The Divine Right of Church Government Part 18

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 const.i.tuting 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 G.o.d. 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 mult.i.tudes 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, a.s.sociated 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 a.s.sociated with them in the same a.s.sembly, 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 apostles.h.i.+p 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 elders.h.i.+p did not exclude their apostles.h.i.+p, nor their apostles.h.i.+p swallow up their elders.h.i.+p.

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 elders.h.i.+p, 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 G.o.d," 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 a.s.semblies._

Thus far of the ruling a.s.semblies, which are styled presbyterial; next come into consideration those greater a.s.semblies, 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 lat.i.tude 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 a.s.semblies, above cla.s.sical presbyteries in number and power. These synodal a.s.semblies are made up, (as occasion and the necessity of the church shall require.) 1. Either of presbyters, sent from the several cla.s.sical 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 ec.u.menical 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 cla.s.sical 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 a.s.semblies than cla.s.sical 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 ec.u.menical, 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 ec.u.menical 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 ec.u.menical 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 a.s.semblies 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 cla.s.sical 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 cla.s.sical 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 const.i.tuted 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 elders.h.i.+ps to the cla.s.sical presbytery, and from thence to the provincial synod, so from the provincial to the national a.s.sembly, &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 wors.h.i.+p; not to coin new articles of faith, or devise new acts of divine wors.h.i.+p: but to explain and apply those articles of faith and rules of wors.h.i.+p 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 G.o.d_, Rom. iii. 2. 2. _Regulating_, in reference to external order and polity, in matters prudential and circ.u.mstantial, 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 a.s.semblies, 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 elders.h.i.+ps, the more imperfect it is, and the less it attains to the princ.i.p.al end: consequently, if there be a divine warrant for church government by single congregational elders.h.i.+ps, 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 a.s.sertions: 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.