Chapter II: Part 2

We hold no _Mother-Church_, on which all other Churches should depend. But our Government, so far as it is distinct from the Congregational, consisteth of _divers Sister-Churches, combined by mutuall concernment, and governing one another in matters of mutuall concernment, by the common agreement of Pastors and Elders_, according to that Golden Rule, _Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debet_. In the Presbyterial Government every Congregation hath a voyce, by the Pastors and Elders thereof, and so is governed by a _power intrinsecall to it self, which cannot in its own nature be tyrannicall_. Though there is no power in the world so just, but by abuse may prove tyrannicall.

To illustrate this by a simile. _The Presbyterial Government is like the Government of the_ City _by the_ Common-councell, _wherein there are_ Common-Councell-men _sent from every_ Ward, _to judg and determine of matters, that concern the good of the whole_ City; _which certainly in its own nature, cannot be prejudicall to the severall_ Wards, _but every helpfull and commodious; whereas the_ Prelatical-Government, _was just as if the City should be governed by a_ High-Commission _chosen of_ Forreiners; _and the_ Independent-Government _is just as if every_ Ward _should undertake to govern it self, divided from one another, and not at all to be under the power and authority of the_ Common-councell.

Adde besides this, the _Presbyteriall-Government_ doth give unto people of particular Congregations all that is by Christ left them. For,

1. We allow unto every Congregation a particular Eldership, where it may be had.

2. We impose upon no Congregation a Minister against whom they can give a rationall dissent.

3. We allow the Congregationall Eldership to judg in all matters which concern that particular Church; and to keep from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, all those whom they finde to be ignorant or scandalous.

4. In the _great Censure of Excommunication_, we say, That it ought not to be _executed against the consent of that particular Congregation, to which the party to be excommunicated belongs_. And in all other matters of importance, the Presbyterian-Government hath great respect to that Congregation which is particularly concerned therein. And therefore, it is so far from _robbing_, that it is a great _Pillar to uphold and support Congregational Government_; as for example:

1. When a particular Congregation is destitute of a Minister, then the Neighbour-Ministers of the Classis help what in them lies to make up that defect, by sending supply in the mean time, and afterwards by joyning in the ordination of another.

2. When there is an insufficient Eldership, then the Classical Presbytery contributes light and strength.

3. When an Eldership proves Heretical, then the Classical Presbytery helps to convince them of their Heresies, which the people are not able ordinarily to do, and thereby to preserve the Congregation from spiritual contagion.

4. When any member is wronged by the Eldership, the Classis, or Synod, contributes ayd and relief, as will appear further in the next particular.

8. The Presbyterial-Government _is so far from being tyrannical, as that it is the greatest remedy against Church-tyranny, because it is as a city of refuge for all those that are oppressed in their particular Congregations, to fly unto_. For under the Congregational-Government, when a brother is (as he conceives) wronged by the major part of the Church of which he is a member, he is for ever lock't up, and hath no authoritative way to relieve himself. (Indeed, he hath moral wayes, by advice and counsel, which are altogether insufficient;) But the Presbyterian-Government is a _Zoar_, and an _Ark_ for the wronged party to fly unto, from the Particular Congregation, to a Classical, Provinciall, or National Assembly. Give us leave to shew you the difference by this example: Suppose in the civil Government every Corporation should plead a _power independent_ from a _Parliament_, and challenge to be unaccountable, would not this make as many _Parliaments_, as _Corporations_? And if any member should be wronged by the major part of the Corporation to which he belongs, were he not left without remedy? And if these Corporations should cry down the _Parliaments_ power over them as tyrannical, would it not be said, that this is therefore only done, that they themselves might become petty Tyrants? So is it here;

The _Congregationall Government_ is a _Spiritual Corporation_ independent from all other _Ecclesiasticall Assemblies_ in point of _Church-power_. As the _Pope_ claims a power over all _Church-Assemblies_, so this claims an exemption from the power of all _Church-Assemblies_, and cryeth down all _Classical_, _Provinciall_, or _Nationall-Assemblies_ with power, as tyrannical; but is not this, that in the mean time it may become absolute, and as it were a petty Tyranny?

There are in the Congregational Government these six great defects, besides many others which we could name.

1. There is (as hath been said) no _authoritative way to relieve a Brother oppressed by the major part of his Congregation_, which granted, would make the Government of Christ in the _New Testament_, to be inferiour to the _Jewish Government_, in which they had the liberty of Appeals. And also to be against the _light of right reason_, in making the same men to be parties and judges in their own cause, (as hath been formerly shewed.)

2. There is no _authoritative way_ to heal the major part of a Congregation, when it falls into fundamental errours, which is a great disparagement to the Government of Jesus Christ, and reflects deeply upon the wisdome and care of the great King of his Church. _For it makes Christ to provide a more efficatious remedy to cure an erring member, (to wit, by the great Ordinance of excommunication,) then an erring Church._

3. There is no _Authoritative way_ to keep out pluralities of Religions. For if the whole _power_ of Church-Government be in the _Congregation-Independently_, then let a Congregation set up what Religion they think fit, there is no _Authoritative Church-remedy_ left to hinder them.

4. There is no _Authoritative way for unity and uniformity in Church-administrations_, which doth inevitably lay stumbling blocks before weak Christians, and holds them in suspence, not knowing to what Congregation to joyn, because they see such different wayes of administration of Ordinances.

5. There is no _relief when a Congregation is destitute of a Minister, in point of Ordination_, but the succeeding Minister is left to be examined and ordained by the people of the Congregation that chose him. And so also when a Congregation becomes hereticall, and in other such cases.

6. _If any of their Ministers preach out of their own Congregation, he preacheth only as a gifted brother_; neither can he, (as we conceive) according to their own Principles, administer the Sacraments out of his own Congregation, or perform any other act of office. Although we believe some of them do so, contrary to their own principles herein.

9. _That the Presbyteriall Government is a Government that tends not at all to the destruction of any, but for the good and edification of all._ There are three chief ends of this Government.

1. _To keep the Churches of Christ in unity amongst themselves._

2. _To keep them in purity and holinesse; it is_ Christs _Fan, to purge his floor; and his Beesom to sweep out of his house every thing that offends_.

3. _To keep them in verity, it is_ Christs Weeding-hook _to weed out heresies_; and therefore King _James_ (though no great friend to this Government) would often say, that it was _Malleus hæreticorum_, a Hammer to beat down Heresies: And we find, that wheresoever it is set up in strength, there the Churches are kept in unity, verity, and purity; and that (which is very observeable) where this Government hath once got possession, it hath for ever after kept out Popery and all Popish Innovations. The Prelatical Government with all its Lordships and Revenues annexed, as it was managed of late years in _England_, was an in-let to Popery, and it had _tantùmnon_ brought it in. But _wheresoever the_ Presbyterian-Government _is setled, there Popery, root and branch, is plucked up and destroyed, and that without any hope of recovery_.

[Sidenote: _Object._]

But it will be objected, that notwithstanding all that hath been said to render the Presbyterial Government amiable and acceptable; yet there are two great Mountains which do lye in the way which do hinder, and (as some say) will for ever hinder people from submitting unto it: The one is,

1. _Because it sets up a new officer in the_ Church, _which is a meer humane_ Creature, having no authority from the Word of God, nor was ever heard of in the Church of Christ, till _Calvin_'s time, & that is the LAY-ELDER.

2. _Because it requireth all, of all sorts, to come to the_ Minister _and these_ Lay-Elders _to be examined, before they can be admitted to the_ Sacrament _of the_ Lords Supper.

[Sidenote: _Answer._]

We cannot deny, but that these two objections are great _Remora_'s to the Government, and do hinder the general receiving of it, and therefore we shall be a little the larger in answering of them.

For the first of them, we do here freely confesse, that if we were of opinion, as some are, that the Ruling-Elder hath no foundation in the Word of God, but is a meer humane Ordinance brought into the Church only in a prudential way; we should heartily desire the utter abolition of him: For we are not ignorant, that the Ruling Prelate was brought into the Church upon the same account, for the avoiding of Schism and Division, and afterwards proved the great Author and Fomenter of Schism and Division. And if we should decline the Ruling Prelate, and take in the Ruling Elder upon the same prudential grounds, it were just with God to make him as mischievous to the Church, as ever the Ruling Prelate was: And therefore let us consider what may be said out of the Word of God, for the justification of this so much _decryed Officer_: Yet first we cannot but take notice that the name of _Lay-Elder_ was affixed to this Officer by way of reproach and scorn, by the adversaries of him, and that it ought not to be continued. For though it be evident by Scripture[45], that there is a great difference betwixt the Ministry usually called the Clergy, and the people commonly called the Laity: yet its also as manifest, that the Scripture[46] distinguisheth them not by the names of Clergy and Laity; forasmuch as all Gods people are therein stiled the Lords Clergy, or Inheritance, and the Lord is called their Inheritance. And when persons are duly chosen from amongst the people to be Governours in the Church, as such, they are no longer Lay-men, but Ecclesiastical persons. And therefore we profess a dislike of the name Lay-Elder, and conceive they ought to be called either governours in the Church, 1 _Cor._ 12.23. or Ruling-Elders, as 1 Tim. 5.17. not because their Office is to rule alone (for the Teaching-Elder is a Ruler also, _Heb._ 13.17. 1 _Thess._ 5.12.) but because their Office is only to rule.[47] Now concerning these Ruling-Elders, we confess, that they are Officers somewhat new and strange to the Church of _England_; yet not new nor strange to the Word of God, nor to the Primitive times, nor (as all know) to the _Reformed Churches_.

First, they are _not new nor strange to the Word of God, neither in the Old Testament, nor in the New_. The Jews in the _Old Testament_, had two sorts of _Elders_; _Elders of the Priests_, and _Elders of the people_, suitable to our _teaching and Ruling-Elders_; as appears, _Jer._ 19.1. And these _Elders_ of the people did sit and vote with the Priests and Levites in all their Ecclesiasticall Consistories, and that by divine appointment. That they were _constituent_ members of the great _Sanhedrim_, appears, 2 _Chron._ 19.8. where we reade, _That some of the chief of the Fathers were joyned with the Priests, to judge in the matters if the Lord_. And howsoever, many things among the Jews after the captivity, did decline to disorder and confusion; yet we finde even in the dayes of Christ, and his Apostles, That the Elders of the people still sate and voyced in the Councell with the Priests, according to the ancient form, as is clear from _Matth._ 26.57, 59. _Matth._ 27.1, 12. _Matth._ 16.21. _Matth._ 21.23. _Mar._ 14.43. _Luk._ 22.66. and _Saravia_ himself,[48] who disputeth so much against _Ruling Elders_, acknowledgeth thus much: _I finde indeed_, (saith he) _Elders in the Assembly of the Priests of the old Synagogue, which were not Priests; and their suffrages and authority in all Judgments, were equal with the suffrages of the Priests_. But he adds; That these Elders of the people were civill Magistrates; which is a poor shift, directly against many Scriptures, which contradistinguish these _Elders_ from the civil _Magistrate_; as appears; _Act._ 4.5. _Judg._ 8.14. _Deut._ 5.23. _Josh._ 8.33. 2 _King._ 10.15. _Ezra_ 10.14. And though it were possible, that some of them might be civill Magistrates, as some _Elders_ amongst Us, are Justices of the Peace: Yet they did not sit under that capacity, in the Ecclesiastical _Sanhedrim_, but as Ecclesiastical Elders.

And that the Jews also had _Elders of the people_, sitting and voting in their inferiour Consistories, appears (as we humbly conceive) from _Act._ 13.15. _Act._ 18.8, 17. _Mar._ 5.22. In which places, we read of the Rulers of the Synagogue, who were neither Priests nor Levites, and yet were Rulers in Church-matters, and had power, together with the Priests, of casting men out of the Synagogue, and of ordering Synagogue-worship, _Joh._ 12.42. _Act._ 13.15.

Now this _Association_ of the _Elders of the people, with the Priest, in the Jewish Church-Government, was by divine appointment_; for Moses first instituted it, and afterwards _Jehosaphat_ restored it, according as they were directed by God, Num. 11.16. 2 Chron. 19.8. And it did belong to the _Jewish Church_, not as it was Jewish, but as it was a Church, and therefore belongeth to the Christian Church, as well as Jewish. _For whatsoever agreeth to a Church, as a Church; agreeth to every Church._ There was nothing Judaical or typical in this institution, but it was founded upon the light of nature, and right reason, which is alike in all ages.

But leaving the Old Testament, let us consider what may be said for the divine right of the _Ruling-Elder_, out of the New Testament. For this purpose, we have already produced three places, which we shall now briefly open; and shew how the Ruling Elder is proved out of them. The places are, 1 _Cor._ 12.28. _Rom._ 12.7, 8. 1 _Tim._ 5.17.

The first place is, 1 _Cor._ 12.28. _And God hath set some in the Church, first, Apostles; secondarily, Prophets; thirdly, Teachers; After that, Miracles; then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues_; Where we have an enumeration of sundry Officers of the Church; and amongst others, there are _Helps_, _Governments_. By _Helps_, are meant _Deacons_; (as not only our _Reformed_ Divines, but _Chrysostome_, and _Estius_, and others observe,[49]) and by _Governments_, are meant the _Ruling-Elder_, which that it may the better appear, we will propound, and prove these six things.

1. That by _Governments_, are meant _men exercising Government_, the _Abstract_ put for the _Concrete_. The intent of the _Apostle_, is not to speak of _offices_ distinct from _persons_, but of _persons exercising offices_. This appears first, by the beginning of the verse, _God hath set some in his Church_; this relates to persons, not unto offices. Secondly, by the 29. and 30. verses, where the Apostle speaks _concretively_, of those things which he had spoken before _abstractively_. _Are all workers of miracles? have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues_, &c? and so by consequence, _Are all helpers, are all Governours?_ And therefore it is, that the Syriack instead of _helps, Governments_, reads it _helpers, Governours_.[50]

2. That the _Governour_ here meant, must needs be a _Church-Governour_; for it is expresly said, that he is seated in the Church, and therefore the civil Magistrate cannot be meant by this Governour, as some would have it; partly, because this is quite besides the whole intent and scope of the Chapter, treating meerly upon _spirituall Church-matters_, not at all of secular civil matters; and partly, because the Magistrate, as such, is not placed by God in the _Church_, but in the _Common-Wealth_: and partly, because the Apostle writes of such Governours, that had at that time actual existence in the Church; and neither then, nor divers hundred years after, were there any _Christian Magistrates_.

3. That this _Church-Governour_ is seated by God in his Church; It is a _plant of Gods own planting_, and therefore shall stand firme, maugre all opposition. For it is expresly said, _God hath set some in his Church, first Apostles_, &c. _then helps, then Governments_.

4. That this Church-Governour thus seated by God in his Churches, not only a _Church-member_, but a _Church-Officer_. For though it be a question amongst the learned, whether some of the persons here named, as the _workers of miracles_, and those that had the _gift of healing, and of tongues_, were seated by God, as officers in the Church, and not rather, only as eminent members indued with these eminent gifts; yet it is most certain, that whosoever is seated by God in his Church, as a _Church Governour_, must needs be a _Church officer_; for the nature of the gift, doth necessarily imply an office. The Greek word[51] for Governments, is a metaphor from _Pilots_, or _Ship-masters_, governing their ships; (hence the Master of a ship is called Κυβερνητης, a Governour, _Jam._ 3.4.) and it notes such officers, as sit at the stern of the vessel of the Church, to govern and guide it in spirituals, according to the will and mind of Christ, which is the direct office of our _Ruling-Elder_.

5. This Church-Governour thus seated by God in his Church as a Church-officer, is an _ordinary and perpetuall officer in his Church_. Indeed, here is mention made of Officers extraordinary, as Apostles, Prophets; and of gifts extraordinary, as the gift of miracles, healing, and of tongues; but here is also mention made of ordinary Officers, perpetually to abide, as _Teachers_, _Helpers_, and the _Church-Governour, or Ruling-Elder_. And that this Officer is ordinary and perpetual, appears from the perpetual necessity of him in the Church; for a Church without government, is as a ship without a Pilot, as a Kingdom without a Magistrate, and a world without a Sun.

6. That this Church-Governour thus seated by God in his Church, as a perpetual Officer, is an officer _contradistinguished in the Text from the_ Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, _and all other_ Officers _in the_ Church. This appears; 1. By the Apostles manner of expressing these officers in an _enumerative_ form; _First, Apostles; Secondarily, Prophets; Thirdly, Teachers; After that, miracles, then gifts of healing_, &c. 2. By the recapitulation, vers. 29, 30. _Are all Apostles? Are all Prophets? Are all Teachers? Are all workers of miracles?_ &c. 3. By the scope of the whole Chapter, which is to set down different gifts and offices in different subjects; It is said, ver. 8, 9. _To one is given by the Spirit, the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledg by the same Spirit; to another, faith_, &c. And for this purpose, the Apostle draweth a simile from the members of mans body: As there are different members in mans body, and every member hath its different office, and every member stands in need one of another; the Eye cannot say to the Hand, I have no need of thee; nor again, the head to the foot, I have no need of thee, &c. So it is in the Church ministerial, which is the body of Christ. God hath set different Officers in his Church; some ordinary and perpetual; some extraordinary and temporary: And these different Officers have different Offices, some to teach, others to distribute to the poor Saints, others to govern. Are all Teachers? are all Deacons? are all Church-Governours? and these have all need one of another. The Teacher cannot say to the Deacon, I have no need of thee; nor to the Church Governour, I have no need of thee: But if all these Offices were in the Pastor alone, and only, then might he truly say to the Deacon and Ruling-Elder, I have no need of thee. But now God hath so set the members in his body which is his Church, that every member stands in need one of anothers help and support.

[Sidenote: _Object._]

If it be objected, that the Apostles had all these offices and gifts here mentioned, eminently seated in them, for they were Prophets, Teachers, Workers of Miracles; and therefore why may not all these be understood of one and the same person?

[Sidenote: _Answ._]

Though it be true, that the Apostles had eminently all these; yet it is as true, that there are many here named, which had but one of these gifts formally seated in them: And it is also apparent, that some of the persons here named were distinct Officers in the Church, as the Prophet, and the Teacher. Though the Apostles were Prophets and Teachers, yet the Prophet & the Teacher were Officers distinct from the Apostles; and by a parity of Reason, so were the Governors from the Apostle, Prophet, and Teacher; the scope of the Apostle being (as hath been said) to set out distinct Offices in distinct Officers: are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers? The sum of what we have said from this Scripture, then, is this, _That God hath seated some men in his Church which have a gift and office to govern, which are neither Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, nor Pastors; and therefore they are Ruling-Elders_, which is the Officer which we are enquiring after.

Now this Interpretation which we have given, is not only the interpretation of Reformed Divines, both _Lutherane_ and _Calvinists_, but of the ancient Fathers, and even the Papists themselves, as appears by the quotations in the Margent.[52]

The second text is, _Rom._ 12.6, 7, 8. _Having then gifts differing according to the grace given, whether Prophesie, let us prophesie according to the proportion of Faith; or Ministry, let us wait on our Ministring; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation. He that giveth, let him do it with simplicity. He that ruleth, with diligence. He that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness._ In which words, we have a perfect enumeration of all the ordinary Offices of the Church. These offices are reduced, first, to two general heads, _Prophesie_ and _Ministry_, and are therefore set down in the _Abstract_. By _Prophesie_ is meant the faculty of right understanding, interpreting, and expounding the Scriptures. Ministry comprehends all other employments in the Church. Then these generals are subdivided into the special offices contained under them, and are therefore put down in the concrete. Under _Prophesie_ are contained, 1. _He that teacheth_, that is, the Doctor or Teacher. 2. _He that exhorteth, i. e._ the Pastor. Under _Ministry_ are comprized, 1. _He that giveth_, that is, the Deacon. 2. _He that ruleth_, that is, the Ruling Elder. 3. _He that sheweth mercy_, which [53]Office pertained unto them, who in those days had care of the sick: So that in these words, we have the _Ruling-Elder_ plainly set down, and _contra_-distinguished from the _teaching_ and _exhorting Elder_ (as appears by the distributive particles, ειτε ὁ διδασκων, ειτε ὁ παρακαλων, _Whether he that teacheth_; _Whether he that exhorteth_; _Whether he that ruleth_, &c.) And here likewise we have the divine institution of the Ruling-Elder, for so the words hold forth. _Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given unto us_; and thus also in the third verse, _according as God hath dealt to every man_, &c. This officer is the gift of Gods free grace to the Church, for the good of it.

Against this Exposition of the Text, it is objected by those that oppose the divine right of the Ruling-Elder, that the Apostle speaks, in these words, not of several offices in several persons, but of severall Gifts in one and the same person; for he saith, _having then Gifts differing according_, &c. But we answer:

1. That the word _Gift_ is often in Scripture taken for _Office_; as _Eph._ 4.8, 11. _When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men_; and v. 11. _He sheweth what these gifts were, some to be Apostles, some Evangelists_, &c.

2. That the Apostle in the _Protasis_ speaks not of severall Gifts, but of severall Offices, and these not in the same, but in several members, _v._ 4. _As we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office._ And therefore the _apodosis_ must also be understood not only of _severall gifts_, but of _severall Offices_, and these in _several subjects_. And this further appears by the very similitude which the Apostle here useth, which is the same he used, 1 _Cor._ 12. from the body natural, wherein there are many distinct members, and every member hath its distinct Office; and so it is in the Church of Christ.

3. These gifts here mentioned, and the waiting upon them, do necessarily imply an Office in whomsoever they are; and therefore they are set down emphatically with an Article, ειτε ὁ διδασκων ὁ προισταμενος. He that hath the gift of teaching, and exhorting, and ruling, and waiteth upon this gift, what is he but a Teacher, Pastor, and Ruling-Elder? And this must either be granted, or else we must open a door for all members of the Church, even women, not only to preach and teach, but to rule also, and to wait upon preaching and ruling: This truth is so clear, as that the Papists themselves being convinced of it, do say[54] upon this text, that the Apostle here first speaks of gifts in general; and secondly, applyeth these gifts to Ecclesiastical Officers, v. 6. and afterwards directs his exhortation to all Christians in general.

The third text for the divine right of the _Ruling-Elder_, is, 1 _Tim._ 5.17. _Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine._ For the understanding of which words, we will lay down this rule, That every text of Scripture is to be interpreted according to the literall and grammatical construction; unless it be contrary to the analogie of Faith, or the rule of Life, or the circumstances of the Text: otherwise, we shall make a nose of wax of the Scriptures, and draw _quidlibet ex quolibet_. Now according to the _Grammatical construction_, here are plainly held forth _two sorts of Elders_; the one, _onely ruling_; and the other, _also labouring in Word and Doctrine_. Give us leave to give you the true analysis of the words.

1. Here is a _Genus_, a general, and that is _Elders_.

2. Two distinct species, or kinds of Elders, _Those that rule well_, and _those that labour in word and doctrine_; as Pastor and Doctor.

3. Here we have two participles, expressing these two kinds of Elders, _Ruling_, _Labouring_, the first do only rule, the second do also labour in Word and Doctrine.

4. Here are two distinct Articles, distinctly annexed to these two participles, ὁι προεστωτες, ὁι κοπιωντες. They that rule, They that labour.

5. Here is an _eminent discretive particle_, set betwixt these two kinds of Elders; these two participles, these two Articles evidently distinguishing one from the other, _viz._ μαλιστα _especially they that labour_, &c. And wheresoever this word μαλιστα is used in the New Testament, it is used, to distinguish thing from thing, or person from person; as _Gal._ 6.10. _Phil._ 4.22. 1 _Tim._ 5.8. 1 _Tim._ 4.10. _Tit._ 1.10. 2 _Tim._ 4.13. 2 _Pet._ 2.20. _Act._ 20.38. In all which places, the word [_especially_] is used as a discretive particle, to distinguish one thing from another, or one person from another; and therefore being applyed here to persons, must necessarily distinguish person from person, officer from officer. It is absurd to say, (saith Dr. _Whitaker_,[55]) that this text is to be understood of one and the same Elder. If a man should say, _All the Students in the University are worthy of double honour, especially, They that are Professors of Divinity; He must necessarily understand it of two sorts of Students_. Or if a man should say, _All Gentlemen that do service for the Kingdom in their Counties, are worthy of double honour, especially they that do service in the Parliament; this must needs be understood of different persons_. We are not ignorant, that Archbishop _Whitgift_, Bishop _King_, Bishop _Bilson_, Bishop _Downame_, & others, labour to fasten divers other interpretations upon these words, which would be over-tedious here to rehearse. Only thus much we crave leave to say, which we desire may be seriously weighed; That all other senses that are given of these words, are either such as are disagreeing from the literall and Grammatical construction, or such as fall into one of these two absurdities, either to maintain a _non-preaching Ministry_, or a _lazy-preaching Ministry_ to deserve double honour. Archbishop [56]_Whitgift_ by the Elder that rules well, understands a Reader that is not a Preacher. [57]Dr. _King_, a Bishop ruling, and not preaching; which is to say, that a non-preaching Minister deserves double honour. Dr. _Bilson_ [58]saith, that the words are to be understood of two sorts of Elders, and that the meaning is, That the Elder that rules well, and preacheth, is worthy of double honour, especially they that labour, that is, _that preach abundantly_, that do κοπιαν, labour as a Waterman at his Oar; which is as much as if he had said, that a _lazy Minister_, or a _seldome-preaching Minister, deserves double honour_. For all Preachers are in Scripture required κοπιαν, _to labour abundantly, 1 Thess._ 5.11. _1 Cor._ 3.8. where the same word is used that is here expressed. If the Apostle had meant to have distinguished them by their extraordinary labour, he would rather have said, μοχθουντες, then κοπιωντες, for other-where he useth μοχθος, as a degree of painful labour, above κοπος, which is put for common labour, _Rom._ 16.12.[59] Dr. _Downame_ and others, interpret the words of one and the same Elder, thus, The Elders that rule well, are worthy of double honour, especially they that labour; that is, (say they) _especially they labouring, or especially because they labour_. And so they make their labouring, to be the chief cause of their double honour. But this interpretation is against the literal meaning, for the Greek is not ει κοπιωσιν, _if they labour_, but μαλιστα ὁι κοπιωντες, _especially they that labour_. Here is a participle with an Article, and a _discretive particle_, which can never be rightly and literally translated _causatively_. And therefore we conclude, together with our Reformed Divines[60], that this text according to the proper and Grammatical construction of it, doth hold forth unto all unprejudiced Christians, a Ruling Elder, distinct from a teaching Elder, which is the thing we undertook to prove.

Besides these three Scriptures thus expounded, we shall briefly offer one more; and that is, Matth. 18.17. where the offended Brother is bid _to tell the Church_, &c. In which words, the whole power of excommunication is placed by Christ in the _Church_. The great question is, what is meant by Church? Here we take for granted: 1. That by Church, is not meant the civil Magistrate, as _Erastus_ fondly imagineth; for this is utterly contrary to the purpose of Christ, and the aym of that discipline here recommended to be used, which is the _gaining of our brother unto repentance_; whereas the aym of the civil Magistrate, is not the spiritual good properly and formally of the offender, but the publique good of the Common-Wealth. And besides, it is a language unknown in Scripture, to call the Magistrate the Church; and it is an exposition purposely invented, to overthrow all Ecclesiastical government.

2. That by Church, is meant _primarily and especially_ the particular Congregation; we do not say _onely_, but firstly and especially. Hence we argue; If the power of Excommunication be placed in the particular Church, then either in the Minister alone, or in the Minister and whole Congregation, or in the Minister and Elders chosen by the congregation.

But not in the Minister alone, who being but one man, can no more be called a Church, then one man can be called many, or a member called a body. For one person cannot be called a Church, (saith _Bellarmine_ himself[61],) seeing the Church is the people and Kingdome of God. It is certain, that the Church here spoken of, is a certain number met together; for it is said, _Where two or three are gathered together_, &c.

Nor in the Minister and whole Congregation; for God who is the God of order, not of confusion, hath never committed the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, to a promiscuous multitude; the Scripture[62] divides a Congregation into Rulers and Saints, into Governours, and governed; and if all be Governours, who will be left to be governed? And besides, if the collective body of a Church be the Governours, then women and servants must govern as well as others.

And therefore we conclude, that by Church, must needs be meant, the Minister and Ruling-Elders, which are the Officers we are enquiring after.

And this is no new interpretation, but agreed unto by ancient and modern Writers. _Chrysostome_ saith[63], by Church, is meant the προεστωτες, _the Rulers of the Church_, Camer.[64] _the Colledg of Presbyters_; others, the _Ecclesiacall Senate_. These are called a Church, for four Reasons:

1. Because it is usual in the Old Testament, (to which our Saviour here alludeth, as appears by the words Publican and Heathen,) to call the Assembly of Princes and Elders a Church, Numb. 35.12, 24, 25. with Deut. 1.16. 1 Chron. 13.2, 3. with 28.1, 2. & 29.1, 6. Deut. 31.28, 30. 1 King. 8.1, 2, 55. Num. 5.2. compared with Levit. 13.15.

2. Because they manage Church affaires in the name of Christ, and of the Church, and are servants of the Church, as well as of Christ.

3. Because they are, as it were, the eyes and ears of the Church; and therefore as the body is said to see or hear, when as the eyes and eares alone do see and hear; so the Church is said to see, hear, and act, that which this _Senate Ecclesiasticall_ doth see, hear, and act.

4. Because they represent the Church; and it is a common form of speech, to give the name of that which is represented, to that which represents it; as we say, that to be done by the whole Kingdome, which is done by a full and free Parliament. Hence we might further argue:

_If the Colledge of Presbyters represent the Church, then it must be made up of Ruling-Elders, as well as Ministers._ For Ministers alone cannot represent the Church; the Church consisting not of Ministers alone, but of Ministers and people, who are part of the Church as well as Ministers, and are so called, _Act._ 15.3, 4.

This is all we shall say, for the Scriptural part.

[Sidenote: Episcopacy by Divine right.]

As for the _Primitive times of the Church_, we should have wholly waved the mention of any thing about them, were it not for the base calumnies & reproaches which the Prelatical party cast upon the Ruling-Elder, in saying, That it is _the new fangled device of Calvin at Geneva_; and never known in the Church of Christ before his dayes. There is a Bishop that _makes offer to forfeit his life to justice, and his reputation to shame, if any man living can shew, that ever there was a Ruling-Elder in the Christian world, till_ Farell _and_ Viret _first created them_. But he hath been abundantly answered by _Smectymnuus_, insomuch, that whereas in his Episcopacy by Divine Right, he boldly averreth, that the name of the Elders of the Church, comprehendeth none but preachers, [65]and that therefore none but they may be called _Seniores Ecclesiæ, Elders of the Church_; though some others haply may have the title of _Seniores populi, Elders of the people_, because of their _civill Authority_. Yet notwithstanding afterward, the same Bishop in his [66]reply to _Smectymnuus_ acknowledgeth, that besides _Pastors and Doctors_, and besides _Magistrates and Elders of the City_, there are to be found in Antiquity, _Seniores Ecclesiastici, Ecclesiastical Elders_ also; only he alledgeth, they were but as our Church-Wardens, or rather, as our vestry-men; whereas in truth, _They were Judges in Ecclesiasticall controversies_, and did assist the Pastor in ruling and governing the Church; witnesse that famous place in [67]_Ambrose_, which testifies, _that both in the Jewish and in the Christian Church, there were these Ecclesiasticall Rulers_. This is also the judgment of [68]_Tertullian_, [69]_Origen_, [70]_Basil_, [71]_Optatus_, [72]_Hierome_, [73]_Augustine_, [74]_Gregory_ the great, and divers others cited by _Justellus_ in his Annotations in _Can. Eccl. Affricanæ_, and by _Voetius_, and by _Smectymnuus_, and by the Author of the _Assertion of the Scotch Discipline_, some of which are rehearsed in the Margent. We will conclude this Discourse, with the confession of Archbishop _Whitgift_, a great Writer against the Presbyterial-Government; _I know (saith he) that in the Primitive Church, they had in every Church Seniors, to whom the Government of the Church was committed, but that was before there was any Christian Prince or Magistrate_.

And therefore, let not our respective Congregations suffer themselves to be abused any longer with a false belief, that the _Ruling-Elder_ is a new device, and an _Officer_ never known in the _Church of God_, nor _Word of God_. For we have sufficiently (as we conceive) proved it to be warranted by the Word, and to have been of use in the purer times of the Church.

Three things we shall desire to adde, as a conclusion of this discourse.

1. _That there are prints of the Ruling-Elder remaining amongst us even at this day_; for as the _Overseers_ of every Parish, have a _resemblance of the Deacon_; so the _Church-warden_ hath some _foot-steps_ of our _Ruling-Elder_; though we must needs confess, that this _Office hath been much abused_; and we could desire it might be laid aside, and the true _Scripture-Ruling-Elder_ set up in his place.

2. That the Prelatical Divines, [75]which are such great adversaries to the _Ruling-Elder_, do yet notwithstanding, hold and prove, that men of abilities which are not Ministers, are to be admitted into _Generall Councels_; because that in the Synod of _Jerusalem_, not only the _Apostles_, but _Elders_ and _Brethren_ did sit and vote, because this was practised in the _Old Testament_; and because that this was practised in the Councels held afterwards in the Church of Christ, as appears out of _Eusebius_, _Sozomen_ and _Theodoret_, and by the subscriptions of those Councels done by men, not Ministers, as well as others.

Hence we might argue;

_If other men, besides Ministers, are by Gods word, even in the judgment of the Prelaticall Divines, to be admitted into the greatest Assemblies, and Councels of the Church, much more are they by the same right to be admitted into particular Congregations, to sit and vote with the Minister in the Government of the Church._

3. Adde thirdly, that even in the Bishops days, for these many hundred years, there have been _Ruling-Elders_ in the Church; for the _Chancellours_, _Commissaries_, _Officials_, and such others, were all of them _Governours of the Church_, and had the _power of suspension and excommunication_; and yet were few of them, if any, _Ministers of the Word_: And it seems to us, to be a great _curse of God_, that lyeth upon mens spirits, that could willingly submit to _Chancellours_ & _Commissaries_, who did nothing else but _pick their purses, and tyrannize over their bodies and estates_, and yet will not submit unto the _Ruling-Elder_ now established, who _seeks no other interest, but the interest of Christ, and medleth not with mens bodies or estates, and desireth nothing but to be helpfull to the Ministers of Christ, to keep their Congregations in unity, piety, and verity_. This is all we shall say, in answer to the first Objection.

The second grand Objection against the _Presbyteriall-Government_, is, that it requires all, of all sorts, to come to the _Minister_ and _Elders_ to be examined, before they can be admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which is (as some ignorantly say) to bring in auricular confession again into the Church, to bring the people of God into a spirituall slavery and bondage unto the Eldership, and which is an usurpation more then prelaticall, and a tyrannicall domineering over mens consciences, and hath no footing in the Word; for the Scripture saith, _Let a man examine himself, and so let him eate_, &c. It is not said, _Let him first be examined by the Ministers and Elders_: the Scripture addes, _He that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself_, not to the Eldership. And why then must a man submit himself unto the examination of the Eldership? and how come the Eldership to be guilty of another mans unworthy receiving? It is further added by some, that for their parts, they will willingly come before the Minister, and submit to his examination, but they will rather for ever be without the Sacrament, then submit to come before the _Lay-Elder_, for whom, they see no warrant in the Word of God: Others say, that they will freely yield that the _younger sort_, that never have received the Sacrament, should present themselves to the _Eldership_ to be catechized, and instructed, and fitted for the Sacrament; but they will never yield, that old men and women, that heretofore have divers times received, should now in their old age be required to come, to be examined not only by their Minister, but by the Elders also, who oftentimes are very unfit for that Office: Others adde, that though some Ministers rigidly keep all from the Sacrament, that will not come before the Elderships; yet there are others, that are _Presbyterians, and have Elders chosen, that act without them_, and will receive us to the Sacrament without comming before them. These, and such like Objections, are brought against this way of Examination, that is so happily begun amongst us. Now that we might satisfie these Objections, and make good our practice out of the Word of God, we shall briefly do these four things.

1. _We will declare what our practice is in this particular._

2. _We will prove, that he that will come to the Sacrament, ought first to submit to examination._

3. _That the power to examine, belongs not to the Minister alone, nor to the Minister with the whole Church, but to the Minister and Elders._

4. _We will answer the Objections, that are brought against this way of examination by the Minister and Elders._

For the first of these, we say;

First, That the _Presbyterial-Government_, doth not precisely & peremptorily require of those that come to the Sacrament, that they should first be examined by questions and answers, but if any man or woman shall make a good profession of their Faith in a continued discourse, without being _asked any questions_, it will be as well accepted, as if they were examined by particular questions.

Secondly, that this _examination_ or _profession_ is not required every time men come to _the Sacrament_, but only _at their first admission_.

3. That he that is duly admitted into compleat _Church-fellowship in the Presbyterian-way_, is not only by vertue of his first admission, freed from all _after-examination_ (unless it be when he falls into any scandalous transgression) in the Congregation, to which he belongs; but he is inabled by a certificate from his Eldership, to receive the Sacrament in any Church of the Christian world of the same constitution, without any new examination.

Fourthly, that the reason why ancient men and women, and others, that have formerly under the _Prelatical Government_ been admitted to the Sacrament, are now required to submit to examination, before they can be again admitted, doth not _proceed from the nature of the Presbyterian Government, but chiefly from the neglect of the Prelaticall_: For it is so evident, that it cannot be denyed, that under the former Government, men and women of all sorts, though never so ignorant or scandalous, were in most places admitted promiscuously to the Sacrament without any examination. Now this grievous disorder, and great iniquity in the Prelatical Government, is the principal cause of all the trouble we meet withal in ours; and we desire earnestly our people to distinguish with us, between a Church deformed, and reformed. If the Churches of God in _England_ were once so reformed, that there were an orderly admission, by examination or profession, unto the Lords Table by the Eldership; then we should require none to come to examination, but such only as never yet communicated, whom we would endeavour to train up in knowledge, by catechizing, and by Gods blessing, make fit in time, to be partakers of such heavenly mysteries. But now because our Churches, through want of Discipline, are deformed, & all sorts have been sinfully admitted without tryal: Hence it is, that we are forced, even out of tender regard to the souls of old people, and to free our selves from the guilt of their sins, and out of desire to keep the Sacrament from prophanation, to examine even aged people (many of whom we find very ignorant) and all sorts as have been formerly admitted (many of whom we find to be very unworthy) that so we may bring our Congregations into Gospel-order. This we say, _we are absolutely necessitated to do upon conscientious grounds, which we cannot recede from, though we find it very prejudiciall to our selves, and to our Government_. But in the mean time, we desire our respective Congregations to consider, that this is a necessity, that the iniquity of former times hath brought upon us; and that it doth not flow from the principles of our Government, but only from the negligence and sinfulness of Prelatical Governours.

The second thing propounded, is to prove, that he that will come to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, ought first to submit to examination, and tryal, as it hath been formerly explained: For this purpose, we will lay down these three Propositions.

1. _It is the Will of Jesus Christ, that no grosly ignorant, or scandalous person should come to the Sacrament._

2. _That it is the Will of Jesus Christ, that those who are grosly ignorant, or scandalous, should be kept from the Sacrament (if they offer to come) by the Officers of the Church._

3. _That it is the Will of Jesus Christ, that Church-Governours have some sufficient way to find out who are such ignorant and scandalous persons, that they may be kept away._

[Sidenote: 1. Proposition.]

_That it is the Will of Jesus Christ, that no grosly ignorant, or scandalous person, should come to the Sacrament._

1. No _grosly ignorant person_, because the Scripture saith, _that a man must first examine himself, and so eat of that bread, and drink of that cup_; and it likewise saith, that he that will come to the Sacrament must be one that _discerneth the Lords body_; otherwise he _eats and drinks damnation to himself_; and it adds, that we are to do this _in remembrance of Christ_, and thereby to _shew forth the Lords death till he come_. And therefore a man that is grosly ignorant, and is not able to examine himself, nor to discern the Lords body, nor to remember Christ; nor understands what it is to shew forth the Lords death, ought not to come to the Sacrament, no more then a baptized Infant, who is therefore not to partake of this Ordinance, because of his want of knowledge.

2. No _scandalous person_: This is evidenced from the words of the Apostle, _Let a man examine himself, & so let him eat_, &c. from which words we gather two things:

1. That he that would come to the Sacrament, _must examine himself_; which examination ought to be according to the nature of the Ordinance of the Lords Supper, _viz._

1. In general; whether he be worthy to come, or no; (not with a _worthinesse of merit_, but of _Evangelical suitablenesse_.)

2. In particular:

1. Whether he have _true Faith in Christ_, without which, he cannot worthily eat this bread, and drink this cup.

2. Whether he _truly repent for sin, and from sin_. For he that comes in any sin unrepented of, comes unclean, and so pollutes the ordinance.

3. Whether he be [76]_truly united by love to Jesus Christ, and his members_; without which, he cannot enjoy communion with them in that ordinance.

2. That he who upon due examination, can find none of these qualifications, should not presume to come, which appears:

1. By the Apostolical command, _But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat; so_, and _not otherwise_.

2. By the sin which he commits, in _being guilty of the body and blood of Christ_, vers. 27.

3. By the _Danger_ he incurres to himself, in _eating and drinking his own damnation_, vers. 29.

2. From the nature of the Sacrament.

1. It is the _table of the Lord, and the Lords Supper_; and consequently the friends, and not the enemies of Christ, are thereto invited.

2. It is an ordinance, wherein we publiquely profess communion with Christ and his mystical body, & if he that comes, be by sin disjoyned from Christ, he is guilty of a _sacrilegious lye against him and his Church_, whilest he professeth himself to be a _friend_, and is _really an enemy_.

3. It is (according to the nature of all Sacraments,) [77]a sealing Ordinance, as is intimated in those remarkable sacramental phrases, _This is my body, this is my blood_, denoting not only a bare sacramental signification, but also a spiritual obsignation and exhibition of Christs body and blood, to a worthy receiver. Now a seal supposeth a writing to which it is annext, or else it is a meer nullity; and certainly Christ never intended to have his Seal put to a blank or counterfeit writing.

4. It is an ordinance appointed for the nourishment of those who are spiritually alive, Christs body & blood being therein conveyed under the Elements of bread & wine; which they only can eat and drink, [78]who are alive by Faith, and not they that are dead in trespasses & sins.

5. It is the _New Testament in the blood of Christ_, that is, _a confirmation of the New Testament_, and of all the promises and priviledges thereof in the blood of Christ, which belong not at all to wicked men, [79]_Godlinesse having the promises of this life, and that which is to come_.

By all which it appears, that it is the Will of Christ, that no scandalous person should come to the Lords table.

[Sidenote: 2. Proposition.]

_That it is the Will of Jesus Christ, that those who are grosly ignorant, or scandalously wicked, should be kept from the Sacrament, (if they offer to come,) by Church-Officers._

And this is evident:

1. _From the power given to Church-Officers for that purpose._

2. _From the evill consequents that will otherwise ensue._

1. That such a power is given to Church-Officers, appears,

Not onely

From the proportionable practice of Church-Officers under the Old Testament, who kept the charge of the holy things of God, and were appointed [80]to see that none who were unclean in any thing, or uncircumcised in flesh, or in heart, should enter into the Temple, to partake of the holy things of God, and [81]had a power to put difference between holy and unholy, which power was not meerly _doctrinall_ or _declarative_, _but decisive, binding_, and _juridicall_, so far, as that according to their sentence, men were to be admitted, or excluded. That there was a power in the Old Testament to keep men from the Sacrament of the Passeover, for morall wickednesse, _vide Aarons_ rod blossoming, lib. 1. cap. 9, 10, &c.

But also,

From that power of Government, and _key of Discipline_, committed by Jesus Christ, to Church-Officers, under the New Testament. For Christ hath given to them the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, which imply not only a key of doctrine, but of discipline, and that both to _keep out such as Christ would not have received in, and to shut out such as Christ would not have to continue in_; The use of a key being for both these purposes. For shutting out those that should not be continued in, as is granted on all hands from divers Scriptures[82]. And consequently, for _keeping out those that should not be received in_, there being the same reason of both. _For to what purpose should such be received in, as are by Christs command immediately to be cast out again._

2. That divers ill consequences will otherwise ensue, if grosly ignorant, and scandalous persons be not kept away, is plain.