thus rank Christ’s actions:

1. Some of Christ’s actions were of divine power and virtue; as
his miracles, turning water into wine, John ii. 7, &c.; walking
on the sea, Mark vi. 48, 49; dispossessing of devils by his word,
Mark i. 27; Luke iv. 36; curing one born blind with clay and
spittle, John ix.; healing the sick by his word or touch, John iv.
50; Mark vi. 56; raising the dead to life again, as John xii. 1;
Matt. xi. 5; Luke vii. 22.

2. Some were acts of divine prerogative, as sending for the ass
and colt, without first asking the owner’s leave, Matt. xxi. 2,
&c.

3. Some mediatory, done by him as Mediator, Prophet, Priest, and
King of his Church: e.g. inditing the Scripture, called therefore
the word of Christ, Col. iii. 16; laying down his life for the
sheep, John x. 15, &c.; giving of the Spirit, John xx. 22;
Acts ii.; appointing of his own officers, and giving them
commissions, Eph. iv. 7, 10, 11; Matt. x. and xxviii. 18-20;
instituting of new, and thereby abrogating of old ordinances, Matt.
xxviii. 18, 19; 1 Cor. xi. 23, &c.

4. Some accidental, occasional, incidental, or circumstantial,
as in the case of his celebrating his supper, that it was at night,
not in the morning; after supper, not before; with none but men,
none but ministers; with unleavened, not with leavened bread,
&c.; these circumstantials were accidentally occasioned by the
passover, nature of his family, &c.

5. Some acts of Christ were moral, as Matt. xi. 29; Eph. v. 2,
3, 25, &c.; or at least founded upon a moral reason and
foundation, as John xiii. 14,15.

To imitate Christ in his three first sort of acts, is utterly
unlawful, and in part impossible. To imitate him in his
circumstantial acts from necessity, were to make accidentals
necessary, and happily to border upon superstition; for, to urge
any thing above what is appointed, as absolutely necessary, is to
urge superstition; and to yield to any thing above what is
appointed, as simply necessary, were to yield to superstition. But
to imitate Christ in his moral acts, or acts grounded upon a moral
reason, is our duty: such acts of Christ ought to be the
Christian’s rules.

III. Of prophets, apostles, saints, or primitive churches. That
their examples are obligatory, is evident by these places, 1 Cor.
xi. 1; Phil. iv. 8, 9; 1 Pet. iii. 4, 5, 6; 1 Thess. i. 6, and ii.
14; Heb. xiii. 7; James v. 10, 11; 3 John 11.

Which of their examples are obligatory, may be thus resolved, by
distinguishing of their actions.

1. Some were sinful; written for our caution and admonition, not
for our imitation: as 1 Cor. x. 5, 6, 10, 12. That neither the just
be lifted up into pride by security, nor the unjust be hardened
against the medicine through despair. See the fourth rule
following.

2. Some were heroical; done by singular instinct and instigation
of the Spirit of God; as divers acts may be presumed to be, (though
we read not the instinct clearly recorded:) as, Elias’s calling for
fire from heaven, 2 Kings i. 10; which the very apostles might not
imitate, not having his spirit, Luke ix. 54, 55; Phinehas’s killing
the adulterer and adulteress, Numb. xxv. 7, 8; Samson’s avenging
himself upon his enemies by his own death, Judges xvi. 30, of
which, saith Bernard, if it be defended not to have been his sin,
it is undoubtedly to be believed he had private counsel, viz. from
God, for his fact; David’s fighting with Goliath of Gath the giant,
hand to hand, 1 Sam. xvii. 32, &c., which is no warrant for
private duels and quarrels. Such heroic acts are not imitable but
by men furnished with like heroic spirit, and instinct divine.

3. Some were by special calling, and singular extraordinary
dispensation: as Abraham’s call to leave his own country for
pilgrimage in Canaan, Gen. xii. 1, 4, which is no warrant for
popish pilgrimages to the holy land, &c.; Abraham’s attempts,
upon God’s special trying commands, to kill and sacrifice his son,
Gen. xxii. 10, no warrant for parents to kill or sacrifice their
children; the Israelites borrowing of, and robbing the Egyptians,
Exod. xii. 35, no warrant for cozenage, stealing, or for borrowing
with intent not to pay again: compare Rom. xiii. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 6;
Psal. xxxvii. 21; the Israelites taking usury of the Canaanitish
strangers, (who were destined to ruin both in their states and
persons, Deut. xx. 15-17,) Deut. xxiii. 20, which justifies neither
their nor our taking usury of our brethren, Lev. xxv. 36, 37; Deut.
xxiii. 19, 20; Neh. v. 7, 10; Psal. xv. 5; Prov. xxviii. 8; Ezek.
xviii. 8, 13, 17, and xxii. 12; John Baptist’s living in the
desert, Mat. iii., no protection for popish hermitage, or proof
that it is a state of greater perfection, &c.

4. Some were only accidental or occasional, occasioned by
special necessity of times and seasons, or some present appearance
of scandal, or some such accidental emergency. Thus primitive
Christians had all things common, Acts iv. 32, but that is no
ground for anabaptistical community. Paul wrought at his trade of
tent-making, made his hands minister to his necessities,
Acts xx. 34; would not take wages for preaching to the church of
Corinth, 2 Cor. xi. 7-9; but this lays no necessity on ministers to
preach the gospel gratis, and maintain themselves by their
own manual labors, except when cases and seasons are alike, Gal.
vi. 6-8; 1 Cor. ix. 6-13; 1 Tim. v. 17, 18.

5. Some were of a moral nature, and upon moral grounds, wherein
they followed Christ, and we are to follow them, 1 Cor. xi. 1;
Phil. iv. 8, 9, and other places forementioned; for, whatsoever
actions were done then, upon such grounds as are of a moral,
perpetual, and common concernment to one person as well as another,
to one church as well as another, in one age as well as another,
those actions are obligatory on all, and a rule to after
generations. Thus the baptizing of women in the primitive churches,
Acts viii. 12, and xvi. 15, though only the males were circumcised
under the Old Testament, is a rule for our baptizing of women as
well as men, they being all one in Christ, Gal. iii. 28. So
the admitting of infants to the first initiating sacrament of the
Old Testament, circumcision, because they with their parents’ were
accounted within the covenant of grace by God, Gen. xvii., is a
rule for us now to admit infants to the first initiating sacrament
of the New Testament, baptism, because infants are federally holy,
and within the covenant with their believing parents now, as well
as then, Rom. xi. 16; 1 Cor. vii. 14; Col. ii. 11, 12. Thus the
baptizing of divers persons formerly, though into no particular
congregation, nor as members of any particular congregation, as the
eunuch, Acts viii.; Lydia, Acts xvi.; the jailer, Acts xvi.;
because it was sufficient they were baptized into that one general
visible body of Christ, 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13, is a rule for us what
to do in like cases upon the same common ground. Thus the Church’s
practice of preaching the word, and breaking bread on the first day
of the week, Acts xx. 7, &c., is our rule for sanctifying the
Lord’s day, by celebrating the word, sacraments, and other holy
ordinances, at these times. And in like manner, the primitive
practices of ordaining preaching presbyters, by laying on of hands,
1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6; Acts xiii. 3; of governing all the
congregations of a city by one common presbytery, in which respect
they are all called by the name of one church, as the church of
Jerusalem, Acts viii. 1, and xv. 4; the church of Antioch, Acts
xiii. 1, and xi. 25, 26; the church of Corinth, 1 Cor. i. 2, 2 Cor.
i. 1; which had churches in it, 1 Cor. xiv. 34. Of healing common
scandals and errors, troubling divers presbyterial churches by the
authoritative decrees of a synod, made up of members from divers
presbyterial churches, as Acts xv., and such like, are our rules in
like particulars, which the Lord hath left for our direction, the
same grounds of such actions reaching us as well as them.

Now this last kind of examples are those which we are, by divers
divine commands, especially enjoined to follow; and therefore such
examples amount to a divine right or institution; and what we ought
to do by virtue of such binding examples is of divine right, and by
the will and appointment of Jesus Christ.

What discriminatory notes or rules may we walk by, for finding
out the obligatory force of scripture examples; and what manner of
examples those be? For discovery hereof, take these ensuing general
rules:

1. Those examples in Scripture, which the Spirit of Christ
commands us to imitate, are undoubtedly obligatory. Such are the
moral examples of God, Christ, apostles, prophets, saints, and
churches, recorded in Scripture, with command to follow them, Eph.
iv. 32, and v. 1, 2; 1 John ii. 6; 1 Cor. xi. 1; Phil. iv. 6; Heb.
vi. 12, and xiii. 7; James v. 10; 3 John 11.

2. Those examples in Scripture, which the Spirit of Christ
commends and praises, are obligatory; his commendings are virtual
commandings; and we ought to follow whatsoever is praiseworthy,
especially in God’s account, Phil. iv. 8, 9; 2 Cor. x. 18. Now the
Spirit of Christ commends many examples to us: as, Enoch’s
walking with God, Gen. v. 24; Noah’s uprightness, Gen.
vi.; Abraham’s faith, Rom. iv., and obedience, Gen.
xxii.; Lot’s zeal against Sodom’s sins, 2 Pet. ii. 9;
Job’s patience, James v. 10, 11. And in a word, all the
examples of the saints, which the Lord approves and speaks well of;
as Heb. xi.; 1 Pet. iii. 5, 6: together with all such examples,
whose imitation by others is commended in Scripture; as, 1 Thess.
i. 6, 7, and ii. 14.

3. Those examples in Scripture are obligatory, whose ground,
reason, scope, or end, are obligatory, and of a moral nature, and
as much concern one Christian as another, one church as another,
one time as another, &c., whether they be the examples under
the Old or New Testament. Thus the example of the church of
Corinth, in excommunicating the incestuous person, because he was a
wicked person—and lest he should leaven the whole
lump; and that they might keep the evangelical passover
sincerely, and for that they had power to judge them within;
and that his “flesh might be destroyed, and his spirit saved in the
day of the Lord Jesus,” 1 Cor. v. 5-8, 11-13: which grounds and
ends being moral, oblige us to use the like remedy against all
wicked and scandalous persons.

4. Those acts which are propounded in Scripture as patterns or
examples, that we should act the like good, or avoid the like ill,
are an obligatory law to us. There is an example of caution, and an
example of imitation.

Thus in reference to well-doing, or suffering for well-doing,
the examples of Christ, his apostles, and other saints, are
propounded as patterns to write after, as John xiii. 14, 15; Heb.
xi. tot. with Heb. xii. 1, with such a cloud of witnesses.
This verse is as the epilogue of the former chapter, (saith the
learned Calvin,) showing to what end the catalogue of saints was
reckoned up, who under the law excelled in faith, viz: that every
one may fit himself to imitate them. Another adds,12 He calls them a cloud, whereby we
may be directed; in allusion to that cloud that went before Israel
in the wilderness, to conduct them to the land of Canaan. See also 1
Pet. ii. 21-23; James v. 10.

Thus also, in reference to ill-doing, that it may be avoided by
us, the bad examples of saints and others are laid before us as
warnings and cautions to us, binding us to eschew like evils, 1
Cor. x. 5, 6, 11. “Now these things were our examples, to the
intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
Now all these things happened unto them for examples,” &c.,
Jude 7.

5. Those acts of saints or Christians, which were done by them
as saints and Christians, are obligatory upon, and to be followed
by all Christians; but those acts which are done by magistrates,
prophets, apostles, ministers, &c., only as such, are only
obligatory on such as have like offices, not on all; according to
the maxim, that which agrees to any thing as such, agrees to every
thing that is such. Thus James urges the example of Elias in
praying, James v. 17. Paul presses the example of Abraham in being
justified by believing, Rom. iv. 23,24. Peter prescribes, as a
pattern to wives, the example of Sarah, and other holy women of
old, for “adorning themselves with a meek and quiet
spirit,—being in subjection to their own husbands,” 1 Pet.
iii. 4-6.

6. Those acts that were commonly and ordinarily done, are
ordinarily to be imitated; as, baptizing in water only, and
not in any other element, was the ordinary practice of the New
Testament, Matt. iii. 11, 16; Mark i. 6, 10; Luke iii. 16; John i.
26, 31, 33; Acts i. 5, and viii. 36, 38, and x. 47, and xi. 16; and
by that practice we are obliged to baptize in water only. Joining
of many Christians together in receiving the Lord’s supper was an
ordinary practice, Matt. xxvi. 20, 26, 27; Acts ii. 42, and xx. 7,
&c.; 1 Cor. xi. 20, and by us ordinarily to be imitated; how
else is it a communion? 1 Cor. x. 16, 17.

But such acts as were done only upon special causes or singular
reasons, are only to be imitated in like cases. Thus Christ argues
from a like special cause, that he was not to do miracles at
Nazareth without a call, as he did in other places where he had a
call of God; from the particular example of Elijah and Elisha, who
only went to them to whom God called them, Luke ix. 25-27; so he
proves that in like case of necessity it was lawful for his
disciples on the sabbath-day to rub ears of corn and eat them,
&c., from David’s example of eating show-bread when he had
need, Matt. xii. 1-5.

7. Those acts that were done from extraordinary calling and
gifts, are to be imitated (in regard of their special way of
acting) only by those that have such extraordinary calling and
gifts. Christ therefore blames his apostles for desiring to imitate
Elijah’s extraordinary act in calling for fire from heaven,
&c., when they had not his spirit, Luke ix. 54, 55. Papists are
blameworthy for imitating the extraordinary forty days’ and nights’
fast of Moses, Elijah, and Christ, in their Lent fast. Prelates
argue corruptly for bishops’ prelacy over their brethren the
ministers, from the superiority of the apostles over
presbyters.

CHAPTER V.

Of a Divine Right by Divine Approbation.

III. By divine approbation of the Spirit of Jesus Christ in his
word. Whatsoever in matters of religion hath the divine approbation
of the Spirit of Christ in the Scriptures, that is of divine right,
and by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ. God’s approving or
allowing of any thing, plainly implies that it is according to his
will and pleasure, and so is equivalent to a divine institution or
appointment; for what is a divine institution or law but the
publishing of the divine will of the legislator, touching things to
be acted or omitted? and God cannot approve any thing that is
against his will. Contrariwise, God’s disallowing of any thing,
plainly implies that it is against his will, and so of divine right
prohibited, and unlawful. God allows or disallows things not
because they are good or evil; but things are, therefore, good or
evil, because he approves or disallows them.

Now God approves or disallows things divers ways:

1. By commending or discommending. God commended king Josiah for
his zeal and impartiality in completing of the reformation of
religion, 1 Kings xiii. 25. This is a rule for all princes and
magistrates how they should reform. The angel of the church of
Ephesus is commended, for not bearing of those that were evil, for
trying and detecting the false apostles, and for hating the works
of the Nicolaitans, Rev. ii. 2, 3, 6. The angel of the church of
Pergamus is praised, for holding fast Christ’s name, and not
denying his faith in places of danger, and days of deepest
persecution, Rev. ii. 13: a rule for all pastors and churches, how
in all such cases they should carry themselves. God’s commendings
are divine commandings. On the contrary, God dispraises Ephesus,
for falling from her first love, Rev. ii. 4. Pergamus, for holding
the doctrine of Balaam, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, Rev.
ii. 14, 15. Thyatira, for tolerating the false prophetess Jezebel,
to teach and seduce his servants, &c., Rev. ii. 20. Laodicea,
because she was neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm, Rev. iii. 15.
The church of Corinth, for coming together in public assemblies,
not for better but for worse, by reason of schisms, scandals, and
other disorders about the Lord’s supper, 1 Cor. xi. 17, &c. In
these and all such divine discommendings of the churches for their
corruptions, all succeeding churches are strongly forbidden the
like corruptions: God’s dispraises are divine prohibitions. Thus
good church elders are commended in this notion, that they are
elders ruling well, 1 Tim. v. 17; therefore, that elders in
the church should rule, and rule well, is by this commendation of
divine right.

2. By promising and threatening. What promise did God ever make
to any act or performance, which was not a duty? or what
threatening against any act which was not a sin? He promises to
them that forsake all for Christ, a “hundred-fold now in this time,
and in the world to come eternal life,” Mark x. 29, 30; therefore
it is our duty to forsake all for Christ. He promised to ratify in
heaven his disciples’ sentences of building or loosing on
earth; and to be with them whensoever two or three of
them were met together for that end, Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii.
18-20, and John xx. 23. Therefore binding and loosing, remitting
and retaining of sins, and meeting together for that end, belong to
them by divine right. He promised to be with them that baptize,
preach, remit, and retain sins in his name, &c., always, to
the end of the world, John xx. 23; with Matt, xxviii. 18-20,
which promise shows, that these works and employments belong to all
succeeding ministers to the world’s end, as well as to the apostles
by divine right. On the contrary, the Lord threatens Ephesus for
decay of first love, Rev. ii. 4, 5; Pergamus, for holding false
doctrine, Rev. ii. 14, 15; Thyatira, for tolerating of Jezebel and
her false teaching, &c., Rev. ii. 21, 21, 23; and Laodicea, for
lukewarmness, Rev. iii. 15, 16. Therefore, all these were their
sins, and we are bound, even by this divine threatening, to avoid
the like by a divine warrant.

3. By remunerating or rewarding; whether he reward with
blessings or with judgments. With blessings God rewarded the Hebrew
midwives, because they preserved the male children of Israel,
contrary to Pharaoh’s bloody command; God made them houses,
Exod. i. 17, 20, 21. He will have the elders that rule well
counted worthy of double honor, &c.; i.e. rewarded with
a bountiful, plentiful maintenance, 1 Tim. v. 17. Therefore, their
ruling in the church is of divine right, for which God appoints
such a good reward. Contrariwise, with judgments God rewarded king
Saul, for offering a burnt-offering himself, 1 Sam. xiii. 12-14;
Uzzah, for touching the ark, though it was ready to fall, 2 Sam.
vi. 6, 7; and king Uzziah, for going into the temple to burn
incense, 2 Chron. xxvi. 16. None of these being priests, yet
presuming to meddle with the priest’s office. A rule for all
persons, being not church officers, yea, though they be princes or
supreme magistrates, that they are hereby warned by the divine law,
not to usurp church authority or offices to themselves. God
rewarded the Corinthians with the judgments of weakness, sickness,
and death, for unworthy receiving of the Lord’s supper, 1 Cor. xi.
30. So that this is a divine warning for all after churches against
unworthy communicating.

CHAPTER VI.

IV. Of a Divine Right by Divine Acts.

IV. By divine acts. Whatsoever matters of religion were erected
in, or conferred upon the Church of God, by God, or any person of
the blessed Trinity, and are left recorded in the Scripture, they
are of divine right, by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ.
Shall divine approbation, yea, shall the saints’ binding example
hold forth to us a divine right, and shall not the divine actions
of God, Christ, and the Spirit, do it much more? Take some
instances: the Lord’s-day sabbath, under the New Testament, was it
not instituted (the seventh day being changed to the first day of
the week) by the acts of Christ, having now perfected the spiritual
creation of the new world? viz: by his resurrection and apparitions
to his disciples on that day, and miraculous blessing and
sanctifying of that day, by pouring forth the gifts of the Holy
Ghost, Acts ii., all which were seconded with the apostolical
practice in the primitive churches, Acts xx. 7, &c.; 1 Cor.
xvi. 1, 2. And do not the churches of Christ generally conclude
upon these grounds, that the Lord’s-day sabbath is of divine
warrant? Thus circumcision is abrogated of divine right, by
Christ’s act, instituting baptism instead thereof, Col. ii. 11, 12.
The passover is abolished of divine right, by Christ himself, our
true passover, being sacrificed for us, 1 Cor. v. 7; and the
Lord’s supper being instituted a memorial of Christ’s death instead
of it, Matt, xxvi., Mark xiv., Luke xxii. And the whole ceremonial
law is antiquated and made void by Christ’s death, accomplishing
all those dark types; therefore Christ, immediately before his
yielding up the ghost, cried, It is finished, John xix. 30.
See Col. ii. 14; Eph. ii. 14, 15; abolishing the law of
commandments in ordinances, Heb. viii. 13, and x. 4, 5, &c.
Thus by Christ’s act of giving the keys of the kingdom of heaven to
Peter and the apostles, Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 18, 19, the keys
belong to the officers of the church by divine right. By God’s act
of setting in the Church some, first apostles, &c., 1
Cor. xii. 28, all those officers belong to the general visible
Church by divine right. By Christ’s act of bounty upon his
triumphant ascension into heaven, in giving gifts to men,
Eph. iv. 7, 11, 12; all those church officers being Christ’s gifts,
are of divine right. Finally, by the Holy Ghost’s act, in setting
elders, overseers over the flock, Acts xx. 28, elders are such
overseers by divine right.

CHAPTER VII.

V. Of a Divine Right by Divine Precepts.

V. Finally, and primarily, by divine precepts, whatsoever in
matters of religion is commanded or forbidden by God in his word,
that is accordingly a duty or sin, by divine right: as, the duties
of the whole moral law, the ten words, commanded of God, Exod. xx.;
Deut. v. Believing in Christ, commanded of God, 1 John iii. 23. The
plentiful and honorable maintenance of ministers, commanded of God,
1 Tim. v. 17, 18; 1 Cor. ix. 9-11, 13, 14; Gal. vi. 6. The people’s
esteeming, loving, and obeying their pastors and teachers,
commanded of God, 1 Thess. v. 12; Heb. xiii. 7, 17. Ministers’
diligence and faithfulness, in feeding and watching over their
flocks, commanded of God, Acts xx. 28; 2 Tim. iv. 1-3; 1 Pet. iv.
1-3; with innumerable commands and precepts of all sorts: now all
things so commanded are evidently of divine right, and without
gainsaying, granted on all hands, even by Erastians themselves. But
the question will be, how far we shall extend this head of
divine commands. For clearness’ sake, thus distinguish, thus
resolve:

God’s commands are either immediate or mediate.

1. Immediate divine commands: as those which God propounds and
urges; as the ten commandments, Exod. xx., Deut. v., and all other
injunctions of his in his word positively laid down. Of such
commands, the apostle saith, “I command, yet not I, but the Lord,”
1 Cor. vii. 10.

Now these immediate commands of God, in regard of their manner
of publishing and propounding, are either explicit or implicit.

1. Explicit: which are expressly and in plain terms laid down,
as the letter of the commandments of the decalogue, Exod. xx. The
commands of Christ, “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep,” John xxi.; “Go,
disciple ye all nations,” &c., Matt, xxviii. 19; “Do this in
remembrance of me,” Matt, xxvi; 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24, &c. Now
whatsoever is expressly commanded of God in plain, evident terms,
that is of divine right, without all color of controversy. Only
take this caution, the divine right of things enjoined by God’s
express command, is to be interpreted according to the nature of
the thing commanded, and the end or scope of the Lord in
commanding: e.g. 1. Some things God commands morally, to be of
perpetual use; as to honor father and mother, &c.; these are of
divine right forever. 2. Some things he commands but positively, to
be of use for a certain season; as the ceremonial administrations
till Christ should come, for the Jewish church, and the judicial
observances for their Jewish polity; and all these positive laws
were of divine right till Christ abrogated them. 3. Some things he
commands only by way of trial, not with intention that the things
commanded should be done, but that his people’s fear, love, and
obedience may be proved, tried, &c. Thus God commanded Abraham
to offer up his son Isaac for a burnt-offering, Gen. xxii.: such
things are of divine right only in such cases of special infallible
command. 4. Some things he commands extraordinarily in certain
select and special cases: as, Israel to borrow jewels of the
Egyptians to rob them, without intention ever to restore them,
Exod. xi. 2, &c. The disciples to go preach—yet to
provide neither gold nor silver, &c. Matt. x. 7-10. The
elders of the church (while miracles were of use in the church)
to anoint the sick with oil in the name of the Lord, for
their recovery, James v. 14. These and like extraordinary commands
were only of force by divine right, in these extraordinary select
cases, when they were propounded.

1. Implicit, or implied: which are either comprehensively
contained in or under the express terms and letter of the command;
or, consequentially, are deducible from the express command.

Comprehensively, many things are contained in a command, that
are not expressed in the very letter of the command. Thus sound
interpreters of the decalogue generally confess, that all precepts
thereof include the whole parts under the general term, and God
wills many things by them more than the bare words signify: e.g. in
negative commands, forbidding sin, we are to understand the
positive precepts prescribing the contrary duties; and so, on the
contrary, under affirmative commands, we are to understand the
negative thereof: thus Christ expounds the sixth commandment, Matt.
v. 21-27, and ver. 43, to the end of the chapter. So when any evil
is forbidden, not only the outward gross acts, but all inward acts
and degrees thereof, with all causes and occasions, all fruits and
effects thereof, are forbidden likewise: as, under killing,
provoking terms, rash anger, Matt. v. 21, 22; under adultery,
wanton looks, lustful thoughts, &c., Matt. v. 27-30. Now all
things comprehended in a command (though not expressed) are of
divine right.

Consequentially, many things are clearly deducible from express
commands in Scripture, by clear, unforced, infallible, and
undeniable consequence. Now what things are commanded by necessary
consequence, they are of divine right, as well as things in express
terms prescribed: e.g. in the case of baptism, have the ordinary
ministers of the New Testament any punctual express command to
baptize? yet, by consequence, it is evident infallibly, the
apostles are commanded to baptize, and the promise is made to them
by Christ, that he will be with them always to the end of the
world, Matt, xxviii. 18-20, which cannot be interpreted of the
apostles’ persons only; for they were not to live till the world’s
end, but are dead and gone long ago; but of the apostles and their
successors, the ministers of the gospel to the world’s end; now to
whom the promise of Christ’s presence is here to be applied, to
them the precept of baptizing and teaching is intended by clear
consequence and deduction. So, infants of Christian parents under
the New Testament are commanded to be baptized by consequence; for
that the infants of God’s people under the Old Testament were
commanded to be circumcised, Gen. xvii.; for, the privileges of
believers under the New Testament are as large as the privileges of
believers under the Old Testament: and the children of believers
under the New Testament are federally holy, and within the covenant
of God, as well as the children of believers under the Old
Testament, Gen. xvii., compared with Rom. xi. 16; 1 Cor. vii. 14:
and what objections can be made from infants’ incapacity now,
against their baptism, might as well then have been made against
their being circumcised: and why children should once be admitted
to the initiating sacrament, and not still be admitted to the like
initiating sacrament, (the Lord of the covenant and sacrament
nowhere forbidding them,) there can be no just ground. And baptism
succeeds in the room of circumcision, Col. ii. 11, 12. Thus in
case of the Lord’s supper, apostles were commanded to dispense
it, and men commanded to receive it. “Do ye this in remembrance of
me,” Matt, xxvi., 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25; yet by consequence, the
ministers of the gospel succeeding the apostles, being stewards of
the mysteries of God, have the same charge laid upon them; and
women as well as men are enjoined to keep that sacrament, whole
families communicating in the passover, the forerunner of the
Lord’s supper, Exod. xiv., and male and female being all one in
Christ, Gal. iii. 28. Thus in case of the maintenance of
ministers under the New Testament: the apostle proves it by
consequence to be commanded, God hath ordained, &c., from God’s
command of not muzzling the ox that treads out the corn, and
of maintaining the priests under the Old Testament, 1 Cor. ix. 14,
&c.; l Tim. v. 17, 18. And thus, in case of church polity, the
Hebrews are commanded to obey and be subordinate to their rulers in
the Lord, Heb. xiii. 17; consequently, other churches are commanded
not only to have rulers, but to obey and submit to their rule and
government. Timothy is commanded to lay hands suddenly on
none, &c., in ordaining of preaching elders, 1 Tim. v. 21,
22; consequently, such as succeed Timothy in ordaining of preaching
elders are enjoined therein to do nothing suddenly, hastily,
&c., but upon mature deliberation. The apostle commands, that
men must first be proved, and found blameless, before they
execute the deacon’s office, 1 Tim. iii. 10; by consequence, it
is much more necessarily commanded, that ruling elders should first
be proved, and be found blameless, before they exercise rule; and
that ministers be examined, and found blameless, before they be
ordained to or execute the ministerial function, for these offices
are of greater and higher concernment than the deacon’s office.

2. Mediate divine commands, which are mediately from God, but
immediately from men; and these come under a double consideration,
being either,

1. Such commands whose general principles are immediately the
Lord’s, yet accommodations and determinations of particulars are
from men, by apparent deductions from those grounds. Of such the
apostle saith, “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord,” 1 Cor. vii.
12; not that Paul delivered any commands merely of his own head,
(for he had “obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful,” ver. 25,
and did think that he had the Spirit of the Lord, ver. 40,)
but grounded his commands upon the word of God, whereof the apostle
was the interpreter. The case is concerning divorce when it fell
out that believer and unbeliever were married together: the Lord
had given general rules about divorce, but no particular rule about
this case, (it being not incident to the Jews;) the apostle,
therefore, accommodates the general rule to the particular case;
he, not the Lord, determined the particular. This sound
interpreters conceive to be the apostle’s meaning: Thus the
apostle, treating of order in public assemblies, saith, “The
prophet and the spiritual man must acknowledge the things which I
write, to be the commandments of the Lord,” 1 Cor. xiv. 37.
Understand it mediately, as being agreeable to the Lord’s
principles revealed: for otherwise how should the prophet know what
the Lord immediately revealed to the apostle? or why should we
think it probable that what Paul here speaks of order and decency
in church assemblies, was immediately and expressly delivered him
by speech or revelation from the Lord, seeing these particulars
have such easy and apparent deduction from general principles, and
revelations are not unnecessarily multiplied? Yet these particular
deductions and determinations are here styled the commandments of
the Lord.

2. Such commands, which are accidental and occasional, whose
grounds and general principles are also the Lord’s; yet
determination or deduction of particulars can hardly be made, but
in such emergent cases and occasions accidentally falling out, as
necessitate thereunto. As in that case, Acts xv., when the synod
commands abstinence from blood, and things strangled, and
that necessarily, (though the Levitical law was now abrogated,)
because the common use thereof by accident grew very scandalous:
therefore, by the law of charity, the use of Christian liberty is
to be suspended, when otherwise the scandal of my brother is
endangered; yet from any ground of equity to have provided such a
particular rule as this, without such a case occurring, would
scarce have been possible. Now the synod saith of this
determination, “It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost, and unto us,”
Acts xv. And another synod, walking by the like light and rule of
the Scripture as they did, may say of themselves as the apostles
said.

PART II.

OF THE NATURE OF THAT CHURCH GOVERNMENT WHICH IS OF DIVINE
RIGHT, ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE.

CHAPTER I.

The Description of Church Government.

The nature of that church government which is of divine right
according to Scripture, comes next to be considered; (having so
fully seen what the nature of a divine right is, and how many
several ways matters in religion may be said to be of divine
right.) For the fuller and clearer unfolding whereof, let us first
see how church government may be described; and then how that
description may be explained and justified by the word of God, in
the branches of it.

Church government may be thus described:

Church government is a power13 or authority spiritual,14 revealed in the holy
Scriptures,15 derived from
Jesus Christ16 our
Mediator,17 only to his own
officers, and by them exercised in dispensing of the word,18 seals,19 censures,20 and all other ordinances of
Christ,21 for the edifying of
the Church of Christ.22

This description of church government may be thus explained and
proved. Three things are principally considerable herein, viz: 1.
The thing defined, or described, viz. church government. 2. The
general nature of this government which it hath in common with all
other governments, viz. power or authority.

3. The special difference whereby it is distinguished from all
other governments whatsoever. Herein six things are observable. 1.
The special rule, wherein it is revealed, and whereby it is to be
measured, viz. the holy Scriptures. 2. The proper author, or
fountain, whence this power is derived, viz. from Jesus Christ our
Mediator, peculiarly. 3. The special kind of this power or
authority, viz. it is a spiritual power, it is a derived power. 4.
The several parts or acts wherein this power sets forth itself,
viz. in dispensing the word, seals, censures, and all other
ordinances of Christ. 5. The special end or scope of this power,
viz. the edifying of the Church of Christ. 6. The proper and
distinct subject or receptacle wherein Christ hath placed and
intrusted all this power, viz. only his own officers. All these
things are comprehended in this description, and unto these several
heads the whole nature of church government may be reduced. So
that, these being explained and confirmed by the Scriptures, it
will easily and fully be discovered, what that church government is
which is of divine right, and by the will and appointment of Jesus
Christ, our Mediator.

CHAPTER II.

Of the Subject Described, viz. Church Government, the terms
being briefly opened.

Touching the thing defined or described, it is church
government. Here two terms are to be a little explained: 1. What is
meant by church? 2. What is meant by government?

1. Church is originally derived from a Greek word,23 which signifies to call forth.
Hence church properly signifies a company or multitude, called
forth; and so in this notation of the word, three things are
implied: 1. The term from which they are called. 2. The term to
which they are called. 3. The medium or mean by which they are
brought from one term to another, viz. by calling. And these things
thus generally laid down, do agree to every company that may
properly be called a church. Now, this word translated church,
never signifies one particular person, but many congregated,
gathered, or called together; and it hath several acceptations or
uses in the New Testament: 1. It is used in a common and civil
sense, for any civil meeting, or concourse of people together: thus
that tumultuous and riotous assembly is called a church, Acts xix.
32, 39, 40. 2. It is used in a special religious sense, for a
sacred meeting or assembly of God’s people together: and thus it
signifies the Church of God, either, 1. Invisible, comprehending
only the elect of God, as Heb. xii. 23, “and Church of the
first-born,” Eph. v. 23, &c., “Even as Christ is the head of
the Church.” 2. Or, visible, comprehending the company of those
that are called to the visible profession of the faith in Christ,
and obedience unto Christ, according to the gospel, as Acts ii. 47,
and v. 11, and viii. 3, and xii. 1, 5; 1 Cor. xii. 23, and often
elsewhere. Now in this description, church is not understood of a
civil assembly; for such assemblies are governed by civil power.
Nor of the invisible Church of Christ; for, as the Church is
invisible, (to speak properly,) it is invisibly governed by Christ
and his Spirit, Rom. viii. 14; Gal. ii. 20. But of the visible
Church of Christ, for which Christ hath provided a visible polity,
a visible government, by visible officers and ordinances, for the
good both of the visible and invisible members thereof, which is
that church government here spoken of.

2. Government is the translation of a Greek word, which properly
signifies the government of a ship with chart, &c., by the
pilot or mariner, and thence metaphorically is used to signify any
government, political or ecclesiastical. But the word is only once
used in all the New Testament, viz. 1 Cor. xii. 28:
Governments, h.e. ruling elders in the church; the abstract
being put for the concrete, governments for governors. But whatever
be the terms or names whereby government is expressed, government
generally considered seems still to signify a superiority of
office, power, and authority, which one hath and exerciseth over
another. This is the notion of government in general. So that
church government, in general, notes that pre-eminence or
superiority of office, power, and authority, which some have and
exercise over others in spiritual matters, in church affairs. And
here we are further to consider, that church government is either,
1. Magisterial, lordly, and supreme; and so it is primitively and
absolutely in God, Matt. xxviii. 18. Dispensatorily and mediatorily
in Jesus Christ our Mediator only, whom God hath made both Lord and
Christ, Acts ii. 36; Matt, xxiii. 8, 10; 1 Cor. viii. 6, and to
whom God alone hath dispensed all authority and power, Matt,
xxviii. 18, 19; John v. 22. Now church government, as settled on
Christ only, is monarchical. 2. Ministerial, stewardly, and
subordinate; and this power Jesus Christ our Mediator hath
committed to his church guides and officers in his Church, 2 Cor.
x. 8, and xiii. 10; and church government, as intrusted in the
hands of church guides, is representative. This ministerial church
government, committed by Christ to his officers, may be considered
either, 1. As it was dispensed under the Old Testament, in a
Mosaical, Levitical polity; in which sense we here speak not of
church government; (that polity being dissolved and antiquated.) 2.
Or, as it is to be dispensed now under the New Testament, in an
evangelical Christian polity, by Christ’s New Testament officers;
and this is that church government which is here described, viz.
not the supreme magisterial government of Christ, but the
subordinate ministerial government of Christ’s officers; and this
not as it was under the Old Testament, but as it ought to be now
under the New Testament.

CHAPTER III.

Of the general Nature of Church Government, viz. Power or
Authority.

Touching the general nature of this government, which it
participates in common with all other governments, it is power or
authority. Here divers particulars are to be cleared and proved,
viz:

1. What is meant by power or authority? The word chiefly used in
the New Testament for power or authority is used not only to denote
Christ’s supreme power, as Luke iv. 36; Mark i. 17, with Luke vi.
19; but also his officers’ derived power, as with 2 Cor. x. 8, and
xiii. 10. It is used to signify divers things: as, 1. Dignity,
privilege, prerogative. “To them he gave prerogative to be the sons
of God,” John i. 12. 2. Liberty, leave, license; as, 1 Cor. viii.
9, “But so that your liberty become not an offence to the weak;”
and 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5, “Have not we liberty to eat and drink? Have
not we liberty to lead about a sister, a wife?” 3. But most usually
right and authority; as, Matt. xxi. 23, 24, 27, and xxviii. 18; so
2 Cor. x. 8, and xiii. 10: in this last sense especially it is here
to be taken in this description of church government.

Power or authority in general is by some24 thus described: that whereby one
may claim or challenge any thing to one’s self, without the injury
of any other. Power is exercised either about things, or actions,
or persons. 1. About things, as when a man disposes of his own
goods, which he may do without wrong to any. 2. About actions, as
when a man acts that which offends no law. 3. About persons, as
when a man commands his children or servants that are under his own
power.—Proportionably, the power of the Church in government
is exercised, 1. About things, as when it is to be determined by
the word, what the Church may call her own of right; as, that all
the officers are hers, Eph; iv. 7, 8, 10, 11; 1 Cor. xii. 28: that
all the promises are hers, 2 Pet. i. 4; 1 Tim. iv. 8: that Jesus
Christ, and with Christ all things, are hers, 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22.
The keys of the kingdom of heaven are hers, Matt. xvi. 19, and
xviii. 18, &c.; John xx. 21, 23, &c.: these things the
Church may challenge without wrong to any. 2. About actions. As
when it is to be determined by the word, what the Church of divine
right may do, or not do: as, the Church may not bear with them
that are evil, Rev. ii. 2; nor tolerate women to teach,
or false doctrine to be broached, Rev. ii. 20, &c. The Church
may warn the unruly, 1 Thess. v. 14: excommunicate the
obstinate and incorrigible, Matt, xviii. 17, 18; 1 Cor. v. 4, 5,
13: receive again penitent persons to the communion of the
faithful, 2 Cor. ii. 7, 8: make binding decrees in synods, even to
the restraining of the outward exercise of due Christian liberty
for a time, for prevention of scandal, Acts xv. 3. About persons.
The Church also hath a power to be exercised, for calling them to
their duty, and keeping them in their duty according to the word of
God: as, to rebuke them before all, that sin before all, 1
Tim. v. 20: to prove deacons, Acts vi. 2, 3, &c.; 1 Tim. iii.
10: to ordain elders, Tit. i. 5; Acts xiv. 23: to use the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the dispensing of all
ordinances, Matt, xviii. 18-20, and John xx. 21, 23, with Matt,
xxviii. 18-20: and, in a word, (as the cause shall require,) to
judge of all them that are within the Church, 1 Cor. v. 12.

This is the power and authority wherein the nature of church
government generally doth consist.

2. That all governments in Scripture are styled by the common
names of power or authority: e.g. the absolute government of God
over all things, is power, Acts i. 7: the supreme government of
Jesus Christ, is power, Matt, xxviii. 18; Rev. xii. 10: the
political government of the magistrate in commonwealths, is power,
as John xix. 10; Rom. xiii. 1-3; Luke xxiii. 7: the military
government of soldiers under superior commanders, is power,
&c., Matt. viii. 9: the family government that the master of a
family hath over his household, is power, 1 Tim. iii. 5, “If any
man know not how to rule his own house.” Yea, the very tyrannical
rule that sin and Satan exercise over carnal men, is styled power,
Acts xxvi. 18; Col. i. 13. Thus, generally, all sorts of government
are commonly called power or authority.

3. That thus the Scripture also styles church government, viz.
power or authority, as 2 Cor. x. 8, “Of our authority” (or power)
“which the Lord hath given us for your edification.” Paul speaks it
of this power of church government. And again, speaking of the same
subject, he saith, “Lest being present, I should use sharpness,
according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification,
and not to destruction.” 2 Cor. xiii. 10.

For further clearing hereof, consider the several sorts or kinds
of ecclesiastical power, according to this type or scheme of
ecclesiastical power and authority here subjoined.

Ecclesiastical power is either supreme and magisterial; or
subordinate and ministerial.

I. Supreme magisterial power, consisting in a lordly dominion
and sovereignty over the Church; and may come under a double
consideration, viz:

1. As it is justly attributed to God alone. Thus the absolute
sovereignty and supreme power (to speak properly) is only his over
the Church, and all creatures in the whole universe: now this
supreme divine power is either essential or mediatorial.

1. Essential, viz. that power which belongs to the essence of
God, and to every person of the Trinity in common, as God. “His
kingdom ruleth over all,” Psal. ciii. 19. “God ruleth in Jacob to
the ends of the earth,” Psal. lix. 13. “The kingdom is the Lord’s,
and he is the Governor among the nations,” Psal. xxii. 28.

2. Mediatorial, viz. that magisterial, lordly, and sovereign
power or dominion, which God hath dispensed, delegated, or
committed to Christ as Mediator, being both head of the Church, and
over all things to the Church. This power is peculiar only to Jesus
Christ our Mediator. “All power is given to me both in heaven and
in earth,” Matt. xxviii. 18. “The Father loveth the Son, and hath
given all things into his hand,” John iii. 35. “The Father judgeth
no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son,” John v. 22.
“One is your Master, even Christ,” Matt. xxiii. 8, 10. “God hath
put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all
things to the Church,” Eph. i. 20-23.—This power of Christ is
the only proper fountain whence all ecclesiastical power flows to
the Church.

II. As it is unjustly arrogated and usurped by man; whether, 1.
By the pope to himself; who arrogates to himself to be Christ’s
vicar, the supreme visible head on earth of the visible catholic
Church of Christ; who exalts himself above all that is called God
on earth, over magistrates, princes, kings, yea, over the souls and
consciences of men, and the holy Scriptures of God themselves,
&c., 2 Thess. ii. 4; Rev. xviii. 10-13.

2. By earthly princes to themselves: as, King Henry VIII., who,
casting off the papal power and primacy, was vested with it himself
within his own dominions, over the Church, accounting himself the
fountain of all ecclesiastical power, (it being by statute law
annexed to the crown,) and assuming to himself that papal title of
supreme head of the Church, &c., which is sharply taxed by
orthodox divines of foreign churches. Thus, that most learned
Rivet, taxing Bishop Gardiner for extolling the king’s primacy,
saith, “For, he that did as yet nourish the doctrine of the papacy,
as after it appeared, did erect a new papacy in the person of the
king.”—Andrew Rivet, Expli. Decalog. Edit. ii. page
203. Judicious Calvin saith thus: “And to this day how many are
there in the papacy that heap upon kings whatsoever right and power
they can possibly, so that there may not be any dispute of
religion; but should this power be in one king, to decree according
to his own pleasure whatsoever he pleaseth, and that should remain
fixed without controversy? They that at first so much extolled
Henry, king of England, (certainly they were inconsiderate men,)
gave unto him supreme power of all things, and this grievously
wounded me always; for they were blasphemers, when they called him
the supreme head of the Church under Christ: certainly this was too
much. But let this remain buried, because they sinned by an
inconsiderate zeal. But when that impostor, (he means Bishop
Gardiner, as Rivet notes,) which after was chancellor of this
Proserpina, which there at this day overcometh all the devils, he
when he was at Ratisbon did not contend with reasons, (I speak of
this last chancellor, who was Bishop of Winchester,) but as I now
began to say, he much regarded not scripture testimonies; but said,
it was at the pleasure of the king to abrogate the statutes, and
institute new rites. Touching fasting, there the king can enjoin
and command the people, that this or that day the people may eat
flesh: yea, that it is lawful for the king to forbid priests to
marry; yea, that it is lawful for the king to forbid to the people
the use of the cup in the Lord’s supper; that it is lawful for the
king to decree this or that in his kingdom. Why? Because the king
hath the supreme power. It is certain, if kings do their duty, they
are both patrons of religion, and nurse-fathers of the Church, as
Isaiah calls them, Isa. xlix. 23. This, therefore, is principally
required of kings, that they use the sword wherewith they are
furnished, for the maintaining of God’s worship. But in the mean
time there are inconsiderate men, that make them too spiritual; and
this fault reigns up and down Germany; yea, spreads too much in
these countries. And now we perceive what fruits spring from this
root, viz: that princes, and all that are in place of government,
think themselves to be so spiritual, that there is no other
ecclesiastical government. And this sacrilege creeps among us,
because they cannot measure their office with certain and lawful
bounds, but are of opinion they cannot reign, unless they abolish
all the authority of the Church, and become the chief judges both
in doctrine, and in the whole spiritual government. At the
beginning they pretend some zeal; but mere ambition drives them,
that so solicitously they snatch all things to themselves.
Therefore there ought to be a temper kept; for this disease hath
always reigned in princes, to desire to bend religion according to
their own pleasure and lust, and for their own profits in the mean
time. For they have respect to their profit, because for the most
part they are not acted by the Spirit of God, but their ambition
carries them.” Thus Calvin in Amos vii. 13. Oh what exclamations
would this holy man have poured out, had he lived to see the
passages of our days! Quis talia fando temperet a
lachrymis!25

II. Subordinate ministerial power, which is either,

1. Indirectly, improperly, and only objectively ecclesiastical
or spiritual, (so called, because it is exercised about spiritual
or ecclesiastical objects, though formally in its own nature it be
properly a mere civil or political power.) This is that power which
is allowed to the civil magistrate about religion; he is an
overseer of things without the Church, having an external care
of religion as a nurse-father, Isa. xlix. 23; as had
Hezekiah, Josiah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, &c.; so as, by the law, to
restore religion decayed, reform the Church corrupted, protect the
Church reformed, &c.

2. Directly, properly, and formally ecclesiastical or spiritual,
having respect properly to matters within the Church. This power
only belongs to church officers, who are overseers of things
within, 1 Cor. iv. 20, 21; 2 Cor. x. 8, and xiii. 10; and this is
either, 1. More special and peculiar to the office of some church
governors only, as the power of preaching the gospel, dispensing
the sacraments, &c., which is only committed to the ministers
of the gospel, and which they, as ministers, may execute, in virtue
of their office. This is called by some the key of doctrine, or key
of knowledge; by others, the power of order, or of special office.
See Matt, xxviii. 18-20; Rom. x. 15; 1 Tim. v. 17. 2. More general
and common to the office of all church governors, as the power of
censures, &c., wherein ruling elders act with ministers,
admonishing the unruly, excommunicating the incorrigible, remitting
and receiving again of the penitent into church communion. Compare
Matt, xviii. 17, 18; 1 Cor. v. 2, 4, 5, 7, 11-13; 2 Cor. ii. 6-12,
with Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 28; and 1 Tim. v. 17. This is called
the key of discipline, or power of jurisdiction.

CHAPTER IV.

Of the special difference of Church Government from other
Governments. And first of the Special Rule of Church Government,
viz. the Holy Scriptures.

Touching the special difference, whereby church government is in
this description distinguished from all other governments
whatsoever, it consists of many branches, which will require more
large explication and confirmation; and shall be handled, not
according to that order, as they are first named in the
description, but according to the order of nature, as they most
conduce to the clearing of one another, every branch being
distinctly laid down, as followeth:

The rule or standard of church government is only the holy
Scriptures. Thus in the description, church government is styled a
power or authority revealed in the holy Scriptures. For clearing
hereof, take this proposition, viz:

Jesus Christ our Mediator hath laid down in his word a perfect
and sufficient rule for the government of his visible Church under
the New Testament, which all the members of his Church ought to
observe and submit unto until the end of the world. For clearing
this, weigh these considerations:

1. The government of the visible Church under the New Testament
is as needful as ever it was under the Old Testament. What
necessity of government could be pleaded then, which may not as
strongly be pleaded now? Is not the visible Church of Christ a
mixed body of sound and unsound members, of fruitful and barren
branches, of tares and wheat, of good and bad, of sincere believers
and hypocrites, of sheep and goats, &c., now as well as it was
then? Is there not as great cause to separate and distinguish by
church power, between the precious and the vile, the clean and the
unclean, (who are apt to defile, infect, and leaven one another,)
now as well as then? Ought there not to be as great care over the
holy ordinances of God, to preserve and guard them from contempt
and pollution, by a hedge and fence of government, now as well as
then? Is it not as necessary that by government sin be suppressed,
piety promoted, and the Church edified, now as well as then? But
under the Old Testament the Church visible had a perfect rule of
church government, (as is granted on all sides:) and hath Jesus
Christ left his Church now under the New Testament in a worse
condition?

2. The Lord Jesus Christ (upon whose shoulder God hath laid the
government, Isa. ix. 6, and unto whom all power both in heaven
and in earth is given by the Father to that end, Matt. xxviii.
18) is most faithful in all his house, the Church, fully to
discharge all the trust committed to him, and completely to supply
his Church with all necessaries both to her being, and well-being
ecclesiastical. Moses was faithful in the Old Testament; for, as
God gave him a pattern of church government in the ceremonial law,
so he did all things according to the pattern; and shall the Lord
Jesus be less faithful as a son over his own house, than was
Moses as a servant over another’s house? “Consider the Apostle and
High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to
him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his
house—and Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a
servant—but Christ as a son over his own house, whose house
are we,” Heb. iii. 1, 2, 5, 6. Yea, “Jesus Christ, the same
yesterday, and to-day, and forever,” Heb. xiii. 8, giving a pattern
of church government to Moses, and the church officers of the Old
Testament, (the Church being then as a child in nonage and
minority, Gal, iv. 1, &c.,) can we imagine he hath not as
carefully left a pattern of church government to his apostles, and
the church officers of the New Testament, the Church being now as a
man come to full age and maturity?

3. The holy Scriptures are now completely and unalterably
perfect, containing such exact rules for the churches of God in all
states and ages, both under the Old and New Testament, that not
only the people of God, of all sorts and degrees, but also the men
of God, and officers of the Church, of all sorts and ages, may
thereby be made perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
“The law of the Lord is perfect,” Psal. xix. 7. “All Scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the
man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to every good
work,” 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. And in his first epistle to Timothy,
(which is the Church’s directory for divine worship, discipline,
and government,) he saith, “These things write I unto
thee—that thou mightest know how thou oughtest to behave
thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living
God,” (this is spoken in reference to matters of church government
peculiarly,) 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15. And the apostle, having respect to
the former matters in his epistle, saith to Timothy, and to all
Timothies after him, “I give thee charge in the sight of
God—that thou keep this commandment without spot,
unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,”
(therefore, this charge is intended for all ministers after Timothy
to the world’s end,) 1 Tim. vi. 13, 14, compared with 1 Tim. v. 21,
observe these things. And the perfection of the whole
scripture canon is sealed up with that testimony in the close of
the last book, “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall
add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any
man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of
the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book,”
Rev. xxii. 18, 19. Now, if the Scriptures be thus accurately
perfect and complete, they must needs contain a sufficient pattern,
and rules of church government now under the New Testament; which
rules are scattered here and there in several books of the word,
(as flowers grow scattered in the field, as silver is mingled in
the mine, or as gold is mixed with the sand,) that so God may
exercise his Church, in sifting and searching them out.

4. All the substantials of church government under the New
Testament are laid down in the word in particular rules, whether
they be touching officers, ordinances, censures, assemblies, and
the compass of their power, as after will appear; and all the
circumstantials are laid down in the word, under general rules of
order, decency, and edification, 1 Cor, xiv. 40, and ver. 5,12,
26.

Consequently, there is a perfect and sufficient rule for church
government laid down in the Scriptures, which is obligatory upon
all.

CHAPTER V.

Of the Proper Author or Fountain, whence Church Government
and the authority thereof is derived by Divine Right, viz. Jesus
Christ our Mediator.

As the Scripture is the rule of church government, so Christ is
the sole root and fountain whence it originally flows; therefore,
it is said in the description, church government is a power or
authority, derived from Jesus Christ our Mediator. Take it in this
proposition, viz:

Jesus Christ our Mediator hath all authority and power in heaven
and in earth, for the government of his Church, committed unto him
from God the Father. This is clearly evident,

1. By plain testimonies of Scripture, declaring that the
government of the Church is laid upon his shoulder, to which end
the Father hath invested him with all authority and power. “The
government shall be upon his shoulder,” &c., Isa. ix. 6,7. “All
power is given me in heaven and in earth: go, disciple ye all
nations,” &c., Matt, xxviii. 18, 19. “He shall be great, and
shall be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give
unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over
the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no
end,” Luke i. 32, 33. “The Father judgeth no man, but hath
committed all judgment to the Son; and hath given him authority to
execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man,” John v. 22,
27. “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his
hand,” John iii. 35. “It is he that hath the key of David, that
openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth,” Rev.
iii. 7. “God raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right
hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power,
and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in
this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all
things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things
to the Church, which is his body,” Eph. i. 20-23,

2. By eminent princely titles, attributed unto Jesus Christ our
Mediator, having such authority, power, rule, and government
legibly engraven upon their foreheads, in reference to his
Church.

“A Governor which shall feed” (or rule) “my people Israel,”
Matt. ii. 6. “That great Shepherd of the sheep,” Heb. xiii. 20.
“That Shepherd and Bishop of our souls,” 1 Pet. ii. ult. “One is
your master, Christ,” Matt, xxiii. 8, 10. “Christ as a son over his
own house,” Heb. iii. 6. “The Head of the body the Church,” Col. i.
18; Eph. v. 23. “Head over all things to the Church,” Eph. i. 22.
“To us but one Lord Jesus Christ,” 1 Cor. viii. 6. “Made of God
both Lord and Christ,” Acts ii. 36. “Lord of lords,” Rev. xix. 16.
“He is Lord of all,” Acts x. 36. “God’s King set on his holy hill
of Zion,” Psal. ii. 6. “David their king,” Jer. xxx. 9; Ezek.
xxxiv. 23, and xxxvii. 24; Hos. iii. 5. “King of kings,” Rev. xix.
16.

3. By those primitive, fundamental, imperial acts of power, and
supreme authority in the government of the Church, which are
peculiarly ascribed to Jesus Christ our Mediator, as appropriate to
him alone, above all creatures, e.g.

1. The giving of laws to his Church. “The law of Christ,” Gal.
vi. 2. “Gave commandments to the apostles,” Acts i. 2. “There is
one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy,” James iv. 12.
“The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver,” (or
statute-maker,) “the Lord is our king,” Isa. xxxiii. 22.

2. The constituting of ordinances, whereby his Church shall be
edified: as preaching the word, Matt. x. 7; 1 Cor. i. 17;
Matt, xxviii. 18-20; Mark xvi. 15. Administering of the
sacraments. Baptism, John i. 33, with Matt. iii. 13, &c.,
and xxviii. 18, 19. The Lord’s supper, 1 Cor. xi. 20, 23,
&c.; Matt. xxvi. 26, &c.; Mark xiv. 22, &c.; Luke xxii.
19, 20. Dispensing of censures, Matt. xvi. 10, with xviii.
15-18, &c.

3. The ordaining and appointing of his own church officers, by
whom his ordinances shall be dispensed and managed in his Church.
“He gave gifts to men; and he gave some, apostles; and some,
prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers,”
Eph. iv. 7, 8, 11; compare 1 Cor. xii. 28; 1 Thess. v. 12; Acts xx.
28.

4. The dispensing of Christ’s ordinances, not in the name of
magistrates, ministers, churches, councils, &c., but in
Christ’s own name. The apostles did “speak and teach in the name of
Jesus,” Acts iv. 17, 18. “Whatsoever ye ask in my name,” John xiv.
13, 14, and xvi. 23. “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son,” Matt, xxviii. 18, 19. “They were baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus,” Acts xix. 5. “In the name—with the power
of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one to Satan,” 1 Cor.
v. 4. Yea, assemblies of the Church are to be in Christ’s name:
“Where two or three are gathered together in my name,” Matt, xviii.
20.

CHAPTER VI.

Of the Special Kind, or Peculiar Nature of this Power and
Authority.

Having viewed what is the rule of this authority, viz. the holy
Scriptures, and what is the fountain of this authority, viz. Jesus
Christ our Mediator; now consider the special kind or peculiar
nature of this authority, which the description lays down in two
several expressions, viz: 1. It is a spiritual power or authority.
2. It is a derived power, &c.

1. The power or authority of church government is a spiritual
power. Spiritual, not so perfectly and completely as Christ’s
supreme government is spiritual, who alone hath absolute and
immediate power and authority over the very spirits and consciences
of men; ruling them by the invisible influence of his Spirit and
grace as he pleaseth, John iii. 8; Rom. viii. 14; Gal. ii. 20: but
so purely, properly, and merely spiritual is this power, that it
really, essentially, and specifically differs, and is
contradistinct from that power which is properly civil, worldly,
and political, in the hand of the political magistrate. Now, that
this power of church government is in this sense properly, purely,
merely spiritual: and that by divine right may be evidenced many
ways according to Scripture; forasmuch as the rule, fountain,
matter, form, subject, object, end, and the all of this power, is
only spiritual.

1. Spiritual in the rule, revealing and regulating it, viz. not
any principles of state policy, parliament rolls, any human
statutes, laws, ordinances, edicts, decrees, traditions, or
precepts of men whatsoever, according to which cities, provinces,
kingdoms, empires, may be happily governed: but the holy
Scriptures, that perfect divine canon, wherein the Lord Christ hath
revealed sufficiently how his own house, his Church, shall be
ruled, 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15; and all his ordinances, word,
sacraments, censures, &c., shall therein be dispensed, 2 Tim.
iii. 16, 17. (See chap. IV.) Now this Scripture is divinely
breathed, or inspired of God—holy men writing not according
to the fallible will of man, but the infallible acting of the Holy
Ghost, 2 Tim. iii. 16, with 2 Pet. i. 20, 21.

2. Spiritual in the fountain or author of this power, whence it
originally flows; it being derived, not from any magistrate,
prince, or potentate in the world, not from any man on earth, or
the will of man; but only from Jesus Christ our Mediator, himself
being the sole or first receptacle of all power from the Father,
Matt. xxviii. 18; John v. 22: and consequently, the very fountain
of all power and authority to his Church, Matt. xxviii. 18-20, with
John xx. 21, 23; Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 18-20; 2 Cor. x. 8. See
this formerly cleared, chap. III. and V.

3. Spiritual in the matter of it, and the several parts of this
power: therefore called the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
not the keys of the kingdoms of earth, Matt. xvi. 19, (as Christ
professed his kingdom was not of this world, John xviii. 36;
and when one requested of Christ, that by his authority he would
speak to his brother to divide the inheritance with him, Christ
disclaimed utterly all such worldly, earthly power, saying, “Man,
who made me a judge or a divider over you?” Luke xii. 13, 14.)
Consider these heavenly spiritual keys in the kinds of them,
whether of doctrine or discipline; or in the acts of them, whether
of binding or loosing, in all which they are spiritual: e.g. the
doctrine which is preached is not human but divine, revealed in the
Scriptures by the Spirit of God, and handling most sublime
spiritual mysteries of religion, 2 Pet. i.; 2 Tim. iii. 16,17. The
seals administered are not worldly seals, confirming and ratifying
any carnal privileges, liberties, interests, authority, &c.,
but spiritual, sealing the righteousness of faith, Rom. iv.
11; the death and blood of Jesus Christ, with all the spiritual
virtue and efficacy thereof unto his members, Rom. v. 6; Gal. iii.;
1 Cor. x. 16, 17, and xi. 23, 24, &c. The censures dispensed
are not pecuniary, corporal, or capital, by fines, confiscations,
imprisonments, whippings, stocking, stigmatizing, or taking away of
limb or life, (all such things this government meddles not withal,
but leaves them to such as bear the civil sword,) but spiritual,
that only concern the soul and conscience; as admonishing of
the unruly and disorderly, Matt, xviii. 18, 19; casting out the
incorrigible and obstinate from the spiritual fellowship of the
saints, Matt. xviii. 18, 19; 2 Cor. v. ult.: receiving again
into spiritual communion of the faithful, such as are penitent,
2 Cor. ii. 6. Thus the binding and loosing, which are counted the
chief acts of the keys, are spiritually by our Saviour interpreted
to be the remitting and retaining of sins; compare Matt,
xviii. 18, 19, with John xx. 21, 23.

4. Spiritual in the form and manner, as well as in the matter.
For this power is to be exercised, not in a natural manner, or in
any carnal name, of earthly magistrate, court, parliament, prince,
or potentate whatsoever, as all secular civil power is; no, nor in
the name of saints, ministers, or the churches: but in a spiritual
manner, in the name of the Lord Jesus, from whom alone all his
officers receive their commissions. The word is to be preached
in his name, Acts xvii. 18: seals dispensed in his name, Matt.
xxviii. 19; Acts xix. 5: censures inflicted in his name, 1 Cor. v.
4, &c. (See chap. V.)

5. Spiritual in the subject intrusted with this power; which is
not any civil, political, or secular magistrate, (as after will
more fully appear, in chap. IX.) but spiritual officers, which
Christ himself hath instituted and bestowed upon his Church,
apostles, &c., pastors, teachers, elders, Eph.
iv. 7, 8, 10, 11. To these only he hath given the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 18,19, and xxviii.
18, 19; John xx. 21-23; 2 Cor. x. 8, authority which the Lord
hath given us. These he hath made governments in his
Church, 1 Cor. xii. 28. To these he will have obedience and
subjection performed, Heb. xiii. 17, and double honor
allowed, 1 Tim. v. 17.

6. Spiritual in respect of the object about which this power is
to be put forth and exercised, viz. not about things, actions, or
persons civil, as such; but spiritual and ecclesiastical, as such.
Thus injurious actions, not as trespasses against any statute or
law political; but as scandalous to our brethren, or the Church of
God, Matt, xviii. 18, 19; are considered and punished by this
power. Thus the incestuous person was cast out, because a wicked
person in himself, and likely to leaven others by his bad example,
1 Cor. v. 6. Thus the persons whom the Church may judge are not the
men of the world without the Church, but those that are in some
sense spiritual, and within the Church, 1 Cor. v. 12.

7. Spiritual also is this power in the scope and end of it. This
the Scripture frequently inculcates: e.g. a brother is to be
admonished privately, publicly, &c., not for the gaining of our
private interests, advantages, &c., but for the gaining of
our brother, that his soul and conscience may be gained to God
and to his duty, and he be reformed, Matt, xviii. 15. The
incestuous person is to be “delivered to Satan, for the destruction
of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord
Jesus,” 1 Cor. v. 5; yea, the whole authority given to church
guides from the Lord was given to this end, for the edification,
not the destruction of the Church, 2 Cor. x. 8, and xiii. 10;
all which, and such like, are spiritual ends. Thus the power of
church government here described is wholly and entirely a spiritual
power, whether we respect the rule, root, matter, form, subject,
object, or end thereof. So that in this respect it is really and
specifically distinct from all civil power, and in no respect
encroacheth upon, or can be prejudicial unto the magistrate’s
authority, which is properly and only political.

2. The power or authority of church government is a derived
power. For clearing this, observe, there is a magisterial primitive
supreme power, which is peculiar to Jesus Christ our Mediator, (as
hath been proved, chap. III. and V:) and there is a ministerial,
derivative, subordinate power, which the Scripture declares to be
in church guides, Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 18; John xx. 21, 23;
Matt, xxviii. 19, 20; 2 Cor. x. 8, and xiii. 10, and often
elsewhere this is abundantly testified. But whence is this power
originally derived to them? Here we are carefully to consider and
distinguish three things, touching this power or authority from one
another, viz: 1st. The donation of the authority itself, and of the
offices whereunto this power doth properly belong. 2d. The
designation of particular persons to such offices as are vested
with such power. 3d. The public protection, countenancing,
authorizing, defending, and maintaining of such officers in the
public exercise of such power within such and such realms or
dominions. This being premised, we may clearly thus resolve,
according to scripture warrant, viz. the designation or setting
apart of particular individual persons to those offices in the
Church that have power and authority engraven upon them, is from
the church nominating, electing, and ordaining of such persons
thereunto, see Acts iii. 1-3; 1 Tim. iv. 14, and v. 22; Tit. i. 5;
Acts iv. 22. The public protection, defence, maintenance, &c.,
of such officers in the public exercise of the power and authority
of their office in such or such dominions, is from the civil
magistrate, as the nursing-father of the Church, Isa. xlix.
23; for it is by his authority and sanction that such public places
shall be set apart for the public ministry, that such maintenance
and reward shall be legally performed for such a ministry, that all
such persons of such and such congregations shall be (in case they
neglect their duty to such a ministry) punished with such political
penalties, &c. But the donation of the office and spiritual
authority annexed thereunto, is only derived from Jesus Christ our
Mediator. He alone gives all church officers, and therefore none
may devise or superadd any new officers, Eph. iv. 7, 8, 10, 11; 1
Cor. xii. 28. And he alone commits all authority and power
spiritual to those officers, for dispensing of word, sacraments,
censures, and all ordinances, Matt. xvi. 19, and xxviii. 18-20;
John xx. 21-23; 2 Cor. x. 8, and xiii. 10: and therefore it is not
safe for any creature to intrude upon this prerogative royal of
Christ to give any power to any officer of the Church. None can
give what he has not.

CHAPTER VII.

Of the several Parts or Acts of this power of Church
Government, wherein it puts forth itself in the Church.

Thus far of the special kind or peculiar nature of this
authority; now to the several parts or acts of this power which the
description comprehends in these expressions, (in dispensing the
word, seals, censures, and all other ordinances of Christ.) The
evangelical ordinances which Christ has set up in his church are
many; and all of them by divine right that Christ sets up. Take
both the enumeration of ordinances and the divine right thereof
severally, as followeth.

Jesus Christ our Mediator hath instituted and appointed these
ensuing administrations to be standing and perpetual ordinances in
his church: which ordinances for method sake may be reduced into
two heads, according to the distribution of the keys formerly laid
down, (chap. III.,) viz., ordinances appertaining, 1st, To the key
of order or of doctrine; 2d, To the key of jurisdiction or of
discipline.

1. Ordinances appertaining to the key of order or doctrine,
viz:

1. Public prayer and thanksgiving are divine ordinances: for
1st, Paul writing his first epistle to Timothy, “that he might know
how to behave himself in the house of God,” 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15,
among other directions in that epistle, gives this for one, “I
exhort therefore that first of all supplications, prayers,
intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men,” 1 Tim.
ii. 1, 2, “for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our
Saviour,” verse 3. 2. The apostle, regulating public prayers in the
congregation, directing that they should be performed with the
understanding, takes it for granted that public prayer was an
ordinance of Christ. “If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit
prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I
will pray with the spirit, and will pray with the understanding
also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that
occupieth the room of the unlearned, say amen at thy giving of
thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? for thou
verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.” 1 Cor.
xiv. 14-17. 3. Further, the apostles did account public prayer to
be of more concern than serving of tables, and providing for the
necessities of the poor, yea, to be a principal part of their
ministerial office, and therefore resolve to addict and “give
themselves to the ministry of the word and to prayer,” Acts vi. 4;
and this was the church’s practice in the purest times, Acts i. 13,
14, whose pious action is for our imitation. 4. And Jesus Christ
hath made gracious promises to public prayer, viz., of his presence
with those who assemble in his name; and of audience of their
prayers, Matt, xviii. 19, 20. Would Christ so crown public prayer
were it not his own ordinance?

2. Singing of psalms is a divine ordinance, being,

1. Prescribed; “be filled with the spirit: speaking to
yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs,” Eph. v. 18,
19. “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom,
teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and
spiritual songs,” Col. iii. 16.

2. Regulated; the right performance thereof being laid down, “I
will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding
also,” 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 16. “Singing with grace in your hearts to
the Lord,” Col. iii. 16. “Singing and making melody in your hearts
to the Lord,” Eph. v. 19.

3. The public ministry of the word of God in the congregation is
a divine ordinance. “We will give ourselves,” said the apostles,
“to the ministry of the word and prayer,” Acts vi. 4. The ministry
of the word is a sacred ordinance, whether read, preached, or
catechetically propounded.

1. The public reading of the word is a divine ordinance, (though
exposition of what is read do not always immediately follow.) For,
1. God commanded the reading of the word publicly, and never since
repealed that command, Deut. xxxi. 11-13; Jer. xxxvi. 6; Col. iii.
16. 2. Public reading of the scriptures hath been the practice of
God’s church, both before Christ, Exod. xxiv. 7; Neh. viii. 18, and
ix. 3, and xiii. 1; and after Christ, Acts xiii. 15, 27, and xv.
21; 2 Cor. iii. 14. 3. Public reading of the scriptures is as
necessary and profitable now as ever it was. See Deut. xxxi.
11-13.

2. The public preaching of the word is an eminent ordinance of
Christ. This is evident many ways, viz:

1. Christ hath commanded that the word shall be preached. “Go ye
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” Mark
xvi. 15. “Go ye, therefore, and disciple ye all nations; teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” Matt,
xxviii. 19, 20. “As ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is
at hand,” Matt. x. 7. See also Mark iii. 14. “I charge thee,”
&c. “Preach the word,” 2 Tim. iv. 1, 2. “Necessity is laid upon
me, yea, wo is unto me if I preach not the gospel,” 1 Cor. ix. 16,
17. “Christ sent me—to preach the gospel,” 1 Cor. i. 17; with
which compare also Acts xx. 28, and 1 Pet. v. 1-4.

2. Christ hath appointed who shall preach the word. “How shall
they preach except they be sent?” Rom. x. 15. The qualifications of
preaching elders see in 1 Tim. iii. 2-8, and Tit. i. 5-9.

3. Christ hath appointed how the word shall be preached. “Be
instant, in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all
long-suffering and doctrine,” 2 Tim. iv. 2. “That he may be able by
sound doctrine both to exhort and convince gainsayers,” Tit. i. 9.
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is
the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord?” Jer. xxiii. 28.

4. Christ hath made many encouraging promises to the preaching
of his word, which he would not have done, were it not his own
ordinance. “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you, and lo I am with you every day to the end of the
world,” Matt, xxviii. 20. “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall
be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven,” Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 18. “Whose soever sins
ye remit, they are remitted unto them: and whose soever sins ye
retain, they are retained,” John xx. 23. Both these are partly
meant of doctrinal binding and loosing, remitting and retaining.
“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.

3. The catechetical propounding or expounding of the word, viz.
a plain, familiar laying down of the first principles of the
oracles of God, is an ordinance of Christ also. For, 1. This was
the apostolical way of teaching the churches at the first
plantation thereof. “When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye
have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of
the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk and
not of strong meat,” Heb. v. 12. “Therefore, leaving the word of
the beginning of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, not laying
again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith
towards God,” &c., Heb. vi. 1,2. “And I, brethren, could not
speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes
in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat, for
hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able,”
1 Cor. iii. 1, 2. 2. And this is the sense of pastor and people
which the Holy Ghost useth, setting forth the reciprocal relation
and office between them, with his own approbation. “Let him that is
catechized in the word, communicate to him that catechizeth him, in
all good things,” Gal. vi. 6.

4. The administration of the sacraments is of divine
institution.

1. Of baptism. “He that sent me to baptize with water,” John i.
33. “Go ye therefore, disciple ye all nations, baptizing them into
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,”
Matt, xxviii. 18-20.

2. Of the Lord’s supper, which Christ ordained the same night
in which he was betrayed: which institution is at large
described, 1 Cor. xi. 20, 23, &c.; Matt. xxvi. 26-31; Mark xiv.
22-27; Luke xxii. 19, 20.

2. Ordinances appertaining to the key of jurisdiction or of
discipline, viz:

1. The ordination of presbyters with imposition of the hands of
the presbytery, after praying and fasting, is a divine ordinance.
“Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by
prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” 1 Tim.
iv. 14. Titus was left in Crete for this end, “To set in order
things that were wanting, and ordain presbyters” (or elders) “in
every city, as Paul had appointed him,” Tit. i. 5. Timothy is
charged, “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of
other men’s sins; keep thyself pure,” 1 Tim. v. 22. Paul and
Barnabas came to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, and “when they had
ordained them presbyters in every church, and had prayed with
fasting, they commended them to the Lord,” &c., Acts xiv. 21,
23.

2. Authoritative discerning, and judging of doctrine according
to the word of God, is a divine ordinance. As that council at
Jerusalem, authoritatively (viz. by ministerial authority) judged
of both the false doctrine and manners of false teachers, branding
them for “troublers of the Church, subverters of souls,” &c.
“Forasmuch as we have heard that certain, coming forth from u, have
troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, ye ought to
be circumcised, and keep the law, to whom we gave no such
commandment,” Acts xv. 24; “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and
to us, to impose upon you no greater burden than these necessary
things,” v. 28; and this was done upon debates from scripture
grounds, “and to this the words of the prophets agree,” Acts xv.
15: and afterwards their results and determinations are called
“decrees ordained by the apostles and elders,” Acts xvi. 4.

3. Admonition and public rebuke of sinners is a divine ordinance
of Christ. “If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him
his fault between thee and him alone: if he will not hear thee,
then take with thee one or two more—and if he shall neglect
to hear them, tell it unto the Church,” Matt, xviii. 15-17. “Whose
soever sins ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” John xx.
23. One way and degree of binding is by authoritative, convincing
reproof. “Admonish the unruly,” 1 Thess. v. 14. “An heretic, after
the first and second admonition, reject,” Tit. iii. 1. “Them that
sin, convincingly reprove before all, that the rest also may fear,”
1 Tim. v. 20. “Rebuke them sharply,” (or convince them cuttingly,)
Tit. iii. 13. “Sufficient to such an one is that rebuke, which was
from many,” 2 Cor. ii. 6.

4. Rejecting, and purging out, or putting away from the
communion of the Church, wicked and incorrigible persons, is an
ordinance of Christ. “And if he will not hear them, tell the
Church; but if he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee
even as a heathen and a publican.” “Verily, I say unto you, what
things soever ye shall bind on earth, they shall be bound in
heaven,” Matt, xviii. 17, 18, compared with Matt. xvi. 19, and John
xx. 21, 23. “An heretic, after once or twice admonition, reject,”
Tit. iii. 10; i.e. excommunicate, till he repent—Pisc. in
loc. By the lawful judgment of the Church, to deliver the
impenitent to Satan.—Beza in loc. “Of whom is Hymeneus
and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan, that they may learn
not to blaspheme,” 1 Tim. i. 20. The apostle’s scope in 1 Cor. v.
is to press the church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous
person. “Ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he
that hath done this deed may be taken from the midst of you. For I
verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have already as
present judged him that thus wrought this thing. In the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit with
the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one to Satan
for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in
the day of our Lord Jesus,” 1 Cor. v. 2-5. “Know ye not that a
little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old
leaven,” ver. 7. “I wrote to you in an epistle, not to be mingled
together with fornicators,” ver. 9, 11; and explaining what he
meant by not being mingled together, saith, “If any named a
brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler,
or drunkard, or rapacious, with such an one not to eat together,”
ver. 11. “Therefore take away from among yourselves that wicked
person,” ver. 13.

5. Seasonable remitting, receiving, comforting, and
authoritative confirming again in the communion of the Church those
that are penitent. “What things soever ye shall loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven,” Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 18. “Whose
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them,” John xx. 23.
This loosing and remitting is not only doctrinal and declarative in
the preaching of the word, but also juridical and authoritative in
the administration of censures. This is called, for distinction’s
sake, absolution. After the church of Corinth had excommunicated
the incestuous person, and he thereupon had given sufficient
testimony of his repentance, the apostle directs them to receive
him into church communion again, saying, “Sufficient to such an one
is that rebuke inflicted of many; so that contrariwise you should
rather forgive and comfort him, lest such an one should be
swallowed up of abundant sorrow. Wherefore I beseech
authoritatively to confirm love unto him: for to this purpose also
I have written unto you, that I may know the proof of you, if ye be
obedient in all things,” 2 Cor. ii. 6-9.

CHAPTER VIII.

Of the End and Scope of this Government of the
Church.

The end or scope intended by Christ in instituting, and to be
aimed at by Christ’s officers in executing of church government in
dispensing the word, sacrament, censures, and all ordinances of
Christ, is (as the description expresseth) the edifying of the
Church of Christ. This end is very comprehensive. For the
fuller evidencing whereof these two things are to be proved:1st,
That Jesus Christ our Mediator hath under the New Testament one
general visible Church on earth. 2d. That the edification of this
Church of Christ is that eminent scope and end why Christ gave the
power of church government and other ordinances unto the
Church.

I. For the first, that Jesus Christ our Mediator hath under the
New Testament a general visible Church on earth, made up of all
particular churches, may be cleared by considering well these
particulars.

1st. That it is evident by the Scriptures that Jesus Christ hath
on earth many particular visible churches: (whether churches
congregational, presbyterial, provincial, or national, needs not
here be determined.) “Unto the churches of Galatia,” Gal. i. 2.
“The churches of Judea,” Gal. i. 22. “Through Syria and Cilicia,
confirming the churches,” Acts xv. 41. “To the seven churches in
Asia,” Rev. i. 4, 20. “The church of Ephesus,” Rev. ii. 1. “The
church in Smyrna,” ver. 8. “The church in Pergamus,” ver. 12. “The
church in Thyatira,” ver. 18. “The church in Sardis,” Rev. iii. 1.
“The church in Philadelphia,” ver. 7. And “the church in Laodicea,”
ver. 14. “The church that is in their house,” Rom. xvi. 5; and
Philem. 2. “Let your women keep silence in the church,” 1 Cor. xiv.
34. “All the churches of the Gentiles,” Rom. xvi. 4. “So ordain I
in all churches,” 1 Cor. vii. 17. “As in all churches of the
saints,” 1 Cor. xiv. 33. “The care of all the churches,” 2 Cor. xi.
28. The New Testament hath many such like expressions.

2d. That how many particular visible churches soever Christ hath
on earth, yet Scripture counts them all to be but one general
visible Church of Christ. This is manifest,

1. By divers Scriptures, using the word church in such a full
latitude and extensive completeness, as properly to signify, not
any one single congregation, or particular church, but one general
visible Church: as, “Upon this rock I will build my Church,” Matt.
xvi. 18. “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the
Greeks, nor to the Church of God,” 1 Cor. x. 32. “God hath set some
in the Church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly,
teachers,” &c., 1 Cor. xii. 28. “I persecuted the Church of
God,” 1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i. 13. “The Church of the living God, the
pillar and ground of the truth,” 1 Tim. iii. 15. “Might be known by
the Church the manifold wisdom of God,” Eph. iii. 10. “In the midst
of the Church will I sing praise unto thee,” Heb. ii. 12. In which,
and such like places, we must needs understand, that one general
visible Church of Christ.

2. By such passages of scripture as evidently compare all
visible professors and members of Christ throughout the world to
one organical body, having eyes, ears, hands, feet, &c., viz.,
several organs, instruments, officers, &c., in it, for the
benefit of the whole body; as, “He gave some apostles, and some
prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for
the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
edifying of the body of Christ,” Eph. iv. 11, 12. “There is one
body,” Eph. iv. 4. “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., Rom. xii.
4-9. “As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the
members of that one body being many, are one body; so also is
Christ,” (i.e., Christ considered mystically, not personally,) “for
by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews
or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free,” &c., 1 Cor. xii. 12,
to the end of the chapter, which context plainly demonstrates all
Christ’s visible members in the world, Jews or Gentiles, &c.,
to be members of one and the same organical body of Christ, which
organical body of Christ is the general visible Church of Christ;
for the invisible church is not organical.

II. That the edification of the Church of Christ is that eminent
scope and end, why Christ gave church government and all other
ordinances of the New Testament to his Church. This is frequently
testified in scripture. 1. The apostle, speaking of this power
generally, saith, “Our authority which the Lord hath given to us
for edification, and not for the destruction of you,” 2 Cor. x. 8.
The like passage he hath again, saying, “according to the
authority,” or power, “which the Lord hath given to me for
edification, and not for destruction,” 2 Cor. xiii. 10; in both
which places he speaks of the authority of church government in a
general comprehensive way, declaring the grand and general
immediate end thereof to be, affirmatively, edification of the
church; negatively, not the subversion or destruction thereof. 2.
In like manner, when particular acts of government, and particular
ordinances are mentioned, the edification of the Church, at least
in her members, is propounded as the great end of all: e.g. 1.
Admonition is for edification, that an erring brother may be
gained, Matt. xviii. 15, 16, that wavering minds may be sound
in the faith. “Rebuke them cuttingly, that they may be sound in the
faith,” Tit. i. 13, that beholders and bystanders may fear to fall
into like sins. “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also
may fear,” 1 Tim. v. 20. 2. Excommunication is for edification;
particularly of the delinquent member himself; thus the incestuous
person was “delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,
that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus,” 1
Cor. v. 4, 5. “Hymeneus and Alexander were delivered to Satan, that
they might learn not to blaspheme,” 1 Tim. i. 20: more generally of
the Church; thus the incestuous person was to be put away from
among them lest the whole lump of the church should be leavened by
him, 1 Cor. v. 3. Absolution also is for edification, lest the
penitent party “should be swallowed up of too much sorrow,” 2 Cor.
ii. 7. 4. All the officers of his Church are for edification of the
Church, (Eph. iv. 7, 8, 11, 12, 16,) together with all the gifts
and endowments in these officers, whether of prayer, prophecy,
tongues, &c., all must be managed to edification. This is the
scope of the whole chapter. 1 Cor. xii. 7, &c., and 1 Cor. xiv.
3-5, 9, 12, &c., 26; read the whole chapter. That passage of
Paul is remarkable, “I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than
you all; yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my
understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten
thousand words in an unknown tongue,” verses 18, 19. Thus church
government, and all sorts of ordinances, with the particular acts
thereof, are to be levelled at this mark of edification.
Edification is an elegant metaphor from material buildings (perhaps
of the material and typical temple) to the spiritual; for
explanation’s sake briefly thus take the accommodation: The
architects, or builders, are the ministers, 1 Cor.
iii. 10. The foundation and corner-stone that bears
up, binds together, and gives strength to the building, is Jesus
Christ, 1 Cor. iii. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 4, 6. The stones or
materials are the faithful or saints, 2 Cor.
i. 1. The building, or house itself, is the Church,
that spiritual house, and temple of the living God, Eph. ii.
21, and iv. 12; 1 Cor. iii. 9, 16, 17. The edification of this
house is gradually to be perfected more and more till the coming of
Christ, by laying the foundation of Christianity, in bringing men
still unto Christ, and carrying on the superstruction in perfecting
them in Christ in all spiritual growth, till at last the top-stone
be laid on, the Church completed, and translated to the house
not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

CHAPTER IX.

Of the proper receptacle and distinct subject of all this
power and authority of Church Government, which Christ hath
peculiarly intrusted with the execution thereof according to the
Scriptures. And 1. Negatively, That the political magistrate
is not the proper subject of this power.

Thus we have taken a brief survey of church government, both in
the rule, root, kind, branches, and end thereof, all which are
comprised in the former description, and being less controverted,
have been more briefly handled. Now, the last thing in the
description which comes under our consideration, is the proper
receptacle of all this power from Christ, or the peculiar subject
intrusted by Christ with this power and the execution thereof, viz.
only Christ’s own officers. For church government is a spiritual
power or authority, derived from Jesus Christ our Mediator, only to
his own officers, and by them exercised in dispensing of the word,
&c. Now about this subject of the power will be the great knot
of the controversy, forasmuch as there are many different claims
thereof made, and urged with vehement importunity: (to omit the
Romish claim for the pope, and the prelatical claim for the
bishop,) the politic Erastian pretends that the only proper subject
of all church government is the political or civil magistrate; the
gross Brownists or rigid Separatists, that it is the body of the
people, or community of the faithful in an equal even level; they
that are more refined, (who style themselves for distinction’s
sake26 Independents,) that it
is the single congregation, or the company of the faithful with
their presbytery, or church officers; the Presbyterians hold that
the proper subject wherein Christ hath seated and intrusted all
church power, and the exercise thereof, is only his own church
officers, (as is in the description expressed.) Here, therefore,
the way will be deeper, and the travelling slower; the opposition
is much, and therefore the disquisition of this matter will
unavoidably be the more.

For perspicuity herein, seeing it is said that this power is
derived from Christ only to his own officers; and by this word
(only) all other subjects are excluded; the subject of church power
may be considered, 1. Negatively, what it is not. 2. Affirmatively,
what it is.

Negatively, the proper subject unto whom Christ hath committed
the power of church government, and the exercise thereof, is not,
1. The political magistrate, as the Erastians imagine. 2. Nor the
body of the people, either with their presbytery or without it, as
the Separatists and Independents pretend. Let these negatives first
be evinced, and then the affirmative will be more clearly
evidenced.

Touching the first of these—that the political magistrate
is not the proper subject unto whom Jesus Christ our Mediator hath
committed the power of church government, and the exercise of that
power; it will be cleared by declaring these two things distinctly
and severally, viz: 1. What power about ecclesiasticals is granted
to the civil magistrate. 2. What power therein is denied unto him,
and why.

SECTION I.

Such power is granted by the reformed churches and orthodox
writers to the political magistrate, in reference to church
affairs. Take it in these particulars.

A defensive, protecting, patronizing power to the church, and
all the members thereof. “Kings shall be thy nursing-fathers,”
&c., Isa. xlix. 23. “The magistrate is the minister of God for
good to well-doers, as well as the avenger, executing wrath upon
evil-doers; a terror not to good works, but to the evil,” Rom.
xiii. 3, 4; he is called an heir, or, possessor of restraint, to
put men to shame, Judges xviii. 7. And as the church ought to
pray for kings and all in authority, so consequently all in
authority should endeavor to defend it, that the church and people
of God should lead a quiet and peaceable life, (under the wing of
their protection,) “in all godliness and honesty,” 1 Tim. ii. 2;
and this is evident from the end and scope of these prayers here
prescribed, as interpreters unanimously agree. And hereupon are
those promises to the church, “The sons of strangers shall build up
thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee,” Isa. lx. 10;
“and thou shalt suck the breast of kings,” Isa. lx. 16. Now, this
nursing, protecting care of magistrates towards the church, puts
forth itself in these or like acts, viz: He,

1. Removes all external impediments of true religion, worship of
God, &c., by his civil power, whether persons or things,
whether persecutions, profaneness, heresy, idolatry, superstition,
&c., that truth and godliness may purely flourish: as did
Jehoshaphat, Asa, Hezekiah, Josiah. And hereupon it is that God so
oft condemns the not removing and demolishing of the high places
and monuments of idolatry, 1 Kings xv. 14, with 2 Chron. xv. 17; 1
Kings xxii. 44; 2 Kings xii. 3: and highly commends the contrary in
Asa, 2 Chron. xv. 8, 16: in Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. xvii. 3, 4, 6-10:
in Hezekiah, 2 Chron. xxxi. 1; 2 Kings xviii. 4: in Manasseh, 2
Chron. xxxiii. 15: in Josiah, 2 Kings xxiii. 8, 13, 19, 20, 24:
whereupon the Holy Ghost gives him that superlative commendation
above all kings before and after him, ver. 25.

2. Countenanceth, advanceth, and encourageth by his authority
and example the public exercise of all God’s ordinances, and duties
of religion within his dominions, whether in matter of divine
worship, discipline, and government, maintaining for the Church the
fulness of spiritual liberties and privileges communicated to her
from Christ: as did Asa, 2 Chron. xv. 9-16: Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron.
xx. 7-9: Hezekiah, 2 Chron. xxix., xxx., and xxxi. chapters
throughout: Josiah, 2 Chron. xxxiv. and xxxv. chapters. And to this
end God prescribed in the law that the king should still have a
copy of the law of God by him, therein to read continually, Deut.
xvii. 18-20; because he was to be not only a practiser, but also a
protector thereof, a keeper of both tables.

3. Supplies the Church with all external necessaries,
provisions, means, and worldly helps in matters of religion: as
convenient public places to worship in, sufficient maintenance for
ministers, (as the Scripture requireth, 1 Tim. v. 17, 18; 1 Cor.
ix. 6-15; Gal. vi. 6:) schools and colleges, for promoting of
literature, as nurseries to the prophets, &c.; together with
the peaceable and effectual enjoyment of all these worldly
necessaries, for comfortably carrying on of all public ordinances
of Christ. Thus David prepared materials, but Solomon built the
temple, 1 Chron. xxii. Hezekiah commanded the people that dwelt in
Jerusalem, to give the portion of the priests and the Levites, that
they might be encouraged in the law of the Lord; and Hezekiah
himself and his princes came and saw it performed, 2 Chron. xxxi.
4, &c., 8: Josiah repaired the house of God, 2 Chron.
xxxiv.

Nor need the magistrate think scorn, but rather count it his
honor to be an earthly protector of the Church, which is the
body of Christ, the Lamb’s wife, for redeeming of which
Christ died, and for gathering and perfecting of which the very
world is continued.

An ordering, regulating power is also allowed to the magistrate
about ecclesiastical matters in a political way, so that he
warrantably,

1. Reforms the Church, when corrupted in divine worship,
discipline, or government: as did Moses, Exod. xxxii.; Joshua,
Josh. xxiv.; Asa, 2 Chron. xv.; Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. xvii.;
Hezekiah, 2 Kings xviii.; Josiah, 2 Kings xxiii.; 2 Chron.
xxxiv.

2. Convenes or convocates synods and councils, made up of
ecclesiastical persons, to consult, advise, and conclude
determinatively, according to the word, how the church is to be
reformed and refined from corruptions, and how to be guided and
governed when reformed, &c. For, 1. Pious magistrates under the
Old Testament called the Church together, convened councils. David,
about bringing back the ark, 1 Chron. xiii. 1, 2, and another
council when he was old, 1 Chron. xiii. 1; Solomon, 1 Kings viii.
1; Hezekiah, 2 Chron. xxix. 4; and Josiah, 2 Kings xxiii. 1, 2. 2.
All ought to be subject to superior powers, who ought to procure
the public peace and prosperity of the Church, Rom. xiii. 1, 2,
&c.; 1 Pet. ii. 13, &c., 17; 1 Tim. ii. 2. Therefore
superior powers may convocate councils. 3. Christian magistrates
called the four general councils: Constantine the first Nicene
council; Theodosius, senior, the first council of Constantinople;
Theodosius, junior, the first Ephesian council; Marcian Emperor,
the Chalcedon council; and, 4. Hereunto antiquity subscribes, as
Dr. Whitaker observes.

3. Supports the laws of God with his secular authority, as a
keeper of the tables, enjoining and commanding, under civil
penalties, all under his dominion, strictly and inviolably to
observe the same: as “Josiah made all that were present in Israel
to serve the Lord their God,” 2 Chron. xxxiv. 33. Nehemiah made the
sabbath to be sanctified, and strange wives to be put away, Neb.
xii. 13, &c. Yea, Nebuchadnezzar, a heathen king, decreed, that
“Whosoever should speak amiss of the God of Shadrach,” &c.,
“should be cut in pieces, and their houses made a dunghill,” Dan.
iii. 28, 29. And Darius decreed, “That in every dominion of his
kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel,” &c.,
Dan. vi. 26, 27.

And as he strengthens the laws and ordinances of God by his
civil authority, so he ratifies and establishes within his
dominions the just and necessary decrees of the Church in synods
and councils (which are agreeable to God’s word) by his civil
sanction.

4. Judges and determines definitively with a consequent
political judgment, or judgment of political discretion, concerning
the things judged and determined antecedently by the Church, in
reference to his own act. Whether he will approve such
ecclesiasticals or not; and in what manner he will so approve, or
do otherwise by his public authority; for he is not a brutish
agent, (as papists would have him,) to do whatsoever the Church
enjoins him unto blind obedience, but is to act prudently and
knowingly in all his office; and therefore the judgment of
discerning (which belongs to every Christian, for the well-ordering
of his own act) cannot be denied to the Christian magistrate, in
respect of his office.

5. Takes care politically, that even matters and ordinances
merely and formally ecclesiastical, be duly managed by
ecclesiastical persons orderly called thereto. Thus Hezekiah
commanded the priests and Levites to do their duties, 2 Chron.
xxix. 5, 24, and the people to do theirs, 2 Chron. xxx. 1; and for
this he is commended, that therein he did cleave unto the Lord, and
observed his precepts which he had commanded Moses, 2 Kings xviii.
6. Thus when the king is commanded to observe and do all the
precepts of the law, the Lord (as orthodox divines do judge)
intended that he should keep them, not only as a private man, but
as a king, by using all care and endeavor that all his subjects
with him perform all duties to God and man, Deut. xvii. 18-20.

6. A compulsive, coactive, punitive, or corrective power,
formally political, is also granted to the political magistrate in
matters of religion, in reference to all sorts of persons and
things under his jurisdiction. He may politically compel the
outward man of all persons, church officers, or others under his
dominions, unto external performance of their respective duties,
and offices in matters of religion, punishing them, if either they
neglect to do their duty at all, or do it corruptly, not only
against equity and sobriety, contrary to the second table, but
against truth and piety, contrary to the first table of the
decalogue. We have sufficient intimation of the magistrate’s
punitive power in cases against the second table; as the stubborn
and rebellious, incorrigible son, that was a glutton and a
drunkard, sinning against the fifth commandment, was to be stoned
to death, Deut. xxi. 18-21. The murderer, sinning against the sixth
commandment, was to be punished with death, Gen. ix. 6; Numb. xxxv.
30-34; Deut. x. 11-13. The unclean person, sinning against the
seventh commandment, was to be punished with death, Lev. xx. 11,
12, 14, 17, 19-25; and before that, see Gen. xxxviii. 24. Yea, Job,
who is thought to live before Moses, and before this law was made,
intimates that adultery is a heinous crime, yea, it is an iniquity
to be punished by the judges, Job xxxi. 9,11. The thief, sinning
against the eighth commandment, was to be punished by restitution,
Exod. xxii. 1, 15, &c. The false witness, sinning against the
ninth commandment, was to be dealt withal as he would have had his
brother dealt with, by the law of retaliation, Deut. xix. 16, to
the end of the chapter, &c. Yea, the magistrate’s punitive
power is extended also to offences against the first table; whether
these offences be against the first commandment, by false prophets
teaching lies, errors, and heresies in the name of the Lord,
endeavoring to seduce people from the true God. “If there arise
among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, that prophet, or that
dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he hath spoken to
turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the
land of Egypt,” &c., Deut. xiii. 1-6. From which place Calvin
notably asserts the punitive power of magistrates against false
prophets and impostors that would draw God’s people to a defection
from the true God, showing that this power also belongs to the
Christian magistrate in like cases now under the gospel.

Yea, in case of such seducement from God, though by nearest
allies, severe punishment was to be inflicted upon the seducer,
Deut. xiii. 6-12. See also ver. 12, to the end of the chapter, how
a city is to be punished in the like case. And Mr.
Burroughs,27 in his Irenicum,
shows that this place of Deut. xiii. 6, &c., belongs even to us
under the gospel.

Or whether these offences be against the second commandment, the
magistrate’s punitive power reaches them, Deut. xvii. 1-8; Lev.
xvii. 2-8; 2 Chron. xvi. 13, 16. “Maachah, the mother of Asa the
king, he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in
a grove.” Job xxxi. 26-28, herewith compare Exod. viii. 25, 26. Or
whether the offences be against the third commandment, “And thou
shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth
God shall bear his sin: and he that blasphemeth the name of the
Lord he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation
shall certainly stone him, as well the stranger as he that is born
in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall be put
to death,” Lev. xxiv. 15, 16. Yea, the heathen king Nebuchadnezzar
made a notable decree to this purpose, against blaspheming God,
saying, “I make a decree, that every people, nation, and language,
who speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshech, and
Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a
dunghill,” Dan. iii. 29: and the pagan magistrate, king Artaxerxes,
made a more full decree against all contempt of the law of God:
“And whosoever will not do the law of thy God,” saith he to Ezra,
“and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon
him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation
of goods, or to imprisonment:” and Ezra blesses God for this, Ezra
vii. 26, 27.

Besides all this light of nature, and evidence of the Old
Testament, for the ruler’s political punitive power for offences
against God, there are divers places in the New Testament showing
that a civil punitive power rests still in the civil magistrate:
witness those general expressions in those texts—Rom. xiii.
3, 4: “Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. If
thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword
in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to
execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14:
“Submit yourselves unto every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake,
whether it be to the king as to the supreme, or unto governors
which are sent for the punishment of evil-doers,28 and the praise of them that do
well.” Now, (as Mr. Burroughs29 notes,) seeing the Scripture
speaks thus generally, except the nature of the thing require, why
should we distinguish where the Scripture doth not? so that these
expressions may be extended to those sorts of evil-doing against
the first as well as against the second table; against murdering of
souls by heresy, as well as murdering of men’s bodies with the
sword; against the blaspheming of the God of heaven, as well as
against blaspheming of kings and rulers, that are counted gods on
earth. That place seems to have much force in it to this purpose,
Heb. x. 28, 29: “He that despised Moses’ law, died without mercy
under two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose
ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son
of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he
was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the
Spirit of grace?” Yea, what deserve such as deny the Spirit to be
of God? Papists exempt their clergy from the judgment of the civil
power, though they be delinquents against it; and their states,
both civil and spiritual, from civil taxes, tributes, and
penalties, both which we deny to ours: for, 1st, This is repugnant
to the law of nature, that church officers and members, as parts
and members of the commonwealth, should not be subject to the
government of that commonwealth whereof they are parts. 2d,
Repugnant to the laws and practices of the Old Testament, under
which we read of no such exemptions. Yea, we have instance of
Abiathar the high-priest, who, for his partnership with Adonijah in
his rebellion, was exiled by king Solomon, and so consequently
deprived of the exercise of his office, 1 Kings ii. 26, 27. 3d,
Inconsistent with our Saviour’s example, who, as subject to the
law, held himself obliged to pay tribute to avoid offence, (Matt.
xvii. 26,) which was an active scandal; and he confesses Pilate’s
power to condemn or release him was given him from above,
John xix. 11. 4th, And finally, contrary to the apostolical
precepts, enjoining all to be subject to superior powers,
Rom. xiii. 1-4; 1 Pet. ii. 13-15.

Now, all the former power that is granted, or may be granted to
the magistrate about religion, is only cumulative and objective, as
divines used to express it; thus understand them:—

Cumulative, not privative; adding to, not detracting from any
liberties or privileges granted her from Christ. The heathen
magistrate may be a nurse-father, Isa. xlix. 23; 1 Tim. ii.
2, may not be a step-father: may protect the Church,
religion, &c., and order many things in a political way about
religion; may not extirpate or persecute the Church; may help her
in reformation; may not hinder her in reforming herself, convening
synods in herself, as in Acts xv., &c., if he will not help her
therein; otherwise her condition were better without than with a
magistrate. The Christian magistrate much less ought to hinder her
therein, otherwise her state were worse under the Christian than
under the pagan magistrate.

Objective or objectively ecclesiastical, as being exercised
about objects ecclesiastical, but politically, not
ecclesiastically. His proper power is about, not in
religious matters. He may politically, outwardly exercise his power
about objects or matters spiritual; but not spiritually, inwardly,
formally act any power in the Church. He may act in church affairs
as did Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah; not as did Corah, Saul,
Uzzah, or Uzziah. He is an overseer of things without, not of
things within. And in a word, his whole power about church offices
and religion is merely, properly, and formally civil or
political.30

Nor is this only our private judgment, or the opinion of some
few particular persons touching the granting or bounding of the
magistrate’s power about matters of religion; but with us we have
the suffrage of many reformed churches, who, in their Confessions
of Faith published to the world, do fully and clearly express
themselves to the same effect.

The Helvetian church thus: Since every magistrate is of God, it
is (unless he would exercise tyranny) his chief duty, all blasphemy
being repressed, to defend and provide for religion, and to execute
this to his utmost strength, as the prophet teacheth out of the
word; in which respect the pure and free preaching of God’s word, a
right, diligent, and well-instituted discipline of youth, citizens
and scholars; a just and liberal maintenance of the ministers of
the church, and a solicitous care of the poor, (whereunto all
ecclesiastical means belong,) have the first place. After this,
&c.

The French churches thus: He also therefore committed the sword
into the magistrates’ hands, that they might repress faults
committed not only against the second table, but also against the
first; therefore we affirm, that their laws and statutes ought to
be obeyed, tribute to be paid, and other burdens to be borne, the
yoke of subjection voluntarily to be undergone, yea, though the
magistrates should be infidels, so long as the supreme government
of God remains perfect and untouched, Matt. xxiv.; Acts iv. 17, and
v. 19; Jude verse 8.

The church of Scotland thus: Moreover we affirm, that the
purging and conserving of religion is the first and most especial
duty of kings, princes, governors, and magistrates. So that they
are ordained of God not only for civil polity, but also for the
conservation of true religion, and that all idolatry and
superstition may be suppressed: as is evident in David,
Jehoshaphat, Josiah, Hezekiah, and others, adorned with high
praises for their singular zeal.

The Belgic church thus: Therefore he hath armed the magistrates
with a sword, that they may punish the bad and defend the good.
Furthermore, it is their duty not only to be solicitous about
preserving of civil polity, but also to give diligence that the
sacred ministry may be preserved, all idolatry and adulterate
worship of God may be taken out of the way, the kingdom of
antichrist may be pulled down, but Christ’s kingdom propagated.
Finally, it is their part to take course, that the holy word of the
gospel be preached on every side, that all may freely and purely
serve and worship God according to the prescript of his word. And
all men, of whatsoever dignity, condition, or state they be, ought
to be subject to lawful magistrates, to pay them tribute and
subsidies, to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to
the word of God; to pour out prayers for them, that God would
vouchsafe to direct them in all their actions, and that we may
under them lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and
honesty. Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and all turbulent
men who cast off superior dominions and magistrates, pervert laws
and judgments, make all goods common, and finally abolish or
confound all orders and degrees which God hath constituted for
honesty’s sake among men.

The church in Bohemia thus: They teach also that it is commanded
in the word of God that all should be subject to the higher
powers in all things, yet in those things only which are not
repugnant to God and his word. But as touching those things which
concern men’s souls, faith, and salvation, they teach that men
should hearken only to God’s word, &c., his ministers, as
Christ himself saith, Render to Cæsar the things that are
Cæsar’s, and to God those things that are God’s. But if any
would compel them to those things which are against God, and fight
and strive against his word, which abideth forever; they teach them
to make use of the apostle’s example, who thus answered the
magistrate at Jerusalem: It is meet (say they) to obey
God rather than men.

Finally, the church in Saxony hath expressed herself notably in
this point, saying, among many other passages, God will have all
men, yea, even unregenerate men, to be ruled and restrained by
political government. And in this government the wisdom, justice,
and goodness of God to mankind do shine forth. His wisdom, order
declares, which is the difference of virtues and vices, and the
consociation of men by lawful governments and contracts ordained in
wonderful wisdom. God’s justice also is seen in political
government, who will have manifest wickednesses to be punished by
magistrates; and when they that rule punish not the guilty, God
himself wonderfully draws them to punishment, and regularly
punishes heinous faults with heinous penalties in this life, as it
is said, He that takes the sword shall perish by the sword;
and, Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. God will
have in these punishments the difference of vices and virtues to be
seen; and will have us learn that God is wise, just, true, chaste.
God’s goodness also to mankind is beheld, because by this means he
preserves the society of men, and therefore he preserves it that
thence the Church may be gathered, and will have polities to be the
Church’s inns. Of these divine and immoveable laws, which are
testimonies of God, and the chief rule of manners, the magistrate
is to be keeper in punishing all that violate them. For the voice
of the law, without punishment and execution, is of small avail to
bridle and restrain men; therefore it is said by Paul, The power
should be a terror to evil works, and an honor to the good. And
antiquity rightly said, The magistrate is the keeper of the law,
both of the first and second table, so far as appertains to
good order. And though many in their governments neglect the
glory of God, yet this ought to be their chief care, to hear and
embrace the true doctrine touching the Son of God, and to foster
the churches, as the psalm saith, And now understand, ye kings,
and be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Again, Open your
gates, ye princes, i.e., Open your empires to the gospel, and
afford harbor to the Son of God. And Isa. xlix.: And kings shall
be thy nursing-fathers, and queens, i.e., commonwealths,
shall be thy nursing-mothers, i.e., of the Church, they
shall afford lodgings to churches and pious studies. And kings and
princes themselves shall be members of the Church, and shall
rightly understand doctrine, shall not help those that establish
false doctrine, and exercise unjust cruelty, but shall be mindful
of this saying, “I will glorify them that glorify me.” And Daniel
exhorteth the king of Babylon unto the acknowledgment of God’s
wrath, and to clemency towards the exiled Church, when he saith,
“Break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by
showing mercy to the poor.” And since they are among the chief
members of the Church, they should see that judgment be rightly
exercised in the Church, as Constantine, Theodosius, Arcadius,
Marcianus, Charles the Great, and many pious kings, took care that
the judgments of the Church should be rightly exercised,
&c.

Thus those of the presbyterian judgment are willing to give to
Cæsar those things that are Cæsar’s, even about matters of
religion, that the magistrate may see, it is far from their
intention in the least degree to intrench upon his just power, by
asserting the spiritual power, which Christ hath seated in his
church officers, distinct from the magistratical power: but as for
them of the independent judgment, and their adherents, they divest
the magistrate of such power.31

SECTION II.

II. Some power on the other hand touching religion and church
affairs, is utterly denied to the civil magistrate, as no way
belonging to him at all by virtue of his office of magistracy. Take
it thus:

Jesus Christ, our Mediator, now under the New Testament, hath
committed no spiritual power at all, magisterial or ministerial,
properly, internally, formally, or virtually ecclesiastical, nor
any exercise thereof, for the government of his Church, to the
political magistrate, heathen or Christian, as the subject or
receptacle thereof by virtue of his magistratical office.

For explication hereof briefly thus: 1. What is meant by
spiritual power, magisterial and ministerial, is laid down in the
general nature of the government, Chap. III. And, That all
magisterial lordly power over the Church, belongs peculiarly and
only to Jesus Christ our Mediator, Lord of all, is proved, Chap. V.
Consequently, the civil magistrate can challenge no such power,
without usurpation upon Christ’s prerogative. We hence condemn the
Pope as Antichrist, while he claims to be Christ’s vicar-general
over Christ’s visible Church on earth. So that all the question
here will be about the ministerial power, whether any such belong
to the civil magistrate. 2. What is meant by power, properly,
internally, formally, or virtually ecclesiastical? Thus conceive:
These several terms are purposely used, the more clearly and fully
to distinguish power purely ecclesiastical, which is denied to the
magistrate, from power purely political about ecclesiastical
objects, which is granted to him; which is called ecclesiastical,
not properly, but improperly; not internally, but externally; not
formally, but only objectively, as conversant about ecclesiastical
objects. Nor hath he any such ecclesiastical power in him
virtually, i.e. so as to convey and give it to any other under him.
He may grant and protect the public exercise of that power within
his dominions; but designation of particular persons to the office
and power, is from the Church; the donation of the office and power
only from Christ himself. So that magistracy doth not formally nor
virtually comprehend in it ecclesiastical power for church
government; for a magistrate, as a magistrate, hath no inward
ecclesiastical power at all belonging to him.

For confirmation of this proposition, consider these ensuing
arguments.

Argum. 1st. The keys of the kingdom of heaven were never
given by Christ to the civil magistrate, as such: therefore he
cannot be the proper subject of church government as a magistrate.
We may thus reason:

Major. No power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven was
ever given by Christ to the civil magistrate, as a magistrate.

Minor. But all formal power of church government is at
least part of the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Conclusion. Therefore no formal power of church
government was ever given by Christ to the civil magistrate, as a
magistrate.

The major proposition is evident.

1. Because when Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
he makes no mention at all of the civil magistrate directly or
indirectly, expressly or implicitly, as the recipient subject
thereof. Compare Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 18, John ii. 21-23, with
Matt. xxvii. 18-20. 2. Because, in Christ’s giving the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, he makes express mention of church
officers,32 which are really
and essentially different from the civil magistrate, viz. of Peter,
in name of all the rest, Matt. xvi. 18, 19, and of the rest of the
apostles as the receptacle of the keys with him, Matt. xviii. 18,
all the disciples save Thomas being together, he gave them the same
commission in other words, John xx. 20-24, and Matt. xxviii. 18-20.
Now if Christ should have given the keys, or any power thereof to
the magistrate, as a magistrate, he must consequently have given
them only to the magistrate, and then how could he have given them
to his apostles, being officers in the Church really distinct from
the magistrate?

3. Because Jesus Christ, in giving the keys of the kingdom, gave
not any one sort, act, part, or piece of the keys severally, but
the whole power of the keys, all the sorts and acts thereof
jointly. Therefore it is said, I give the keys of the
kingdom—and whatsoever thou shalt
bind—whatsoever thou shalt loose—whose soever sins ye
remit—whose soever sins ye retain—Matt. xvi. 19,
John xx. 23. So that here is not only key, but keys given at once,
viz. key of doctrine, and the key of discipline; or the key of
order, and the key of jurisdiction; not only binding or retaining,
but loosing or remitting of sins, viz. all acts together conferred
in the keys. Now if Christ gave the keys to the magistrate, then he
gave all the sorts of keys and all the acts thereof to him: if so,
the magistrate may as well preach the word, and dispense the
sacraments, &c., (as Erastus would have him,) as dispense the
censures, &c., (for Christ joined all together in the same
commission, and by what warrant are they disjoined?) and if so,
what need of pastors, teachers, &c.,, in the Church? Let the
civil magistrate do all. It is true, the ruling elder (which was
after added) is limited only to one of the keys, viz. the key of
discipline, 1 Tim. v. 17; but this limitation is by the same
authority that ordained his office.

4. Because if Christ gave the keys to the civil magistrate as
such, then to every magistrate, whether Jewish, heathenish, or
Christian: but not to the Jewish magistrate; for the sceptre was to
depart from him, and the Jewish polity to be dissolved, and even
then was almost extinct. Not to the heathenish magistrate, for then
those might be properly and formally church governors which were
not church members; and if the heathen magistrate refused to govern
the Church, (when there was no other magistrate on earth,) she must
be utterly destitute of all government, which are grossly absurd.
Nor, finally, to the Christian magistrate, for Christ gave the keys
to officers then in being; but at that time no Christian magistrate
was in being in the world. Therefore the keys were given by Christ
to no civil magistrate, as such, at all.

The minor, viz. But all formal power of church government is at
least part of the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven is
clear. If we take church government largely, as containing both
doctrine, worship, and discipline, it is the whole power of the
keys; if strictly, as restrained only to discipline, it is at least
part of the power. For, 1st, Not only the power of order, but also
the power of jurisdiction, is contained under the word keys;
otherwise it should have been said key, not keys; church government
therefore is at least part of the power of the keys. 2d, The word
key, noting a stewardly power, as appears, Isa. xxii. 22, (as
Erastians themselves will easily grant,) may as justly be extended
in the nature of it to signify the ruling power by jurisdiction, as
the teaching power by doctrine; in that the office of a steward in
the household, who bears the keys, consists in governing, ordering,
and ruling the household, as well as in feeding it, as that passage
in Luke xii. 41-49, being well considered, doth very notably
evidence. For, Christ applying his speech to his disciples, saith,
“Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his Lord shall
make ruler of his household?—he will make him ruler over all
that he hath,” &c. 3d, Nothing in the text or context appears
why we should limit keys and the acts thereof only to doctrine, and
exclude discipline; and where the text restrains not, we are not to
restrain. 4th, The most of sound interpreters extend the keys and
the acts thereof as well to discipline as to doctrine; to matters
of jurisdiction, as well as to matters of order. From all we may
conclude,

Therefore no formal power of church government was ever given by
Christ to the civil magistrate, as a magistrate.

Argum. 2d. There was full power of church government in
the church when no magistrate was Christian, yea, when all
magistrates were persecutors of the Church, so far from being her
nursing fathers, that they were her cruel butchers;
therefore the magistrate is not the proper subject of this power.
Thus we may argue:

Major. No proper power of church government, which was
fully exercised in the Church of Christ, before any magistrate
became Christian, yea, when magistrates were persecutors of the
Church, was derived from Christ to the magistrate as a
magistrate.

Minor. But all proper power of church government was
fully exercised in the Church before any magistrate became
Christian, yea, when magistrates were cruel persecutors of the
Church of Christ.

Conclusion. Therefore no proper power of church
government was derived from Christ to the civil magistrate as a
magistrate.

The major proposition must be granted. For, 1st, Either
then the Church, in exercising such full power of church
government, should have usurped that power which belonged not at
all to her, but only to the magistrate; for what power belongs to a
magistrate, as a magistrate, belongs to him only; but dare we think
that the apostles, or the primitive purest apostolical churches did
or durst exercise all their power of church government which they
exercised, merely by usurpation without any right thereunto
themselves? 2d, Or if the Church usurped not, &c., but
exercised the power which Christ gave her, let the magistrate show
wherein Christ made void the Church’s charter, retracted this
power, and gave it unto him.

The minor proposition cannot be denied. For,

1st. It was about 300 years after Christ before any of the Roman
emperors (who had subdued the whole world, Luke ii. 1, under their
sole dominion) became Christian. For Constantine the Great was the
first emperor that received the faith, procured peace to the
Church, and gave her respite from her cruel persecutions, which was
in Anno 309 (or thereabouts) after Christ; before which time the
Church was miserably wasted and butchered with those ten bloody
persecutions, by the tyranny of Nero, and other cruel emperors
before Constantine.

2d. Yet within the space of this first 309 or 311 years, all
proper power of church government was fully exercised in the Church
of Christ; not only the word preached, Acts iv. 2; 1 Tim. iii. 16;
and sacraments dispensed, Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xi. 17, &c.; Acts
ii. 4, and viii. 12: but also deacons set apart for that
office of deaconship, Acts vi.: elders ordained and
sent forth, Acts xiii. 1-3, and xiv. 23; 1 Tim. iv.; Tit. i. 5:
public admonition in use, Tit. iii. 10; 1 Tim. v. 20:
excommunication, 1 Cor. v.; and 1 Tim. i. 20:
absolution of the penitent, 2 Cor. ii. 6, 7, &c.:
synodical conventions and decrees, Acts xv. with xvi. 4. So that we
may conclude,

Therefore no proper power of church government was derived from
Christ to the civil magistrate, as a magistrate.

Argum. 3d. The magistratical power really, specifically,
and essentially differs from the ecclesiastical power; therefore
the civil magistrate, as a magistrate, cannot be the proper subject
of this ecclesiastical power. Hence we may thus argue:

Major. No power essentially, specifically, and really
differing from magistratical power, was ever given by Christ to the
magistrate as a magistrate.

Minor. But all proper ecclesiastical power essentially,
specifically, and really differs from the magistratical power.

Conclusion. Therefore no proper ecclesiastical power was
ever given by Jesus Christ to the civil magistrate as a
magistrate.

The major is evident: for how can the magistrate, as a
magistrate, receive such a power as is really and essentially
distinct and different from magistracy? Were not that to make the
magistratical power both really the same with itself, and yet
really and essentially different from itself? A flat
contradiction.

The minor may be clearly evinced many ways: as, 1st, From the
real and formal distinction between the two societies, viz. the
Church and commonwealth, wherein ecclesiastical and political power
are peculiarly seated. 2d. From the co-ordination of the power
ecclesiastical and political, in reference to one another. 3d. From
the different causes of these two powers, viz. efficient, material,
formal, and final; in all which they are truly distinguished from
one another.

1st. From the real and formal distinction between the two
societies, viz. church and commonwealth: for, 1. The society of the
Church is only Christ’s, and not the civil magistrate’s: it is his
house, his spouse, his body, &c., and
Christ hath no vicar33 under
him. 2. The officers ecclesiastical are Christ’s officers, not the
magistrate’s, 1 Cor. iv. 1: Christ gave them, Eph. iv. 8,
10, 11: God set them in the Church, 1 Cor. xii. 28. 3. These
ecclesiastical officers are both elected and ordained by the
Church, without commission from the civil magistrate, by virtue of
Christ’s ordinance, and in his name. Thus the apostles appointed
officers: Whom we may appoint, Acts vi. 3, 4. The power of
ordination and mission is in the hands of Christ’s officers;
compare Acts xiv. 23; 1 Tim. iv. 14, with Acts xiii. 1-4: and this
is confessed by the parliament to be an ordinance of Jesus Christ,
in their ordinance for ordaining of preaching presbyters. 4. The
Church, and the several presbyteries ecclesiastical, meet not as
civil judicatories, for civil acts of government, as making civil
statutes, inflicting civil punishments, &c., but as spiritual
assemblies, for spiritual acts of government and discipline: as
preaching, baptizing, receiving the Lord’s supper, prayer,
admonition of the disorderly, &c. 5. What gross absurdities
would follow, should not these two societies, viz. church and
commonwealth, be acknowledged to be really and essentially distinct
from one another! For then, 1. There can be no commonwealth where
there is not a Church; but this is contrary to all experience.
Heathens have commonwealths, yet no Church. 2. Then there may be
church officers elected where there is no church, seeing there are
magistrates where there is no church. 3. Then those magistrates,
where there is no church, are no magistrates; but that is repugnant
to Scripture, which accounts heathen rulers the servants of God,
Isa. xlv. 1; Jer. xxv. 9: and calls them kings, Exod. vi. 13; Isa.
xxxi. 35. And further, if there be no magistrates where there is no
church, then the church is the formal constituting cause of
magistrates. 4. Then the commonwealth, as the commonwealth, is the
church; and the church, as the church, is the commonwealth: then
the church and the commonwealth are the same. 5. Then all that are
members of the commonwealth are, on that account, because members
of the commonwealth, members of the church. 6. Then the
commonwealth, being formally the same with the church, is, as a
commonwealth, the mystical body of Christ. 7. Then the officers of
the church are the officers of the commonwealth; the power of the
keys gives them right to the civil sword: and consequently, the
ministers of the gospel, as ministers, are justices of the peace,
judges, parliament-men, &c., all which how absurd, let the
world judge.

2d. From the co-ordination of the power ecclesiastical and
political, in reference to one another: (this being a received
maxim, that subordinate powers are of the same kind; co-ordinate
powers are of distinct kinds.) Now, that the power of the Church is
co-ordinate with the civil power, may be evidenced as followeth: 1.
The officers of Christ, as officers, are not directly and properly
subordinate to the civil power, though in their persons they are
subject thereto: the apostles and pastors may preach, and cast out
of the church, against the will of the magistrate, and yet not
truly offend magistracy; thus, in doing the duty they have
immediately received from God, they must “obey God rather than
men,” Acts iv. 19, 20. And the apostles and pastors must exercise
their office (having received a command from Christ) without
attending to the command or consent of the civil magistrate for the
same; as in casting out the incestuous person, 1 Cor. v. 5:
telling the Church, Matt. xviii. 17: rejecting a heretic,
Tit. iii. 10. And, 2. Those acts of power are not directly and
formally subordinate to the magistrate, which he himself cannot do,
or which belong not to him. Thus the kings of Israel could not burn
incense: “It appertaineth not unto thee,” 2 Chron. xxvi. 18, 19.
Likewise, none have the power of the keys, but they to whom Christ
saith, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel,” Matt.
xxviii. 19: but Christ spake not this to magistrates: so only those
that are sent, Rom. x. 15, and those that are governors, are
by Christ placed in the Church. 3. The officers of the Church can
ecclesiastically censure the officers of the state, though not as
such, as well as the officers of the state can punish civilly the
officers of the Church, though not as such: the church guides may
admonish, excommunicate, &c., the officers of the state as
members of the Church, and the officers of the state may punish the
officers of the Church as the members of the state. 4. Those that
are not sent of the magistrate as his deputies, they are not
subordinate in their mission to his power, but the ministers are
not sent as the magistrate’s deputies, but are set over the
flock by the Holy Ghost, Acts xx. 28: they are likewise the
ministry of Christ, 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2: they are over you in
the Lord, 1 Thess. v. 12: and in his name they exercise their
jurisdiction, 1 Cor. v. 4, 5. 5. If the last appeal in matters
purely ecclesiastical be not to the civil power, then there is no
subordination; but the last appeal properly so taken is not to the
magistrate. This appears from these considerations: 1. Nothing is
appealable to the magistrate but what is under the power of the
sword; but admonition, excommunication, &c., are not under the
power of the sword: they are neither matters of dominion nor
coercion. 2. If it were so, then it follows that the having of the
sword gives a man a power to the keys. 3. Then it follows that the
officers of the kingdom of heaven are to be judged as such by the
officers of the kingdom of this world as such, and then there is no
difference between the things of Cæsar and the things of God. 4.
The church of Antioch sent to Jerusalem, Acts xv. 2, and the synod
there, without the magistrate, came together, ver. 6; and
determined the controversy, ver. 28, 29. And we read, “The spirits
of the prophets are subject to the prophets,” 1 Cor. xiv. 32; not
to the civil power as prophets. So we must seek knowledge at the
priest’s lips, not at the civil magistrate’s, Mal. ii. 7. And we
read, that the people came to the priests in hard controversies,
but never that the priests went to the civil power, Deut. xvii.
8-10. 5. It makes the magistrate Christ’s vicar, and so Christ to
have a visible head on earth, and so to be an ecclesiastico-civil
pope, and consequently there should be as many visible heads of
Christ’s Church as there are magistrates. 6. These powers are both
immediate; one from God the Father, as Creator, Rom. xiii.
1, 2; the other from Jesus Christ, as Mediator, Matt.
xxviii. 18. Now lay all these together, and there cannot be a
subordination of powers; and therefore there must be a real
distinction.

3d. From the different causes of these two powers, viz.
efficient, material, formal, and final; in all which they are truly
distinguished from one another, as may plainly appear by this
ensuing parallel:

1. They differ in their efficient cause or author, whence they
are derived. Magistratical power is from God, the Creator and
Governor of the world, Rom. xiii. 1, 2, 4; and so belongs to all
mankind, heathen or Christian; ecclesiastical power is peculiarly
from Jesus Christ our Mediator, Lord of the Church, (who hath all
power given him, and the government of the Church laid upon his
shoulder, as Eph. i. 22; Matt. xxviii. 18, compared with Isa. ix.
16.) See Matt. vi. 19, and xviii. 18, and xxviii. 19, 20; John xx.
21-23; 2 Cor. x. 8: and consequently belongs properly to the
Church, and to them that are within the Church, 1 Cor. v. 12, 13.
Magistratical power in general is the ordinance of God, Rom. xiii.
1, 2, 4; but magistratical power in particular, whether it should
be monarchical in a king, aristocratical in states, democratical in
the people, &c., is of men, called, therefore, a human
creature, or creation, 1 Pet. ii. 13; but ecclesiastical power, and
officers in particular, as well as general, are from Christ, Matt.
xvi. 19, and xxviii. 18-20; Tit. iii. 10; 1 Cor. v. 13; 2 Cor. ii.
For officers, see Eph. iv. 11, 12; 1 Cor. xii. 28.

2. They differ in their material cause; whether it be the matter
of which they consist, in which they are seated, or about which
they are exercised. 1. In respect of the matter of which they
consist, they much differ. Ecclesiastical power consists of the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, which are exercised in the preaching
of the word, dispensing the sacraments, executing the censures,
admonition, excommunication, absolution, ordination of presbyters,
&c.; but magistratical power consists in the secular sword,
which puts forth itself in making statutes, inflicting fines,
imprisonments, confiscations, banishments, torments, death. 2. In
respect of the matter or object about which they are exercised,
they much differ: for, the magistratical power is exercised
politically, about persons and things without the Church, as well
as within the church; but the ecclesiastical power is exercised
only upon them that are within the Church, 1 Cor. v. 13. The
magistratical power in some cases of treason, &c., banishes or
otherwise punishes even penitent persons: ecclesiastical power
punishes no penitent persons. The magistratical power punishes not
all sorts of scandal, but some: the ecclesiastical power punishes
(if rightly managed) all sorts of scandal.

3. They differ in their formal cause, as doth clearly appear by
their way or manner of acting: magistratical power takes cognizance
of crimes, and passes sentence thereupon according to statutes and
laws made by man: ecclesiastical power takes cognizance of, and
passes judgment upon crimes according to the word of God, the Holy
Scriptures. Magistratical power punishes merely with political
punishments, as fines, imprisonments, &c. Ecclesiastical merely
with spiritual punishments, as church censures. Magistratical power
makes all decrees and laws, and executes all authority, commanding
or punishing only in its own name, in name of the supreme
magistrate, as of the king, &c., but ecclesiastical power is
wholly exercised, not in the name of churches, or officers, but
only in Christ’s name, Matt, xxviii. 19; Acts iv. 17; 1 Cor. v. 4.
The magistrate can delegate his power to another: church-governors
cannot delegate their power to others, but must exercise it by
themselves. The magistrate about ecclesiasticals hath power to
command and compel politically the church officers to do their
duty, as formerly was evidenced; but cannot discharge lawfully
those duties themselves, but in attempting the same, procure divine
wrath upon themselves: as Korah, Numb. xvi.; King Saul, 1 Sam.
xiii. 9-15; King Uzziah, 2 Chron. xxvi. 16-22: but church-guides
can properly discharge the duties of doctrine, worship, and
discipline themselves, and ecclesiastically command and compel
others to do their duty also.

4. Lastly, They differ in their final cause or ends. The
magistratical power levels at the temporal, corporal, external,
political peace, tranquillity, order, and good of human society,
and of all persons within his jurisdiction, &c. The
ecclesiastical power intends properly the spiritual good and
edification of the Church and all the members thereof, Matt, xviii.
15; 1 Cor. v. 5, &c.; 2 Cor. x. 8, and xiii. 10.34 May we not from all clearly
conclude, Therefore no proper ecclesiastical power was ever given
by Jesus Christ to the magistrate as a magistrate?

Argum. 4th. The civil magistrate is no proper church
officer, and therefore cannot be the proper subject of church
power, Hence we may argue:

Major. All formal power of church government was derived
from Jesus Christ to his own proper church officers only. To them
he gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Matt. xvi. 19,
and xviii. 18; John xx. 21, 28: to them he gave the authority
for edification of the church, 2 Cor. x. 8, and xiii. 10: but
this will after more fully appear in Chap. XI. following.

Minor. But no civil magistrate, as a magistrate, is any
of Christ’s proper church officers. For, 1. The civil magistrate is
never reckoned up in the catalogue, list, or roll of Christ’s
church officers in Scripture, Eph. iv. 10-12; 1 Cor. xii. 28,
&c.; Rom. xii. 6-8; if here, or anywhere else, let the
magistrate or the Erastians show it. 2. A magistrate, as a
magistrate, is not a church member, (much less a church governor;)
for then all magistrates, heathen as well as Christian, should be
church members and church officers, but this is contrary to the
very nature of Christ’s kingdom, which admits no heathen into
it.

Conclusion. Therefore no formal power of church
government was derived from Jesus Christ to the magistrate as a
magistrate.

Argum. 5th. The civil magistrate, as such, is not
properly subordinate to Christ’s mediatory kingdom; therefore is
not the receptacle of church power from Christ. Hence thus:

Major. Whatsoever formal power of church government
Christ committed to any, he committed it only to those that were
properly subordinate to his mediatory kingdom. For whatsoever
ecclesiastical ordinance, office, power, or authority, Christ gave
to men, he gave it as Mediator and Head of the Church, by virtue of
his mediatory office; and for the gathering, edifying, and
perfecting of his mediatory kingdom, which is his Church, Eph. iv.
7, 10-12. Therefore such as are not properly subordinate to Christ
in this his office, and for this end, can have no formal church
power from Christ.

Minor. But no magistrate, as a magistrate, is subordinate
properly to Christ’s mediatory kingdom. For, 1. Not Christ the
Mediator, but God the Creator authorizeth the magistrate’s office,
Rom. xiii. 1, 2, 6. 2. Magistracy is never styled a ministry of
Christ in Scripture, nor dispensed in his name. 3. Christ’s kingdom
is not of this world, John xviii. 36; the magistrate’s is.

Conclusion. Therefore no formal power of Church
government is committed by Christ to the magistrate as a
magistrate.

6th. Finally, divers absurdities unavoidably follow upon the
granting of a proper formal power of Church government to the civil
magistrate: therefore he cannot be the proper subject of such
power. Hence it may be thus argued:

Major. No grant of ecclesiastical power, which plainly
introduceth many absurdities, can be allowed to the political
magistrate, as the proper subject thereof. For though in matters of
religion there be many things mysterious, sublime, and above the
reach of reason; yet there is nothing to be found that is absurd,
irrational, &c.

Minor. But to grant to the political magistrate, as a
magistrate, a proper formal power of church government, introduceth
plainly many absurdities, e.g.: 1. This brings confusion betwixt
the office of the magistracy and ministry. 2. Confounds the church
and commonwealth together. 3. Church government may be monarchical
in one man; and so, not only prelatical but papal; and
consequently, antichristian. Which absurdities, with many others,
were formerly intimated, and neither by religion nor reason can be
endured. We conclude:

Conclusion. Therefore the grant of a proper formal power
of church government cannot be allowed to the political magistrate
as the proper subject thereof, because he is a magistrate.

CHAPTER X.

That the community of the faithful, or body of the people,
are not the immediate subject of the power of Church
government.

Thus we see, that Jesus Christ our Mediator did not commit any
proper formal ecclesiastical power for church government to the
political magistrate, as such, as the Erastians conceive. Now, in
the next place (to come more close) let us consider that Jesus
Christ our Mediator hath not committed the spiritual power of
church government to the body of the people, presbyterated, or
unpresbyterated (to use their own terms) as the first subject
thereof, according to the opinion of the Separatists or
Independents. Take it in this proposition:

Jesus Christ our Mediator hath not committed the proper formal
power or authority spiritual, for government of his Church,35 unto the community of the
faithful, whole church, or body of the people, as the proper
immediate receptacle, or first subject thereof.

SECTION I.

Some things herein need a little explanation, before we come to
the confirmation.

1. By fraternity, community of the faithful, whole church or
body of the people, understand a particular company of people,
meeting together in one assembly or single congregation, to partake
of Christ’s ordinances. This single congregation may be considered
as presbyterated, i.e., furnished with an eldership; or as
unpresbyterated, i.e., destitute of an eldership, having yet no
elders or officers erected among them. Rigid Brownists or
Separatists say, that the fraternity or community of the faithful
unpresbyterated is the first receptacle of proper ecclesiastical
power from Christ: unto whom some of independent judgment
subscribe. Independents thus resolve: First, That the apostles of
Christ are the first subject of apostolical power. Secondly, That a
particular congregation of saints, professing the faith, taken
indefinitely for any church, (one as well as another,) is the first
subject of all church offices with all their spiritual gifts and
power. Thirdly, That when the church of a particular congregation
walketh together in the truth and peace, the brethren of the church
are the first subjects of church liberty; the elders thereof of
church authority; and both of them together are the first subject
of all church power.36 Which
assertions of Brownists and Independents (except the first) are
denied by them of presbyterian judgment, as being obvious to divers
material and just exceptions.37:

2. By proper formal power or authority spiritual, for
church government, thus conceive. To omit what hath been
already laid down about the natures and sorts of spiritual power
and authority, (part 2, chap. III. and VI.,) which are to be
remembered, here it may be further observed, that there is a proper
public, official, authoritative power, though but stewardly and
ministerial, which is derived from Jesus Christ to his church
officers, Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 18; John xx. 21-23; Matt,
xxviii. 18-20; of which power the apostle speaking, saith, “If I
should somewhat boast of our power which the Lord hath given us to
edification,” 2 Cor. x. 8; so 2 Cor. xiii. 10. The people are
indeed allowed certain liberties or privileges; as, To try the
spirits, &c., 1 John iv. 1. To prove all doctrines by the
word, 1 Thess. v. 21. To nominate and elect their own church
officers, as their deacons, which they did, Acts vi. 3, 5, 6; but
this is not a proper power of the keys. But the proper, public,
official, authoritative power, is quite denied to the body of the
people, furnished with an eldership or destitute thereof.

3. By proper immediate receptacle, or first subject of
power, understand, that subject, seat, or receptacle of power,
which first and immediately received this power from Jesus Christ;
and consequently was intrusted and authorized by him, to put forth
and exercise that power in his Church for the government thereof.
And here two things must be carefully remembered: 1. That we
distinguish betwixt the object and subject of this power. The
object for which, for whose good and benefit all this power is
given, is primarily the general visible Church, Ephes. iv. 7,
10-12; 1 Cor. xii. 28; Rom. xii. 5,6, &c. Secondarily,
particular churches, as they are parts and members of the general.
But the subject receiving to which the power is derived, is not the
Church general or particular, but the officers or governors of the
Church. 2. That we distinguish also betwixt the donation of the
power, and the designation of particular persons to offices
ecclesiastical. This designation of persons to the offices of key
bearing or ruling may be done first and immediately by the Church,
in nominating or electing her individual officers which is allowed
to her; yet is no proper authoritative act of power. But the
donation of the power itself is not from the Church as the
fountain, but immediately from Christ himself, 2 Cor. xi. 8, and
xiii. 10. Nor is it to the Church as the subject, but immediately
to the individual church officers themselves, who consequently, in
all the exercise of their power, act as the ministers and
stewards of Christ, 1 Cor. iv. 1, putting forth their power
immediately received from Christ, not as the substitutes or
delegates of the Church putting forth her power, which from Christ
she mediately conveys to them, as Independents do imagine, but by
us is utterly denied.

SECTION II.

For confirmation of this proposition thus explained and stated;
consider these few arguments:

Argum. I. The community of the faithful, or body of the
people, have no authentic commission or grant of proper spiritual
power for church government; and therefore they cannot possibly be
the first subject or the proper immediate receptacle of such power
from Christ. We may thus argue:

Major. Whomsoever Jesus Christ hath made the immediate
receptacle or first subject of proper formal power for governing of
his Church, to them this power is conveyed by some authentic grant
or commission.

Minor. But the community of the faithful, or body of the
people, have not this power conveyed unto them by any authentic
grant or commission.

Conclusion. Therefore Jesus Christ our Mediator hath not
made the community of the faithful, or body of the people, the
immediate receptacle or first subject of proper formal power for
governing of his Church.

The major proposition is evident in itself: For, 1. The power of
church government in this or that subject is not natural, but
positive; and cast upon man, not by natural, but by positive law,
positive grant: men are not bred, but made the first subject of
such power; therefore all such power claimed or exercised, without
such positive grant, is merely without any due title, imaginary,
usurped, unwarrantable, in very fact null and void. 2. All power of
church government is radically and fundamentally in Christ, Isa.
ix. 6; Matt, xxviii. 18; John v. 22. And how shall any part of it
be derived from Christ to man, but by some fit intervening mean
betwixt Christ and man? And what mean of conveyance betwixt Christ
and man can suffice, if it do not amount to an authentic grant or
commission for such power? 3. This is evidently Christ’s way to
confer power by authentic commission immediately upon his church
officers, the apostles and their successors, to the world’s end.
“Thou art Peter; and I give to thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven,” &c., Matt. xvi. 18, 19. “Whatsoever ye shall bind on
earth,” &c., Matt, xviii. 19, 20. “As my Father sent me, so
send I you; go, disciple ye all nations; whose sins ye remit, they
are remitted—and lo, I am with you always to the end of the
world,” John xx. 21, 23; Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. “Our power, which
the Lord hath given us for edification,” 2 Cor. x. 8, and xiii. 10:
so that we may conclude them that have such commission to be the
first subject and immediate receptacle of power from Christ, as
will after more fully appear. 4. If no such commission be needful
to distinguish those that have such power from those that have
none, why may not all without exception, young and old, wise and
foolish, men and women, Christian and heathen, &c., equally lay
claim to this power of church government? If not, what hinders? If
so, how absurd!

The minor proposition, viz: But the community of the faithful,
or body of the people, have not this power conveyed to them by any
authentic grant or commission, is firm. For whence had they it?
When was it given to them? What is the power committed to them? Or
in what sense is such power committed to them?

1. Whence had they it? From heaven or of men? If from
men, then it is a human ordinance and invention; a plant which
the heavenly Father hath not planted; and therefore shall he
plucked up. Matt. xv. 13. If from heaven, then from Christ; for
all power is given to him, Matt, xxviii. 18, &c.; Isa.
ix. 6. If it be derived from Christ, then it is derived from him by
some positive law of Christ as his grant or charter. A positive
grant of such power to select persons, viz. church officers, the
Scripture mentions, as was evidenced in the proof of the major
proposition. But touching any such grant or commission to the
community of the faithful, the Scripture is silent. And let those
that are for the popular power produce, if they can, any clear
scripture that expressly, or by infallible consequence, contains
any such commission.

2. When was any such power committed by Christ to the multitude
of the faithful, either in the first planting and beginning of the
Church, or in the after establishment and growth of the Church
under the apostles’ ministry? Not the first; for then the apostles
themselves should have derived their power from the community of
the faithful: now this is palpably inconsistent with the
Scriptures, Which tell us that the apostles had both their
apostleship itself, and their qualifications with gifts and graces
for it, yea, and the very designation of all their particular
persons unto that calling, all of them immediately from Christ
himself. For the first, see Gal. i. 1: “Paul, an apostle, not of
men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ,” Matt, xxviii. 18-20. For the
second, see John xx. 22, 23: “And when he had said this, he
breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost;
whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them,” &c.
For the third, see Luke vi. 13, &c.: “And when it was day he
called to him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also
he named apostles; Simon—” Matt. x. 5-7, &c.: “These
twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying.” And after his
resurrection he enlarges their commission, Mark xvi. 15, 16: “Go ye
into all the world;” and, “As my Father hath sent me, so send I
you,” John xx. 21. See also how the Lord cast the lot upon
Matthias, Acts i. 24-26. Nor the second; for if such power be
committed to the community of the faithful after the apostles had
established the churches, then let those that so think show where
Christ committed this power first to the apostles, and after to the
community of the faithful, and by them or with them to their
ordinary officers, for execution thereof. But no such thing hath
any foundation in Scripture; for the ordinary Church guides, though
they may have a designation to their office by the church, yet they
have the donation, or derivation of their office and its authority
only from Christ: their office is from Christ, Ephes. iv. 8, 11; 1
Cor. xii. 28; Acts xx. 28, 29. Their power from Christ, Matt. xvi.
19, and xxviii. 18, 19; John xx. 21, 23. “Our power which the Lord
hath given us,” 2 Cor. viii. 10. They are Christ’s ministers,
stewards, ambassadors, 1 Cor. iv. 1; 2 Cor. v. 19, 20. They are
to act and officiate in his name, Matt, xviii. 19; 1 Cor. v.
4, 5; and to Christ they must give an account. Heb. xiii.
17, 18; Luke xii. 41, 42. Now if the ordinary officers have (as
well as the apostles their apostleship) their offices of pastor,
teacher, &c., from Christ, and are therein the successors of
the apostles to continue to the world’s end, (Matt, xxviii. 18-20,)
then they have their power and authority in their offices
immediately from Christ, as the first receptacles thereof
themselves, and not from the Church as the first receptacle of it
herself. A successor hath jurisdiction from him from whom the
predecessor had his; otherwise he doth not truly succeed him.
Consequently the Church or community of the faithful cannot
possibly be the first receptacle of the power of church government
from Christ.

3. What power is it that is committed to the body of the Church
or multitude of the faithful? Either it must be the power of order,
or the power of jurisdiction. But neither of these is allowed to
the multitude of the faithful by the Scriptures, (but appointed and
appropriated to select persons.) Not the power of order; for the
whole multitude, and everyone therein, neither can nor ought to
intermeddle with any branches of that power. 1. Not with preaching;
all are not apt to teach, 1 Tim. iii. 2, nor able to exhort
and convince gainsayers, Tit. i. 9; all are not gifted and duly
qualified. Some are expressly prohibited speaking in the
church, 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35, 1 Tim. ii. 12, Rev. ii. 20, and
none are to preach, unless they be sent, Rom. x. 15, nor
to take such honor unto themselves unless they be called,
&c., Heb. v. 4, 5. Are all and every one of the multitude of
the faithful able to teach, exhort, and convince? are they all sent
to preach? are they all called of God? &c. Nay, hath not Christ
laid this task of authoritative preaching only upon his own
officers? Matt, xxviii. 18, 19. 2. Not with administration of the
sacraments; this and preaching are by one and the same commission
given to officers only, Matt, xxviii. 18-20; 1 Cor. xi. 23. 3. Nor
to ordain presbyters, or other officers. They may choose; but
extraordinary officers, or the presbytery of ordinary officers,
ordain. Acts vi. 3, 5, 6: “Look ye out men—whom we may
appoint.” Compare also Acts xiv. 23; 1 Tim. iv. 14, and v. 22; Tit.
iii. 5. So that the people’s bare election and approbation is no
sufficient Scripture ordination of officers. Nor is there one often
thousand among the people that is in all points able to try and
judge of the sufficiency of preaching presbyters, for tongues,
arts, and soundness of judgment in divinity. Nor is the power of
jurisdiction in public admonition, excommunication, and absolution,
&c., allowed to the multitude. For all and every one of the
multitude of the faithful, 1. Never had any such power given to
them from Christ; this key as well as the key of knowledge being
given to the officers of the Church only, Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii.
18-20. Tell the church, there, must needs be meant of the
ruling church only.38 2 Cor.
viii. 10; John xx. 21-23. 2. Never acted or executed any such
power, that we can find in Scripture. As for that which is
primarily urged of the church of Corinth, that the whole church did
excommunicate the incestuous person, 1 Cor. v. 4, &c.,
many things may be answered to evince the contrary. 1st, The whole
multitude could not do it; for children could not judge, and women
must not speak in the Church. 2d, It is not said, Sufficient to
such an one is the rebuke inflicted of all; but of many,
2 Cor. ii. 6, viz. of the presbytery, which consisted of many
officers. 3d, The church of Corinth, wherein this censure was
inflicted, was not a congregational, but a presbyterial church,
having divers particular congregations in it, (as is hereafter
cleared in Chap. XXIII.,) and therefore the whole multitude of the
church of Corinth could not meet together in one place for this
censure, but only the presbytery of that great church. Again, never
did the whole multitude receive from Christ due gifts and
qualifications for the exercise of church government and
jurisdiction; nor any promise from Christ to be with them therein,
as officers have, Matt, xxviii. 18-20. And the absurdities of such
popular government are intolerable, as after will appear.

4. Finally, in what sense can it be imagined that any such power
should be committed from Christ to the community of the faithful,
the whole body of the Church? For this power is given them equally
with the church-guides, or unequally. If equally, then,.1. The
church-guides have power and authority, as primarily and
immediately committed to them, as the Church herself hath; and then
they need not derive or borrow any power from the body of the
faithful, having a power equal to theirs. 2. How vainly is that
power equally given as to the officers, so to the whole multitude,
when the whole multitude have no equal gifts and abilities to
execute the same! If unequally, then this power is derived to the
church-guides, either more or less than to the multitude of the
faithful. If less, then how improperly were all those names of rule
and government imposed upon officers, which nowhere are given by
Scripture to the multitude! as Pastors, Eph. iv. 8, 11.
Elders, 1 Tim. v. 17. Overseers, Acts xx. 28.
Guides, Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 22. In this last verse they are
contradistinguished from the saints; church-guides, and saints
guided, make up a visible organical church. Rulers in the
Lord, 1 Thes. v. 12; Rom. xii. 8: and well-ruling
Elders, 1 Tim. v. 17. Governments, 1 Cor. xii. 28.
Stewards, 1 Cor. iv. 1,2; Luke xii. 42, &c. And all
these titles have power and rule engraven in their very foreheads;
and they of right belonged rather to the multitude than to the
officers, if the officers derive their power from the multitude of
the people. If more, then church-guides, having more power than the
Church, need not derive any from the Church, being themselves
better furnished.

Thus, what way soever we look, it cannot be evinced, that the
multitude and body of the people, with or without eldership, are
the first subject of power, or have any authoritative public
official power at all, from any grant, mandate, or commission of
Christ. From all which we may strongly conclude,

Therefore Jesus Christ our Mediator hath not made the community
of the faithful, or body of the people, the immediate receptacle,
or first subject of proper formal power for governing of his
church.

Argum. II. As the multitude of the faithful have no
authentic grant or commission of such power of the keys in the
Church; so they have no divine warrant for the actual execution of
the power of the said keys therein: and therefore cannot be the
first receptacle of the power of the keys from Christ. For thus we
may reason:

Major. Whosoever are the first subject, or immediate
receptacle of the power of the keys from Christ, they have divine
warrant actually to exercise and put in execution the said power.
Minor. But the multitude or community of the faithful have
no divine warrant actually to exercise and put in execution the
power of the keys.

Conclusion. Therefore the community of the faithful are
not the first subject, or immediate receptacle of the power of the
keys from Jesus Christ.

The major proposition must necessarily be yielded. For, 1. The
power of the keys contains both authority and exercise; power being
given to that end that it may be exercised for the benefit of the
Church. It is called the power given us for edification, 2
Cor. viii. 10. Where there is no exercise of power there can be no
edification by power. 2. Both the authority and complete exercise
of all that authority, were at once and together communicated from
Christ to the receptacle of power. “I give unto thee the keys of
the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth,”
&c., Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 18. “As my Father sent me, so
send I you—whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted,”
John xx. 21, 23. Here is both power and the exercise thereof joined
together in the same commission. Yea, so individual and inseparable
are power and exercise, that under exercise, power and authority is
derived: as, “Go, disciple ye all nations, baptizing them,”
&c., Matt. xxviii. 18, 19. 3. How vain, idle, impertinent, and
ridiculous is it to fancy and dream of such a power as shall never
be drawn into act by them that have it!

The minor proposition, viz. But the multitude or communion of
the faithful have no divine warrant, actually to exercise and put
in execution the power of the keys, is clear also:

1. By reason: for, the actual execution of this power belongs to
them by divine warrant, either when they have church officers, or
when they want church officers. Not while they have officers; for,
that were to slight Christ’s officers: that were to take officers’
work out of their hands by them that are no officers, and when
there were no urgent necessity; contrary whereunto, see the proofs,
Chap. XI. Section 2, that were to prejudice the church, in
depriving her of the greater gifts, and undoubtedly authorized
labors of her officers, &c. Not when they want officers in a
constituted church: as in case where there are three or four
elders, the pastor dies, two of the ruling elders fall sick, or the
like; in such cases the community cannot by divine warrant supply
the defects of these officers themselves, by exercising their
power, or executing their offices. For where doth Scripture allow
such power to the community in such cases? What one church without
its eldership can be instanced in the New Testament, that in such
cases once presumed to exercise such power, which might be
precedent or example for it to other churches? How needless are
church officers, if the multitude of the faithful may, as members
of the church, take up their office, and actually discharge it in
all the parts of it?

2. By induction of particulars, it is evident, that the
community cannot execute the power of the keys by any divine
warrant. 1. They may not preach: for, “how shall they
preach, except they be sent?” Rom. x. 15; but the community cannot
he sent, many of them being incapable of the office, either by
reason of their sex, 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35; 1 Tim. ii. 11, 12:
or by reason of their age; as children, and all or most of
them by reason of their deficiency in gifts and in scripture
qualifications, Tit. i. and 1 Tim. iii. For not one member of a
thousand is so completely furnished, as to be “apt to teach, able
to convince gainsayers, and to divide the word of truth aright.”
Besides, they may not send themselves, were they capable, for,
no man takes this honor to himself—Yea, Jesus
Christ himself did not glorify himself to be made an
high-priest—Heb. v. 4, 5. Now only officers are sent to
preach, Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 19, 20; Mark xvi. 15. 2. They may
not administer the seals, the sacraments, baptize, &c. under
the New Testament; for who gave the people any such authority? hath
not Christ conjoined preaching and dispensing of the sacraments in
the same commission, that the same persons only that do the one,
may do the other? Matt. xxviii. 18, 19. 3. They may not ordain
officers in the church, and authoritatively send them abroad: for,
ordinarily the community have not sufficient qualifications and
abilities for proving and examining of men’s gifts for the
ministry. The community are nowhere commanded or allowed so to do
in the whole New Testament, but other persons distinct from them, 1
Tim. v. 22; 2 Tim. ii. 2; Tit. i. 5, &c. Nor did the community
ever exercise or assume to themselves any such power of ordination
or mission, but only officers both in the first sending of men to
preach, as 1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6: and to be deacons, Acts vi.
6, and also in after missions, as Acts xiii. 1-3. 4. The community,
without officers, may not exercise any act of jurisdiction
authoritatively and properly; may not admonish, excommunicate, or
absolve. For we have no precept that they should do it; we have no
example in all the New Testament that they ever did do it; we have
both precept and example, that select officers both did and ought
to do it. “Whatsoever ye bind on earth” (saith Christ to his
officers) “shall be bound in heaven,” &c. Matt. xviii. 18, and
xvi. 19. “Whose soever sins ye remit,” &c., John xx. 21, 23.
“An heretic, after once or twice admonition, reject,” Tit. i. 10.
“I have decreed—to deliver such an one to Satan,” 1 Cor. v.
4. “The rebuke inflicted by many,” not all, 2 Cor. ii. “Whom I have
delivered to Satan,” 1 Tim. i. ult. And the Scriptures
nowhere set the community over themselves to be their own
church-guides and governors; but appoint over them in the Lord
rulers and officers distinct from the community. Compare these
places, 1 Thes. v. 12; Acts xx. 28, 29; Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 22.
“Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints.”
From the premises we conclude,

Therefore the community of the faithful are not the first
subject, or immediate receptacle of the power of the keys from
Jesus Christ.

Argum. III. Jesus Christ hath not given nor promised to
the community of the faithful a spirit of ministry, nor those gifts
which are necessary for the government of the church: therefore the
community was never intended to be the first subject of church
government.

Major. Whomsoever Christ makes the first subject of the
power of church government, to them he promises and gives a spirit
of ministry, and gifts necessary for that government. For, 1. As
there is diversity of ecclesiastical administrations (which is the
foundation of diversity of officers) and diversity of miraculous
operations, and both for the profit of the Church; so there is
conveyed from the Spirit of Christ diversity of gifts, free
endowments, enabling and qualifying for the actual discharge of
those administrations and operations. See 1 Cor. xii. 4-7, &c.
2. What instance can be given throughout the whole New Testament of
any persons, whom Christ made the receptacle of church government,
but withal he gifted them, and made his promises to them, to
qualify them for such government? As the apostles and their
successors: “As my Father sent me, even so send I you. And when he
had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye
the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained,” John xx.
21-23. And, “Go ye therefore, and disciple ye all nations,
&c.—And lo, I am with you alway,” (or every day,) “even
to the end of the world,” Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. 3. Christ being the
wisdom of the Father, Col. ii. 3, John i. 18, and
faithful as was Moses in all his house; yea, more
faithful—Moses as a servant over another’s, he
as a son over his own house, Heb. iii. 2, 5, 6—it
cannot stand with his most exact wisdom and fidelity, to commit the
grand affairs of church government to such as are not duly gifted,
and sufficiently qualified by himself for the due discharge
thereof.

Minor. But Christ neither promises, nor gives a spirit of
ministry, nor necessary gifts for church government to the
community of the faithful. For, 1. The Scriptures teach, that gifts
for ministry and government are promised and bestowed not on all,
but upon some particular persons only in the visible body of
Christ. “To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to
another the word of knowledge,” &c., not to all, 1 Cor. xii. 8,
9, &c. “If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall
he take care of the church of God?” 1 Tim. iii. 5. The hypothesis
insinuates that all men have not gifts and skill rightly to rule
their own houses, much less to govern the church. 2. Experience
tells us, that the multitude of the people are generally destitute
of such knowledge, wisdom, prudence, learning, and other necessary
qualifications for the right carrying on of church government.

Conclusion. Therefore Christ makes not the community of
the faithful the first subject of the power of church
government.

Argum. IV. The community of the faithful are nowhere in
the word called or acknowledged to be church governors: therefore
they are not the first subject of church government.

Major. Those persons, who are the first subject and
receptacle of proper power for church government from Christ, are
in the word called and acknowledged to be church governors. This is
evident, 1. By Scripture, which is wont to give to them whom Christ
intrusts with his government, such names and titles as have rule,
authority, and government engraven upon them: as overseers,
Acts xx. 28; governments, 1 Cor. xii. 28; rulers, 1
Tim. v. 17, and Rom. xii. 8; with divers others, as after will
appear in Chap. XI. 2. By reason, which tells us that government
and governors are relative terms; and therefore to whom government
belongs, to them also the denominations of governors, rulers,
&c., do belong, and not contrariwise.

Minor. But the community of the faithful are nowhere in
the word either called or acknowledged to be church governors. This
is clear. For, 1. No titles or names are given them by Scripture
which imply any rule or government in the visible Church of Christ.
2. They are plainly set in opposition against, and distinction
from, church governors: they are called the flock; these,
overseers set over them by the Holy Ghost, Acts xx. 28:
they, the saints; these their rulers, Heb. xiii. 22:
these are over them in the Lord; and consequently they are
under them in the Lord, 1 Thes. v. 12. 3. The community of
the faithful are so far from being the subject of church government
themselves, that they are expressly charged by the word of Christ
to know, honor, obey, and submit, to other governors
set over them, and distinct from themselves. “Know them who are
over you in the Lord,” 1 Thes. v. 12. “Let the well-ruling elders
be counted worthy of double honor; especially,” &c., 1 Tim. v.
17. “Obey ye your rulers, and submit, for they watch for your
souls,” Heb. xiii. 17.

Conclusion. Therefore the community of the faithful are
not the first subject and receptacle of proper power for church
government.

Argum. V. This opinion of making the body of the Church,
or community of the faithful, the first subject and immediate
receptacle of the keys for the government of the Church, doth
inevitably bring along with it many intolerable absurdities.
Therefore it is not to be granted. Thus we may argue:

Major. That doctrine or opinion which draws after it
unavoidably divers intolerable absurdities, is an unsound and
unwarrantable opinion.

Minor. But this doctrine or opinion that makes the whole
community or body of the Church to be the first subject and
immediate receptacle of the keys, draws after it unavoidable divers
intolerable absurdities.

Conclusion. Therefore this doctrine or opinion that makes
the whole community or body of the Church to be the first subject,
and immediate receptacle of the keys, is an unsound and
unwarrantable opinion.

The Major is plain. For, 1. Though matters of religion be
above reason, yet are they not unreasonable, absurd, and directly
contrary to right reason. 2. The Scriptures condemn it as a great
brand upon men, that they are absurd or unreasonable; “Brethren,
pray for us—that we may be delivered from absurd and evil
men,” 2 Thes. iii. 2; and therefore if absurd men be so culpable,
absurdity, and unreasonableness itself, which make them such, are
much more culpable.

The Minor, viz. But this doctrine or opinion that makes
the whole community or body of the Church to be the first subject
and immediate receptacle of the keys, draws after it unavoidably
divers intolerable absurdities, will notably appear by an induction
of particulars.

1. Hereby a clear foundation is laid for the rigid Brownist’s
confused democracy, and abhorred anarchy. For, if the whole body of
the people be the first receptacle of the keys, then all church
government and every act thereof is in the whole body, and every
member of that body a governor, consequently every member of that
body an officer. But this is absurd; for if all be officers, where
is the organical body? and if all be governors, where are the
governed? if all be eyes, where are the feet? and if there be none
governed, where is the government? it is wholly resolved at last
into mere democratical anarchy and confusion, “but God is not the
author of confusion,” 1 Cor. xiv. 33. What an absurdity were it, if
in the body natural all were an eye, or hand! for
where then were the hearing, smelling, &c.; or
if all were one member, where were the body? 1 Cor. xii. 17,19.
So if in the family all were masters, where were the household?
where were the family government? If in a city all were aldermen,
where were the citizens? where were the city government? If in a
kingdom all were kings, where were the subjects, the people, the
commonalty, the commonwealth, or the political government?

2. Hereby the community or whole body of the faithful, even to
the meanest member, are vested from Christ with full power and
authority actually to discharge and execute all acts of order and
jurisdiction without exception: e.g. To preach the word
authoritatively, dispense the sacraments, ordain their officers,
admonish offenders, excommunicate the obstinate and incorrigible,
and absolve the penitent. For the keys of the kingdom of
heaven comprehend all these acts jointly, Matt. xvi. 19, and
xviii. 18-20, with John xx. 21, 23: and to whom Christ in the New
Testament gives power to execute one of these acts, to them he
gives power to execute all; they are joined together, Matt, xviii.
19, (except in such cases where himself gives a limitation of the
power, as in the case of the ruling elder, who is limited to ruling
as contradistinct to laboring in the word and doctrine, 1
Tim. v. 17.) Now what gross absurdities ensue hereupon! For, 1.
Then the weak as well as the strong, the ignorant as well as the
intelligent, the children as well as the parents, yea, and the very
women as well as the men, may preach, dispense seals, ordain,
admonish, excommunicate, absolve authoritatively; (for they are all
equally members of the body, one as well as another, and therefore,
as such, have all alike equal share in the keys and exercise
thereof:) viz. they that are not gifted for these offices, shall
discharge these offices; they that are not called nor sent of God
to officiate, (for God sends not all,) shall yet officiate in the
name of Christ without calling or sending, contrary to Rom. x.,
Heb. v. 4. They that want the common use of reason and discretion
(as children) shall have power to join in the highest acts of order
and jurisdiction: yea, they that are expressly prohibited
speaking in the churches, as the women, 1 Cor. xiv.,
1 Tim. ii., shall yet have the keys of the kingdom of heaven
hung at their girdles. 2. Then the Church shall be the steward of
Christ, and dispenser of the mysteries of God authoritatively and
properly. But if the whole Church be the dispenser of the mysteries
of God, what shall be the object of this dispensation? Not the
Church, for according to this opinion she is the first subject
dispensing; therefore it must be something distinct from the
Church, unto which the Church dispenseth; what shall this be? shall
it be another collateral church? then particular churches
collateral may take pastoral care one of another reciprocally, and
the same churches be both over and under one another; or shall it
be those that are without all churches? then the ordinances of the
gospel, and the dispensation of them, were not principally bestowed
upon the Church and body of Christ for the good thereof, (which is
directly repugnant to the Scriptures, Eph. iv. 8, 11-13;) but
rather for them that are without. How shall the men, who maintain
the principle’s of the Independents, clearly help themselves out of
these perplexing absurdities?

3. Hereby the body of the people (as Mr. Bayly well observes in
his Dissuasive, chap. ix. page 187) will be extremely unfitted for,
and unwarrantably taken off from the several duties that lie upon
them in point of conscience to discharge in their general and
particular callings, in spiritual and secular matters, on the
Lord’s days and on their own days. For, if the ecclesiastical power
be in all the people, then all the people are judges, and at least
have a negative voice in all church matters. They cannot judge in
any cause prudently and conscientiously, till they have complete
knowledge and information of both the substantials and
circumstantials of all those cases that are brought before them;
they must not judge blindly, or by an implicit faith, &c., but
by their own light. For all the people to have such full
information and knowledge of every cause, cannot but take up
abundance of time, (many of the people being slow of understanding
and extremely disposed to puzzle, distract, and confound one
another in any business to be transacted in common by them all.) If
these matters of discipline be managed by them on the sabbath day
after the dispatch of other public ordinances, ministry of the
word, prayer, sacraments, &c., what time can remain for family
duties privately, as repeating sermons, and meditating upon the
word, searching the Scriptures, whether things preached be so
indeed, reading the Scriptures, catechizing their children and
servants, &c.? and how will the life of religion in families,
yea, and in churches also, languish, if these family exercises be
not conscientiously upheld? If they be managed on the week days,
how can all the people spare so much time, as still to be present,
when perhaps many of them have much ado all the week long to
provide food and raiment, and other necessaries for their families?
and “if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his
own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel,”
1 Tim. v. 8. Let the case of the church of Arnheim39 witness the mischief and absurdity
of this popular government once for all.

4. Hereby, finally, the community of the faithful (being
accounted the proper subject of the power of the keys) have
authority and power not only to elect, but also to ordain their own
officers, their pastors and teachers. And this they of the
independent judgment plainly confess in these words:40 Though the office of a pastor in
general be immediately from Christ, and the authority from him
also, yet the application of this office, and of this authority to
this elect person, is by the church; and therefore the church hath
sufficient and just warrant, as to elect and call a presbyter unto
an office, so to ordain him to it by imposition of hands. They that
have power to elect a king, have power also to depute some in their
name to set the crown upon his head. But for the whole church or
community to ordain presbyters by imposition of hands, is very
absurd. For, 1. Their women and children, being members of the
church and of the community, may join in ordaining presbyters by
imposing of hands, and have as great an influence in appointing
them that shall actually impose hands, as the rest of the church
members have, being as properly members as they. 2. Then the
community, that generally are unable to judge of the fitness and
sufficiency of presbyters for the pastoral office, in point of
necessary gifts of learning, &c., shall, without judicious
satisfaction herein by previous examination, ordain men
notwithstanding to the highest ordinary office in the church. How
ignorantly, how doubtfully, how irregularly, how unwarrantably, let
the reader judge. 3. Then the community of the faithful may assume
to themselves power to execute this ordinary act of ordination of
officers, without all precept of Christ or his apostles, and
without all warrant of the apostolical churches. But how absurd
these things be, each moderate capacity may conceive. Further
absurdities hereupon are declared by Mr. Bain,41 and after him by Mr. Ball.42

Whence we may justly conclude,

Therefore this doctrine or opinion, that makes the whole
community or body of the church to be the first subject and
immediate receptacle of the keys, is an unsound and unwarrantable
opinion.

The middle-way men, (that profess to go between the
authoritative presbyterial, and the rigid Brownistical way,) seeing
these and such like absurdities, upon which the Brownists
inevitably dash themselves, think to salve all by their new-coined
distinction of the keys; viz. 1. There is a key of faith or
knowledge,
Luke xi. 52. The first subject of this key is every believer,
whether joined to any particular church or not. 2. There is a key
of order, Col. ii. 5, which is either, 1. A key of interest, power,
or liberty, Gal. v. 13, which key is of a more large nature; 2. A
key of rule and authority, which is of more strict nature, Matt.
xvi. 19, John xx. 23. Hence, upon this distinction premised, they
thus infer, 1. A particular congregation of saints is the first
subject of all the church offices with all their spiritual gifts
and power, 1 Cor. iii. 22. 2. The apostles of Christ were the first
subject of apostolical power. 3. The brethren of a particular
congregation are the first subjects of church liberty. 4. The
elders of a particular church are the first subjects of church
authority. 5. Both the elders and brethren, walking and joining
together in truth and peace, are the first subjects of all church
power needful to be exercised in their own body.

Answer. A rotten foundation, and a tottering
superstruction, which tumbles down upon the builders’ own heads:
for,

1. This distribution of the keys is infirm in divers respects:
e.g. 1. In that the key of knowledge (as it stands here
distinguished from the key of order, comprehending the key of power
and authority) is left utterly devoid of all power. Now no key of
the kingdom of heaven is to be left without all power, Independents
themselves being judges. 2. In that the key of power is left as
utterly void of all authority, (being contradistinguished from the
key of authority,) as the key of knowledge is left void of power.
Now, power and authority, in matters of government, seem to be both
one; and the word in the original signifies the one as well as the
other. 3. The key of liberty or interest is a new key, lately
forged by some new locksmiths in Separation-shop, to be a pick-lock
of the power of church officers, and to open the door for popular
government; no ordinance of Christ, but a mere human invention, (as
will after appear upon examination of that scripture upon which it
is grounded,) and therefore this limb of the distribution is
redundant, a superfluous excrescence. 4. The texts of Scripture
upon which this distribution of the keys is grounded, are divers of
them abused, or at least grossly mistaken; for, Luke xi. 52, key of
knowledge is interpreted only the key of saving faith. But
knowledge, in strict speaking, is one thing, and faith another;
there may be knowledge where there is no faith; and knowledge, in a
sort, is a key to faith, as the inlet thereof. And the key of
knowledge, viz. true doctrine and pure preaching of the word, is a
distinct thing from knowledge itself. This key the lawyers had
taken away by not interpreting, or misinterpreting of the law; but
they could not take away the people’s faith, or knowledge itself.
Touching Col. ii. 5, 6, your order, it will be hard to prove
this was only or chiefly intended of the keys delivered to Peter:
doth it not rather denote the people’s moral orderly walking,
according to the rule of faith and life, as in other duties, so in
submitting themselves to Christ’s order of government, as is
elsewhere required, Heb. xiii. 17? And as for Gal. v. 13, produced
to prove the key of liberty, Brethren, you have been called unto
liberty, there is too much liberty taken in wresting this text;
for the apostle here speaks not of liberty as a church power, of
choosing officers, joining in censures, &c., but as a gospel
privilege, consisting in freedom from the ceremonial law, that yoke
of bondage, which false teachers would have imposed upon them,
after Christ had broken it off; as will further appear, if you
please with this text to compare Gal. v. 1, 11, 15, 10, and well
consider the current of the whole context.

2. The inferences upon this distribution of the keys premised,
are very strange and untheological. For it may be accepted in
general, that it is a groundless fancy to make several first
subjects of the keys, according to the several distributions of the
keys; for, had all the members of the distribution been good, yet
this inference thereupon is naught, inasmuch as the Scripture tells
us plainly, that all the keys together and at once were promised to
Peter, Matt. xvi. 19, and given to the apostles, Matt, xviii. 18,
19, with xxviii. 18-20, and John xx. 21-23; so that originally the
apostles and their successors were the only first subject and
immediate receptacle of all the keys from Christ. And though since,
for assistance and case of the pastor, they are divided into more
hands—viz. of the ruling elder, Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 28;
1 Tim. v. 17—yet originally the subject was but one. Further,
here is just ground for many particular exceptions: as, 1. That
every believer, whether joined to any particular church or not, is
made the first subject of the key of knowledge, which seems to be
extremely absurd: for then every particular believer, gifted or
ungifted, strong or weak, man, woman, or child, hath power to
preach, (taking the key of knowledge here for the key of doctrine,
as it ought to be taken, or else it is no ecclesiastical key at
all,) which is one of the highest offices, and which the great
apostle said, “Who is sufficient for these things?” 2 Cor. ii. 16.
How unscriptural and irrational this is, all may judge. Then also
some of the keys may be committed to such as are without the
Church. Then finally, it is possible to be a believer, and yet in
no visible church; (for Independents hold there is no church but a
particular congregation, which is their only church:) but a man is
no sooner a true believer, but he is a member of the invisible
Church: he is no sooner a professed believer, but he is a member of
the general visible Church, though he be joined to no particular
congregation. 2. That a particular congregation of saints is made
the first subject of all the church offices, with all their
spiritual gifts and power, 1 Cor. iii. 22. But is the word subject
used here properly, for the first subject recipient of all church
offices, with all their gifts and power? Then the congregation of
saints are either officers themselves formally, and can execute the
function of all sorts of officers, and have all gifts to that end;
what need then is there of any select officers? for they can make
officers virtually, and furnish those officers with gifts and power
to that end; but who gave them any such authority? Or what
apostolical church ever assumed to themselves any such thing?
Officers, not churches, are the first subject of such gifts and
power. Is the word subject here used improperly, for object, whose
good all offices with their gifts and power are given? Then not any
particular congregation, but the whole general visible Church is
the object for which all offices and officers with their gifts and
power are primarily given, 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 8, 11, 12. As
for that place, 1 Cor. iii. 22, “All is yours,” &c., it points
not out the particular privilege of any one single congregation,
(nor was the church of Corinth such, but presbyterial, see chap.
XIII.,) but the general privilege of all true saints, and of the
invisible mystical Church: for were Paul and Cephas apostles given
peculiarly to the church of Corinth only? Or was the world,
life, death, things present and to come, given to the wicked in
the church of Corinth? 3. That the apostles are made the first
subject of all apostolical power. But then, how doth this
contradict the former assertion, that a particular congregation is
the first subject of all offices with their gifts and power? Are
there two first subjects of the same adjuncts? Or is apostleship no
office? Are apostolical gifts no gifts, or power no power? or have
apostles all from the Church? Doubtless apostles were before all
Christian churches, and had the keys given them before the churches
had their being. 4. That the brethren of a particular congregation
are made the first subjects of church liberty. But, if that liberty
be power and authority, then this evidently contradicts the former,
that a particular congregation is the first subject of all offices
and power; for brethren here are distinct from elders, and both do
but make up a particular congregation. If liberty here be not
power, then it is none of Christ’s keys, but a new forged
pick-lock. 5. That the elders of a particular church are made the
first subject of church authority; but then here is a contradiction
to the former position, that made the particular congregation the
first subject of all power. And though apostles and elders be the
first subject of authority, yet, when the keys were first committed
to them, they were not in relation to any particular church, but to
the general. 6. Finally, that both elders and brethren, walking and
joining together in truth and peace, are the first subjects of all
church power, is liable also to exception. For this joins the
brethren (who indeed have no authoritative power at all) with the
elders, as the joint subject of all power. And this but allowed to
them walking and joining together in truth and peace: but what if
the major part of the Church prove heretical, and so walk not in
truth; or schismatical, and so walk not in peace, shall the elders
and the non-offending party lose all their power? Where then shall
that independent church find healing? for appeals to presbyteries
and synods are counted apocryphal by them. But enough hath been
said to detect the vanity of these new dreams and notions; it is a
bad sore that must be wrapped in so many clouts.43

CHAPTER XI.

Of the proper Receptacle, or immediate subject of the Power
of Church Government: affirmatively, what it is, viz. Christ’s own
Officers.

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?

SECTION I.

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

An Appendix touching the Divine Right of Deacons.

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

SECTION II.

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.