This proposition is evident; for, otherwise, to what end are those

peculiar relations to the Church which comprehend government in them,

unless such as are so peculiarly related be the only subjects of

government? Shall all those relations be mere names and shadows? or

shall others in the church be counted the subject of this authority and

power for church government, that have no such relations to the Church

at all implying any such power?

_Minor_. But the officers of Christ peculiarly stand in such relations

to the Church of Christ as imply and comprehend in themselves authority

and power for the government of the church.

This assumption or minor proposition will be evident by a due induction

of some of their particular relations that have such power enstamped on

them; as for instance, Christ's officers stand in these relations of

power to the Church and people of God.

1. _They are pastors_, Eph. iv. 11. The church is the _flock_, John x.

16; 1 Cor. ix. 7; _flock_, Acts xx. 28, 29; 1 Pet. v. 2, 3. Hath not the

_pastor_ power to rule and govern his _flock_?

2. They are _stewards_. "Who is that faithful and wise steward?" Luke

xii. 42. "Stewards of the mysteries of God," 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2. "Stewards

of God," Tit. i. 7. The Church and people of God are the Lord's

_household_, over which these stewards are set, &c., Luke xii. 42.

_God's house_, 1 Tim. iii. 15; Heb. iii. 6. Have not stewards power to

govern and order those _families_ over which they are set, and wherewith

they are intrusted? Gal. iv. 1.

3. They are _bishops_ or _overseers_, Phil. i. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i.

7. The Church and people of God are that _charge_ which the Lord hath

committed to their inspection. "Over which the Holy Ghost hath made you

overseers," Acts xx. 28. Have not _overseers_ power over that which is

_committed to their inspection_?

4. They are _catechizers_ and _teachers_, Rom. xii. 7, 8; Eph. iv. 11.

The Church and people are _catechized_, Gal. vi. 6; _taught_. Hath not

he that _catechizeth_ power for government of him that is _catechized_?

He that _teacheth_ of him that is _taught_?

5. They are _co-workers_ with God, 1 Cor. iii. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 1.

_Architects, builders_, &c., 1 Cor. iii. 10; some of them _laying the

foundation, others building thereupon_. The Church and people of God are

God's building. "Ye are God's building," 1 Cor. iii. 9. Have not

_builders_ power of disposing and ordering affairs appertaining to the

_building_?

6. Finally, to add no more, the officers of Christ in the Church are not

only as _nurses_; "We _were_ gentle among you, even as a nurse

cherisheth her children," 1 Thess. ii. 7: and as _mothers_; "My little

children, of whom I travail in birth again," Gal. iv. 19: but also as

_fathers_, 1 Thess. ii. 11; 1 Cor. iv. 15, spiritual fathers in Christ:

and the Church and people of God, they are the _sons_ and _daughters_,

the spiritual _babes_ and _children_, begotten, brought forth, and

nursed up by them, 1 Thess. ii. 7, 11; Gal. iv. 19: and have fathers no

authority nor power of government over their children? See Eph. vi. 1-3;

1 Tim. iii. 4.

Thus Christ's officers stand in such relation to the Church as do

evidently carry power of government along with them; but where are any

other members of the church besides officers, stated in such relation of

_pastors, stewards, overseers, catechizers, builders, husbandmen,

nurses, mothers_, and _fathers_ to the Church of God and members of

Christ, that can be evidenced by the Scriptures? Why may we not then

clearly conclude,

_Conclusion_. Therefore the officers of Christ are the only subjects of

ecclesiastical power.

_Argum_. V. The many divine commands and impositions of duties of

obedience, submission, subjection, &c., upon the Church and people of

God, to be performed by them to Christ's officers, and that in reference

to their office, do plainly proclaim the officers of Christ to be the

proper receptacle and subject of authority and power from Christ for the

government of his Church. Thus it may be argued:

_Major_. Whatsoever persons they are to whom the Church and people of

God are peculiarly bound by the commands of Christ, to perform duties of

obedience and subjection, and that in reference to their office in the

church, they are the only subjects of authority from Christ for the

government of his Church.

This proposition needs no proof, unless we will be so absurd as to say

that the Church and people of God are peculiarly obliged by Christ's

command to obey and be subject to them, that yet have no peculiar

authority nor power over them, and that in reference to their office in

the church.

_Minor_. But the officers of Christ are those to whom the Church and

people of God are peculiarly bound by the commands of Christ to perform

duties of obedience and subjection, and that in reference to their

office in the church.

This assumption or minor proposition may be evidenced, 1. Partly by

induction of some particular instances of Christ's commands, whereby the

Church and people of God are bound to perform duties of obedience and

subjection to the officers of Christ, in reference to their office in

the church. 2. Partly by a denial of the like commands in reference to

all others in the church, except the officers of the church only.

Touching the first, viz. the instances of such commands, consider these

following. The Church and people of God are commanded,

1. To know their rulers. "We beseech you, brethren, to know them that

labor among you, and are over you in the Lord," 1 Thess. v. 12. _To

know_, i.e., not simply and merely to know, but to acknowledge, accept,

and approve of them as such rulers over you in the Lord. This teaches

subjection to the office of ruling.

2. To love them exceedingly for their work's sake. "Esteem them

superabundantly in love for their work's sake," 1 Thess. v. 13. For what

work? viz. both laboring and ruling, mentioned verse 12. If they must

love them so exceedingly for ruling over them, must they not much more

be obedient to this rule?

3. To count them worthy of double honor in reference to their

well-ruling. "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double

honor, especially--," 1 Tim. v. 17: whether we take _double honor_ here

for reverence or maintenance, or both; yet how can we esteem the _elders

ruling well worthy of double honor_ without some submission to their

rule?

4. To obey them that are their rulers and governors. _Obey ye your

rulers, or governors_, Heb. xiii. 17; where the words _obey ye_ doth not

(as some dream) signify a persuasion, but obedience, and in this sense

it is commonly used, not only in profane authors, but also in the Holy

Scriptures, as James iii. 3, Gal. iii. 1.

5. Finally, to submit and be subordinate unto them. The Church and

people of God are charged to submit unto them. "Obey your governors and

submit ye," Heb. xiii. 17. The word properly notes a submissive yielding

without opposition or resistance; yea, it signifies intense obedience.

They must not only yield, but yield with subjection and submission,

which relates to authority. They are also charged to be subordinate to

them. "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves to the elders," 1 Pet. v.

5; i.e., _be ye subordinate_, (it is a military term,) viz: be ordered,

ranked, guided, governed, disciplined by them, as soldiers are by their

commanders. The word _elders_ here is by some taken only for elders in

age, and not in office. But it seems better to interpret it of elders in

office; and the context well agrees with this; for the apostle having

immediately before charged the ruling preaching presbyters with their

duties towards their flock, ver. 1-4, here he seems to enjoin the ruled

flock (which commonly were younger in age and gifts) to look to their

duties of subjection to their elders in office.

Touching the second, viz. the denial of like commands, and upon like

grounds to all others in the church, except to the church officers only:

where can it be evidenced in all the Scriptures that the people of God

are commanded to know, to esteem very highly in love, to count worthy of

double honor, to obey, and submit themselves to any persons in the

church but to the ruling officers thereof in reference to their office,

and the due execution thereof?

Now, seeing the Church and people of God are peculiarly obliged, by so

many commands of Christ, to perform such duties of subjection and

obedience to the officers of Christ, may it not be concluded,

Therefore the officers of Christ are the only subjects of authority from

Christ for the government of his Church?

_Argum_. VI. Finally, the directions touching rule and government in the

Church; the encouragements to well-ruling by commendations, promises,

rewards, together with the contrary deterring discouragements from

ill-ruling, by discommendations, threats, &c., being specially applied

and appropriated by the word of Christ unto Christ's officers, very

notably discover to us that Christ's officers are the only subjects of

power from Christ for the government of his Church. Thus it may be

argued:

_Major_. Whatsoever persons in the Church have directions for church

government, encouragements to well-ruling, and discouragements from

ill-ruling, particularly and peculiarly applied unto them by the word of

Christ; they are the only subjects of power from Christ for the

government of his Church:

This proposition is evident: For, 1. How should it be consistent with

the infinite wisdom of God peculiarly to apply unto them directions

about ruling and governing the church that are not the only subjects in

whom the power of government is intrusted by Jesus Christ? 2. How can it

stand with the justice of God to encourage them only unto well-ruling,

by commendations, promises, rewards, &c., or to deter them from

ill-governing by dispraises, threats, &c., &c., to whom the power of

government doth not appertain, as to the only subjects thereof? 3. What

strange apprehensions and distractions would this breed in the hearts of

Christ's officers and others, should those that have not the power of

church government committed to them by Christ, be yet directed by his

word how to govern, encouraged in governing well, and deterred from

governing ill?

_Minor_. But the officers of Christ in the church have directions for

church government, encouragements to well-ruling, and discouragements

from ill-ruling, particularly and peculiarly applied unto them by the

word of God.

This assumption or minor proposition may be cleared by divers Scriptures

according to the particular branches thereof, viz:

1. Directions for church government are particularly applied by the word

of Christ to his own officers: as for instance, they are directed to

_bind and loose_--to _remit_ and _retain sins on earth_, Matt. xvi. 19,

and xviii. 18; John xx. 21, 23. _To judge them that are within the_

Church, _not without_, 1 Cor. v. 12. _Not to lord it, domineer_, or

_overrule the flock of Christ_, 1 Pet. v. To _rule well_, 1 Tim. v. 17.

To rule _with diligence_, Rom. xii. 8. To _lay hands suddenly on no man,

neither to be partakers of other men's sins, but to keep themselves

pure_, 1 Tim. v. 22. _Not to prefer one before another, nor do anything

by partiality_, 1 Tim. v. 21. _To rebuke them that sin before all, that

others also may fear_, 1 Tim. v. 20. _To reject a heretic after once or

twice admonition_, Tit. iii. 10. To use the _authority that is given

them from the Lord to the edification, not to the destruction_ of the

Church, 2 Cor. x. 8, and xiii. 10; with divers such like rules specially

directed to Christ's officers.

2. Encouragements to well-ruling are peculiarly directed to Christ's

officers. For, 1. They are the persons specially commended in that

respect; _well-ruling_, 1 Tim. v. 17. _Good and faithful steward_, Luke

xii. 42. The angels of the churches are praised for their good

government, Rev. ii. 2, 3, 6, and ver. 18, 19. 2. They are the persons

to whom the promises, in reference to good government, are directed, as

Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 18-20; John xx. 21, 23; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20;

Luke xii. 42-44; 1 Pet. v. 4. 3. They are the persons whom the Lord will

have peculiarly rewarded, now with _double honor_, 1 Tim. v. 17;

hereafter with _endless glory_, 1 Pet. v. 4.

3. Discouragements, deterring from ill-governing, are also specially

applied to Christ's officers, whether by way of dispraise or threats,

&c., Rev. ii. 12, 14-16, and ver. 18, 20.

Now if, 1. Rules for church government, 2. Encouragements in reference

to well ruling, and, 3. Discouragements in reference to ill-ruling, be

so peculiarly directed by the word of Christ to his own officers, we may

conclude,

Therefore the officers of Christ in the Church are the only subjects of

power from Christ for the government of his Church.

_Object_. But the church[99] of a particular congregation fully

furnished with officers, and rightly walking in judgment and peace, is

the first subject of all church authority, as appears from the example

of the church of Corinth in the excommunication of the incestuous

Corinthian, 1 Cor. v. 1-5; wherein it appears that the presbytery alone

did not put forth this power, but the brethren also concurred in this

sentence with some act of power, (viz. a negative power:) for, 1. The

reproof, for not proceeding to sentence sooner, is directed to the whole

Church, as well as to the presbytery. They are all blamed for not

mourning, &c., 1 Cor. v. 2. 2. The command is directed to them all, when

they are gathered together, (_and what is that but to a church

meeting?_) to proceed against him, 1 Cor. v. 4, 13. 3. He declareth this

act of theirs, in putting him out, to be a judicial act, ver. 12. 4.

Upon his repentance the apostle speaketh to the brethren, as well as to

their elders, to forgive him, 2 Cor. ii. 4-10. Consequently, Christ's

church officers are not the peculiar, immediate, or only subject of the

power of the keys, as hath been asserted.

_Ans_. I. As for the main proposition asserted in this objection,

something hath been formerly laid down to show the unsoundness of it.

(See chap. X. near the end.) Whereunto thus much may be superadded. 1.

What necessity is there that a particular congregation should be fully

furnished with officers, to make it the subject of all church authority?

For deacons are one sort of officers, yet what authority is added to the

Church by the addition of deacons, whose office it is only to serve

tables, Acts vi., not to rule the Church? or if the Church have no

deacons, as once it had not, Acts i. 2, and before that, all the time

from Christ, wherein is she maimed or defective in her authority? 2. If

the Church, fully furnished with officers, yet walk not in judgment and

peace, then in such case it is granted, that a particular congregation

is not the first subject of all church authority. Then a congregation

that walks in error or heresy, or passion, or profaneness, all which are

contrary to judgment; and that walks in divisions, schisms, contentions,

&c., which are contrary to peace, loseth her authority. Stick but close

to this principle, and you will quickly lay the church authority of most

independent congregations in the dust. But who shall determine whether

they walk in judgment and peace, or not? Not themselves; for that were

to make parties judges in their own case, and would produce a very

partial sentence. Not sister churches; for all particular churches,

according to them, have equal authority, and none may usurp one over

another. Not a presbyterial church, for such they do not acknowledge.

Then it must be left undetermined, yea undeterminable, (according to

their principles;) consequently, who can tell when they have any

authority at all? 3. Suppose the congregation had all her officers, and

walked in judgment and peace also, yet is she not the first subject of

all authority; for there is a synodal authority, beyond a congregational

authority, as confessed by Mr. Cotton.[100]

II. As for the proofs of this proposition asserted here, they seem

extremely invalid and unsatisfying. For,

The instance of the church of Corinth excommunicating the incestuous

person, will not prove the congregation to be the first subject of all

church authority: 1. Partly, because the church of Corinth was a

presbyterial church, having several congregations in it, (as hereafter

is evidenced, chap. XIII.;) now to argue from the authority of a

presbyterial church, to the authority of a congregational,

affirmatively, is not cogent. 2. Partly, because here were but two acts

of power mentioned in this instance, viz. casting out and receiving

again of the incestuous person: suppose the community had joined the

presbytery in these two acts, (which yet is not proved,) will it follow

therefore they are the first subject of all church authority? Are not

ordination of presbyters, determination in case of appeals, of schism,

of heresy, &c., acts of authority above the sphere of a single

congregation? What one congregation can be instanced in the New

Testament that did ever execute any of these acts of authority?

The reasons brought, prove not that the brethren did concur with the

presbytery in this sentence with some act of power, as will appear

plainly, if they be considered severally.

1. Not the reproof, 1 Cor. v. 2, "And ye are puffed up, and have not

rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away

from among you." Here they are blamed, that they no more laid to heart

so vile a scandal, which should have been matter of mourning to the

whole congregation; that they instead of mourning were puffed up,

gloried in their shame; and that they sluggishly neglected to endeavor,

in their sphere, his casting out. And all this blame might justly be

charged upon the whole church, the fraternity as well as the presbytery:

the scandal of one member should be the grief of the whole body of the

church. What then? Hath therefore the fraternity, as well as the

presbytery, power to cast him out? That were a miserable consequence

indeed: the people should not only have mourned for the sin, but have

urged the presbytery to have proceeded to sentence, and after sentence

have withdrawn from him, in obedience to the sentence; but none of all

these can amount to a proper act of church authority in them.

2. Nor doth the apostle's command prove the people's concurrence in any

act of power with the presbytery, 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, "In the name of our

Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, to deliver such an one

unto Satan," &c.: ver. 7, "Purge out therefore the old leaven," &c.: and

ver. 13, "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

In which passages it is supposed the apostle directs his injunction to

them all (as well as to their presbytery) when they come together in

their church meeting to proceed to sentence.

But against this reason, well ponder upon these considerations, viz: 1.

It is certain beyond all controversy, that the apostle did not direct

these commands to the whole church of Corinth absolutely, and

universally, without all exception and limitation to any members at all:

for by his own rule, "Women must be silent in their churches, it being a

shame for a woman to speak in the church," 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35, and

children or fools were not able to judge. Hence it is evident that a

church absolutely and universally taken, cannot possibly be the

ministerial ruling church which hath the authority. 2. It is evident to

any man that is but moderately acquainted with the Scriptures, that God

useth to direct his commands, reproofs, and other speeches to a people

indifferently, and as it were collectively and generally, which yet he

intends should be particularly applied and appropriated; not to all, but

to this or that person or persons, only among such a people

distributively and respectively; according to their respective callings,

interests, relations, &c., as in the Old Testament God directs a command

to the people of Israel indefinitely, and as it were collectively, to

kill enticers to idolatry, false prophets, Deut. xiii. 9; but intended

that the judge should sentence him, finding him guilty by witnesses. The

Lord also directs his command to all the people, as it were

collectively, to put out of the camp "every one that was a leper, and

had an issue, or was defiled by the dead," Numb. v. 2; but intended that

the priest should peculiarly take and apply this command to himself, who

was to judge in these cases. See Lev. xiii. and elsewhere. So in the New

Testament the apostle praised the Corinthians indefinitely, and as it

were collectively, for "remembering him in all things, and keeping the

ordinances as he delivered them to them," 1 Cor. xi. 2; wherein he

intended only to commend the virtuous; and after he discommends them

indefinitely for "coming together not for better, but for worse," 1 Cor.

xi. 17; intending only their dispraise that were herein particularly

delinquent among them. Again, he speaks indefinitely, and as it were

collectively and generally, "Ye may all prophesy one by one," 1 Cor.

xiv. 31; but he intended it only to the prophets respectively, not to

all the members; for he saith elsewhere, "Are all prophets?" 1 Cor. xii.

29. And writing to the churches of Galatia, Gal. i. 2, against false

teachers he speaks thus to all those churches collectively, "A little

leaven leaveneth the whole lump," Gal. v. 9. And, "I would they were

even cut off who trouble you," ver. 12. Now every one of these churches

were to apply this to themselves respectively, Independents themselves

being judges. So here in this present case of the church of Corinth, the

apostle directs his commands to them, as it were collectively, about

putting away the incestuous person, which commands were particularly to

be put in execution by the presbytery in that church in whose hands the

church authority was.[101]

Thus taking these commands, 1 Cor. v. 4, 7, 13, though directed

indefinitely, and as it were collectively to the whole church, yet

intended respectively to be put in execution by the presbytery in that

church, they hold forth no concurrence of the people in any act of power

at all with the church officers or presbytery. And it is a good note

which Cameron[102] hath upon this place, "These things that are written

in this epistle are so to be taken of the presbytery and of the people,

that every one both of the presbyters and of the people, should

interpret the command according to the reason of his office." 3. When

the apostle reciteth the proceedings of the church in this very case of

the incestuous person, in his 2d epistle, he saith, "Sufficient to such

a man is this punishment" (or censure) "which was inflicted of many," 2

Cor. ii. 6. It is very observable, he saith not, _of all_; nor _of

many_, but _of the chief ones_, viz. the church officers, who had the

rule and government of the church committed to them: (the article _the_

being emphatical;) for this word translated _many_ may as well be

translated chief, denoting worth, &c., as many, denoting number. And in

this sense the Holy Ghost ofttimes useth this word in the New Testament;

as for instance, "Is not the life better than meat?" Matt. vi. 25.

"Behold, a greater than Jonah is here," Matt. xii. 41. "And behold, a

greater than Solomon is here," Matt. xii. 41. "To love him with all the

heart," &c., "is more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices,"

Mark xii. 33. And again, ver. 43, "This poor widow hath cast more than

all they," &c. And thus it is frequently used to signify quality, worth,

greatness, dignity, eminency, &c., and so it may be conveniently

interpreted in this of the Corinthians. 4. Though all proper acts of

authority appertain only to the church officers, yet we are not against

the people's fraternal concurrence therewith. People may incite the

presbytery to the acts of their office; people may be present at the

administration of censures, &c., by the elders, as Cyprian of old would

dispatch all public acts, the people being present; people may judge

with a judgment of discretion, acclamation, and approbation, &c., as the

elders judge with a judgment of power; and people afterwards may, yea

must, withdraw from delinquents sentenced, that the sentence may attain

its proposed end. But none of these are properly any acts of power.

3. Nor doth the apostle's expression, verse 12, "Do you not judge them

that are within?" prove that the people concur with any authoritative

act in the elders' sentence. For, 1. This being spoken to them

indefinitely, was to be applied distributively and respectively, only to

them to whom it properly appertained, viz. the elders, as hath been

showed. They only have authority to judge. 2. Such a judgment is allowed

to the saints in church censures, as shall be allowed to them when the

saints shall judge the world, yea angels, 1 Cor. vi. 1-3, viz. in both a

judgment of acclamation, approbation, &c., as assessors, as people judge

at the assizes; not in either a judgment of authority, which the judge

and jury only do pronounce.

4. Nor, finally, doth the apostle's direction to forgive the incestuous,

being penitent, 2 Cor. ii. 4-10, which seems to be given to all, prove

the people's concurrence with the elders in any act of power. For the

authoritative forgiving and receiving him again, belonged only to the

elders; the charitable forgiving, receiving, and comforting of him,

belonged also to the people. As the judge and jury at an assizes, acquit

by judgment of authority, the people only by judgment of discretion and

acclamation.

Thus it appears how little strength is in this instance of the church of

Corinth, (though supposed to be the strongest ground the Independents

have,) for the propping up of their popular government, and

authoritative suffrage of the people.

SECTION III.

III. Having thus considered the subject of authority and power for

church government: 1. Negatively, what it is not, viz. neither the

political magistrate, nor yet the community of the faithful, or whole

body of the people, Chap. IX. and X. 2. Positively, what it is, viz.

Christ's own officers in his church, as hath been explained and

evidenced, Sect. 2, of this Chap. 3. Now, in the third and last place,

we are to insist a little further upon this subject of the power, by way

of explanation: and to inquire, seeing Christ's officers are found to be

the subject of this power, in what sense or notion they are the subject

and receptacle of this authority and power from Christ, whether jointly

or severally; as solitarily and single from one another, or associated

and incorporated into assemblies with one another; or in both respects?

For resolution herein we must remember that distribution of the keys, or

of proper ecclesiastical power, (which was briefly mentioned before in

Part 2, Chap. III.) into that which is,

1. More special and peculiar to the office of some church governors,

which by virtue of their office they are to execute and discharge: thus

it is peculiar to the minister's office, 1. To preach the word; compare

these places together, Matt. xxviii. 18-20, John xx. 21-23, Rom. x. 15,

1 Tim. v. 17, Heb. xiii. 7, 2 Tim. iv. 1, 2, &c. 2. _To dispense the

sacraments_, Matt. xxviii. 18-20, 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. The word and

sacraments were joined together in the same commission to the same

officers, viz. the preaching presbyters, &c., as is evident in that of

Matt. xxviii. 19.

2. More general and common to the office of all church governors, as the

power of censures, viz. admonishing, excommunicating, and absolving, and

of such other acts as necessarily depend thereupon; wherein not only the

preaching, but also the ruling elders are to join and contribute their

best assistance; as may be collected from these several testimonies of

Scripture, Matt. xviii. 17, 18, _Tell the Church_,[103] 1 Cor. v. 2-13,

2 Cor. ii. 6-12, compared with Rom. xii. 8, 1 Cor. xii. 28, and 1 Tim.

v. 17.

Now these officers of Christ, viz. they that labor in the word and

doctrine, and the ruling elders, are the subject of this power of

jurisdiction as they are united in one body, hence called a Church,

Matth. xviii. 18, viz. the governing or ruling church; for no other can

there be meant; and presbytery,[104] i.e. a society or assembly of

presbyters together, 1 Tim. iv. 14.

The presbyters, elderships, or assemblies wherein these officers are

united and associated, are of two sorts, viz: 1. The lesser assemblies,

consisting of the ministers and ruling elders in each single

congregation; which, for distinction's sake, is styled the

congregational eldership. 2. The greater assemblies, consisting of

church governors sent from several churches and united into one body,

for governing of all these churches within their own bounds, whence

their members were sent. These greater assemblies are either

presbyterial or synodal. 1. Presbyterial, consisting of the ministers

and elders of several adjacent or neighboring single congregations, or

parish churches, ruling those several congregations in common; this kind

of assembly is commonly called the presbytery, or, for distinction's

sake, the classical presbytery, i.e. the presbytery of such a rank of

churches. 2. Synodal, consisting of ministers and elders, sent from

presbyterial assemblies, to consult and conclude about matters of common

and great concernment to the church within their limits. Such was that

assembly mentioned, Acts xv. These synodal assemblies are either, 1. Of

ministers and elders from several presbyteries within one province,

called provincial. 2. Or of ministers and elders from several provinces

within one nation, called therefore national. Or, 3. Of ministers and

elders from the several nations within the whole Christian world,

therefore called ecumenical: for all which assemblies, congregational,

presbyterial, and synodal, and the subordination of the lesser to the

greater assemblies respectively, there seems to be good ground and

divine warrant in the word of God, as (God willing) shall be evinced in

the xii., xiii., xiv., and xv. chapters following.

CHAPTER XII.

_Of the Divine Right of Congregational Elderships or Kirk Sessions, for

the government of the Church._

Touching congregational elderships, consisting of the ministers and

ruling elders of the several single congregations, which are called the

lesser assemblies, or smaller presbyteries, and which are to manage and

order all ecclesiastical matters within themselves, which are of more

immediate, private, particular concernment to their own congregations

respectively; and consequently, of more easy dispatch, and of more daily

use and necessity. Concerning these congregational presbyteries, we

shall not now take into consideration either, 1. What are the members

constituting and making up these elderships; whether ruling elders by

divine warrant may be superadded to the pastors and teachers, and so be

associated for the government of the congregation. For the divine right

of the ruling elders, distinct from the preaching elder for the

government of the church, hath been evidenced at large, Chapter XI.,

Section 1, foregoing. And if any acts of government in the church belong

to the ruling elder at all, sure those acts of common jurisdiction, to

be dispatched in these least assemblies, cannot of all other be denied

unto him. 2. Nor shall it here be discussed, what the power of

congregational elderships is, whether it be universally extensive to all

acts of government ecclesiastical whatsoever, without exception or

limitation; and that independently, without subordination to the greater

assemblies, and without all liberty of appeal thereunto in any cases

whatsoever, though of greatest and most common concernment. Which things

are well stated and handled by others;[105] and will in some measure be

considered afterwards in Chapter XV.

3. But the thing for the present to be insisted upon, against the

Erastian and prelatical party, is, the divine right of authority and

power for church government, which is in congregational presbyteries or

elderships, in reference to their respective congregations. Take it

thus:

Elderships of single congregations vested and furnished with

ecclesiastical authority and power to exercise and dispense acts of

government in and over those respective congregations whereunto they do

belong, are by divine right warrantable.

For confirmation hereof the light of nature, the institution of Christ,

the apostolical practice, and the law of necessity, seem to speak

sufficiently unto us.

1. The common light of nature thus far directeth all sorts of smaller

societies, whether political or ecclesiastical, to compose all

particular and more private differences and offences within themselves;

and to decide and determine small, common, easy causes and matters, by

smaller courts and judicatories appointed for that end: a vain thing to

trouble more and greater assemblies with those matters, that may as well

be determined by the lesser. It was wise and grave counsel which Jethro,

Moses' father-in-law, gave to Moses, that he should set up over the

people certain judges inferior to himself, who themselves might judge

all smaller matters, but all _great and hard matters to be brought to

Moses_, Exod. xviii. 22, 26. And our Saviour seems to insinuate, that

the Jews had their inferior courts for inferior causes, superior

judicatories for greater, in that gradation of his, Matt. v. 22.

Likewise they had lesser and greater ecclesiastical assemblies, (as

after will appear.) Now, to what use are greater and lesser

judicatories, civil or ecclesiastical, but that the lesser and lighter

causes may be judged in the inferior, harder and greater in the

superior?

2. The institution of Christ recorded Matt. xviii. 15-21, seems to hold

forth notably both single congregational elderships, and their power.

And this, whether we consider the Jewish form, unto which our Saviour

seems to refer; or whether we observe the matter of his discourse.

1. As for the Jewish form of church government (unto which our Saviour

here seems to allude) we may observe it was managed by two, if not three

sorts of ecclesiastical courts, viz: By the Sanhedrin, presbytery, and

synagogue, (much like to the evangelical synod, presbytery, and

congregational eldership since Christ.) 1. They had their

ecclesiastical,[106] as well as their civil Sanhedrin, for high and

difficult affairs of the church; which seems first to be constituted,

Exod. xxiv. 1, and after decay thereof, it was restored by King

Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. xix. 8; and from this court that national church's

reformation proceeded, Neh. vi. 13. 2. Again, it is very probable they

had between their Sanhedrin and their synagogue a middle ecclesiastical

court called _The Presbytery_, Luke xxii. 66, and Acts xxii. 5, _and the

whole presbytery_. Let such as are expert in Jewish antiquities and

their polity, consider and judge. 3. Finally, they had their lesser

judicatories in their synagogues, or congregational meetings: for, their

synagogues were not only for prayer, and the ministry of the word, in

reading and expounding the Scriptures, but also for public censures,

correcting of offences, &c., as that phrase seems to import, "And I

punished them oft in every synagogue," Acts xxvi. 11. His facts and

proceedings, it is true, were cruel, unjust, impious. But why inflicted

_in every synagogue_, rather than in other places, and that by virtue of

the _high priest's letters_, Acts ix. 1, 2; but there the Jews had

judicatories, that inflicted public punishments upon persons

ecclesiastically offending? Besides, we read often in the New Testament

of the _rulers of the synagogue_, as Mark v. 35, 36, 38; Luke viii. 41,

and xiii. 14; and of Crispus and Sosthenes the chief _rulers of the

synagogue_, Acts xviii. 8, 17; whence is intimated to us, that these

synagogues had their rule and government in themselves; and that this

rule was not in one person, but in divers together; for if there were

chief rulers, there were also inferiors subordinate unto them: but this

is put out of doubt, in Acts xiii. 15, where after the lecture of the

law and the prophets, _the rulers of the synagogue sent unto

them_--_synagogue_ in the singular number, and rulers in the plural.

Thus analogically there should be ecclesiastical rulers and governors in

every single congregation, for the well guiding thereof. But if this

satisfy not, add hereunto the material passages in our Saviour's speech.

2. Now touching the matter of our Saviour's discourse, it makes this

very clear to us; for by a gradation he leadeth us from admonition

private and personal, to admonition before two or three witnesses, and

from admonition before two or three witnesses, to the representative

body of one church, (as the phrase _tell the church_ must here

necessarily be interpreted,) if there the difference can be composed,

the offence removed, or the cause ended; rather than unnecessarily

render the offence, and so our brother's shame, more public and

notorious. And that the presbytery or eldership of a particular

congregation, vested with power to hear and determine such cases as

shall be brought before them, is partly, though not only here intended,

seems evident in the words following, which are added for the

strengthening and confirming of what went before in ver. 17: "Verily, I

say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in

heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in

heaven. Again, I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth

as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of

my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered

together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," Matt. xviii.

18-20. In which passages these things are to be noted: 1. That this

church to which the complaint is to be made, is invested with power of

_binding_ and _loosing_, and that so authoritatively that what by this

church shall be bound or loosed on earth shall also be bound or loosed

in heaven, according to Christ's promise. 2. That these acts of

_binding_ or _loosing_, may be the acts but of two or three, and

therefore consequently of the eldership of a particular congregation;

for where such a juridical act was dispatched by a classical presbytery,

it is said to be done of _many_, 2 Cor. ii. 6, because that in such

greater presbyteries there are always more than _two or three_. And

though some do pretend, that the faults here spoken of by our Saviour in

this place, were injuries, not scandals; and that the church here

mentioned was not any ecclesiastical consistory, or court, but the civil

Sanhedrin, a court of civil judicature; and yet most absurdly they

interpret the binding and loosing here spoken of, to be doctrinal and

declarative; not juridical and authoritative; as if the doctrinal

binding and loosing were in the power of the civil Sanhedrin:[107] yet

all these are but vain, groundless pretences and subterfuges, without

substance or solidity, as the learned and diligent reader may easily

find demonstrated by consulting these judicious authors mentioned in the

foot note,[108] to whom for brevity's sake he is referred for

satisfaction in these and divers such like particulars.

3. The consideration of the apostolical practice, and state of the

Church of God in those times, may serve further to clear this matter to

us. For, 1. We sometimes read of single congregations; and as the Holy

Ghost doth call the whole body of Christ _the Church_, Matt. xvi. 18, 1

Cor. xii. 28, and often elsewhere; and the larger particular members of

that body of Christ (partaking the nature of the whole, as a drop of

water is as true water as the whole ocean) churches; as, _the church of

Jerusalem_, Acts viii. 1; _the church of Antioch_, Acts xiii. 1; _the

church of Ephesus_, Rev. ii. 1; _the church of Corinth_, 2 Cor. i. 1;

(these being the greater presbyterial churches, as after will appear,

Chap. XIII.;) so the same holy Spirit of Christ is pleased to style

single congregations, _churches_, "Let women keep silence in the

churches," 1 Cor. xiv. 34, i.e. in the single congregations of this one

church of Corinth: and often mention is made of the church that is in

such or such an _house_, as Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Col. iv. 15;

Philem. 2; whether this be interpreted of the church made up only of the

members of that family, or of the church that ordinarily did meet in

such houses, it implies a single congregation. Now shall single

congregations have the name and nature of churches, and shall we imagine

they had not in them the ordinary standing church officers, viz. pastors

and teachers, governments, or elders _ruling well_, and helps or

deacons? or is it probable they were furnished with these officers, and

yet the officers furnished with no power for the government of these

single congregations at all? 2. We find that the apostles being crowned

with such success in their ministry, as to be instruments of converting

such multitudes to the faith as were sufficient to make up many several

churches from time to time, did diligently take care to ordain them

presbyters, or elders _in every church_, Acts xiv. 23; Tit. i. 5. Now

can it be clearly evidenced by any, that these were not ruling as well

as preaching presbyters; especially when it appears by other places that

the primitive churches had both? Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 28;

1 Tim. v. 17. Or can we think that the apostles were not as careful to

erect elderships in several congregations, as to appoint elders?

otherwise how could the apostles have answered it to their Lord and

Master Jesus Christ, in leaving them without that necessary provision of

government, which Christ himself had allowed to them, at least, in some

cases, as hath been evidenced?

4. Finally, necessity (which is a strong and cogent law) plainly and

forcibly pleads for elderships in particular congregations endowed with

authority and power from Christ for government within themselves. For,

1. How wearisome a thing would it be to all congregations, should every

one of their members be bound to attend upon synods and greater

presbyteries, (which in the country are at a great distance from them,)

in all ecclesiastical matters of judicature, if they had no relief in

their own congregations? How impossible would it be for the greater

presbyteries, not only to hear and determine all hard and weighty, but

also all small and easy causes that would be brought before them? And

what should become of such a congregation as either voluntarily

transplants itself, or is accidentally cast among heathens or pagans in

far countries, where there are no Christians or churches to join and

associate withal, if they be denied an authoritative presbytery within

themselves, for preventing and healing of scandals, and preserving

themselves from destruction and ruin, which anarchy would unavoidably

bring upon them?

CHAPTER XIII.

_Of the Divine Right of Presbyteries, (for distinction's sake called

Classical Presbyteries,) for the government of the Church._

Having spoken of the lesser, viz. congregational elderships, we come now

to the greater ruling assemblies, which are either presbyterial or

synodal. And first, of the presbyterial assembly, or classical

presbytery, viz. an assembly made up of the presbyters of divers

neighboring single congregations, for governing of all those respective

congregations in common, whereunto they belong, in all matters of common

concernment and greater difficulty in the Church. The divine warrant and

right of this presbytery, and of the power thereof for church

government, may principally be evidenced, 1. By the light of nature. 2.

By the light of Scripture, which light of Scripture was followed by the

Church in the ages after the apostolical times.

I. The light of nature and right reason may discover to us (though more

dimly) the divine warrant of the greater presbyteries, and of their

power for the governing of the church. For,

1. There are many ecclesiastical matters which are of common concernment

to many single congregations, as trial of church officers, ordination

and deposition of ministers, dispensation of censures, judicial

determination of controversies, resolution in difficult cases of

conscience, ordering of things indifferent, &c.; here the rule holds

well, that which concerns many congregations, is not to be considered

and determined upon only by one, but those many concerned and interested

therein.

2. Single congregational elderships stand in need of all mutual help and

assistance one of another in the Lord, being, 1. Inwardly weak in

themselves; too prone to be turned out of the way, Heb. xii. 13, Gal. v.

15, and too feeble for divers great tasks: as examination and ordination

of ministers, &c., which weakness is healed by association with others

assisting them. 2. Outwardly opposed by many dangerous and subtle

adversaries: men as grievous wolves, &c., Acts xx. 28-30; 2 Pet. ii. 1;

Phil. iii. 2; 1 Tim. iv. 1-7; Eph. iv. 14; devils, 1 Pet. v. 8. In such

cases two are better than one: "Wo to them that are alone; if they fall,

who shall take them up?"

3. Such intricate cases may fall out as cannot be determined and settled

by the eldership of a single congregation. As for instance, some member

in the congregation may conceive himself so wronged by the eldership

thereof, that he cannot submit to their unjust sentence; shall he not in

such case have liberty of appeal from them? If not, then he is left

without a remedy, (which is the calamity of the Independent government.)

If he may, whether shall he appeal regularly but to an associated

presbytery? therefore there must be such a presbytery to appeal unto.

Again, there may be a controversy betwixt the whole congregation, and

their presbytery; yea, the presbytery itself may be equally divided

against itself; yea, one single congregation may have a great and

weighty contest with another sister congregation, (all single

congregations being equal in power and authority, none superior, none

inferior to others.) Now, in these and such like cases, suppose both

parties be resolute and wilful, and will not yield to any bare moral

suasion or advice without some superior authority, what healing is left

in such cases, without the assistance of an authoritative presbytery,

wherein the whole hath power to regulate all the parts?

4. Single congregations, joined in vicinity and neighborhood to one

another, should avoid divisions, (which are destructive to all

societies, as well ecclesiastical as civil,) and maintain peace and

unity among themselves, (which is conservative to all societies;)

neither of which, without associated presbyteries, can be firmly and

durably effected. Both which ought with all diligence to be endeavored.

For, 1. Peace and unity in the Church are in themselves amiable, and

ought to be promoted, Psal. cxxxiii. 1, &c.; Eph. iv. 3, 13; 1 Cor. i.

10. 2. Schisms and divisions are simply evil, and all appearance, cause,

and occasion thereof, ought carefully to be avoided, 1 Cor. xii. 25;

Rom. xvi. 17; 1 Thes. iv. 22. 3. All congregations are but as so many

branches, members, parts of that one church, one body, one family, one

commonwealth, one kingdom, whereof Christ is Head, Lord, and King; and

therefore they should communicate together, and harmoniously incorporate

and associate with one another, (so far as may be,) for the common good,

peace, unity, and edification of all. See 1 Cor. xii. 12-29; Eph. ii.

12-16, and iv. 12-14, and v. 23-25.

II. The light of Scripture will hold forth the divine warrant of greater

presbyteries and their power for church government, far more clearly

than the light of nature. Forasmuch as we find in the Scriptures a

pattern of these greater presbyteries, and of their presbyterial

government over divers single congregations in common in the primitive

apostolical churches. For the greater evidence and perspicuity hereof,

take this proposition:

Jesus Christ our Mediator hath laid down in his word a pattern of

presbyterial government in common over divers single congregations in

one Church, for a rule to his Church in all after ages. For confirmation

hereof, there are chiefly these three positions to make good, which are

comprised in this proposition, viz: 1. That there is in the word a

pattern of divers single congregations in one church. 2. That there is

in the word a pattern of one presbyterial government in common over

divers single congregations in one church. 3. Finally, that the pattern

of the said presbyterial government, is for a rule to the churches of

Christ in all after ages.

POSITION I.

That there is in the word a pattern of divers single congregations in

one church, may be plentifully evinced by four instances of churches,

(to mention no more,) viz. the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus,

and Corinth. Touching which four these two things are clear in the

Scripture, viz: 1. That every of them was one church. 2. That in every

one of these churches there were more congregations than one. Both which

will fully evince a pattern of divers single congregations in one church

held forth in the word.

1. The former of these, viz. That every one of these was one church,

may be proved by induction of particulars. 1. All the believers in

Jerusalem were one church; hence they are often comprised under the word

church, of the singular number:--"Against the church which was at

Jerusalem," Acts viii. 1. "Then tidings of these things came unto the

ears of the church which was in Jerusalem," Acts ii. 22. "And when they

were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the

apostles and elders," Acts xv. 4. 2. All the believers in Antioch were

one church. "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch, certain

prophets," Acts xiii. 1. "And when he had found him, he brought him to

Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled

themselves with the church, and taught much people, and the disciples

were first called Christians in Antioch," Acts xi. 26. 3. All the

believers in Ephesus were one church: "And from Miletus he sent to

Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," Acts xx. 17. And after he

gives them this charge, "Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all

the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed

the church of God," ver. 28; all were but _one flock, one church_. "Unto

the angel of the church of Ephesus, write," Rev. ii. 1. 4. All the

believers in Corinth were one church, and comprised under that singular

word, church: "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth," 1 Cor. i. 2.

"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, and Timothy our

brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth," 2 Cor. i. 1. Thus

in all these four instances it is clear beyond all contradiction, that

they were every of them respectively one church.

The latter of these, viz. that these primitive apostolical churches of

Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Corinth, were not every of them

severally and respectively only one single congregation, (as some

imagine,) but consisted every of them of more congregations than one.

This shall be manifested in these four churches severally, as followeth:

The church of Jerusalem in Judea contained in it more congregations than

one. This may be convincingly evidenced divers ways, particularly from,

1. The multitude of believers in that church. 2. The multitude of church

officers there. 3. The variety of languages there. 4. The manner of the

Christians' public meetings in those primitive times, both in the church

of Jerusalem, and in other churches.

1. From the multitude of believers in the church of Jerusalem. For it is

palpably evident to any impartial reader that will not wilfully shut his

eyes, and subject his reason unto the groundless dictates of men,

against the clear light of the Scripture, that there were more believers

in the church of Jerusalem, than could ordinarily meet in one

congregation, to partake of all the ordinances of Christ.

And this may fully appear by these many instances following. 1. Christ

after his resurrection, and before his ascension, "was seen of above

five hundred brethren at once," 1 Cor. xv. 6. 2. "After that of James,

then of all the apostles," ver. 7. 3. At the election of Matthias, and

before Christ's ascension, there were disciples together, the "company

of their names together was as it were one hundred and twenty," Acts i.

15. 4. At Peter's sermon, "they that gladly received his word, were

baptized. And that day were added about three thousand souls," Acts ii.

1, 4. 5. And "The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be

saved," ver. 27. 6. Afterwards at another of Peter's sermons, "Many of

them that heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about

five thousand," Acts iv. 4. 7. After that, "Believers were the more

added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women," Acts v. 14. 8.

Furthermore, the disciples multiplying, and the work of the ministry

thereupon much increasing, the apostles were necessitated to appoint

seven deacons for serving of tables, that they might wholly "give

themselves to the ministry of the word and prayer," Acts vi. 1 to 7;

whence some have thought, that there were seven congregations in

Jerusalem, a deacon for every one. Certainly there were rather more than

fewer, (saith the author of the Assertion of the Government of the

Church of Scotland,[109]) though we cannot determine how many. However

this, the Holy Ghost clearly testifieth that "The word of God increased,

and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem multiplied greatly." 9.

"And a great company of the priests became obedient to the faith," Acts

vi. 7; and probably the example of the priests drew on multitudes to the

Gospel. All these forementioned were in a short time converted, and

became members of this one church of Jerusalem, and that before the

dispersion occasioned by the persecution of the Church, Acts viii. 1.

Now should we put all these together, viz. both the number of believers

expressed in particular, which is 8,620, and the multitudes so often

expressed in the general, (which, for aught we know, might be many more

than the former,) what a vast multitude of believers was there in

Jerusalem! and how impossible was it for them to meet all together in

one congregation, to partake of all the ordinances of Jesus Christ! 10.

In like manner, after the dispersion forementioned, the word so

prospered, and the disciples brought into the faith by it, so

multiplied, that it was still far more impossible for all the believers

in the church of Jerusalem to meet in one congregation to partake of

all the ordinances of Christ, than before. For it is said, "Then had the

churches rest throughout all Judea" (and the church of Jerusalem in

Judea was doubtless one of those churches) "and Galilee and Samaria, and

were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and comfort of the

Holy Ghost, were multiplied." 11. Again, "the word of the Lord increased

and multiplied," Acts xii. 24. 12. Furthermore, when Paul, with other

disciples, his fellow-travellers, came to Jerusalem, and "declared to

James and the elders, what things God had wrought by his ministry among

the Gentiles--They glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest,

brother, how many" myriads (or ten thousands) "of believing Jews there

are, and they are all zealous of the law"--Acts xxi. 20. Our translation

seems herein very defective, rendering it how many thousands; whereas it

should be, according to the Greek, how many ten thousands: and these

myriads seem to be in the church of Jerusalem, seeing it is said of

them, ver. 22, "The multitude must needs come together, for they will

hear that thou art come." Now considering this emphatical expression,

not only _thousands_, but _ten thousand_: not _only ten thousand_ in the

singular number, but _ten thousands, myriads_, in the plural number: nor

only _myriads, ten thousands_, in the plural number, but _how many ten

thousands_; we cannot in reason imagine but there were at least three

ten thousands, viz: thirty thousand believers, and how all they should

meet together in one congregation for all ordinances, let the reader

judge. Thus far of the proof, from the multitude of believers in the

church of Jerusalem.

_Except_. But the five thousand mentioned Acts iv. 4, are no new number

added to the three thousand, but the three thousand included in the five

thousand, as Calvin and Beza think.

_Ans_. 1. Then it is granted that five thousand one hundred and twenty,

besides an innumerable addition of converts, were in Jerusalem; which if

such a number, and multitudes besides, could for edification meet in one

place, to partake of all the ordinances, let the reader judge.

2. Though Calvin and Beza think the three thousand formerly converted to

be included in this number of five thousand, Acts iv. 4, yet divers both

ancient and modern interpreters are of another mind, as Augustine. There

came unto the body of the Lord in number three thousand faithful men;

also by another miracle wrought, there came other five thousand.[110]

These five thousand are altogether diverse from the three thousand

converted at the first sermon: so Lorinus, Aretius, and divers others.

3. Besides a great number of testimonies, there are reasons to induce us

to believe, that the three thousand are not included in the five

thousand, viz: 1. As the three thousand mentioned in Acts ii. 41, did

not comprehend the one hundred and twenty mentioned Acts i. 15, so it

holds in proportion that the three thousand mentioned there, are not

comprehended here in Acts iv. 4. Besides, 2. This sermon was not by

intention to the church, or numbers already converted, but by occasion

of the multitude flocking together to behold the miracle Peter and John

wrought on the "man that was lame from his mother's womb;" as Acts iii.

10-12; so that 'tis more than probable that the five thousand mentioned

Acts iv. 4, are a number superadded besides the three thousand already

converted.

_Except_. But suppose such a number as three thousand, and afterwards

five thousand were converted in Jerusalem, yet these remained not

constant members of that Church, for the three thousand were not

dwellers at Jerusalem, but strangers who came out of all countries to

keep the feast of Pentecost: yea, Acts ii. 9, they are said expressly to

be "dwellers of Mesopotamia, Cappadocia," &c., and so might erect

churches where they came.

_Ans_. 1. 'Tis said, Acts ii. 14, "Peter standing" (when he began to

preach this sermon wherein the three thousand were converted) "said, Ye

men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, hearken to my voice;"

intimating that these he preached to dwelt at Jerusalem.

But grant that some of these men that heard Peter's sermon were formerly

dwellers in Mesopotamia and Cappadocia, what hinders but that they might

be now dwellers at Jerusalem?

3. The occasion of their coming up to Jerusalem at this time was not

only the observation of the feast of Pentecost, (which lasted but a

day,) but also the great expectation that the people of the Jews then

had of the appearance of the Messiah in his kingdom, as we may collect

from Luke xix. 11, where it is said, "They thought the kingdom of God

should immediately appear;" so that now they might choose to take up

their dwellings at Jerusalem, and not return, as they had been wont, at

the end of their usual feasts.

4. The Holy Ghost makes mention that in the particular places mentioned,

ver. 9, 10, that of all those nations there were some that dwelt at

Jerusalem; read Acts ii. 5, "There were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews,

devout men out of every nation under heaven;" if out of every nation,

then out of those nations there specified; and even there dwelling at

Jerusalem. 5. Those who were scattered by reason of persecution into

Judea and Samaria, and other parts of the world, did not erect new

churches, but were still members of that one church in Jerusalem; so

saith the Scripture expressly, that "they" (of the church of Jerusalem)

"were all scattered abroad throughout the region of Judea and Samaria,"

Acts viii. 1.

_Except_. Although it should be granted that before the dispersion

mentioned Acts viii. 1, 2, the number was so great that they could not

meet together in one place, yet the persecution so wasted and scattered

them all, that there were no more left than might meet in one

congregation?

_Ans_. After the dispersion there were more believers in Jerusalem than

could meet together in one place for all acts of worship, as appears by

Acts ix. 31, "The churches had rest throughout all Judea," &c., "and

were multiplied;" Acts xii. 24, "The word of God grew and multiplied;"

and Acts xxi. 20, James saith of the believers of this church, "how many

thousands of the Jews there are which believe, and are zealous of the

law;" or, as it is in the Greek, thou seest how many _ten thousands_

there are of the Jews which believe; this text will evince, that there

were many thousands in the church of Jerusalem after the dispersion, as

hath been observed: and if this number were not more after the

dispersion than could meet together to partake of all ordinances, let

the reader judge.

_Except_. But the text saith expressly, all were scattered except the

apostles.

_Ans_. _All_ must be understood either of all the believers, or all the

teachers and church officers in the church of Jerusalem, except

believers; but it cannot be understood of all the believers that they

were scattered: and therefore it must be understood that all the

teachers and church officers were scattered, except the apostles. That

all the believers were not scattered will easily appear: For, 1. 'Tis

said that Paul broke into houses, "haling men and women, committed them

to prison," ver. 3, and this he did in Jerusalem, Acts xxvi. 10;

therefore all could not be scattered. 2. "They that were scattered,

preached the word," ver. 4, which all the members, men and women, could

not do; therefore by all that were scattered must of necessity be meant,

not the body of believers in the church, but only the officers of the

church. 3. If all the believers were scattered, to what end did the

apostles tarry at Jerusalem--to preach to the walls? this we cannot

imagine.

_Except_. But can any think the teachers were scattered, and the

ordinary believers were not, except we suppose the people more

courageous to stay by it than their teachers?

_Ans_. It is hard to say, that those that are scattered in a

persecution, are less courageous than those that stay and suffer. In the

time of the bishops' tyranny, many of the Independent ministers did

leave this kingdom, while others of their brethren did abide by it,

endured the heat and burden of the day, "had trial of cruel mockings,

bonds and imprisonments:" now the Independent ministers that left us,

would think we did them wrong, should we say that they were less

courageous than those that stayed behind, enduring the hot brunt of

persecution.

II. From the multitude of church officers in Jerusalem, it may further

appear, that there were more congregations than one in the church of

Jerusalem. For there were many apostles, prophets, and elders in this

church of Jerusalem, as is plain, if we consider these following

passages in the Acts of the Apostles. After Christ's ascension, "the

eleven apostles returned to Jerusalem, and continued in prayer and

supplication," Acts i. 12-14. Matthias chosen by lot, was also "numbered

with the eleven apostles," Acts i. 26. "And when the day of Pentecost

was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place," Acts ii. 1.

"Peter standing up with the eleven, lift up his voice and said," Acts

ii. 14. "They were pricked in their heart, and said to Peter and to the

rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Acts ii. 37.

"And the same day there were added about three thousand souls, and they

continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in

breaking of bread, and in prayers," Acts ii. 42. "And with great power

gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus," Acts

iv. 33. "As many as were possessors of lands or houses, sold them, and

brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at

the apostles' feet," Acts iv. 34, 35, 37. "Then the twelve called the

multitude of the disciples to them," Acts vi. 2. "Now, when the apostles

which were at Jerusalem," Acts viii. 14. "They determined that Paul and

Barnabas and certain other of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the

apostles and elders about this question. And when they were come to

Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and

elders; and the apostles and elders came together," Acts xv. 2, 4, 6,

22, 23; xi. 30. And "in those days came prophets from Jerusalem unto

Antioch," Acts xi. 27. In all which places, the multitude of apostles,

elders, and prophets in this church of Jerusalem is evident. And it is

further observable, that the apostles devolved the serving of tables

upon the seven deacons, that they might wholly "give themselves to

prayer and the ministry of the word," Acts vi, 2; which needed not, nor

would there have been full employment for the apostles, if there had

not been divers congregations in that one church of Jerusalem.

_Except_. 'Tis true, the apostles were for a time in Jerusalem, yet when

in Judea or elsewhere any received the gospel, the apostles went abroad

to erect other churches.

_Ans_. Touching the apostles going abroad, there can be given but one

instance, Acts viii. 14, where the whole twelve went not forth, but only

two were sent, viz. Peter and John: but suppose it were granted, that

upon some special occasions the apostles went out from Jerusalem, can it

be imagined that the apostles' ordinary abode would be at Jerusalem, to

attend only one single congregation, as if that would fill all their

hands with work?

_Except_. The apostles were well employed when they met in an upper

room, and had but one hundred and twenty for their flock, and this for

forty days together; now if they stayed in Jerusalem when they had but

one hundred and twenty, and yet had their hands filled with work, the

presence of the apostles argues not more congregations in Jerusalem than

could meet in one place for all acts of worship.

_Ans_. 1. From Christ's ascension (immediately after which they went up

to the upper chamber) to the feast of Pentecost, there were but ten

days, not forty; so that there is one mistake.

2. During that time betwixt Christ's ascension and the feast of

Pentecost, (whether ten or forty days is not very material,) the

apostles were especially taken up in prayer and supplication, waiting

for the promise of the Spirit to qualify them for the work of the

ministry: now, because the twelve apostles, before they had received the

extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, did continue for a short time in

Jerusalem with a small number in prayer, will it therefore follow that

after they had received these extraordinary gifts, that they were bound

up within the limits of one single congregation?

_Except_. The argument that there were many teachers in Jerusalem,

proves not that there were more congregations in Jerusalem than one,

because there were then many gifted men, which were not officers, which

yet occasionally instructed others, as Aquila did Apollos; therefore it

seems they were only gifted persons, not officers.

_Ans_. 1. Grant that in those times there were many gifted men, not in

office, which might occasionally instruct others, as Aquila did Apollos;

yet it is further to be noted, that,

2. This instructing must be either private, or public; if private only,

then the objection is of no force, (because these teachers instructed

publicly;) if in public, then if this objection were of force, it would

follow, that women might instruct publicly, because Priscilla, as well

as Aquila, instructed Apollos.

3. The current of expositors say, that the seventy disciples were at

Jerusalem among the one hundred and twenty, Acts i. 16, who were

teachers by office.

III. From the variety of languages among the disciples at Jerusalem, it

is evident there were more congregations than one in that one church:

the diversity of languages among them is plainly mentioned in divers

places, "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men out of

every nation under heaven. Now every man heard them speak in his own

language," &c., Acts ii. 5, 8-12. Now, of those that heard this variety

of languages, and Peter's sermon thereupon, "They that gladly received

his word, were baptized, and the same day there were added about three

thousand souls," Acts ii. 41, which diversity of languages necessitated

those members of the church of Jerusalem to enjoy the ordinances in

divers distinct congregations in their own language. And that they might

so do, the Spirit furnished the apostles, &c., with diversity of

languages, which diversity of languages were as well for edification of

them within the Church, as for a sign to them that were without.

_Except_. Though the Jews being dispersed were come in from other

countries, yet they were all generally learned, and understood the

Hebrew tongue, the language of their own nation, so that diversity of

tongues proves not, that of necessity there must be distinct places to

meet in.

_Ans_. 1. It is easier said than proved, that the Jews were so generally

skilled in the Hebrew tongue, when, while they were scattered in Media

and Parthia, and other places, they had no universities or schools of

learning. Besides, it is not to be forgotten, that the proper language

or dialect in those days in use among the Jews was Syriac; as appears by

divers instances of Syriac words in the New Testament, as of the Jews'

own terms: Acts i. 19, which "in their proper tongue, is called

Aceldama;" John xix. 13. 17, _Gabbatha, Golgotha_, &c.; Mark xv. 34,

_Eloi, Eloi, lama-sabachthani_; with divers other pure Syriac terms.

Grant they did; yet,

2. There were in Jerusalem proselytes also, Romans, Cappadocians,

Cretians, and Arabians, Acts ii. 10, 11; how could they be edified in

the faith, if only one congregation, where nothing but Hebrew was

spoken, met in Jerusalem; if so be there were not other congregations

for men of other languages, that understood not the Hebrew tongue?

IV. From the manner of Christians' public meetings in those primitive

times, both in the church of Jerusalem and in other churches. It is

plain that the multitudes of Christians in Jerusalem, and other

churches, could not possibly meet all together in one single

congregation, inasmuch as they had no public temples, or capacious

places for worship and partaking of all ordinances, (as we now have,)

but private places, _houses, chambers_, or _upper rooms_, (as the

unsettled state of the Church and troublesomeness of those times would

permit,) which in all probability were of no great extent, nor any way

able to contain in them so many thousand believers at once, as there

were: "They met from house to house, to break bread," Acts ii. 46. "In

an upper room the apostles with the women and brethren continued in

prayer and supplication," Acts i. 12-14. We read of their meetings in

the _house of Mary_, Acts xii. 12. In the school _of one Tyrannus_, Acts

xix. 9. In an _upper chamber at Troas_, Acts xx. 8. In _Paul's own hired

house_ at Rome, Acts xxviii. 30, 31. In the _house of Aquila and

Priscilla_, where the church met, therefore called the _church in his

house_, Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19. In the _house of Nimphas_, Col. iv.

15, and in the _house of Archippus_, Philem. 2. This was their manner of

public meetings in the apostles' times: which also continued in the next

ages, as saith Eusebius,[111] till, by indulgence of succeeding

emperors, they had large churches, houses of public meeting erected for

them.

To sum up all: 1. There were in the church at Jerusalem greater numbers

of believers than could possibly meet at once to partake of all Christ's

ordinances. 2. There were more church officers than one single

congregation could need, or than could be fully employed therein, unless

we will say, that they preached but seldom. 3. There was such diversity

of languages among them, that they must needs rank themselves into

several congregations, according to their languages, else he that spoke

in one language to hearers of many several languages, would be a

barbarian to them, and they to him. 4. Finally, their places of ordinary

meeting were private, of small extent, incapable of containing so many

thousands at once as there were believers; and by all these, how evident

is it, that there must needs be granted that there were more

congregations than one in this one church of Jerusalem!

II. The church of Antioch, in Syria, consisted also of more

congregations than one. This appears,

1. From the multitude of believers at Antioch. For, 1. After the

dispersion upon Saul's persecution, _the Lord Jesus was preached at

Antioch, and a great number believed_, &c., Acts xi. 21. 2. Upon

_Barnabas's_ preaching there, _much people was added to the Lord_, Acts

xi. 24. 3. _Barnabas_ and _Saul_ for a year together taught much people

there, and disciples there so mightily multiplied, that there Christ's

disciples first received the eminent and famous denomination of

CHRISTIANS, and so were and still are called throughout the whole world,

Acts xi. 25, 26.

2. From the multitudes of prophets and preachers that ministered at

Antioch. For, 1. Upon the dispersion of the Jews at Jerusalem, _divers

of them (being men of Cyprus and Cyrene) preached the Lord Jesus at

Antioch_, Acts xi. 20; here must be three or four preachers at least,

otherwise they would not be _men of Cyprus and Cyrene_. 2. After this

_Barnabas_ was sent to preach at Antioch; there is a fifth, Acts xi.

22-24. 3. _Barnabas_ finds so much work at _Antioch_, that he goes to

Tarsus to bring _Saul_ thither to help him; there is a sixth, ver. 25,

26. 4. Besides these, _there came prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch in

those days_; there are at least two more, viz. eight in all, Acts xi.

27, 28. 4. Further, besides _Barnabas_ and _Saul_, three more teachers

are named, viz. _Simon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen_, Acts

xii. 1-3. 6. Yea, "Paul and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and

preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also," Acts xv. 35. Now

sum up all, what a multitude of believers, and what a college of

preachers were here at Antioch! How is it possible that all these

preachers should bustle themselves about one congregation (and doubtless

they abhorred idleness) in dispensing the ordinances of Christ to them

only? or how could so many members meet in one single congregation at

once, ordinarily to partake of all ordinances?

III. The church of Ephesus (_in Asia Minor_, Acts xix. 22) had in it

more congregations than one: For,

1. The number of prophets and preachers at Ephesus were many. _Paul_

continued there _two years and three months_, Acts xix. 8, 10; and

_Paul_ settled there about twelve _disciples who prophesied_, Acts xix.

1, 6, 7. And how should these thirteen ministers be employed, if there

were not many congregations? Compare also Acts xx. 17, 28, 36, 37, where

it is said of the bishops of Ephesus, that "Paul kneeled down and prayed

with them all, and they all wept sore." Here is a good number implied.

2. The gift of tongues also was given unto all these twelve prophets,

Acts xix. 6, 7. To what end, if they had not several congregations of

several languages, to speak in these several tongues unto them?

3. The multitude of believers must needs be great at Ephesus: For, 1.

Why should _Paul_, who had universal commission to plant churches in all

the world, stay _above two years together_ at Ephesus if no more had

been converted there than to make up one single congregation? Acts xix.

8, 10. 2. During this space, "all that dwelt in Asia," usually meeting

at Ephesus for worship, "heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and

Greeks," Acts xix. 10. 3. At the knowledge of _Paul's_ miracles, "fear

fell upon all the Jews and Greeks dwelling at Ephesus, and the name of

the Lord Jesus was magnified," Acts xix. 17. 4. _Many_ of the believers

_came and confessed, and showed their deeds_, ver. 18, whereby is

intimated that more did believe than did thus. 5. "Many also of them

that used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them

before all men, and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty

thousand pieces of silver," (this they would never have done publicly if

the major part, or at least a very great and considerable part of the

city, had not embraced the faith, that city being so furiously zealous

in their superstition and idolatry,) "so mightily grew the word of God,

and prevailed," Acts xix. 19, 20. 6. _Paul_ testifies that at Ephesus _a

great door and effectual was open unto him_, viz. a most advantageous

opportunity of bringing in a mighty harvest of souls to Christ, 1 Cor.

xvi. 8, 9. Put all together, 1. The number of prophets and preachers; 2.

The gifts of tongues conferred upon those prophets; and, 3. The

multitude of believers which so abounded at Ephesus: how is it possible

to imagine, upon any solid ground, that there was no more but one single

congregation in the church of Ephesus?

IV. The church of Corinth in Græcia comprised in it also more

congregations than one, as may be justly concluded from, 1. The

multitude of believers. 2. The plenty of ministers. 3. The diversity of

tongues and languages. 4. And the plurality of churches at Corinth. Let

all these be well compared together.

1. From the multitude of believers. There appears to be a greater number

of believers at Corinth than could all at once meet together to partake

of all the ordinances of Christ: For, 1. At Paul's first coming to

Corinth, and at his first sermon preached in the house of Justus, it is

said, "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the

Lord, and all his house, and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed

and were baptized," Acts xviii. 1, 7, 8. Here is Crispus and all his

house, (which probably was very great, he being the chief ruler of the

synagogue,) and _many of the Corinthians, believing_; an excellent

first-fruits; for who can justly say but Paul at his first sermon

converted so many as might be sufficient to make up one single

congregation? 2. Immediately after this (Paul having shook his raiment

against the Jews, who, contrary to his doctrine, opposed themselves and

blasphemed; and having said unto them, "Your blood be upon your own

heads, I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles," Acts

xviii. 6) the Lord comforts Paul against the obstinacy of the Jews by

the success his ministry should have among the Gentiles in the city of

Corinth: "Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not

afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no

man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this

city," Acts xviii. 9, 10. _Much people_ belonging to God, according to

his secret predestination, over and besides those that already were

actually his by effectual vocation. And _much people_, in respect of the

Jews that opposed and blasphemed, (who were exceeding many,) otherwise

it would have been but small comfort to Paul if by _much people_ should

be meant no more than could meet at once in one small single

congregation. 3. Paul himself continued at Corinth "a year and six

months teaching the word of God among them," Acts xviii. 11. To what end

should Paul the apostle of the Gentiles stay so long in one place, if he

had not seen the Lord's blessing upon his ministry, to bring into the

faith many more souls than would make up one congregation, having so

much work to do far and near? 4. "They that believed at Corinth were

baptized," Acts xviii. 8. (Baptism admitted them into that one body of

the Church, 1 Cor. xii. 13.) Some were baptized by Paul, (though but few

in comparison of the number of believers among them: compare Acts xviii.

8, with 1 Cor. 14-17,) the generality consequently were baptized by

other ministers there, and that in other congregations wherein Paul

preached not, as well as in such wherein Paul preached; it being

unreasonable to deny the being of divers congregations for the word and

sacraments to be dispensed in, himself dispensing the sacrament of

baptism to so few.

2. From the plenty of ministers and preachers in the church of Corinth,

it is evident it was a presbyterial church, and not only a single

congregation; for to what end should there be many laborers in a little

harvest, many teachers over one single congregation? &c. That there were

many preachers at Corinth is plain: For, 1. Paul himself was the

master-builder there that laid the foundation of that church, 1 Cor.

iii. 10, their spiritual father; "In Christ Jesus I have begotten you

through the gospel," 1 Cor. iv. 15. And he stayed with them _one year

and a half_, Acts xviii. II. 2. While the apostle sharply taxeth them as

guilty of schism and division for their carnal crying up of their

several teachers: some doting upon one, some upon another, some upon a

third, &c. "Every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and

I of Cephas, and I of Christ," 1 Cor. i. 12. Doth not this intimate that

they had plenty of preachers, and these preachers had their several

followers, so prizing some of them as to undervalue the rest? and was

this likely to be without several congregations into which they were

divided? 3. When the apostle saith, "Though ye have ten thousand

instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers," 1 Cor. v. 15;

though his words be hyperbolical, yet they imply that they had great

store of teachers and preachers. 4. We have mention of many prophets in

the church of Corinth: "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the

other judge--And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the

prophets," 1 Cor. xiv. 20, 31. Here are _prophets_ speaking _two or

three_; and prophets judging of their doctrine, which sure were more

than they that were judged; it being unreasonable for the minor part to

pass judgement upon the major part. And though these prophets had

extraordinary gifts, (as the church of Corinth excelled all other

churches in gifts, 1 Cor. i. 7,) and were able to preach in an

extraordinary singular way; yet were they the ordinary pastors and

ministers of that church of Corinth, as the whole current of this

fourteenth chapter evidenceth, wherein so many rules and directions,

aptly agreeing to ordinary pastors, are imposed upon them for the well

ordering of their ministerial exercises. Now, where there were so many

pastors, were there not several congregations for them to feed? Or were

they idle, neglecting the exercise and improvement of their talents?

3. From the diversity of tongues and languages, wherein the church did

eminently excel. "In every thing ye are enriched by him, in all

utterance, and in all knowledge--So that you come behind in no gift,"

&c., i.e., ye excel in every gift, more being intended than is

expressed, 1 Cor. i. 5, 7. Among other gifts some of them excelled in

tongues which they spake, the right use of which gift of tongues the

apostle doth at large lay down, 1 Cor. xiv. 2, 4-6, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23,

26, 27. "If any speak in _an unknown_ tongue let it be by two, or at the

most by three, and that by course, and let one interpret." So that there

were many endued with gifts of tongues in that church. To what end? Not

only for a _sign to unbelievers_, ver. 22, but also for edification of

divers congregations, of divers tongues and languages within that church

of Corinth.

4. From the plurality of churches mentioned in reference to this church

of Corinth. For the apostle regulating their public assemblies and their

worship there, saith to the church of Corinth, "Let your women keep

silence in the churches." It is not said, in the _church_, in the

singular number; but in the _churches_, in the plural; and this of the

_churches in Corinth_, for it is said, _Let your women_, &c., not

indefinitely, _Let women_, &c. So that according to the plain letter of

the words, here are churches in the church of Corinth, viz. a plurality

of single congregations in this one presbyterial church. And this

plurality of churches in the church of Corinth is the more confirmed if

we take the church of Cenchrea (which is a harbor or seaport to

Corinth) to be comprised within the church of Corinth, as some learned

authors do conceive it may.[112]

POSITION II.

That there is in the word of Christ a pattern of one presbyterial

government in common over divers single congregations in one church.

This may be evidenced by these following considerations: For,

1. Divers single congregations are called one church, as hath at large

been proved in the second position immediately foregoing; inasmuch as

all the believers in Jerusalem are counted one church: yet those

believers are more in number than could meet for all ordinances in any

one single congregation. And why are divers congregations styled one

church? 1. Not in regard of that oneness of heart and soul which was

among them, "having all things common," &c., Acts iv. 32. For these

affections and actions of kindness belonged to them by the law of

brotherhood and Christian charity to one another, (especially

considering the then present condition of believers,) rather than by any

special ecclesiastical obligation, because they were members of such a

church. 2. Not in regard of any explicit church covenant, knitting them

in one body. For we find neither name nor thing, print nor footstep of

any such thing as a church covenant in the church of Jerusalem, nor in

any other primitive apostolical church in all the New Testament; and to

impose an explicit church covenant upon the saints as a necessary

constituting form of a true visible Church of Christ, and without which

it is no Church, is a mere human invention, without all solid warrant

from the word of God. 3. Not in regard of the ministration of the word,

sacraments, prayers, &c. For these ordinances were dispensed in their

single congregations severally, it being impossible that such multitudes

of believers should meet all in one congregation, to partake of them

jointly, (as hath been evidenced.) 4. But in regard of one joint

administration of church government among them, by one common

presbytery, or college of elders, associated for that end. From this one

way of church government, by one presbytery in common, all the believers

in Jerusalem, and so in other cities respectively, were counted but one

church. 2. In every such presbyterial church made up of divers single

congregations, there were ecclesiastical ruling officers, which are

counted or called the officers of that church, but never counted or

called governors, elders, &c., of any one single congregation therein;

as in the church of Jerusalem, Acts xi. 27, 30, and xv. 2: of Antioch,

compare Acts xiii. 1-3, with xv. 35: of Ephesus, Acts xx. 17, 28: and of

the church of Corinth, 1 Cor. i. 12, and iv. 15, and xiv. 29.

3. The officers of such presbyterial churches met together for acts of

church government: as, to take charge of the church's goods, and of the

due distribution thereof, Acts iv. 35, 37, and xi. 30: to ordain,

appoint, and send forth church officers, Acts vi. 2, 3, 6, and xiii. 1,

3: to excommunicate notorious offenders, 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, 7, 13, compared

with 2 Cor. ii. 6: and to restore again penitent persons to church

communion, 2 Cor. ii. 7-9.

_Except_. Receiving of alms is no act of government.

_Ans_. True, the bare receiving of alms is no act of government, but the

ordering and appointing how it shall be best improved and disposed of,

cannot be denied to be an act of government, and for this did the elders

meet together, Acts xi. 30.

4. The apostles themselves, in their joint acts of government in such

churches, acted as ordinary officers, viz. as presbyters or elders. This

is much to be observed, and may be evidenced as followeth: for, 1. None

of their acts of church government can at all be exemplary or obligatory

upon us, if they were not presbyterial, but merely apostolical; if they

acted therein not as ordinary presbyters, but as extraordinary apostles.

For what acts they dispatched merely as apostles, none may meddle withal

but only apostles. 2. As they were apostles, so they were presbyters,

and so they style themselves, "The elder to the elect lady," 2 John i.

"The elders which are among you I exhort," saith Peter, "who am also an

elder," (i.e. who am a fellow-elder, or co-presbyter,) 1 Pet. v. 1;

wherein he ranks himself among ordinary presbyters, which had been

improper, unless he had discharged the offices and acts of an ordinary

presbyter. 3. Their acts were such, for substance, as ordinary

presbyters do perform, as preaching and prayer, Acts vi. 4: ordaining of

officers, Acts vi. 6, and xiv. 23: dispensing of the sacraments, 1 Cor.

i. 14; Acts ii. 42, and xx. 7: and of church censures, 1 Cor. v. 4, 5,

compared with 1 Tim. v. ver. 1, ult.: which acts of government, and such

like, were committed by Christ to them, and to ordinary presbyters

(their successors) to the end of the world; compare Matt. xvi. 19, and

xviii. 17, 18, to the end, and John xx. 21, 23, with Matt. xxviii.

18-20. 4. They acted not only as ordinary elders, but also they acted

jointly with other elders, being associated with them in the same

assembly, as in that eminent synod at Jerusalem, Acts xv. 6, 22, 23, and

xvi. 4, "And as they went through cities, they delivered them the

decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which

were at Jerusalem." 5. And, finally, they took in the church's consent

with themselves, wherein it was needful, as in the election and

appointment of deacons, Acts vi. 2, 3. 6. The deacons being specially to

be trusted with the church's goods, and the disposal thereof, according

to the direction of the presbytery, for the good of the church, &c.

Let all these considerations be impartially balanced in the scales of

indifferent unprejudiced judgments; and how plainly do they delineate in

the word, a pattern of one presbyterial government in common over divers

single congregations within one church!

_Except_. The apostles' power over many congregations was founded upon

their power over all churches; and so cannot be a pattern for the power

of elders over many.

_Ans_. 1. The apostles' power over many congregations as one church, to

govern them all as one church jointly and in common, was not founded

upon their power over all churches, but upon the union of those

congregations into one church; which union lays a foundation for the

power of elders governing many congregations.

2. Besides, the apostles, though extraordinary officers, are called

elders, 1 Pet. v. 1, to intimate to us, that in ordinary acts of church

government, they did act as elders for a pattern to us in like

administrations.

_Except_. The apostles, it is true, were elders virtually, that is,

their apostleship contained all offices in it, but they were not elders

formally.

_Ans_. 1. If by formally be meant, that they were not elders really,

then it is false; for the Scripture saith Peter was an elder, 1 Peter v.

1. If by formally be meant that they were not elders only, that is

granted; they were so elders, as they were still apostles, and so

apostles as they were yet elders: their eldership did not exclude their

apostleship, nor their apostleship swallow up their eldership.

2. Besides, two distinct offices may be formally in one and the same

person; as Melchisedec was formally a king and priest, and David

formally a king and prophet; and why then might not Peter or John, or

any of the twelve, be formally apostles and elders? And ministers are

formally pastors and ruling elders.

_Except_. 'Tis true, the apostles acted together with elders, because

it so fell out they met together; but that they should meet jointly to

give a pattern for an eldership, is not easy to prove; one apostle might

have done that alone, which all here did.

_Ans_. 1. 'Tis true, the apostles as apostles had power to act singly

what they did jointly; yet, when they acted jointly, their acts might

have more authority in the Church: upon which ground they of Antioch may

be conceived to have sent to the whole college of apostles and elders at

Jerusalem, (rather than to any one singly;) why was this, but to add

more authority to their acts and determinations?

2. Why should not their meeting together be a pattern of a presbytery,

as well as their meeting together when they took in the consent of the

people, Acts vi., in the choice of the deacons, to be a pattern or

warrant that the people have a power in the choice of their officers?

(as those of contrary judgment argue:) if one be taken in as an

inimitable practice, why not the other?

3. If the apostles joining with elders, acted nothing as elders, then we

can bring nothing of theirs into imitation; and by this we should cut

the sinews, and raze the foundation of church government, as if there

were no footsteps thereof in the holy Scriptures.

POSITION III.

Finally, That the pattern of the said presbytery and presbyterial

government is for a rule to the churches of Christ in all after ages,

may appear as followeth:

1. The first churches were immediately planted and governed by Christ's

own apostles and disciples; 1. Who immediately received the keys of the

kingdom of heaven from Christ himself in person, Matt. xvi. 19, and

xviii. 17,18; John xx. 21, 23. 2. Who immediately had the promise of

Christ's perpetual presence with them in their ministry, Matt, xxviii.

18-20; and of the plentiful donation of the Spirit of Christ to lead

them into all truth, John xiv. 16, and xvi. 13-15; Acts i. 4, 5, 8 3.

Who immediately received from Christ, after his resurrection and before

his ascension, "commandments by the Holy Ghost,"--"Christ being seen of

them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of

God," Acts i. 2, 3; and, 4. Who were first and immediately _baptized by

the Holy Ghost_, extraordinarily, Acts ii. 1-5. Now, who can imagine

that the apostles and disciples were not actuated by the Spirit of

Christ bestowed upon them? or did not discharge Christ's commandments,

touching his kingdom imposed upon them? or did not duly use those keys

of Christ's kingdom committed to them in the ordering and governing of

the primitive churches? And if so, then the pattern of their practices

must be a rule for all the succeeding churches, 1 Cor. xi. 1; Phil, iv.

9.

2. To what end hath the Holy Ghost so carefully recorded a pattern of

the state and government of the primitive churches in the first and

purest times, but for the imitation of successive churches in after

times? "For whatsoever things wore written aforetime, were written for

our learning," or instruction. But what do such records instruct us?

Only _in fact_, that such things were done by the first churches? or _of

right_ also, that such things should be done by the after churches?

Surely, this is more proper and profitable for us.

3. If such patterns of Christ's apostles, disciples, and primitive

churches in matters of the government will not amount to an obligatory

rule for all following churches, how shall we justify sundry other acts

of religion commonly received in the best reformed churches, and founded

only or chiefly upon the foundation of the practice of Christ's apostles

and the apostolical churches? As the receiving of the Lord's supper on

the Lord's days, Acts xx. 7, &c.; which notwithstanding are generally

embraced without any considerable opposition or contradiction, and that

most deservedly.

CHAPTER XIV.

_Of the Divine Right of Synods, or Synodal Assemblies._

Thus far of the ruling assemblies, which are styled presbyterial; next

come into consideration those greater assemblies, which are usually

called synodal, or synods, or councils. They are so called from their

convening, or coming together: or rather from their calling together.

Both names, viz. synod and council, are of such latitude of

signification, as that they may be applied to any public convention of

people: but in the common ordinary use of these words, they are

appropriated to large ecclesiastical assemblies, above classical

presbyteries in number and power. These synodal assemblies are made up,

(as occasion and the necessity of the church shall require.) 1. Either

of presbyters, sent from the several classical presbyteries within a

province, hence called provincial synods: 2. Or of presbyters, sent from

the several provincial synods within a nation, hence called national

synods: 3. Or of presbyters, delegated or sent from the several

national churches throughout the Christian world, hence called

ecumenical synods, or universal and general councils.

Touching the divine warrant of synods, and their power in church

affairs, much need not be said, seeing divers learned authors have so

fully stated and handled this matter.[113] Yet, that the reader may have

a short view hereof, and not be left wholly unsatisfied, these two

things shall briefly be opened and insisted upon, viz: 1. Certain

considerations shall be propounded, tending to clear the state of the

question about the divine right of synods, and their power. 2. The

proposition itself, with some few arguments adduced, for the proof

thereof.

For the former, viz: The true stating of this question about the divine

right of synods, and of their power, well weigh these few

considerations.

1. Synods differ in some respects from classical presbyteries, handled

in Chap. XIII., though the nature and kind of their power be the same

for substance. For, 1. Synods are more large extensive assemblies than

classical presbyteries, the members of presbyteries being sent only from

several single congregations, the members of synods being delegated from

several presbyteries, and proportionably their power is extended also.

2. The exercise of government by presbyteries, is the common ordinary

way of government held forth in Scripture. By synods it is more rare and

extraordinary, at least in great part, as in case of extraordinary

causes that fall out: as, for choosing an apostle, Acts i., healing of

scandals, &c., Acts xv.

2. All synods are of the same nature and kind, whether provincial,

national, or ecumenical, though they differ as lesser and greater, in

respect of extent, from one another, (the provincial having as full

power within their bounds, as the national or ecumenical within theirs.)

So that the proving of the divine right of synods indefinitely and in

general, doth prove also the divine right of provincial, national, and

ecumenical synods in particular: for, greater and lesser do not vary the

species or kind. What is true of ecclesiastical synods in general,

agrees to every such synod in particular.

_Object_. But why hath not the Scripture determined these assemblies in

particular?

_Ans_. 1. It is not necessary the Scripture should in every case descend

to particulars. In things of one and the same kind, general rules may

serve for all particulars; especially seeing particulars are so

innumerable, what volumes would have contained all particulars? 2. All

churches and seasons are not capable of synods provincial or national:

for, in an island there may be no more Christians than to make up one

single congregation, or one classical presbytery. Or in a nation, the

Christian congregations may be so few, or so dispersed, or so involved

in persecution, that they cannot convene in synods, &c.

3. The power of synods contended for, is, 1. Not civil; they have no

power to take cognizance of civil causes, as such; not to inflict any

civil punishments; as fines, imprisonments, confiscations, banishments,

death, (these being proper to the civil magistrate:) but merely

spiritual; they judge only in ecclesiastical causes, in a spiritual

manner, by spiritual censures, to spiritual ends, as did that synod,

Acts xv. 2. Not corruptive, privative, or destructive to the power of

classical presbyteries, or single congregations; but rather perfective

and conservative thereunto. As suppose a single congregation should

elect a minister unsound in judgment, or scandalous in conversation, the

synod may annul and make void that election, and direct them to make a

better choice, or appoint them a minister themselves; hereby this

liberty of election is not at all infringed or violated, but for their

own advantage regulated, &c. 3. Not absolute, and infallible; but

limited and fallible: any synod or council may err, being constituted of

men that are weak, frail, ignorant in part, &c., and therefore all their

decrees and determinations are to be examined by the touchstone of the

Scriptures, nor are they further to be embraced, or counted obligatory,

than they are consonant thereunto, Isa. viii. 20. Hence there is liberty

of appeal, as from congregational elderships to the classical

presbytery, and from thence to the provincial synod, so from the

provincial to the national assembly, &c. 4. Finally, the power of synods

is not only persuasive and consultative, (as some think,) able to give

grave advice, and to use forcible persuasions in any case, which if

accepted and followed, well; if rejected and declined, there is no

further remedy, but a new non-communion instead of a divine church

censure: but it is a proper authoritative juridical power, which all

within their bounds are obliged reverently to esteem, and dutifully to

submit unto, so far as agreeable to the word of Christ.

4. Finally, this authoritative juridical power of synods is threefold,

viz. _doctrinal, regulating, and censuring_. 1. _Doctrinal_, in

reference to matters of faith, and divine worship; not to coin new

articles of faith, or devise new acts of divine worship: but to explain

and apply those articles of faith and rules of worship which are laid

down in the word, and declare the contrary errors, heresies,

corruptions. Hence the Church is styled, _the pillar and ground of

truth_, 1 Tim. iii. 15. Thus to the Jewish Church _were committed of

trust the oracles of God_, Rom. iii. 2. 2. _Regulating_, in reference to

external order and polity, in matters prudential and circumstantial,

which are determinate according to the true light of nature, and the

general rules of Scripture, such as are in 1 Cor. x. 31, 32; Rom. xiv.;

1 Cor. xiv. 26, 40, &c.; not according to any arbitrary power of men. 3.

_Censuring_ power, in reference to error, heresy, schism, obstinacy,

contempt, or scandal, and the repressing thereof; which power is put

forth merely in spiritual censures, as admonition, excommunication,

deposition, &c. And these censures exercised, not in a lordly,

domineering, prelatical way: but in an humble, sober, grave, yet

authoritative way, necessary both for preservation of soundness of

doctrine, and incorruptness of conversation; and for extirpation of the

contrary. This is the power which belongs to synods. Thus much for

clearing the right state of this question.

II. For the second thing, viz. the proposition itself, and the

confirmation thereof, take it briefly in these terms.

Jesus Christ our Mediator hath laid down in his word sufficient ground

and warrant for juridical synods, and their authority, for governing of

his Church now under the New Testament. Many arguments might be produced

for proof of this proposition: as, 1. From the light of nature. 2. From

the words of the law, Deut. xvii. 8, 12, compared with 2 Chron. xix. 8,

11; Ps. cxxii. 4, 5, holding forth an ecclesiastical Sanhedrin in the

Church of the Jews, superior to other courts. 3. From the words of

Christ, Matt, xviii. 15-21. 4. From the unity of the visible Church of

Christ now under the New Testament. 5. From the primitive apostolical

pattern laid down, Acts xv., &c., and from divers other considerations;

but for brevity's sake, only the two last arguments shall be a little

insisted upon.

_Argum_. I. The unity or oneness of the visible Church of Christ now

under the New Testament, laid down in Scripture, gives us a notable

foundation for church government by juridical synods. For, 1. That Jesus

Christ our Mediator hath one general, visible Church on earth now under

the New Testament, hath been already proved, Part 2, Chap. VIII. 2. That

in this Church there is a government settled by divine right, is

evidenced, Part 1, Chap. I. 3. That all Christ's ordinances, and

particularly church government, primarily belong to the whole general

Church visible, for her edification, (secondarily to particular churches

and single congregations, as parts or members of the whole,) hath been

manifested, Part 2, Chap. VIII. Now, there being one general visible

Church, having a government set in it of divine right, and that

government belonging primarily to the whole body of Christ; secondarily,

to the parts or members thereof; must it not necessarily follow, that

the more generally and extensively Christ's ordinance of church

government is managed in greater and more general assemblies, the more

fully the perfection and end of the government, viz. the edification of

the whole body of Christ, is attained; and on the contrary, the more

particularly and singly church government is exercised, as in

presbyteries, or single congregational elderships, the more imperfect it

is, and the less it attains to the principal end: consequently, if there

be a divine warrant for church government by single congregational

elderships, is it not much more for church government by presbyteries,

and synods, or councils, wherein more complete provision is made for the

edification of the general Church or body of Jesus Christ?

_Argum_. II. The primitive apostolical practice in the first and purest

ages of the Church after Christ, may further evidence with great

strength the divine warrant for church government by juridical synods or

councils. Let this be the position:

Jesus Christ our Mediator hath laid down in his word a pattern of a

juridical synod, consisting of governing officers of divers presbyterial

churches, for a rule to the Church of Christ in all succeeding ages.

For proof hereof take these two assertions: 1. That Jesus Christ hath

laid down in his word a pattern of a juridical synod. 2. That this

juridical synod is for a rule to the churches of Christ in all

succeeding ages.

ASSERTION I.

That Jesus Christ hath laid down in his word a pattern of a synod, yea,

of a juridical synod, consisting of governing officers of divers

presbyterial churches, is manifest, Acts xv. and xvi., where are plainly

set forth: 1. The occasion of the synod. 2. The proper members of the

synod. 3. The equal power and authority exercised by all those members.

4. The way and method of ordinary synodal proceeding. 5. The juridical

acts of power put forth by the synod; with the issue and consequent of

all upon the churches.

First, Here was a proper ground and occasion for a juridical synod. For

thus the text expressly declareth, that "certain men which came down

from Judea, taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised

after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved; when therefore Paul and

Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they

determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go

up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question," Acts

xv. 1, 2, compared with ver. 5--"But there rose up certain of the sect

of the Pharisees, which believed, saying, that it was needful to

circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses;" and with

ver. 23, 24--"The apostles, and elders, and brethren send greeting unto

the brethren which are of the Gentiles, in Antioch, and Syria, and

Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from

us, have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must

be circumcised and keep the law." In which passages these things are

evident:

1. That false doctrine, destructive to the doctrine of Christ in his

gospel, did arise in the Church, viz: That circumcision and keeping of

the ceremonial law of Moses was necessary to salvation, ver. 1, 5, 24;

and this false doctrine promoted with lying, as if the apostles and

elders of Jerusalem had sent forth the false teachers with directions to

preach so, as their apology ("to whom we gave no such commandment," ver.

24) seems to import. Here is corruption both in doctrine and manners fit

for a synod to take cognizance of.

2. That this corrupt doctrine was vented by certain that came down from

Judea. It is evident, it was by certain of the sect of the Pharisees

that believed; as Paul and Barnabas make the narrative to the church at

Jerusalem, ver. 5, therefore the false teachers coming from Judea (where

the Churches of Christ were first of all planted, and whence the church

plantation spread) published their doctrines with more credit to their

errors and danger to the churches; and so both the churches of Judea

whence they came, and of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, whither they came,

were interested in the business.

3. That the said false teachers by the leaven of their doctrine troubled

them with words, subverting the souls of the brethren, both at Antioch,

Syria, and Cilicia, ver. 23, 24; here was the disturbance and scandal of

divers churches: compare ver. 39 with 41.

4. That Paul and Barnabas at Antioch had no small dissension and dispute

against the false teachers, ver. 1, 2, that so (if possible) they might

be convinced, and the Church's peace preserved, without craving further

assistance in a solemn synod.

5. That after these disputes, and for the better settling of all the

churches about this matter, (which these disputes could not effect,)

_they decreed_ (or ordained) _that Paul and Barnabas, and some others of

themselves, should go up to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem about

this question, ver_. 2. Here was an authoritative mission of delegated

officers from the presbyterial church at Antioch, and from other

churches of Syria and Cilicia also, ver. 23, 41, to a synodal assembly

with the presbyterial church at Jerusalem.

Secondly, Here were proper members of a synod convened to consider of

this question, viz. the officers and delegates of divers presbyterial

churches: of the presbyterial church at Jerusalem, the apostles and

elders, Acts xv. 6: of the presbyterial church at Antioch, Paul,

Barnabas, and others; compare verse 2 and 12. And besides these, there

were brethren from other churches, present as members of the synod; as

may appear by these two considerations, viz:

1. Partly, because it is called "The whole multitude," ver. 12; "The

apostles and elders with the whole church," ver. 22; "The apostles, and

elders, and brethren," ver. 23. This whole multitude, whole church, and

brethren, distinct from the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem,

cannot be _the company of all the faithful at Jerusalem_, for (as hath

been evidenced, Chap. XIV., Position 2,) they were too many to meet in

one house. But it was the synodal multitude, the synodal church,

consisting of apostles, and elders, and brethren; which brethren seem to

be such as were sent from several churches, as Judas and Silas, ver. 24,

who were assistants to the apostles and evangelists--Judas, Acts xv. 22,

32; Silas, Acts xv. 32, 40, and xvi. 19, and xvii. 4, 14, 15, and xviii.

5. Some think Titus was of this synod also.

2. Partly because the brethren of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, were

troubled with this question, ver. 23, 24. Therefore it cannot be

reasonably imagined, but all those places sought out for a remedy; and

to that end, severally and respectively sent their delegates to the

synod at Jerusalem: else they had been very regardless of their own

church peace and welfare. And the epistle of the synod was directed to

them all by name, ver. 23; and so did formally bind them all, having men

of their own members of the synod, which decrees did but materially, and

from the nature of the thing, bind the other churches at Lystra and

Iconium, Acts xvi. 4. Now, if there were delegates but from two

presbyterial churches, they were sufficient to constitute a synod; and

this justifies delegates from ten or twenty churches, proportionably,

when there shall be like just and necessary occasion.

Thirdly, Here all the members of the synod, as they were convened by

like ordinary authority, so they acted by like ordinary and equal power

in the whole business laid before them; which shows it was an ordinary,

not an extraordinary synod. For though apostles and evangelists, who had

power over all churches, were members of the synod, as well as ordinary

elders; yet they acted not in this synod by a transcendent, infallible,

apostolical power, but by an ordinary power, as elders. This is evident,