Part 12 (1/2)

3. These governments thus set in the Church, as rulers therein, are set therein by G.o.d himself; G.o.d hath set some in the Church, _first, apostles--governments--G.o.d hath set, put, made, const.i.tuted_, &c., (as the word imports,) _in the Church_. What hath G.o.d set in the Church?

viz. apostles and--governments, as well as apostles themselves. The verb, _hath set_, equally relates to all the sorts of officers enumerated. And is not that officer IA the Church of divine right, which G.o.d himself, by his own act and authority, sets therein? Then doubtless these governments are of divine right.

4. Finally, these governments set in the Church under the New Testament as governors therein, and that by G.o.d himself, are distinct from not only all governing officers without the Church, (as hath been showed,) but also from all other governing officers within the church. For here the apostles make a notable enumeration of the several sorts of church officers, both extraordinary and ordinary, viz. eight in all. Five of these being extraordinary, and to continue but for a season, for the more effectual spreading and propagating of the gospel of Christ at first, and planting of Christian churches, viz. apostles, prophets, powers, gifts of healings, kinds of tongues: three of these being ordinary, and to be perpetuated in the Church, as of continual use and necessity therein, viz. teachers, governments, [i.e. ruling elders,] and helps, [i.e. deacons, who are to help and relieve the poor and afflicted.] This is the enumeration. It is not contended, that it is absolutely and completely perfect, for that some officers seem to be omitted and left out, which elsewhere are reckoned up, Eph. iv. 11; Rom.

xii. 7, 8. Evangelists are omitted in the list of extraordinary officers, and pastors are left out of the roll of the ordinary officers; and yet some conceive that pastors and teachers point not out two distinct sorts of officers, but rather two distinct acts of the same officers; and if this will hold, then pastors are sufficiently comprised under the word teachers; yea, some think that both evangelists and pastors are comprehended under the word teacher.[55] But, however, be that as it will, these two things are evident, 1. That this enumeration (though evangelists and pastors be left out) is the fullest and completest enumeration of church officers which in any place is to be found throughout all the New Testament. 2. That though we should grant this defect in the enumeration, yet this is no way prejudicial to the present argument, that governments here mentioned are ruling officers in the Church, distinct from all other church officers that have rule; for they are plainly and distinctly recited as distinct kinds of officers, distinct from apostles, from prophets, from teachers, from all here mentioned. And thus interpreters[56] commonly expound this place, taking governments for a distinct kind of church officer from all the rest here enumerated.

Now to sum up all that hath been said for the proof of the a.s.sumption; it is evident, 1. That the church here spoken of is the Church of Christ now under the New Testament. 2. That the governments here mentioned, are officers set in this church, (not out of the church,) as rulers governing therein. 3. That these governments set as rulers or governors in this church, are set there not by man, but by G.o.d himself; _G.o.d hath set in the Church--governments_. 4. And, finally, That these governments thus set in the Church, are distinct, not only from all governors out of the Church, but also from all governing officers within the Church. And if all this laid together will not clearly evince the divine right of the ruling elder, what will? Hence we may strongly conclude,

_Conclusion_. Therefore these governments in 1 Cor. xii. 28, are the ruling elders we inquire after, and that of divine right.

Now against the urging of 1 Cor. xii. 28, for the proof of the divine right of the ruling elders, divers exceptions are made, which are to be answered before we pa.s.s to the third argument.

_Except_. 1. The allegation of this place is too weak to prove the thing in question. For will any man that knoweth what it is to reason, reason from the general to the particular and special affirmatively? or will ever any man of common sense be persuaded that this consequence is good: There were governors in the primitive church mentioned by the Apostles--therefore they were lay governors? Surely I think not.[57]

_Ans_. This exception hath a confident flourish of words, but they are but words. It may be replied, 1. By way of concession, that to argue indeed from a general to a special, is no solid reasoning; as, This is a kingdom, therefore it is England; this is a city, therefore it is London; the apostle mentions government in the primitive Church, therefore they are ruling elders: this were an absurd kind of reasoning.

2. By way of negation. Our reasoning from this text for the ruling elder, is not from the general to a special affirmatively--there are governments in the Church, therefore ruling elders: but this is our arguing--these governments here mentioned in 1 Cor. xii. 28, are a special kind of governing officers, set of G.o.d in the Church of Christ now under the New Testament, and distinct from all other church officers, whether extraordinary or ordinary: and therefore they are the ruling elders which we seek after, and that by divine right. So that we argue from the enumeration of several kinds of church officers affirmatively: here is an enumeration or roll of divers kinds of church officers of divine right; governments are one kind in the roll, distinct from the rest; therefore governments are of divine right, consequently ruling elders; for none but they can be these governments, as hath been proved in the a.s.sumption. If the apostle had here mentioned governments only, and none other kind of officers with them, there had been some color for this exception, and some probability that the apostle had meant governors in general and not in special: but when the apostle sets himself to enumerate so many special kinds of officers, apostles, prophets, teachers, &c., how far from reason is it to think that in the midst of all these specials, governments only should be a general. 3. As for Dr. Field's scoffing term of lay governors or lay elders, which he seems in scorn to give to ruling elders; it seems to be grounded upon that groundless distinction of the ministry and people into clergy and laity; which is justly rejected by sound orthodox writers[58], as not only without but against the warrant of Scripture, clergy being nowhere appropriated to the ministry only, but commonly attributed to the whole church, 1 Pet. v. 2, 3. The Scripture term given to these officers is _ruling elders_, 1 Tim. v. 17; and so far as such, (though they be elected from among the people,) they are ecclesiastical officers.

_Except_. 2. But it is not said here governors in the concrete, as apostles, prophets, teachers are mentioned concretely, which are distinct officers: but it is said governments, in the abstract, to note faculties, not persons. The text may be thus resolved: The apostle first sets down three distinct orders, apostles, prophets, and teachers: then he reckons up those common gifts of the Holy Ghost (and among the rest the gift of governing) which were common to all three. So that we need not here make distinct orders in the Church, but only distinct gifts which might be in one man.[59]

_Ans_. 1. As the apostles, prophets, and teachers are here set down concretely, and not abstractly, and are confessed to be three distinct orders enumerated: so all the other five, though set down abstractly, are (by a metonymy of the adjunct for the subject) to be understood concretely, helps for helpers; governments for governors, &c.; otherwise we shall here charge the apostle with a needless impertinent tautology in this chapter, for he had formerly spoken of these gifts abstractly, ver. 8-10, as being _all given to profit_ the Church _withal_, ver. 7; but here, ver. 28-30, he speaks of these gifts as they are in several distinct subjects, for the benefit of the organical body the church; else what saith he here, more than he said before? 2. That all these eight here enumerated, one as well as another, do denote, not distinct offices or acts of the same officer, but distinct officers, having distinct administrations, and distinct gifts for those administrations, is evident, partly by the apostle's form of enumeration, _first, secondly, thirdly, afterwards, then_ or _furthermore_: if he had intended only three sorts of officers, he would have stopped at thirdly, but he goes on in an enumerating way, to show us those that follow are distinct officers as well as those that go before; partly, by the apostle's recapitulation, ver. 29, 30, which plainly points out different officers, persons not gifts, besides those three: _Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers?_ (and here he stops not, but reckons on) _are all workers of miracles? have all the gifts of healing?_ &c. If it should be replied, But he doth not add, Are all helps? are all governments? therefore these are not to be accounted distinct officers from the rest; otherwise why should the apostle thus have omitted them, had there been any such distinct officers in the Church in his time? It may be replied, These two officers, helps and governments, are omitted in the recapitulation, ver. 29, 30, not that the Church then had no such officers, for why then should they have been distinctly mentioned in the enumeration of church officers, ver. 28? But either, 1. For that helps and governments were more inferior ordinary officers, and not furnished with such extraordinary, or at least, eminent gifts, as the other had, (which they abused greatly to pride, contention, schism, and contempt of one another, the evils which the apostle here labors so much to cure,) and so there was no such danger that these helps and governments should run into the same distempers that the other did. Or, 2. For that he would instruct these helps and governments to be content with their own stations and offices, (without strife and emulation,) though they be neither apostles, nor prophets, nor teachers, nor any of the other enumerated, which were so ambitiously coveted after; and the last verse seems much to favor this consideration, _but covet earnestly the best gifts_, viz. which made most for edification, not for ostentation.[60]

_Except_. 3. But helps here are placed before governments, therefore it is not likely that governments were the ruling elders; Helps, i.e.

deacons, which is an inferior office, seeming here to be preferred before them.[61]

_Ans_. This follows not. Priority of order is not always an argument of priority of worth, dignity, or authority. Scripture doth not always observe exactness of order, to put that first which is of most excellency: sometimes the pastor is put before the teacher, as Ephes.

iv. 11, sometimes the teacher before the pastor, as Rom. xii. 7, 8.

Peter is first named of all the apostles, both in Matt. x. 2, and in Acts i. 13, but we shall hardly grant the Papist's arguing thence to be solid--Peter is first named, therefore he is the chief and head of all the apostles; no more can we account this any good consequence--helps are set before governments, therefore governments are officers inferior to helps, consequently they cannot be ruling elders: this were bad logic.

_Except_. 4. But the word governments is general, and may signify either Christian magistrates, or ecclesiastical officers, as archbishops, bishops, or whatsoever other by lawful authority are appointed in the Church.[62] And some of the semi-Erastians of our times, by governments understand the Christian magistracy, holding the Christian magistracy to be an ecclesiastical administration.[63]

_Ans_. 1. Governments, i.e. governors, (though in itself and singly mentioned, it be a general, yet) here being enumerated among so many specials, is special, and notes the special kind of ruling elders, as hath been proved. 2. As for archbishops and diocesan bishops, they are notoriously known to be, as such, no officers set in the Church by G.o.d, but merely by the invention of man; therefore they have no part nor lot in this business, nor can here be meant. And if by others, by lawful authority appointed in the Church, they mean those officers that G.o.d appoints well: if those whom man sets there without G.o.d, as chancellors, commissioners, &c., such have as much power of government in the Church, as they are such, as archbishops and bishops, viz. just none at all by any divine warrant. 3. Nor can the civil Christian magistrate here be implied. 1. Partly, because this is quite beside the whole intent and scope of this chapter, treating merely upon spiritual church-matters, not at all of secular civil matters, viz: of spiritual gifts for the Church's profit, ver. 1 to 12; of the Church herself as one organical body, ver. 12 to 28; and of the officers which G.o.d hath set in this organical body, ver. 28, &c. Now here to crowd in the Christian magistrate, which is a mere political governor, into the midst of these spiritual matters, and into the roll of these merely ecclesiastical officers, how absurd is it! 2. Partly, because the magistrate, as such, is not set of G.o.d in the Church either as a church officer, or as a church member, (as hath been demonstrated formerly, chap. IX.;) and though he become a Christian, that adds nothing to the authority of his magistracy, being the privilege only of his person, not of his office.

3. Partly, because when this was written to the Corinthians, the apostle writes of such governments as had at that time their present actual being and existence in the Church: and neither then, nor divers hundreds of years after, were there any magistrates Christian, as hath been evidenced, chap. IX.[64]

_Except_. 5. Teachers are here expressed, but pastors omitted; and therefore well might governors be mentioned instead of pastors.[65]

_Answ_. 1. Then, according to his judgment, pastors were a distinct kind of officers from teachers; otherwise the naming of teachers would have sufficiently implied pastors, without the addition of the word governors, one act or function of the office being put for the whole office. But prelates did not love to hear of such a distinction.

However, it is the judgment of many others no less learned or pious than they, that in the same congregation where there are several ministers, he that excels in exposition of scriptures, teaching sound doctrine, and convincing gainsayers, may be designed hereunto, and called a teacher or doctor: he that excels in application, and designed thereunto, may be called a pastor; but where there is only one minister in one particular congregation, he is to perform, as far as he is able, the whole work of the ministry. 2. If pastors are to be understood by this term governors, as contradistinct from teachers, formerly enumerated in the text; doth not this seem to devolve the matter of government so wholly upon the pastor, as that the teacher hath nothing to do with it? and hereby both pastor and teacher are wronged at once: the teacher, while power of governing is denied him, which belongs to him as well as to the pastor; the teacher being a minister of the word, hath power of administration of the sacraments and discipline, as well as the pastor: the pastor, while he consequently is deprived of the necessary and comfortable a.s.sistance of the teacher in point of government. Therefore the pastor cannot here be intended by governors. 3. Bilson himself was not very confident of this gloss, and therefore he immediately adds, ”If this content you not, I then deny they are all ecclesiastical functions that are there specified,” &c. What then doth he make them? viz. he makes divers of them, and governments among the rest, to be but several gifts, whereof one and the same officer might be capable. And a little after he ingenuously confesses he cannot tell what these governors were, saying, ”I could easily presume, I cannot easily prove what they were. The manner and order of those wonderful gifts of' G.o.d's Spirit, after so many hundreds may be conjectured, cannot be demonstrated--governors they were, or rather governments, (for so the apostle speaketh,) i.e. gifts of wisdom, discretion, and judgment, to direct and govern the whole church, and every particular member thereof, in the manifold dangers and distresses which those days did not want. Governors also they might be called, that were appointed in every congregation to hear and appease the private strifes and quarrels that grew betwixt man and man, lest the Christians, to the shame of themselves, and slander of the gospel, should pursue each other for things of this life before the magistrates, who then were infidels; of these St. Paul speaketh, 1 Cor. vi. 1-7.

These governors and moderators of their brethren's quarrels and contentions I find, others I find not in the apostle's writings, but such as withal were watchmen and feeders of the flock.” Thus inconsistent he is with himself: one while these governors must be pastors; another while arbitrators or daysmen about private differences; another while gifts, not officers; another while he cannot easily prove what they were. But they have been proved to be ruling elders, and the proof still stands good, notwithstanding all his or others' exceptions.

_Argum_. III. The third argument for the divine right of the mere ruling elder shall be drawn from 1 Tim. v. 17, ”Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honor, especially they that labor in the word and doctrine.” From which words we may thus argue for the divine right of the ruling elder:

_Major_. Whatsoever officers in the Church are, according to the word of Christ, styled elders, invested with rule in the Church, approved of G.o.d in their rule, and yet distinct from all them that labor in the word and doctrine; they are the ruling elders in the Church which we inquire after, and that by divine right.

This proposition seems clear and unquestionable. For, 1. If there be a certain kind of church officer which Christ in his word calls an elder, 2. Declares to have rule in his church, 3. Approves in this his rule, and, 4. Distinguished from him that labors in the word and doctrine; this is plainly the ruling elder, and here is evidently the divine right of his office. Such a divine approbation of his office, testified in Scripture, implies no less than a divine inst.i.tution thereof.

_Minor_. But the officers mentioned in 1 Tim. v. 17, are, according to the word of Christ, styled elders, invested with rule in the church: approved of G.o.d in their rule, and yet distinct from all them that labor in the word and doctrine. This a.s.sumption may be thus evidenced by parts.

1. The officers mentioned here in this word of Christ, are styled elders. This Greek word translated _elder_, is used in the New Testament chiefly in three several senses: 1. For men of ancient time, not now living; and so it is opposed to modern: Tradition of elders, Matt. xv.

2, i.e. of them of old time, see Matt. v. 21. 2. For elders in age now living; so it is opposed to younger, 1 Tim. v. 1; 1 Pet. v. 5. 3. For elders in function or office, opposed to private men not in office, as Acts xiv. 23; and in this last sense it is to be taken in this place, an office of ruling being here ascribed to these elders. They are called elders, say some, because for the most part they were chosen out of the elder sort of men: others better, from the maturity of knowledge, wisdom, gifts, gravity, piety, &c., which ought to be in them. This name elder seems to have rule and authority written upon it, when applied to any church officer; and it is by the Septuagint often ascribed to rulers political, _elders in the gate_, Judges viii. 14; Ruth iv. 2, 3; 1 Sam.

v. 3; 1 Chron. xi. 3. In this place (as it is well noted by some[66]) the word elders is a genus, a general attribute, agreeing both to them that rule well, and also to those that labor in the word and doctrine: the one sort only rule; the other sort both rule and preach; but both sorts are elders.

2. The officers here mentioned are not only styled elders, but invested with rule in the church. For it is plain both by the text and context duly considered, and the apostle's scope in writing of this epistle, 1 Tim. iii. 15, that these elders are officers in the Church. And that in the church they are vested with rule appears not only by their name of elders, which when applied to officers, imports rule, authority, &c., as hath been said; but also by the adjunct participle _that rule_, or _ruling_, annexed to elders--_Let the elders ruling well_. So that here we have not only the office, the thing, but the very name of ruling elders. The word seems to be a military term, for captains and commanders in an army, _foremost slanders_, (as the word imports,) that lead on and command all the rest that follow them: hence metaphorically used for the foremost-standers, rulers, governors in the church. It noteth not only those that go before others by doctrine, or good example: but that govern and rule others by authority. For, 1. Thus the word is used in Scripture: ”One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity,” 1 Tim. iii. 4: where it plainly notes an authoritative ruling. Again, ”If a man know not how to rule his own house,” 1 Tim. iii. 5. And again, ”Ruling their children and their own houses well,” 1 Tim. iii. 12. And can any man be so absurd as to think that a master of a family hath not a proper authoritative rule over his own children and family, but rules them only by doctrine and example?