_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 over[46]--one set over[47]--he that stands in the head

or front[48]--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 interpreters[56] 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 writers[58], 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 some[66])

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 divines[67] and accurate Grecians[68] 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

some[69] 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 interpreters[70] 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 Cartwright[76] 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 guides[93] 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.