_1st_, As to the former of these. That those qualifications, which are

necessary to church-communion, ought to be, some way or other, made

visible, this is taken for granted by many on both sides; and, indeed,

without it the church could not be called _visible_, or a society of

such as profess the true religion, and, together with it, their

subjection to Christ. And, this, in a more especial manner, must be made

known to them, who are to hold communion with them, as called to be

saints; which cannot, from the nature of the thing, be done, unless it

be, some way or other made to appear. If it be said, that there is no

occasion for this to be explicit, or the profession hereof to be made

any otherwise, than as their relation to a church denominates them to be

visible professors; this is only a presumptive evidence that they are

so, and does not sufficiently distinguish them from the world,

especially from that part of it, which makes an outward shew of

religion, and attend on several branches of public worship. This is

certainly very remote from the character given of all those churches

which we have an account of in the New Testament, concerning some of

whom the apostle says, that _their faith_ was not only known to that

particular society to which they belonged, but it was _spread abroad_,

or _spoken of throughout the whole world_, 1 Thes. i. 8. compared with

Rom. i. 8. This it could never have been, if they, who were more

immediately concerned to know it, had received no other conviction than

what is the result of their joining with them in some external acts of

worship.

And it may also be inferred, from what is generally allowed, by those

who explain the nature of the Lord’s supper, which is a

church-ordinance, and lay down the qualifications of those who are

deemed fit to partake of it; particularly that they are under an

obligation to examine themselves, not only concerning their knowledge to

discern the Lord’s body, but their faith to feed on him, their

repentance, love, and new obedience, trusting in his mercy, and

rejoicing in his love; and they assent the necessity of their renewing

the exercise of those graces, which may render them meet for this

ordinance.[275] And this is consonant to the practice of many of the

reformed churches, who will not admit any into their communion, without

receiving satisfaction, as to their having these qualifications for this

ordinance. And, since the matter in controversy with them principally

respects the manner in which this is to be given, and the concern of the

church herein, we may take occasion to infer, from hence, that there is

the highest reason that the church should receive satisfaction, as well

as those who preside over it; inasmuch as they are obliged, in

conscience, to have communion with them, and reckon them among the

number of those who have been made partakers of the grace of Christ,

which they cannot well be said to do, unless this be, some way or other,

made visible to them; which leads us to consider,

_2dly_, The manner in which this profession is to be made visible,

namely, whether it is to be done by every one in his own person; or a

report hereof by another in his name, may be deemed sufficient. This I

can reckon no other than a circumstance; and therefore one of these ways

is not so far to be insisted on, as that a person should be denied this

privilege, (whose qualifications for it are not be questioned) because

he is unwilling to comply with it, as thinking that the main end

designed thereby may be as effectually answered by the other. If a

person be duly qualified, as the apostle says concerning Timothy, to

_make a good profession before many witnesses_, 1 Tim. vi. 12. and this

may not only have a tendency to answer the end of giving satisfaction to

them, but be an expedient, in an uncommon degree, to promote their

edification; if he have something remarkable to impart, and desire to

bear his testimony to the grace of God, which he has experienced, in his

own person, and thereby to induce others to join with him in giving him

the glory of it, there is no law of God, or nature that prohibits, or

forbids him to do it; nor ought this to be censured, as though it could

not be done, without its being liable to the common imputation, as

though pride must be the necessary inducement leading him thereunto; for

that is such an instance of censure and reproach, as is unbecoming

Christians, especially when it is alleged as an universal exception

against it. Nevertheless, I am far from pleading for this, as a

necessary term of communion; nor do I think that a person’s desire to

give the church satisfaction, in such a way, ought always to be complied

with; since whatever occasion some may suppose they have for it, all are

not fit to do it, in such a way, as may tend to the church’s

edification. There are various other ways by which a church may know,

that those who are proposed to its communion have a right to it, which I

forbear to mention; but one of them is not to be so far insisted on, as

that a bare refusal to comply with it rather than another, provided the

general end be answered, should debar a person otherwise qualified for

it, from church-communion. The church being thus satisfied, he is joined

to it by their consent, and is hereby laid under equal engagements with

them, to walk in all the ordinances and commandments of the Lord

blameless. And this leads us to consider,

(2.) The exclusion of members from church-communion. This is agreeable

to the laws of society, as well as their admission into it; and hereby a

becoming zeal is expressed for the glory of God, and a public testimony

given against those who discover the insincerity of their professed

subjection to Christ, which was the ground and reason of their being

admitted into that relation, which now they appear to have forfeited,

this leads us to consider,

_First_, That the church has a right to exclude those from its communion

who appear to be unqualified for it, or a reproach to it; under which

head, I cannot but take notice of the opinion of the Erastians, that a

church has no power, distinct from the civil government, to exclude

persons from its communion. This was advanced by Erastus, a physician in

Germany, soon after the beginning of the reformation: and that, which

seems to have given occasion hereunto, was the just prejudice which he

entertained against the Popish doctrine, concerning the independency of

the church upon the state; which was then, and is at this day,

maintained, and abused to such a degree, that if a clergyman insults the

government, and sets himself at the head of a rebellion against his

lawful prince, or is guilty of any other enormous crimes, he flies to

the church for protection, and generally finds it there, especially if

the king should, in any respect, disoblige them, or refuse to lay his

crown at their feet, if they desire it: this, I say, was a just

prejudice, which gave the first rise to this opinion, in which, opposing

one extreme the first founder of it ran into another.

The argument, by which it is generally supported, is, that this tends to

erect, or set up one government in another:[276] but this is not

contrary to the law of nature and nations, when a smaller government is

not co-ordinate with the other, but allowed and protected by it: the

government of a family or corporation, must be acknowledged, by all, to

be a smaller government included in a greater; but will any one deny

that these are inconsistent with it? May not a master admit into, or

exclude, whom he pleases from being members of his family? or a

corporation make those by-laws, by which it is governed, without being

supposed to interfere with the civil government? And, by a parity of

reason, may not a church, pursuant not only to the laws of society, but

the rule which Christ has given, exclude members from its communion,

without being supposed to subvert the fundamental laws of civil

government? We do not deny, but that if the church should pretend to

inflict corporal punishments on its members, or make use of the civil

sword which is committed into the hand of the magistrate; or if it

should act contrary to the laws of Christ, by defending, encouraging, or

abetting those who are enemies to the civil government, or excluding

them from those privileges, which the laws of the land give them a right

to; this would be a notoriously unwarrantable instance of erecting one

government in another, subversive of it: but this is not the design of

excommunication, as it is one of those ordinances which Christ has given

to his church.

_Secondly_, We are now to consider the causes of inflicting this censure

on persons; and these are no other than those things which, had they

been before known, would have been a bar to their being admitted to

church-communion. And therefore when a person is guilty of those crimes,

which, had they been known before, he ought not to have been received;

when these are made to appear, he is deemed unqualified for that

privilege which he was before admitted to partake of; on which account

we generally say, that every one first excludes himself, by being guilty

of those crimes that disqualify him for church-communion, before he is

to be excluded from it, by the sentence of the church. But that we may

be a little more particular on this subject, let us consider,

_1st_, That they who disturb the tranquillity of the church, by the

uneasiness of their temper, or who are not only unwilling to comply with

the method of its government, but endeavour to make others so: or who

are restless in their attempt to bring innovations into it, or propagate

doctrines which are contrary to scripture, and the general faith of the

church, founded thereon; though these be not directly subversive of the

gospel, yet, inasmuch as the persons are not satisfied in retaining

their own sentiments, without giving disturbance to others, who cannot

adhere to them; such, I think, ought to be separated from the communion

of the church, purely out of a principle of self-preservation, though it

be not their immediate duty to judge the state, so much as the temper of

persons, whom they withdraw from.

_2dly_, If a person propagate a doctrine subversive of the gospel, or

that faith on which the church is founded, he is to be excluded. It is

such an one, as I humbly conceive, whom the apostle styles an _heretic_,

and advises Titus _to reject him_, and speaks of him as _one that is

subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself_, Tit. iii. 10, 11.

Some think, that the person here spoken of, is one who pretends to

believe one doctrine, but really believes another which is of a most

pernicious tendency, and therefore is to be rejected, not for his

sentiments, but his insincerity, and, upon this account, he is said to

be _self-condemned_[277]. But I cannot acquiesce in this sense of the

text; for, though there may be some in the world who think, to find

their account, gain popular applause, or, some way or other, serve their

worldly interest, by pretending to believe those doctrines which they

really deny; yet this cannot be truly said of the person, whom the

apostle, in this scripture, describes as an _heretic_: he is, indeed,

represented as inconsistent with himself; and this is supposed to be

known, and alleged, as an aggravation of the charge on which his

expulsion from that religious society, of which he was a member, is

founded: but did ever any man propagate one doctrine, and tell the world

that he believed another, so that he might, for this, be convicted as an

hypocrite? And certainly this could not be known without his own

confession, and the church could not censure him for it, but upon

sufficient evidence. If it be said, that they might know this by divine

inspiration, which, it is true, they were favoured with in that age, in

which, among other extraordinary gifts, they had that of _discerning of

spirits_; it is greatly to be questioned, whether ever they proceeded

against any one upon such extraordinary intimations, without some

apparent matter of accusation, which was known by those who had not this

extraordinary gift; for, if they had a liberty to proceed against

persons in such a way, why did not our Saviour reject Judas, who was one

of that society that attended on his ministry, when he knew him to be an

hypocrite, or _self-condemned_, in a most notorious degree, yet he did

not; and the reason, doubtless, was, because he designed that his

churches, in succeeding ages, should, in all their judicial proceedings,

go upon other evidence, which might easily be known by all, when they

expelled any one from their communion.

Besides, if this be the sense of the text, and the ground on which

persons are to be rejected, then no one can be known to be

self-condemned now; for we have no such extraordinary intimations

thereof, since miraculous gifts are ceased: and is there any thing

instituted as essential to the church’s proceedings, in the methods of

their government, which could not be put in practice, except in the

apostolic age? and, if so, then having recourse to extraordinary

discerning of spirits, as a foundation of this procedure, will not serve

the purpose for which it is alleged.

It must therefore be concluded, that the person here said to be

_self-condemned_, was not deemed so, because he pretended to hold that

faith which he really denied; but because his present professed

sentiments were the reverse of what he had before pretended to hold,

which was a term on which he was admitted into the church; and in this

sense he is said to be _self-condemned_, as his present errors contained

a contradiction to that faith which he then professed, in common with

the rest of that society, of which he was admitted a member.

_3dly_, Persons are to be excluded from church-communion for immoral

practices, which not only contradict their professed subjection to

Christ, but argue them to be in an unconverted state. When they were

first received into the church, they were supposed, by a judgment of

charity, to be Christ’s subjects and servants: their own profession,

which was not then contradicted by any apparant blemishes in their

conversation, was the foundation of this opinion, which the church was

then bound to entertain concerning them; but, when they are guilty of

any crimes, which are contrary to their professed subjection to Christ,

the church is to take away the privilege which they had before granted

them; for hereby they appear to be disqualified for their communion; and

this is necessary, inasmuch as, by it, they express a just detestation

of every thing that would be a reproach to them, or an instance of

disloyalty to, or rebellion against Christ, their Head and Saviour.

(3.) We are now to speak concerning the method of proceeding in

excluding persons from church-communion. We must consider this as a

judicial act, and therefore not to be done without trying and judging

impartially the merits of the cause. A crime committed is supposed to be

first known by particular persons, who are members of the church; or if

any injury be done, whereby another has received just matter of offence,

he is supposed to be first apprised of it, before it be brought before

the church. In this case, our Saviour has expressly given direction

concerning the method in which he is to proceed when he says, _If thy

brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault, between

thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother:

but if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that,

in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established.

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he

neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen-man, and

a Publican_, Matt. xviii. 15-17. If this scripture be rightly

understood, it will give great light to the method of proceeding in this

matter.

And here we must consider, that the crime is called a _trespass_, and

accordingly is, in some respects, injurious to others, whereby the

offender contracts some degree of guilt, which he is to be reproved for,

otherwise there would be no room for a private rebuke, or admonition, in

order to bring him to repentance; nor, upon his obstinate refusal

thereof, would the church have ground to proceed in excluding him from

its communion: nevertheless, we are not to suppose the crime to be of

such a nature, as is, in itself, inconsistent with a state of grace, or

affords matter of open scandal to the Christian name; as if a person

were guilty of adultery, theft, or some other notorious crime; for, in

this case, it would not be sufficient for the person, who is apprised of

it, to give him a friendly and gentle reproof; so that, upon his

confessing his fault, and repenting of it, all farther proceedings

against him ought to be stopped; for herein, I humbly conceive, that he

that has received information concerning it, ought to make it known to

the church, that so the matter might not only be fully charged upon him,

but his repentance be as visible, as the scandal he has brought to

religion, by his crime, has been. If I know a person to be a traitor to

his Prince, a murderer, or guilty of any other crime, whereby he has

forfeited his life, it is not sufficient for me to reprove him privately

for it, in order to bring him to repentance; but I must discover it to

proper persons, that he may be brought to condign punishment: So, in

this case, if a person be guilty of a crime, that in itself disqualifies

for church-communion, and brings a reproach on the ways of God, the

church ought to express their public resentment against it, which will

tend to secure the honour of religion; and therefore it ought to be

brought before them immediately, and they to proceed against him, by

excluding him from their communion; though, for the present, he seem to

express some degree of sorrow for his crime, as being made public; and

if they judge that his repentance is sincere, and the world has

sufficient ground to conclude it to be so, then they may express their

forgiveness thereof, and so withdraw the censure they have passed upon

him.

But, in crimes of a lesser nature than these, a private admonition ought

to be given; and if this be to no purpose, but the person go on in sin,

whereby it appears to be habitual, and his repentance not sincere, after

this, the cause is to be brought before the church; but, in order

hereunto, the person that first reproved him, must take one or two more,

that they may join in the second reproof; and, if all this be to no

purpose, then they are to appear as evidences against him, and the

church is to give him a public admonition; and, if this solemn ordinance

prove ineffectual, then he is to be excluded, and his exclusion is

styled his _being to them as an Heathen-man, or Publican_, that is, they

have no farther relation to him any more than they have to the _Heathen_

or _Publicans_, or no immediate care of him, any otherwise than as they

are to desire to know whether this censure be blessed for his advantage.

And this leads us,

(4.) To consider the temper with which this censure ought to be

denounced, and the consequences thereof, with respect to him that falls

under it. The same frame of spirit ought to discover itself in this, as

in all other reproofs, for sin committed, in which there ought to be a

zeal expressed for the glory of God, and, at the same time, compassion

to the souls of them, who have rendered themselves obnoxious to it,

without the least degree of hatred redounding to their persons. The

crime is to be aggravated in proportion to the nature thereof, that so

he that has committed it may be brought under conviction, and be humbled

for his sin, and yet he is to be made sensible that his spiritual

advantage is intended thereby.

This is very contrary to those methods which were taken in the corrupt

state of the Jewish church, who, when they excommunicated persons,

denounced several curses against them; and their behaviour consequent

thereupon, was altogether unjustifiable. We have an account, in some of

their writings, of two degrees of excommunication practised among them,

one of which only deprived them of some privileges which that church

enjoyed, but not of all. Another carried in it more terror, by reason of

several _anathemas_ annexed to it, which contained a great abuse and

perversion of the design of that law relating to the curses that were to

be denounced on mount Ebal, mentioned in Deut. xxvii. which was not

given as a form, to be used in excommunication, but to shew them what

sin deserved, and that this might be an expedient to prevent those sins,

which would expose them to the divine wrath and curse[278]. And though

they pretend to have a warrant for this from Deborah, and Barak’s

_cursing Meroz_, Judges v. 23. or Joshua’s denouncing _a curse_ upon him

that should rebuild _Jericho_, Joshua vi. 26. yet this does not give

countenance to their proceedings herein; for we must distinguish between

those _anathemas_, which were denounced by immediate divine direction,

by some that had the spirit of prophecy, and those curses which were

denounced by others who were altogether destitute thereof[279].

Moreover, as the Jews, in the degenerate ages of that church, abused the

ordinance of excommunication, as above-mentioned; so they discovered

such a degree of hatred to those whom they excommunicated, as ought not

to be expressed to the vilest of men. An instance of this we have in

their behaviour towards the Samaritans, who, according to the account we

have from Jewish writers, were excommunicated in Ezra’s time, for

building a temple on mount Gerizzim, and setting up corrupt worship

there, in opposition to that which ought to have been performed in the

temple at Jerusalem. For this they were justly excluded from the Jewish

church[280]; but their morose behaviour towards them was unwarrantable.

That there was an irreconcilable enmity between them, appears from the

woman of Samaria’s answer to our Saviour, when desiring her to give him

water; from whence it is evident that he was far from approving of this

behaviour of the Jews towards them: the woman was amazed that he should

ask water of her, and hereupon says to him, _How is it, that thou, being

a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews

have no dealings with the Samaritans_, John iv. 9. that is, they retain

that old rancour and prejudice against them, that they will not have any

dealings with them which contain the least obligation on either side.

These things were consequences of excommunication which they had no

ground for in scripture.

As for the Christian church, they seem to have followed the Jews too

much in that, in which they are not to be imitated. Hence arose the

distinction between the greater and the lesser excommunication, which is

agreeable, though expressed in other words, to that which was before

mentioned; and those _anathemas_, which were denounced against persons

excommunicated by them, how much soever it might have argued their zeal

against the crimes they committed, yet it is no example for us to

follow. It is beyond dispute, that they endeavour to make this censure

as much dreaded as was possible, to deter men from committing those

crimes that might deserve it. Tertullian calls it, _An anticipation of

the future judgment_[281]; and Cyprian supposes such an one to _be far

from a state of salvation_[282].

And some have supposed, that persons, when excommunicated, were

possessed by the devil, which they conclude to be the sense of the

apostle, 1 Cor. v. 5. when he speaks of _delivering_ such _unto

Satan_[283]; and that Satan actually seized, and took possession of

them; and that God granted this as an expedient, to strike a terror into

the minds of men, to prevent many sins being committed; and that this

was more necessary at that time, when they were destitute of the

assistance of the civil magistrate, who took no care to defend the

church, or to punish those crimes that were committed by its members:

but I cannot think that there was ever such a power granted to the

church, how much soever the necessity of affairs be supposed to require

it. We read nothing of it in the writings of those Fathers, who lived in

the early ages thereof; such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, or

Cyprian, who would, doubtless, have taken some notice of this

extraordinary miraculous punishment attending excommunication, had there

been any such thing. Some of them, indeed, speak of the church’s being

favoured, in some instances, with the extraordinary gift of miracles,

and particularly that of casting out devils, after the apostles’

time;[284] but we have no account of the devil’s possessing any, upon

their being cast out of the church.

We read, in scripture, of delivering a person excommunicated to Satan, 1

Cor. v. 5. but I cannot think that the apostle intends any more by it,

than his being declared to be in Satan’s kingdom, that is in the world,

where he rules over the children of disobedience; and, if his crime be

so great, as is inconsistent with a state of grace, he must, without

doubt, be reckoned a servant of Satan, and, in this sense, be delivered

to him. And there is a particular end thereof, mentioned by the apostle,

namely, _The destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in

the day of the Lord Jesus_; so that the person’s good is to be intended

by it, that he may be humbled, brought to repentance, and afterwards

received again into the bosom of the church.

Thus we have considered the general description of a church, the matter

and form thereof, and the power granted them of receiving persons into,

or excluding them from communion. Now from hence we may infer,

_1st_, That nearness of habitation, how much soever it may contribute to

answer some ends of church-communion, which cannot be attained by those

who live many miles distant from each other, is not sufficient to

constitute persons church-members, or to give them a right to the

privileges that attend such a relation. Parochial churches have no

foundation in scripture, for they want both the matter and form of a

church; nor are they any other than a human constitution.

_2dly,_ The scripture gives no account of the church, as National or

Provincial; and therefore, though persons have a right to many civil

privileges, as born in particular nations, or provinces, it does not

follow from thence, that they are professedly subjects to Christ, or

united together in the bonds of the gospel. Therefore if a church, that

styles itself National, excludes persons from its communion, whether it

be for real or supposed crimes, it takes away that right which it had no

power to confer, but what is founded on the laws of men, which are very

distinct from those which Christ has given to his churches. And this

leads us,

5. To consider the government of the church, by those officers which

Christ has appointed therein. Tyranny and anarchy are extremes,

inconsistent with the good of civil society, and contrary to the law of

nature, and are sufficiently fenced against by the government which

Christ has established in his church: he has appointed officers to

secure the peace and order thereof, and has limited their power, and

given directions that concern the exercise thereof, that so it may be

governed without oppression, its religious rights maintained, the glory

of God, and the mutual edification of its members hereby promoted.

We have already considered those extraordinary officers which Christ set

over the gospel-church, when it was first constituted, namely, the

apostles and evangelists:[285] But, besides these, there are others

which he has given to his churches; and these either such as are

appointed to bear rule, more especially, in what respects the promoting

their faith and order, who are styled Pastors and Elders; of others, who

have the oversight of the secular affairs of the church, and the trust

of providing for the necessities of the poor committed to them, who are

called Deacons.

Concerning the former of these, to wit, Pastors and Elders, we often

read of them in the New Testament: nevertheless, all are not agreed in

their sentiments, as to one particular relating hereunto, namely,

whether the Elders spoken of in scripture are distinct officers from

Pastors; or, whether Christ has appointed two sorts of them, to wit,

preaching and ruling Elders? Some think the apostle distinguishes

between them, when he says, _Let the elders that rule well be counted

worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in the word and

doctrine_, 1 Tim. v. 17. the _double honour_ here intended seems to be

not only civil respect, but maintenance, as appears from the following

words, _Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn; and the

labourer is worthy of his reward_. Now these suppose that this

maintenance belongs only to such as _labour in word and doctrine_, and

not to those other Elders, who are said to _rule well_; therefore there

are elders that _rule well_, distinct from those that _labour in word

and doctrine_.

Others, indeed, think, that the apostle, in this text speaks only of the

latter sort, and then the stress of his argument is laid principally on

the word _Labouring_, q. d. Let every one who preaches the gospel, and

presides over the church, have that honour conferred on him that is his

due; but let this be greater in proportion to the pains and diligence

that he expresses for the church’s edification.

Nevertheless, I cannot but think, since it is agreeable to the laws of

society, and not in the least repugnant to any thing we read, in

scripture, concerning the office of an Elder, that, in case of

emergency, when the necessity of the church requires it, or when the

work of preaching and ruling is too much for a Pastor, the church being

very numerous, it is advisable that some should be chosen from among

themselves to assist him in managing the affairs of government and

performing some branches of his office, distinct from that of preaching,

which these are not called to do, as not being qualified for it: these

are helpers or assistants in government; and their office may have in it

a very great expediency, as in the multitude of counsellers there is

safety, and the direction and advice of those who are men of prudence

and esteem in the church, will be very conducive to maintain its peace

and order: but I cannot think that this office is necessary in smaller

churches, in which the Pastors need not their assistance. And this leads

us to speak concerning the office of a Pastor, which consists of two

branches, namely, preaching the word, and administring the sacraments on

the one hand; and performing the office of a ruling Elder on the other.

_1st_, We may consider him as qualified and called to preach the gospel.

This is an honourable and important work, and has always been reckoned

so, by those who have had any concern for the promoting the glory of God

in the world. The apostle Paul was very thankful to Christ that he

conferred this honour upon him, or, as he expresses it, that _he counted

him faithful and put him into the ministry_, chap. i. 12. and elsewhere

he concludes, that it is necessary, that they, who engage in this work,

be sent by God; _How shall they preach except they be sent?_ Rom. x. 15.

This is a necessary pre-requisite to the pastoral-office, as much as

speech is necessary to an orator, or conduct to a governor:

nevertheless, a person may be employed, in the work of the ministry, who

is not a pastor; these may be reckoned, if they discharge the work they

are called to, faithfully, a blessing to the world, and a valuable part

of the church’s treasure; yet considered as distinct from Pastors, they

are not reckoned among its officers. This is a subject that very well

deserves our consideration: but, inasmuch as we have an account

elsewhere[286] of the qualifications and call of ministers to preach the

gospel, and the manner in which this is to be done, we pass it over, at

present, and proceed,

_2dly_, To consider a minister, as invested in the pastoral office, and

so related to a particular church. The characters by which such, who are

called to it, are described, in the New Testament, besides that of a

Pastor, are a Bishop or Overseer, a Presbyter or Elder, who labours in

word and doctrine.

The world, it is certain, is very much divided in their sentiments about

this matter, some concluding that a Bishop is not only distinct from,

but superior, both in order and degree to those who are styled

Presbyters or Elders; whereas, others think, that there is either no

difference between them, or, at least, that it is not so great, as that

they should be reckoned distinct officers in a church. The account we

have, in scripture, of this matter seems to be somewhat different from

what were the sentiments of the church in following ages. Sometimes we

read of several Bishops in one church: thus the apostle, writing to the

church at Philippi, directs his epistle to the Bishops and Deacons,

Phil. i. 1. and elsewhere he seems to call the same persons Bishops and

Elders, or Presbyters; for it is said, that he sent to Ephesus, _and

called together the Elders of the church_, Acts xx. 17. and advises them

_to take heed to themselves, and to all the flock over whom the Holy

Ghost had made them Overseers_, or Bishops, ver. 28. and, at another

time, he charges Titus _to ordain elders_, or Presbyters, _in every

city_; and then gives the character of those whom he was to ordain,

bidding him take care that they were blameless, and had other

qualifications, necessary for this office; and, in assigning a reason

for this, he adds, _For a Bishop must be blameless_, &c. where, it is

plain, the word Elder and Bishop are indifferently used by him, as

respecting the same person. And the apostle Peter 1 Pet. v. 1. addresses

himself to the Elders of the churches, to whom he writes, styling

himself _an Elder together with them_;[287] and, besides this, _a

witness of the sufferings of Christ_, which was his character, as an

apostle. And he exhorts them to perform the office of Bishops, or

Overseers,[288] as the word, which we render _Taking the Oversight_,

signifies; from whence it is evident, that Elders and Presbyters had the

character of Bishops, from the work they were to perform.

Moreover, that venerable assembly, that met at Jerusalem, to discuss an

important question brought before them by Paul and Barnabas, is said to

consist of the Apostles and Elders, Acts xv. 6. Now, if Bishops had

been, not only distinct from, but a superior order to that of Elders,

they would have been here mentioned as such, and, doubtless, have met

together with them; but it seems probable that they are included in the

general character of Elders. Some think, that the same persons are

called Bishops, because they had the oversight of their respective

churches; and Elders, because they were qualified for this work, by that

age and experience which they had, for the most part arrived to; as the

word Elder signifies not only one that is invested in an office,[289]

but one who, by reason of his age, and that wisdom that often attends

it, is fitted to discharge it, 1 Tim. v. 1.

We read nothing in scripture, of Diocesan churches, or Bishops over

them, how much soever this was pleaded for in many following ages; and

they, who maintain this argument, generally have recourse to the

writings of the Fathers, and church-historians, which, were the proofs,

taken from thence, more strong and conclusive than they are, would not

be sufficient to support the divine right thereof. I shall not enlarge

on this particular branch of the controversy, inasmuch as it has been

handled with a great deal of learning and judgment, by many others,[290]

who refer to the writings of the Fathers of the three first centuries,

to prove that churches were no larger in those times than one person

could have the oversight of, and that these chose their own Bishops.

Some think, indeed, that there is ground to conclude, from what we find

in the writings of Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, and other Fathers in

these ages, that there was a superiority of Bishops to Presbyters, at

least, in degree, though not in order; and that the Presbyter performed

all the branches of that work, that properly belonged to Bishops, only

with this difference, that it was done with their leave, or by their

order, or in their absence; and there being several Elders in the same

church, when a Bishop died, one of those were ready to succeed him in

that office.

Some, indeed, speak of the church as Parochial, and contradistinguished

from Diocesan; but, inasmuch as it does not appear, by their writings,

that these Parochial churches had any other bond of union, but nearness

of habitation, I cannot so readily conclude, that their church-state

depended principally on this political circumstance; but rather that

Christians thought it most convenient for such to enter into a

church-relation, who, by reason of the nearness of their situation to

each other, could better perform the duties that were incumbent on them,

pursuant hereunto.

But, notwithstanding this, it appears from several things occasionally

mentioned by the Fathers, that the church admitted none into its

communion, but those whom they judged qualified for it, and that not

only by understanding the doctrines of Christianity, but by a

conversation becoming their profession thereof; and it was a

considerable time that they remained in a state of probation, being

admitted to attend on the prayers and instructions of the church, but

ordered to withdraw before the Lord’s supper was administered: these are

sometimes called Hearers by Cyprian; at other times, Candidates, but

most commonly Catechumens. And there were persons appointed not only to

instruct them but to examine what proficiency they made in religion, in

order to their being received into the church. In this state of trial

they continued generally two or three years[291]; such care they took

that persons might not deceive themselves, and the church, by joining in

communion with it, without having those qualifications that are

necessary thereunto. This is very different from parochial churches, as

understood and defended by many in our day. Therefore when churches were

called parishes, in the three first centuries, it was only a

circumstantial description thereof.

In every one of these churches there was one who was called a bishop, or

overseer, with a convenient number of elders or presbyters; and it is

observed, by that learned writer but now referred to, that these

churches, at first, were comparatively small, and not exceeding the

limits of the city, or village, in which they were situate, each of

which was under the care, or oversight, of its respective pastor, or

bishop.

This was the state of the church, more especially, in the three first

centuries: but, if we descend a little lower to the fourth century, we

shall find that the government thereof was very much altered, when it

arrived to a peaceable and flourishing state; then, indeed, the bishops

had the oversight of of larger dioceses, than they had before, which

proceeded from the aspiring temper of particular persons[292], who were

not content till they had added some neighbouring parishes to their own,

and so their churches became very large, till they extended themselves

over whole provinces. But even this was complained of by some, as an

abuse; which occasioned Chrysostom so frequently to insist on the

inconvenience of bishops having churches too large for them to take the

oversight of, and not so much regarding the qualifications as the number

of those over whom they presided; and he signifies his earnest desire,

that those under his care might rather excel in piety, than in number,

as it would be an expedient for his better discharging the work

committed to him[293].

Thus concerning the character and distinction of the pastors of

churches, together with the form of the church in the first ages of

Christianity; and what is observed, by many, concerning the agreement

and difference which there was between bishops and presbyters: but this

has been so largely insisted on, by many who have written on both sides

the question, and the controversy turning very much on critical remarks

made on some occasional passages, taken out of the writings of the

Fathers, without recourse to scripture; it is therefore less necessary,

or agreeable to our present design, to enlarge on that head: however, we

may observe, that some of those who have written in defence of Diocesan

Episcopacy, have been forced to acknowledge, that Jerom, Augustin,

Ambrose, Chrysostom, in the Fourth Century; and, in some following ages,

Sedulius, Primatius, Theodoret, and Theophylact, have all held the

identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters in the

primitive church[294]. Jerom, in particular, is more express on this

subject than any of them, and proves it from some arguments taken from

scripture, which speak of the distinction that there was between them,

as being the result of those divisions, by which the peace and order of

the church was broken, and that it was no other than an human

constitution.[295] This opinion of Jerom is largely defended by a

learned writer, who shews that it is agreeable to the sentiments of

other Fathers, who lived before and after him. Thus concerning a pastor,

as styled a _bishop_ or _presbyter_; we shall now consider him as

invested in his office, whereby he becomes related to a particular

church of Christ. That no one is pastor of the catholic church, has been

observed, under a foregoing head[301], wherein we shewed, that the

church, when styled catholic, is not to be reckoned the seat of

government; and therefore we must consider a pastor as presiding over a

particular church; and, in order hereunto, it is necessary that he

should be called, or chosen, to take the oversight of it, on their part,

and comply with the invitation on his own, and, after that be solemnly

invested in, or set apart, to this office.

(1.) We are to consider what more especially respects the church, who

have a right to choose, or call those, who are qualified for the work,

to engage in this service, and to perform the two branches of the

pastoral office, namely, instructing and governing. This is not only

agreeable to the laws of society, but is plainly contained in scripture,

and appears to have been the sentiment and practice of the church, in

the three first centuries thereof. The church’s power of choosing their

own officers, is sufficiently evident from scripture. If there were any

exception hereunto, it must be in those instances in which there was an

extraordinary hand of providence in the appointment of officers over

them; but, even then, God sometimes referred the matter to their own

choice: thus, when Moses made several persons rulers over Israel, to

bear a part of the burden, which before was wholly laid on him, he

refers this to their own election, when he says, _Take ye wise men, and

understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers

over you_, Deut. i. 13. And in the gospel-church, which, at first,

consisted of _about an hundred and twenty members_, Acts i. 15. when an

apostle was to be chosen to succeed Judas, they _appointed two_ out of

their number, and prayed, that God would _signify which of them he had

chosen_; and, when they had _given forth their lots, the lot fell upon

Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles_, ver. 23. so we

render the words: but if they had been rendered, he was numbered among

the eleven apostles, by common suffrage or vote, it would have been more

expressive of the sense thereof[302]. Soon after this, we read of the

choice of other officers, to wit, deacons in the church, chap. vi. 3.

and the apostles say to them, _Look ye out among you seven men, whom ye

may appoint over this business_. And afterwards, in their appointing

elders, or pastors, over particular churches, we read of their choosing

them by vote or suffrage: thus it is said, in Acts xiv. 23. _When they

had ordained them elders in every church_; so we translate the

words[303]; but they might be better rendered, _When they had chosen

elders in every church by lifting up of the hand_. This was, and is, at

this day, a common mode of electing persons, either to civil or

religious offices.[304] And it might be easily proved from the Fathers,

that this was the universal practice of the church in the three first

centuries, and not wholly laid aside in following ages, till civil

policy, and secular interest usurped and invaded the rights thereof: but

this argument having been judiciously managed by Dr. Owen[305], I pass

it over, and proceed to consider,

(2.) That a pastor being thus chosen, by the church, and having

confirmed his election by his own consent; then follows his being

separated, or publicly set apart to this office, with fasting and

prayer, which is generally called _ordination_. This does not, indeed,

constitute a person a pastor of a church, so that his election,

confirmed by his consent, would not have been valid without it; yet it

is not only agreeable to the scripture-rule, but highly expedient, that,

as his ministerial acts are to be public, his first entering into his

office should be so likewise, and, in order thereunto, that other

pastors, or elders, should join in this solemnity; for, though they do

not confer this office upon him, yet thereby they testify their

approbation of the person, chosen to it; and a foundation is laid for

that harmony of pastors and churches, that tends to the glory of God,

and the promoting of the common interest. This also fences against

several inconveniences which might ensue; since it is possible that a

church may chuse a person to be their pastor, whose call to, and

qualification for this office may be questioned; and it is natural to

suppose, that they would expect that their proceedings herein should be

justified and defended by other pastors and churches, and the communion

of churches maintained: but how can this be done if no expedient be used

to render this matter public and visible, which this way of ordaining or

setting apart to the pastoral office does? And they who join herein

testify their approbation thereof, as what is agreeable to the rule of

the gospel.

This public inauguration, or investiture in the pastoral office, is, for

the most part, performed with imposition of hands, which, because it is

so frequently mentioned in scripture, and appears to have been practised

by the church in all succeeding ages, it will be reckoned, by many, to

be no other than a fruitless attempt, if not an offending against the

generation of God’s people, to call in question the warrantableness

thereof. It is certain, this ceremony was used in the early ages of the

church, particularly in public and solemn benedictions: thus Jacob laid

his hands on Ephraim and Manasseh, when he blessed them; and also in

conferring political offices, Numb. xxvii. 18. Deut. xxiv. 9. It was

also used in healing diseases in a miraculous way, 2 Kings v. 11. Mark

vii. 32. and it was sometimes used when persons were eminently converted

to the Christian faith and baptized, Acts ix. 17. These things are very

evident from scripture: nevertheless, it may be observed, that, in

several of these instances, it is, and has, for some ages past, been

laid aside, by reason of the discontinuance of those extraordinary

gifts, which were signified thereby. There was, doubtless, something

extraordinary in the patriarchal benediction; as Jacob did not only pray

for a blessing on the sons of Joseph, but as a prophet he foretold that

the divine blessing, which he spake of, should descend on their

posterity; and therefore we don’t read of this ceremony’s being used in

the more common instances, when persons, who were not endowed with the

spirit of prophecy, put up prayers or supplications to God for others.

And though it was sometimes used, as in the instances before-mentioned,

in the designation of persons to political offices; yet it was not in

those times in which the church of the Jews was under the divine

theocracy, and extraordinary gifts were expected to qualify them for the

office they were called to perform.

And whereas we frequently read, in scripture of imposition of hands, in

the ordination, or setting apart of ministers to the pastoral office,

while extraordinary gifts were conferred, and of these gifts being also

bestowed on persons who were converted to the Christian faith, and

baptized; in these, and other instances of the like nature, this

ceremony was used, as a significant sign and ordinance for their faith:

but it is certain, that the conferring extraordinary gifts to qualify

for the pastoral office, is not now to be expected; therefore it must

either be proved, that, besides this, something else was signified,

which may be now expected, or else the use thereof, as a significant

sign, or an ordinance for our faith, cannot be well defended. And if it

be said, that the conferring this office is signified thereby, it must

be proved, that they who use the sign, have a right to confer the

office, or to constitute a person a pastor of a particular church. If

these things cannot easily be proved, then we must suppose that the

external action is used, without having in it the nature of a sign, and

then it is to be included among those things that are indifferent; and a

person’s right to exercise the pastoral office, does not depend on the

use; nor, on the other hand, is it to be called in question, by reason

of the neglect thereof. But, to conclude this head, if the only thing

intended hereby be what Augustin understood to be the meaning of

imposition of hands, on those who were baptized in his day, namely, that

it was nothing else but a praying over persons[306], I have nothing to

object against it: but if more be intended hereby, and especially if it

be reckoned so necessary to the pastoral office, that it cannot be

acceptably performed without it; this may give just reason for many to

except against it.

(3.) We shall now consider the pastor, as discharging his office. This

more immediately respects the church to which he stands related,

especially in what concerns that branch thereof, which consists in

presiding or ruling over them. If there be more elders joined with him,

with whom he is to act in concert, this is generally called a

_consistory_, which I cannot think essential to the exercise of that

government, which Christ has appointed; though sometimes it may be

expedient, as was before observed: but whether there be one, or more,

that bear rule in the church, their power is subjected to certain

limitations, agreeable to the laws of society, and those in particular

which Christ has given to his church. As the nature of the office we are

speaking of, does not argue that the church is without any government,

or under such a democracy as infers confusion, or supposes that every

one has a right to give laws to the whole body; so it has not those

ingredients of absolute and unlimited monarchy or aristocracy, as are

inconsistent with liberty; and therefore we suppose, that a pastor, and

other elders, if such be joined with him, are not to rule according to

their own will, or to act separately from the church in the affairs of

government, but in their name, and with their consent; and therefore

they are generally styled, the instruments by which the church exerts

that power which Christ has given it; and accordingly a church, when

officers are set over it, is said to be organized. This is called, in

scripture, the power of the keys, which, agreeably to the laws of

society, is originally in them, and is to be exercised in their name,

and with their consent, by their officers; and therefore a pastor, or

other elders with him, have no power to act without the consent of the

church, in receiving members into, or excluding them from its communion.

This I cannot but think to be agreeable to the law of nature, on which

the laws of society are founded, as well as the gospel-rule.

I am sensible that many of the reformed churches, who allow that this

power is originally in them, conclude notwithstanding, and their

practice is consonant hereunto, that it may be consigned over to the

pastor and elders, and that this is actually done by them when they

chuse them into that office. The principal argument, by which this is

generally defended, is, that because they are fit to teach, they are fit

to govern, without being directed in any thing that relates thereunto.

But the question is not concerning the fitness of persons for it, which

is not to be denied; but whether the church ought to divest itself of

that power which Christ has given it, especially when it may be exerted

without anarchy or confusion; which it certainly may, if this power be

not abused, or the due exercise thereof neglected. And, in order

hereunto, a church-officer is to prepare matters for the church, that

nothing trifling, vain, or contentious may be brought before them; and

to communicate them to it, to desire to know their sentiments about

them, and to declare, improve, and act pursuant thereunto.

There are, indeed, some branches of the pastoral office, which are to be

performed without the church’s immediate direction; such as preaching

the word, administring the sacraments, visiting the sick, comforting the

afflicted, endeavouring to satisfy them that are under doubts, or

scruples of conscience, and excite and encourage them to perform those

duties, which their professed subjection to Christ, and their relation

to his church, oblige them to.

(4.) We shall now consider pastors, or elders of churches, as employed

occasionally in using their best endeavours to assist others in some

difficulties, in which their direction is needed or desired. This is

what we call a _synod_, which word is very much disrelished by some in

our age; and it were to be wished, that there had been no occasion for

this prejudice, from the account we have of the abuses practised by

synods and councils in former ages. This gave great uneasiness to

Gregory Nazianzen, who complains of confusions, and want of temper which

were too notorious in some synods in the age in which he lived[307]. And

afterwards we find, that almost all the corruptions that were brought

into the church, were countenanced by some synod or other; and many of

them assumed to themselves a power of making laws, which were to be

received with equal obligation, as though they had been delivered by the

immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost; and a door was opened by them

to persecution, so that they have in many instances, taken away not only

the religious, but civil rights of mankind. It will therefore be thought

strange that I should so much as mention the word; but though I equally

detest every thing of this nature, that has been practised by them; yet

it is not impossible to treat on this subject in an unexceptionable

manner: It is certainly a warrantable practice, founded in the law of

nature, for persons who cannot compromise a matter in debate, to desire

the advice of others. The same is, doubtless, true in religious matters;

therefore we suppose that there may be some matters debated in a church,

which cannot be issued among themselves. And in this case, provided it

be an affair of importance, it is expedient for them to apply themselves

to other churches, to give their advice in this matter by their pastors

and elders: If it be some corruption in doctrine that has insinuated

itself into it, they may desire to know the sense of others about it,

still reserving to themselves a judgment of discretion, without

reckoning their decrees infallible; or if it be in matters of conduct,

which, through the perverseness of some, and ignorance of others, may be

of pernicious tendency, if suitable advice be not given; then it ought

to be desired and complied with, so far as it appears to be agreeable to

the mind of Christ. This is therefore not only allowable, but very

expedient.

I have nothing to say as to the number of persons, to whom this matter

may be referred: A multitude of counsellors may sometimes be mistaken,

when a smaller number have given better advice; neither have I any thing

to allege in defence of œcumenical councils, much less such as have been

convened by the usurped power of the bishop of Rome. But we are speaking

of a particular church under some difficulties, desiring the advice of

as many as they think meet to refer the matter to: or if a Christian

magistrate demands the advice of the pastors or elders of churches, in

his dominions, in those religious affairs that are subservient to his

government, they ought to obey him. These things are altogether

unexceptionable: But when ministers give vent to their own passions, and

pretend to give a sanction to doctrines that are unscriptural; or if

they annex anathemas to their decrees, or enforce them by

excommunication, or put the civil magistrate on methods of persecution;

this is going beyond the rule, and offering prejudice rather than doing

service to the interest of Christ: But when they only signify what is

their judgment about some important articles of faith, or

church-discipline, or some intricate cases of conscience, in which it is

desired; and endeavour to give conviction rather by arguments, than

barely their authority, this is not only their duty, but an advantage to

the church, as the synod that met at Jerusalem was to the church at

Antioch, Acts xv. 31-33.

Thus we have considered the office of a Pastor. It might be expected

that we should consider that of a Teacher, which many think to be a

distinct officer in the church, as the apostle says, _He gave some

pastors and teachers_, Eph. iv. 11. There are many, who treat on this

matter, that suppose a teacher to be a distinct officer from a pastor;

but yet when they call him a teaching elder, and allow him to have a

part of the government of the church, as well as to be employed in the

work of preaching, their method of explaining the nature of this office

supposes it to differ little or nothing from that of a pastor, except in

name. If they say that the difference consists in that the pastor is

superior in honour and degree, to a teacher, and make the latter no more

than a provisionary officer in the church, appointed to perform what

properly belongs to the pastor, when he is absent, or indisposed, or,

for any other reason, desires him to officiate for him; I cannot see

reason to conclude that this is the meaning of the word teacher, as

mentioned by the apostle; so that whilst they plead for its being a

distinct office in the church, and, at the same time, explain it in such

a way, there seems to be little else but a distinction without a

difference.

As for the opinion of those who think that it was, indeed, a distinct

office, but that a teacher was called, by the church, to some other

branches of teaching, which the pastor could not well attend to, and

that these were such as were styled, by the primitive church,

Catechists; this deserves our consideration. We read, in the early ages

of the church, of persons who had this office and character: Their work

was such as needed those gifts, which our blessed Saviour was pleased to

bestow on men, for the propagating his interest in the world, as much as

any other; for, whether they preached publicly or no, as the pastor was

called to do, their business was not only to instruct the catechumens,

who were disposed to embrace the Christian doctrine, but all who were

willing to be taught by them; for which end there were public schools

erected, which were under the direction, care, and countenance of the

church, in which the method of instruction was, by explaining the

scriptures, and, in public and set disputations, defending the Christian

religion against those who opposed it, by which means many were

converted to the Christian faith from among the heathen; and others, who

were initiated therein, were, by this means, as well as by public

preaching, established and confirmed therein, and thereby qualified for

church-communion, and then baptized and joined to the church. Thus we

read, in the writings of the Fathers, and church-historians, of several

who performed this office with very great reputation and

usefulness[308]; and it is thought, by some, to have been not only

agreeable to the practice of the church in the apostle’s days, but

derived from it; and though it be not so plainly mentioned in scripture,

as some other officers are, yet that the apostle refers to it, when he

says, _Let him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that

teacheth_, Gal. vi. 6. that is, Let him that is catechized communicate

to the catechist[309]. But this is, at best, but a probable sense of the

word, and therefore not sufficient of itself to give ground to conclude,

that the apostle intends this when he speaks of teachers, as distinct

officers from pastors. However, though, doubtless, the practice of the

church, as above-mentioned, in appointing such officers was commendable;

yet it does not fully appear, that this is what the apostle intends,

though I will not deny it to be a probable conjecture; and I should

acquiesce in it, rather than in any other sense of the text that I have

hitherto met with, did I not think that the words pastors and teachers

might not be as well, if not better, understood, as signifying one and

the same office; and therefore I had rather understand them as Jerom and

Augustin do[310], _q. d._ _He gave some pastors_, to wit, _teachers_, or

pastors that are teachers, or engaged in preaching the gospel, which is

the principal branch of their office. And that which gives me farther

ground to understand the words in this sense, is, because the apostle,

when he enumerates the officers of a church elsewhere, speaks of

teachers without any mention of pastors, as it is said, _God has set

some in the church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly,

teachers_, 1 Cor. xii. 28. where no mention is made of pastors, as being

included in the word teachers; and this is agreeable to what we observed

elsewhere,[311] which is all we shall add on this head.

The next officer in a church is a deacon, whose work and business is

described as _serving tables_, Acts vi. 2. that is, the Lord’s table, by

providing what is necessary for the Lord’s supper, and assisting in the

distribution of the elements. He is also to supply the poor with

necessaries, and to take care that the minister may be maintained, and

other expenses defrayed; and, in order hereunto, he is to receive the

contributions raised by the church for those ends; so that the office is

properly secular, though necessary and useful, as subservient to others

that are of a spiritual nature. The apostle gives an account of the

qualifications of those who are to engage in this office, in 1 Tim. iii.

8-13. in which he speaks of them as persons of an unblemished character,

of great gravity and sobriety, and other endowments, which may render

them faithful in the discharge of their trust, and exemplary and useful

in their station.

In the first age of the church, after the apostles’ days, when it was

under persecution, it was the deacon’s work to visit and give necessary

relief to the martyrs and confessors: but we do not find that they

performed any other branches of service besides this, and those above

mentioned; though Tertullian speaks of them, in his time, as being

permitted to baptize in the absence of bishops and presbyters,[312] in

which they went beyond the scripture-rule, and, after this, they

preached; and this practice has been defended by all who plead for

diocesan episcopacy unto this day. But the arguments they bring for it,

from scripture, are not sufficiently conclusive, when they say, that

Stephen and Philip, who were the first deacons, preached; for this they

did as evangelists, not as deacons. These indeed, as it is said of the

bishop, in 1 Tim. iii. 2. ought to be _apt to teach_: thus they are

described, ver. 9. as _holding the mystery of faith in a pure

conscience_; yet this extends no farther than that they should be fit to

edify those, by their instructions, whom they relieved, by giving them a

part of the church’s contributions, that, by their conversation, they

may do good to their souls, as well as, by what they give them, to their

bodies. And when it is farther said, that _they who have used the office

of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great

boldness in the faith_, ver. 13. this does not sufficiently prove, as

many ancient and modern writers suppose, that this qualifies them for

the office of presbyters, since there is no affinity between these two

offices; and one cannot, properly speaking, be a qualification for the

other: but the good degree is, probably, to be understood of their

having great honour in the church, as persons eminently useful to it;

and great boldness in the faith, is not boldness in preaching the

gospel, but resolution and stedfastness in adhering to the faith, and,

in their proper station, defending, and being ready, when called to it,

to suffer for it. Thus we have considered the government of the church,

and the officers which Christ has appointed in it.[313]

6. The last thing to be considered, is the privileges of the visible

church, particularly as the members thereof are said to be under God’s

special care and government, and, as the consequence hereof, have safe

protection and preservation, whatever opposition they may meet with from

their enemies; and they also enjoy communion of saints, and the ordinary

means of salvation.

(1.) We shall consider the church, as under the care of Christ. This is

the result of his propriety in them, and his having undertaken to do all

things for them, as Mediator, that are necessary to their salvation.

This care, extended towards them, is called special, and so differs

from, and contains in it many privileges, distinct from, and superior to

that which is expressed in the methods of his common providence in the

world. There are several metaphorical expressions used, in scripture, to

denote Christ’s care of, and the particular relation he stands in to his

church: thus he is described as their Shepherd, performing those things

for them that such a relation imports, Psal. xxiii. 1, 2. and lxxx. 1.

Isa. xl. 11. Jer. xxxi. 10. namely, his giving them, in a spiritual

sense, rest and safety, gathering, leading, and defending them; and as

such he does more for his people, than the shepherd, who, being faithful

to his trust, hazards his life; for Christ is expressly said to _give

his life for his sheep_, John x. 11.

Moreover, his care of his church is set forth, by his standing in the

relation of a _Father_ to them; which argues his tender and

compassionate concern for their welfare, as well as safety, Deut. xxxii.

7. Psal. ciii. 13. Isa. lxiii. 16. Jer. xxxi. 9. Now the care of Christ,

extended to his Church, consists,

_1st_, In his separating them from, and, as it were, gathering them out

of the world, or that part of it that _lieth in wickedness_, as the

apostle says, _The whole world lieth in wickedness_, 1 John v. 19. or,

as the word may be rendered, in the wicked one; upon which account it is

called, Satan’s kingdom. He gives them restraining grace, brings them

under conviction of sin, and humbles them for it; and, by the preaching

of the gospel, not only informs them of the way of salvation, but brings

them into it.

_2dly_, By raising up, and spiriting some amongst them for extraordinary

service and usefulness in their station, adorning them with those

graces, whereby their conversation is exemplary, and they made to shine

as lights in the world; and not only in some particular instances, but

by a constant succession, filling up the places of those who are removed

to a better world, with others, who are added to the church daily, of

such as shall be saved.

_3dly_, His care is farther extended, by fatherly correction, to prevent

their ruin and apostacy, which, as the apostle says, is an instance of

his _love_ to them Heb. xii. 6, 7. and also of his keeping them from,

and _in the hour of temptation_, Rev. iii, 10. and _bruising Satan under

their feet_, Rom. xvi. 20. and in supporting them under, and fortifying

them against the many difficulties, reproaches, and persecutions, they

are exposed to in this world, as Moses says, in the blessing of Asher,

_As thy days, so shall thy strength be; the eternal God is thy refuge,

and underneath are the everlasting arms_, Deut. xxxiii. 25, 27.

(2.) The visible church is under Christ’s special government. It is a

part of his glory, as Mediator, that he is the supreme Head and Lord

thereof; and this cannot but redound to the advantage of his subjects,

as these we are speaking of are said to be, who profess subjection to

him, which is not only their duty, but their peculiar glory, as they are

thereby distinguished from the world, and entitled to his special

regard. He is their King; and accordingly,

_1st_, He gives them laws, by which they are visibly governed, so that

they are not destitute of a rule of government, any more than of a rule

of faith, whereby their peace, order, edification, and salvation, are

promoted, and all the advantages, which they receive from the wisdom and

conduct of pastors, or other officers, whom he has appointed to go in

and out before them, _to feed them with knowledge and understanding_,

Jer. iii. 15. _to watch for their souls_, Heb. xiii. 17. are all

Christ’s gifts, and therefore privileges which the church enjoys, as

under his government.

_2dly_, He protects and preserves them, notwithstanding the opposition

of all their enemies; so that whatever attempts have been hitherto made

to extirpate or ruin them, have been ineffectual. The church has

weathered many a tempest, and had safety, as well as various marks of

the divine honour and favour, under all the persecutions, which it has

been exposed to; so that, according to our Saviour’s prediction, _The

gates of hell have not prevailed against it_, Matt. xvi. 18. and all

these afflictive dispensations of providence are over-ruled for the

promoting his own glory, and their spiritual advantage.

(3.) Another privilege, which the church enjoys, is communion of saints.

Communion is the consequence of union, and therefore since they are

united together as visible saints, they enjoy that communion, which is

the result thereof. The apostle speaks of a two-fold fellowship which

the church enjoys, their attaining whereof he reckoned the great end and

design of his ministry, when he says, _That which we have seen and heard

declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly

our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ_, 1

John i. 3. The former of these is included in church communion; the

latter is an honour which God is pleased sometimes to confer on those

who are brought into this relation: It is what all are to hope for,

though none but they, who are Christ’s subjects by faith, are made

partakers of it. However, the communion of saints is, in itself, a great

privilege, inasmuch as that a common profession, which they make of

subjection to Christ, and the hope of the gospel, which they are

favoured with, is a strong motive and inducement to holiness.

And it is not the smallest part of the advantage, which arises from

hence, that they are interested in the prayers of all the faithful that

are daily put up to God for those blessings on all his churches which

may tend to their edification and salvation.

And as to what concerns the members of particular churches, who have

communion with one another; there is a great advantage arising from

mutual conversation about divine things, and the endeavour, which they

are obliged to use _to build up themselves in their holy faith_, Jude

ver. 20. and _to consider one another to provoke unto love, and to good

works, not forsaking the assembling of themselves together, but

exhorting one another_, Heb. x. 24, 25. and also the obligations they

are under to _bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of

Christ_, Gal. vi. 2. and to express that sympathy and compassion to each

other, under the various afflictions and trials which they are exposed

to.

And to this we may add another privilege which they are made partakers

of, in that they have communion with one another in the ordinance of the

Lord’s supper, in which they hope for and enjoy communion with him,

whose death is shewed forth therein, and the benefits thereof applied to

them that believe.

(4.) The church is farther said to enjoy the ordinary means of

salvation, and the offers of grace to all the members thereof in the

ministry of the gospel, by which we are to understand the word preached,

and prayer. These are called the ordinary means of salvation, as

distinguished from the powerful influences of the Spirit, which are the

internal and efficacious means of grace, producing such effects, as

infer the right which such have to eternal life. These ordinary means of

grace the church is said to partake of. It is for their sake that the

gospel is continued to be preached, and a public testimony to the truth

thereof is given by them to the world; and, in the preaching thereof,

Christ is offered to sinners, and, pursuant thereunto, grace given,

whereby the church is increased, and built up by those who are taken out

of the world, as God makes these ordinances effectual to answer that

end. The duty of waiting on him therein is ours, the success thereof is

intirely owing to the divine blessing attending it. These are the

privileges that the visible church enjoys.

We might have proceeded to consider those which the members of the

invisible church are made partakers of, namely, union and communion with

Christ in grace and glory; but these are particularly insisted on in

some following answers.

Footnote 257:

εκκλησια.

Footnote 258:

_The words_ επι το αυτο, _when used elsewhere, cannot be understood of

the place where persons were met, but of the unanimity of those who

were engaged in the same action; and therefore it is rendered_ Simul,

_in Acts_ iii. 1. _and chap._ iv. 26.

Footnote 259:

_See his works, Vol. I. Book II. Page 405_, & seq.

Footnote 260:

Κατ οικον.

Footnote 261:

_See page 432_, & seq.

Footnote 262:

_It may be observed, that though the learned author before-mentioned

gives sufficient evidence, from the Fathers, that there were several

places appropriated, and some erected, for divine worship, during the

three first Centuries; and he thinks, that whether they were

consecrated or no, there was a great degree of reverence paid to them,

even at such times, when divine service was not performed in them: Yet

he does not produce any proof for this out of the writings of the

Fathers, in those Centuries; and it is impossible that he should, for

from Eusebius’s account of this matter, it appears that the

consecration of churches was first practised in the Fourth Century_,

[_Vid. ejusd. Hist. Eccl. Lib. X. cap. 3._] _As for the quotations

that Mr. Mede brings from Chrysostom and Ambrose, to prove that

reverence was paid to the churches in their times it must be observed,

that they lived in the Fourth Century, in which churches being not

only appropriated, but consecrated for public worship, it is no wonder

to find the Fathers of that age expressing a reverence for them.

Nevertheless, it is very evident, from the words of these Fathers here

cited, that they intend thereby nothing else but a reverent behaviour,

which ought to be expressed by those who come into the church to

perform any act of divine worship; and this we are far from denying,

whether the external rites of consecration be used or no. As for his

quotation taken from Tertulian, who lived in the end of the Second

Century it don’t prove that he thought that reverence ought to be

expressed to the places of worship, but that the highest reverence

ought to be used in the acts of worship, and particularly in prayer,

which is an undoubted truth, whether we worship God in the church, or

any where else._

Footnote 263:

ערה.

Footnote 264:

The word Church is of Greek derivation. Κυριακον is used by ancient

authors for the place of public worship. The old word Kyroike,

contracted into Kirk, and softened into church, is a compound of

Κυριου οικος. It is of very extensive signification. Church is used

generally in our version of the New Testament, for the Greek

Εκκλησια.——

The words Εκκλησια in the New, and קהל in the Old Testament, are

synonymous. They both proceed from the same root קל, the voice. The

meaning of each is assembly—any number of persons met, by previous

appointment. The verb, in each language, from which the noun

immediately proceeds, is, to call out, to call together, and the noun

is that which is so called.

It is, of course, no abuse of language to apply the word to any

assembly, great or small, which meets for social or judiciary

purposes. The character of the assembly is known from the connexion in

which the word is used, and not from the word itself. In this latitude

of application, the inspired writers of both Testaments made use of

the words קהל and Εκκλησια.

In the Old Testament, the former of these words is applied to a number

of idolatrous women—bands of soldiers—the commonwealth of

Israel—distinct worshipping congregations—a representative assembly—a

council, and, I may add, to other assemblies of every description.

1. The word קהל is used in Jer. xliv. 15. It is applied to a great

number of idolatrous women, who, together with their husbands,

persisted in their opposition to the command of God by the prophet

Jeremiah. It is worthy of being remarked, that the Septuagint, in this

instance, renders the word by Συναγωγη. Our translation renders it

multitude.

2. It signifies bands of soldiers. Ezek. xxvi. 7. These marched

against Tyrus, under the direction of the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar king

of Babylon. The Septuagint renders it, as above, _synagogues_, and the

English translators, _companies_.

3. The word (which, for the sake of the English reader, I shall write

KEL,) is used for the whole commonwealth of Israel. That people,

called by God, were bound together by a sacred ritual, and all were

commanded to keep the passover. Exod. xii. 6. Our translation renders

it the whole assembly, and in the Septuagint it is Παν το πληθος.

4. It signifies distinct worshipping societies. Ps. xxvi. 12. In this

verse, the Psalmist professes his resolution to honour the

institutions of social worship. He had rather accompany the saints to

the congregation, than sit in the society of the wicked, ver. 5. In

both cases the same Hebrew word is used; the Septuagint use Εκκλησια,

and the English translators, congregation. KEL, and Ecclesia, are,

with equal propriety, applied to the hateful clubs of the wicked, and

to the worshipping assemblies of the saints.