Chapter 4. Officers Of The Church.

Chapter 4. Officers Of The Church.

CHAPTER 4. OFFICERS OF THE CHURCH.

THE church is considered either as it is essential, with respect to its nature and being, or as it is organic, with respect to its order. The constituent causes and parts of the church, as to its essence and being, are its institution, matter, and form, of which we have treated. Its order as it is organic is founded in that communication of power to it from Christ, which was insisted on in the foregoing chapter. The organizing of a church is placing or implanting in it those officers who the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed to act and exercise His authority in it. For the rule and government of the church are the exertion of the authority of Christ in the hands of those to whom it is committed; that is, the officers of it. It is not that all officers are called to rule, but that none are called to rule who are not officers.

The officers of the church in general are of two sorts, "bishops and deacons," Phi 1:1; and their work is distributed into "prophecy and ministry," Rom 12: 6-7.

The bishops or elders are of two sorts: — 1. Those who have authority to teach and administer the sacraments, which is commonly called the power of order; and also of ruling, which is corruptly called a power of jurisdiction; and,

2. Some have only power for rule; of which sort there are some in all the churches in the world.

Those of the first sort are distinguished into pastors and teachers. The distinction between the elders themselves is not like that between elders and deacons, which differ as to the whole kind or nature of the office; but it is only with respect to work and order, which we will treat distinctly.

The first sort of officers in the church are bishops or elders, concerning whom there have been mighty contentions in the recent ages of the church.

The principles which we have proceeded on up to here, discharge us from any especial interest or concern in this controversy. For if there is no church of divine or apostolic constitution, none yet existing in the second or third century, but only a particular congregation, then the foundation of that contest, which is about pre-eminence and power in the same person over many churches, falls to the ground.

Indeed, strife about power, superiority, and jurisdiction over one another, among those who pretend to be ministers of the gospel, is full of scandal.

It started early in the church. It was extinguished by the Lord Christ in his apostles, and rebuked by the apostles in all others, Mat 18:1-4, 23:8-11;

Luke 22:24-26; 1Pet 5:1-5; 2Joh 9-10. And yet, through the pride, ambition, and avarice of men, it has grown to be the stain and shame of the church in most ages. For neither the sense of the authority of Christ forbidding such ambitious designs, nor the proposal of his own example in this particular case, nor the experience of their own insufficiency for the least part of the work of the gospel ministry, have been able to restrain the minds of men from coveting after and contending for a prerogative in church-power over others. For though this ambition, and all its fruits or rewards, are laid under a severe interdict by our Lord Jesus Christ, yet when men (like Achan) saw

"the wedge of gold and the goodly Babylonish garment" that they thought were in power, domination, and wealth, they coveted them and took them, to the great disturbance of the church of God.

If men would but a little seriously consider what there is in that care of souls — even of all those over whom they pretend to have church power, rule, or jurisdiction — and what it means to give an account concerning them before the judgment-seat of Christ, then maybe it would abate their earnestness in contending for the enlargement of their cures.4

The claim of episcopacy, as consisting in a rank of persons distinct from the office of presbyters, is managed with great variety. It is not agreed whether they are distinct in order above them, or only as to a certain degree among those of the same order. It is not determined what constitutes that pretended distinct order, nor what that degree of preeminence in the same order consists in, nor what basis it stands upon. It is not agreed whether this order of bishops has any church-power appropriated to it, so as to be acted singly by themselves alone, without the concurrence of the presbyters; or how far that concurrence is necessary in all acts of church order or power. There are no bounds or limits of the dioceses which they claim the rule in and over, as churches to which they are peculiarly related. These are derived either from divine institution or tradition, or general rules of reason respecting both or either of them, or from the consideration of gifts and abilities, or anything else in which church-order or edification is concerned. Those who plead for diocesan episcopacy will not proceed any further; but insist only that there

is and ought to be a superiority of bishops over presbyters in order or degree. But whether this must be over presbyters in one church only, or in many distinct churches — whether it must be such that it not only utterly keeps them from discharging any of the duties of the pastoral office towards most of those whom they esteem as their flocks, and necessitates them to a rule by unscriptural church officers, laws, and power — they suppose does not belong to their cause. Whereas the weight and moment of it indeed lies in and depends on these things. There are innumerable other uncertainties, differences, and variances about this singular episcopacy, which we are not at present concerned to inquire into, nor will I insist on any of those which have been already mentioned.

Yet, it is necessary to clear the evangelical pastoral office now under consideration, and what has been pleaded before about the non-institution of any churches beyond particular congregations. This office is utterly exclusive of all pretences of the present episcopacy. So I will briefly, as a diversion, add the arguments which undeniably prove that, on the whole,

New Testament bishops and presbyters (or elders), are in every way the same persons, in the same office, and have the same function, without distinction in order or degree — which also, as to the Scripture, the most learned advocates of prelacy 5 begin to grant: —

1. The apostle, describing what ought to be the qualifications of presbyters or elders, gives this reason for it: because a bishop must be so. Tit 1:5-9,

"Ordain elders in every city, if any are blameless," etc., "for a bishop must be blameless." He would prove what sort of man a presbyter ought to be, who is to be ordained so; and he gives this reason for it: "such a bishop ought to be so." He intends the same person and office by presbyter and bishop, or else there is no congruity of speech or consequence of reason in what he asserts. To suppose that the apostle does not intend the same persons and the same office by "presbyters" and "bishops," in the same passage, is to destroy his argument and render the context of his discourse unintelligible. The one who says, "If you make a justice of peace or a constable, he must be magnanimous, liberal, full of clemency and courage, for so a king ought to be," would not be thought to argue very wisely. Yet such is the argument here, if distinct orders and offices were intended by "elders" and "bishops".

2. There were many bishops in one city, in one particular church: Phi 1:1, "To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." It was proved before that the church at Philippi was one particular church or congregation. But to have many bishops in the same church, is absolutely inconsistent with the nature of the episcopacy pleaded for, which consists in the superiority of one over the presbyters of many churches. It will easily be granted that there may be many bishops in the same church, of the same order, equal in power and dignity with respect to their office; but then they are presbyters as well as bishops. I fear there will be no end of this contest, because of the prejudices and interests of some.

But it can neither be expected nor desired that the identity between bishops and presbyters could be more plainly expressed.

3. The apostle, being at Miletus, sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church to come to him; that is, the elders of the church at Ephesus, as undeniably demonstrated elsewhere, Acts 20:17-18. To these elders he says, "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has made you bishops, to feed the church of God," verse 28. If "elders" and "bishops" are not the same persons, having the same office, the same function, the same duties, and the same names, it is impossible, so far as I understand, how it should be expressed. For these elders are those whom the Holy Ghost made bishops; there were many of them in the same church; it was their duty to attend to the flock and to feed the church, which comprise all the duties, the whole function of elders and bishops. These must therefore be the same.

This plain testimony can in no way be evaded by pretences and conjectures, unwritten and uncertain. The only answer to it is, "It was indeed so then, but it was otherwise afterward," which some now resort to. But these elders were either elders only, and not bishops; or bishops only, and not elders — or else the same persons were elders and bishops, as is plainly affirmed in the words. The last is what we plead. If the first is asserted, then there was no bishop then at Ephesus, for these elders had the whole oversight of the flock; if the second is asserted, then were there no elders at all, which is not a good exposition of those words that "Paul called to him the elders of the church."

4. The apostle Peter writes to the "elders" of the churches that they should "feed the flock," ejpiskopou~ntev (episkopountes), "taking the oversight," or exercising the office and function of bishops over it. And that was not as

"lords," but as "examples" of humility, obedience, and holiness to the whole flock, 1Pet 5:1-3. Those on whom it is incumbent to feed the flock and superintend it, as those who in the first place are accountable to Jesus

Christ, are bishops. And they are such that they have no other bishop over them, to whom this charge should be principally committed. But such, according to this apostle, are the elders of the church. Therefore these elders and bishops are the same. And such were the hJgou>menoiv

(hegoumenois), the guides of the church at Jerusalem, whom its members were bound to obey as those who watched for and were to give an account of their souls, Heb 13:17.

5. The substance of these and all other instances or testimonies of the same kind is this: those whose names are the same, equally common and applicable to them all — whose function is the same, whose qualifications and characters are the same, whose duties, account, and reward are the same, concerning whom there is not in one place of Scripture the least mention of inequality, disparity, or preference in office among them — they are essentially, and in every way, the same. It cannot modestly be denied that it is thus with elders and bishops in the Scripture. I acknowledge that where a church is greatly increased, such that many elders are needed for its instruction and rule, decency and order, it requires that one of them presides in the management of all church affairs, to guide and direct the way and manner of it. So the presbyters at Alexandria chose one from among themselves who would have the pre-eminence of a president among them.

Whether the person who is to so preside is directed to do so by first being converted, or first ordained, or on account of age, or by gifts and abilities — whether he continues only for a season, and then another is deputed to the same work, or it is for life — are things indifferent in themselves, to be determined according to the general rules of reason and order, with respect to the edification of the church.

I will never oppose this order, but rather I desire to see it in practice — namely, that particular churches were of such an extent as to necessitate many elders, both teaching and ruling, for their instruction and government.

This is for the better observation of order and decency in the public assemblies; for the fuller representation of the authority committed by Jesus

Christ to the officers of his church; for the occasional instruction of the members in lesser assemblies which, as to some ends, may also be stated;

with due attendance to all other means of edification, such as watching, inspecting, warning, admonishing, exhorting, and the like. And that among these elders, one should be chosen by themselves, with the consent of the church, not into a new order, not into a degree of authority above his brethren, but only to his part of the common work in a peculiar manner, which requires some kind of precedence. By this, no new officer, no new order of officers, no new degree of power or authority, is constituted in the church; only the work and duty of it is cast into such an order as the very light of nature requires.

But there is no intimation in the Scripture of the least imparity or inequality in order, degree, or authority, among officers of the same sort, whether extraordinary or ordinary. The apostles were all equal; so were the evangelists, so were elders or bishops, and so also were deacons. The Scripture knows no more of an archbishop (such as all diocesan bishops are), nor an archdeacon, than it does of an arch-apostle, or an archevangelist, or an arch-prophet. Yet it is evident that in all their assemblies they had one who presided in the manner described before, which seems among the apostles, to have been the prerogative of Peter.

Also, the brethren of the church may be so multiplied that the constant meeting of them all in one place may not be absolutely best for their edification. Even so, it was proved before that on all the solemn occasions of the church to which their consent was necessary, they did of old, and should still, meet in the same place for advice, consultation, and consent.6

This is so fully expressed and exemplified in the two great churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, Acts 15, that it cannot be questioned.

When Paul and Barnabas, sent by the "brethren" or church at Antioch, verses 1-3, had come to Jerusalem, they were received by "the church," as the brethren are called, in distinction from the "apostles and elders," verse

4. So when the apostles and elders assembled to consider the case proposed to them, the whole "multitude" of the church, that is, the brethren, assembled with them, verses 6, 12. Nor were they mute persons, mere auditors and spectators in the assembly, but they concurred both in the debate and determination of the question, insomuch that they are expressly joined with the apostles and elders in the advice given, verses 22, 23. And when Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, the "multitude" to whom the letter of the church at Jerusalem was directed, came together about it, verses

23, 30. Unless this is observed, the primitive church-state is overthrown.

But I will now return from this digression.

____________ The first officer or elder of the church is the pastor. A pastor is the elder who feeds and rules the flock, 1Pet 5:2; that is, who is its teacher and its bishop: Poima>nate, ejpiskopou~ntev (poimanate episkopountes), "Feed, taking the oversight." It is not my present design or work to give a full account of the qualifications required in persons to be called to this office, nor of their duty and work, with the qualities or virtues to be exercised in it.

That would require a large discourse to handle them practically, and it has been done by others. It would be wished that whatever of this kind is expressed in the rule, and which the nature of the office indispensably requires, that it was more exemplified in practice than it is. But some things relating to this officer and his office, that need to be well stated, I will now address.

The name of pastor or shepherd is metaphorical. It is a designation suited to his work, denoting the same office and person as a bishop or elder, spoken of absolutely, without limitation as to either teaching or ruling. And it seems to be used or applied to this office because it is more comprehensive of and instructive in all the duties that belong to it, than any other name, indeed, than all of them put together. For those who are called to the office, it is well worth considering the grounds and reasons for this metaphor, or why the church is called a flock; and why God terms himself the Shepherd of the flock; why the sheep of this flock are committed to Christ, upon which he becomes "the good shepherd that lays down his life for the sheep," and the prince of shepherds; what is the interest of men in participating in this office, and what their duty is upon that. "Hirelings," indeed, "wolves" and "dumb dogs," in many places take it upon themselves to be shepherds of the flock, by whom it is devoured and destroyed, Act

20:18f; 1Pet 5:2-4; Cant. 1:7; Jer 13:17, 23:2; Eze 34:3; Gen 49:24; Psa 23:1; 80:1; John 10:11, 14-16; Heb 13:20; 1Pet 2:25, 5:4.

Therefore, although this name or appellation is taken from and includes in it love, care, tenderness, and watchfulness in all the duties of going before, preserving, feeding, and defending the flock, the sheep and the lambs, the strong, the weak, and the diseased, with accountableness as servants of the chief Shepherd — it was generally disused in the church. And the title

bishops or overseers, guides, presidents, elders, which seem to include more honor and authority, were retained in common use. Though one of them at last, namely, that of bishops (with some elating compositions and adjuncts of power) obtained preeminence. Out of the corruption of these compositions and additions (in archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, and the like), broke forth the cockatrice 7 of the church — that is, the pope.

But this name "pastor" or "shepherd" is appropriated by the Holy Ghost for the principal ministers of Christ in his church, Eph 4:11. And under that name they were promised to the church of old, Jer 3:15. And the work of these pastors is to feed the flock committed to their charge, as it is constantly required of them, Act 20:28; 1Pet 5:2.

There are two parts to pastoral feeding: — 1. Teaching or instruction; 2. Rule or discipline.

All the acts and duties of a shepherd toward his flock may be reduced to these two heads; and both are intended in the term "feeding," 1Chr 11:2,

17:6; Jer 23:2; Mic 5:4, 7:14; Zec 11:7; Act 20:28; Joh 21:15-17; 1Pet 5:2, etc.

This is why the one who is the pastor, is the bishop, the elder, the teacher of the church.

These works of teaching and ruling may be distinct in several officers, namely, teachers and rulers. But to divide them in the same office of pastors, so that some pastors should feed by teaching only, but have no right to rule by virtue of their office, and some should exercise rule only, not esteeming themselves obliged to labor continually in feeding the flock, is almost to overthrow this office of Christ's designation, and to set up two offices in its place, by men's own projection.

So many things have been spoken and written by others at large of the call of men to this office, that I will only insist on, and very briefly, some things which are either of the most important consideration, or have been omitted by others; such as — 1. For the call of any person to this office of a pastor in the church, there are certain qualifications previously required in him, disposing and making him fit for that office. The outward call is an act of the church, as we will show

immediately; but in this is also required an obediential acting of the one who is called. Neither of these can be regular, nor can the church act according to rule and order, nor can the person called act in due obedience, unless there are some previous indications in him of the mind of God.

These design that the person be called by such qualifications as may render him fit and able for the discharge of his office and work. For an ordinary vocation is not a collation of gracious spiritual abilities, suiting and making men fit for the pastoral office. Rather, it is the communication of right and power for the regular use and exercise of gifts and abilities received antecedent to that call, for the edification of the church, in which the office itself consists. And if we would know what these qualifications and endowments are, for the substance of them, we may learn them in their great example and pattern: our Lord Jesus Christ himself. Our Lord Jesus

Christ is the good Shepherd, whose sheep we are, the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, the Chief Shepherd. He designed in the undertaking and exercise of His pastoral office, to give a type and example to all those who are to be called to the same office under him. And if there is not a conformity to him in this, then no man can assure his own conscience, or the church of God, that he is or can be lawfully called to this office.

The qualifications of Christ for, and the gracious qualities of his mind and soul in, the discharge of his pastoral office, may be referred to five heads:

— (1.) That furnishing with spiritual gifts and abilities by the communication of the Holy Ghost to him in an unmeasurable fullness, by which he was fitted for the discharge of his office. This is expressed with respect to his undertaking it, in Isa 11:2-3, 61:1-3; Joh 3.34; Luk

4:14.8 In this he was "anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows," Heb 1:9.

But this unction of the Spirit is, in a certain measure, required in all who are called, or who will be called to the pastoral office, Eph 4:7. I have declared at large in another treatise,9 that there are spiritual powers, gifts, and abilities required for the gospel ministry, and also what they are. And where there are none of those spiritual abilities which are necessary for the edification of the church in the administration of gospel ordinances (as in prayer, preaching, and the like), no outward call or order can constitute any man an evangelical

pastor. As to particular persons, I will not contend as to an absolute nullity in the office by reason of their deficiency in spiritual gifts, unless it is gross, and such that it renders them utterly useless for the edification of the church. I only say that no man can in an orderly way and manner be called or set apart to this office, in whom there are not some indications of God's designation of him to it by His furnishing that man with spiritual gifts of knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and utterance for prayer and preaching, with other ministerial duties, in some competent measure.

(2.) Compassion and love to the flock were gloriously eminent in this "great Shepherd of the sheep." After other evidences of it, he gave them that signal confirmation in laying down his life for them. This testimony of his love, he insists on himself, Joh 10:15. And in this also, his example should lie continually before the eyes of those who are called to the pastoral office. Their entrance should be accompanied with love for the souls of men; and if the discharge of their office is not animated with love for their flocks, then they may be wolves, or hirelings, or thieves, but they are not shepherds. Neither is the glory of the gospel ministry more lost or defaced in anything, or by any means, than by the evidence that is given among most, of an unconformity to Jesus Christ in their love for the flock. Alas! It is scarcely once thought of among most of those who, in various degrees, take up the pastoral office. Where are the fruits of it? What evidence is given of it in any kind? It would be well if some, instead of laying down their lives for them, did not by innumerable ways destroy their souls!

(3.) There is and was in this great Shepherd a continual watchfulness over the whole flock, to keep it, to preserve it, to feed, lead, and cherish it, to purify and cleanse it, until it is presented unspotted to God. He never slumbers nor sleeps; he waters his vineyard every moment; he keeps it night and day so that none may hurt it; he loses nothing of what is committed to him. See Isa 40:11.10 I do not speak distinctly of previous qualifications for an outward call only, but with a mixture of those qualities and duties which are required in the discharge of this office; and in this also, the Lord Christ is to be our example. And to this belong, — [1.] Constant prayer for the flock;

[2.] Diligence in the dispensation of the word with wisdom, as to times, seasons, the state of the flock in general, their light, knowledge, ways, walking, ignorance, temptations, trials, defections, weaknesses of all sorts, growth, and decays, etc.;

[3.] Personal admonition, exhortation, consolation, and instruction, as their particular cases require;

[4.] All with a design to keep them from evil, and to present them without blame before Christ Jesus at the great day.

But these and things of a like nature presenting themselves with some earnestness to my mind, I will at present discharge myself of thoughts about them, hoping for a more convenient place and season to give them a larger treatment. And something further will be spoken of them in the next chapter (Of Pastors).

(4.) Zeal for the glory of God — in his whole ministry and in all its ends — had its continual residence in the holy soul of the great

Shepherd. Hence it is declared in an expression intimating that it was inexpressible: "The zeal of your house has eaten me up," Joh 2:17.

This also must accompany the discharge of the pastoral office, or it will find no acceptance with Him. The lack of it is one of those things which has filled the World with a dead, faithless, fruitless ministry.

(5.) As he was absolutely in himself "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners," so the conformity to him in these things, and that was in some degree of eminence\ above others, is required in those who are called to this office.

2. Again; none can or may take this office upon himself, or discharge its duties (which are peculiarly its own) with authority, except someone who is called and set apart to it according to the mind of Jesus Christ. The continuation of all church order and power, of the regular administration of all sacred ordinances, indeed, of the very being of the church as it is organic, depends on this assertion. Some deny the continuation of the office itself, and of those duties which are peculiar to it, such as the administration of the sacraments; some judge that persons neither called nor set apart to this office may discharge all the duties and the whole work of it; some say that a temporary delegation of power to any by the church is all the warranty necessary for undertaking and discharging this office. Many have

been the contests about these things, occasioned by the ignorance and disorderly affections of some persons. I will briefly represent the truth in this, with the grounds for it, and proceed to the consideration of the call itself, which is so necessary: — (1.) Christ himself, in his own person and by his own authority, was the author of this office. He gave it, appointed it, erected it in the church, by virtue of his sovereign power and authority, Eph 4:11-12;

1Cor 12:28. Just as he gave, appointed, and ordained an extraordinary office of apostleship, so he ordained, appointed, and gave the ordinary office of pastorship or teaching. They both have the same divine origin.

(2.) He appointed this office for continuance, or to abide in the church till the consummation of all things, Eph 4:13, Mat 28:19-20. And therefore he took order by his apostles so that, for the continuation of this office, pastors, elders, or bishops, should be called and ordained for the care and discharge of it in all churches. This was done by them accordingly, Acts 14:22, 23, 20:28, 1Tim 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9 — in which he gave rule to all churches to the end of the world; and he prescribed to them their duty.

(3.) On this office and its discharge he has laid the whole weight of the order, rule, and edification of his church, in his name and by virtue of his authority, Acts 20:28; Col 4:17; 1Tim 3:15; 1Pet, 5:1-4; Rev 2:1-5, etc. A double necessity of the continuation of this office depends on this — first, that which arises from the precept or command of it, which made it necessary to the church on account of the obedience which it owes to Christ; and secondly, from its being the principal ordinary means of all the ends of Christ in and towards his church.

This is why, although he can himself feed his church in the wilderness when it is deprived of all outward instituted means of edification, yet where this office fails through its neglect, nothing but disorder, confusion, and destruction, will ensue from it; no promise of feeding or edification.

(4.) The Lord Christ has given commands to the church for obedience to those who enjoy and exercise this office among them. Now, all these commands are needless and superfluous, nor can any obedience be yielded to the Lord Christ in their observance, unless there is a continuation of this office. The church loses as much in grace and privilege as it loses in commands; for grace in its exercise consists in obedience to the commands of Christ, 1Tim 5:17; Heb 13:7, 17.

(5.) This office is accompanied with power and authority, which none can take or assume to themselves. Whether in spiritual or temporal things, all power and authority which is not either founded in the law of nature, or collated by divine ordination, is usurpation and tyranny

— no man can of himself take either sword. To invade an office which includes power and authority over others, is to disturb all natural, divine, and civil right. That such an authority is included in this office is evident, — [1.] From the names ascribed to those in whom it is vested; such as pastors, bishops, elders, rulers, all of them requiring it.

[2.] From the work prescribed to them, which is feeding by rule and teaching.

[3.] From the execution of church-power in discipline, or the exercise of the keys of the kingdom of heaven committed to them.

[4.] From the commands given for obedience to them, which respect authority.

[5.] From their appointment to be the means and instruments of exerting the authority of Christ in the church, which can be done in no other way.

(6.) Christ has appointed a standing rule of the calling of men to this office, as we will see immediately; but if men may enter upon it and discharge it without any such call, then that rule, with the prescribed way of the call, is altogether in vain. And there can be no greater affront to the authority of Christ in his church, than to act in it in neglect of or in opposition to the rule that he has appointed for the exercise of power in it.

(7.) There is an accountable trust committed to those who undertake this office. The whole flock, the ministry itself, the truths of the gospel, as to their preservation, all are committed to them, Col 4:17; 1Tim

6:20; 2Tim 2:2, 16, 23; Acts 20:28; 1Pet 5:1-4; Heb 13:17, "those who must give account." Nothing can be more wicked or foolish than for a man to intrude himself into a trust which is not committed to him.

They are branded as profligately wicked who attempt any such thing among men; it cannot be done without falsification; and how will he be esteemed who intrudes himself into the highest trust that any creature is capable of in the name of Christ, and takes it upon himself to give an account of its discharge at the Last Day, without any divine call or warrant?

(8.) There are, for the discharge of this office, especial promises granted and annexed, of present assistance and future eternal rewards,

Mat 28:19-20; 1Pet 5:4. Either these promises belong to those who take this office upon themselves without any call, or they do not. If they do not, then they have neither any especial assistance in their work, nor can they expect any reward from their labors. If it is said that they have an interest in them, then the worst of men may obtain the benefit of divine promises, without any divine designation.

(9.) The general force of the rule, Heb 5:4,11 includes a prohibition of undertaking any sacred office without a divine call. And so the instances of such prohibitions under the Old Testament, may be pleaded in this case —the duties annexed to an office, as in the case of Uzziah invading the priesthood, 2Chr 26:16-21; or taking a ministerial office without call or mission, as Jer 27:9, 10, 14, 15, having respect to the order of God's institutions.

(10.) Whoever, therefore, takes upon himself the pastoral office without a lawful outward call, takes to himself power and authority without any divine warrant, which is a foundation of all disorder and confusion. He interests himself in an accountable trust that is in no way committed to him; he has no promise of resistance in or reward for his work, but engages in that which is destructive to all churchorder, and consequently of the very being of the church itself.

(11.) Yet there are three things that are to be annexed to this assertion, by way of limitation; such as —

[1.] Many things performed by virtue of office, in a way of authority, may be performed by others not called to office, in a way of charity. Such are the moral duties of exhorting, admonishing, comforting, instructing, and praying with and for one another.

[2.] Spiritual gifts may be exercised for the edification of others without office-power, where order and opportunity require it. But the constant exercise of spiritual gifts in preaching, with a refusal to undertake a ministerial office, or without the design to do so upon a lawful call, cannot be approved.

[3.] The rules proposed concern only ordinary cases, and the ordinary state of the church; extraordinary cases are accompanied with a warrant in themselves for extraordinary actings and duties.

(12.) The call of persons to the pastoral office is an act and duty of the church. It is not an act of the political magistrate, not of the pope, not of any single prelate, but of the whole church, to whom the Lord Christ has committed the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And indeed, although there are great differences surrounding the nature and manner of the call of men to this office, yet none who understands anything of these things, can deny that it is an act and duty of the church, which the church alone is empowered by Christ to put forth and exert.

But this will more fully appear in the consideration of the nature and manner of this call of men to the pastoral office, and the actions of the church in this. The call of persons to the pastoral office in the church consists of two parts, — first, Election; secondly, Ordination, as it is commonly called, or sacred separation by fasting and prayer. As to the former, four things must be inquired into: —

I. What is previous to it, or preparatory for it; II. What it consists in; III. Its necessity, or the demonstration of its truth and institution;

IV. What influence it has in the communication of pastoral officepower to a pastor so chosen.

I. What is previous to it is the fitness of the person for his office and work, who is to be chosen. It can never be the duty of the church to call or choose an unfit, unqualified, unprepared person to this office. No pretended

necessity, no outward motives, can enable or warrant it to do so; nor by any outward act, whatever the rule or solemnity of it is, can it communicate ministerial authority to persons who are utterly unqualified for and incapable of the discharge of the pastoral office according to the rule of the Scripture. And this has been one great means of debasing the ministry and of almost ruining the church itself. It is either by the neglect of those who suppose themselves entrusted with the whole power of ordination, or impositions on them by secular power and patrons of livings, as they are called, with the stated regulation of their proceedings in this by a defective law, from which there has not been a due regard for the antecedent preparatory qualifications of those who are called to the ministry.

There are two ways the fitness of anyone may be made known and judged:

— 1. By evidence given of the qualifications in him, as mentioned before.

The church is not to call or choose anyone to office who is not known to them, whose frame of spirit and walking they have not had some experience of; not a novice, or one recently come to them. He must be one who by his ways and walking has obtained a good report, even among those who are outside, so far as he is known (unless they are enemies or scoffers); and one who has in some good measure evidenced his faith, love, and obedience to Jesus Christ in the church.

This is the chief trust that the Lord Christ has committed to his churches; if they are negligent in this, or if at all venture to impose upon him an officer in His house, without satisfaction of his fitness upon due inquiry, then it is a great dishonor to him and a provocation of him. In this principally churches are made the overseers of their own purity and edification. To deny them an ability for a right judgment in this, or a liberty for the use and exercise of it, is error and tyranny. But that flock which Christ purchased and purified with his own blood is thought by some to be little better than a herd of brute beasts. Where there is a defect of this personal knowledge from lack of opportunity, it may be supplied by testimonies of unquestionable authority.

2. By a trial of his gifts for edification. These are those spiritual endowments which the Lord Christ grants, and the Holy Spirit works in the minds of men, for this very end: that the church may be profited

by them, 1Cor 12:7-11. And we must at present take it for granted that every true church of Christ, that is a church in its matter and form, is able to judge in some competent measure what gifts of men are suited to their own edification. Yet in making a judgment of this, one directive means is the advice of other elders and churches. They are obliged to make use of this by virtue of the communion of churches, and to avoid offense in their walk in that communion.

II. As to the nature of this election, call, or choice of a person known, tried, and judged fitly qualified for the pastoral office, it is an act of the whole church; that is, of the fraternity with their elders, if they have any. For a pastor may be chosen for a church which has other teachers, elders, or officers already instated in it. In this case, their concurrence in the choice intended is necessary by way of common suffrage, not of authority or office-power. For election is not an act of authority, but of liberty and power, in which the whole church in the fraternity is equal. If there are no officers stated in the church before, as it was with the churches in primitive times, upon the first ordination of elders among them, this election belongs to the fraternity.

III. Therefore, what we now have to prove is this: that it is the mind and will of Jesus Christ that fit persons should be called to the pastoral office (or any other office in the church) by the election and choice of the church itself to which they are called, antecedent to a sacred, solemn separation to their respective offices. For under the Old Testament there were three ways by which men were called to office in the church: —

1. They were called extraordinarily and immediately by the nomination and designation of God himself. So Aaron was called to the priesthood; and others afterward, such as Samuel, were called to be prophets.

2. By a law of carnal generation: so all the priests of the posterity of Aaron succeeded into the office of the priesthood without any other call.

3. By the choice of the people, which was the call of all the ordinary elders and rulers of the church: Deu 1:13, "Give to yourselves." 12 It was required of the people that in the first place they should make a judgment on their qualifications for the office to which they were

called. Men known to them as wise, understanding, righteous, and walking in the fear of God, they were to look out, and then present them to Moses for their separation to office; which is election. It is true that in Exo 18:25, it is said that Moses chose the elders; but it is frequent in the Scripture that where anything is done by many, where one is chief, that is ascribed indifferently either to the many or to the chief director. So is it said, "Israel sent messengers," Num 21:21.

Moses, speaking of the same thing, says, "I sent messengers," Deu 2:26. So too, 1Chr 19:19, "They made peace with David and became his servants;" which is in 2Sam 10:19, "They made peace with Israel and served them." See also 2Kng 11:12, with 2Chr 23:11; also 1Chr

16:1, with 2Sam 6:17; and the same may be observed in other places.

This is why the people chose these elders under the conduct and guidance of Moses. This directs us to the right interpretation of Acts

14:23, which we will speak of immediately.

The first of these ways was repeated in the foundation of the evangelical church. Christ himself was called to his office by the Father, through the unction of the Spirit, Isa 61:1-3, Heb 5:5. And he himself called the apostles and evangelists, in whom that call ceased. The second ordinary way, by the privilege of natural generation of the stock of the priests, was utterly abolished. The third way only remained for the ordinary continuation of the church — namely, by the choice and election of the church itself, with solemn separation and dedication by extraordinary or ordinary officers.

The first instance of the choice of a church-officer had a mixture in it of the first and last ways, in the case of Matthias. As he was able to be a church officer; he had the choice and consent of the church. As he was to be an apostle or an extraordinary officer, there was an immediate divine disposition of him into his office; — the latter, to give him apostolic authority; the former, to make him a precedent of the future actions of the church in the call of their officers.

I say, this being the first example and pattern of the calling of any person to office in the Christian church-state, in which there was an interposition of the ordinary actions of men, is established as a rule and precedent — not to be changed, altered, or departed from, in any age of the church whatever. It is so as to what was of common right and equity, which belonged to the whole church. And I cannot but wonder how men ever dared reject and

disannul this divine example and rule. It will not avail them to say that it is only a matter of fact, and not a precept or institution that is recorded; for —

1. It is a fact left on record in the holy Scripture for our instruction and direction.

2. It is an example of the apostles and the whole church proposed to us; which, in all things not otherwise determined, has the force of an institution.

3. If there were no more in it than this — that we have a matter of common right, determined and applied by the wisdom of the apostles and the entire church of believers at that time in the world — it would be an impiety to depart from it, except in the case of the utmost necessity.

Whereas, what is recorded here was in the call of an apostle; it strengthens the argument which we hence plead. For if in the extraordinary call of an apostle, it was the mind of Christ that the fraternity or multitude should have the liberty of their suffrage, then how much more is it certainly his mind, that in the ordinary call of their own particular officers in whom, under Him, the concern is their own only, this right should be continued to them!

The order of the proceeding of the church in this is distinctly declared; for, — 1. The number in the church at that time — that is, of the men — was about a hundred and twenty, Acts 1:15.

2. They were assembled all together in one place, such that Peter could stand in their midst, verse 15.

3. Peter, in the name of the rest of the apostles, declares to them the necessity of choosing one to be substituted in place of Judas, verses 16-22.

4. He limits the choice of the person to the especial qualification of being a fit witness of the resurrection of Christ, or to those who constantly accompanied him with themselves from the baptism of John; that is, from his being baptized by him, upon which he began his public ministry.

5. Among these, they were left at their liberty to nominate any two who were to be left to the lot for a determination which of them God designed for the office.

6. Upon this, the whole multitude "appointed two;" that is, the "men and brethren" to whom Peter spoke, did so, verse 16.

7. The same persons, to promote the work, "prayed and cast their lots," verses 24-26.

8. Matthias was, by the common suffrage of the whole church, reckoned among the number of the apostles.

I am not saying that these things were done by the disciples in distinction from Peter and the rest of the apostles, but in conjunction with them. Peter did nothing without them, nor did they do anything without him.

The exceptions of Bellarmine and others against this testimony — that it was a grant and a condescension in Peter, not a declaration of the right of the church, that it was an extraordinary case, and that the determination of the whole was by lot — have no validity. The pretended concession of Peter is a figment; the case was so extraordinary as to include in it all ordinary cases, as to the substance of them. And although the ultimate determination of the individual person (which was necessary to his apostleship) was immediately divine, by lot, yet here all that is desired is granted to the people: in their choosing and appointing two, in their praying, in their casting lots, in their voluntary approbatory suffrage.

This blessed example is given to us by the wisdom of the apostles; indeed, by the Spirit of God in them, being eminently suited to the nature of the thing itself, as we will see immediately. And it is compliant with all other directions and apostolic examples in a like case. It is therefore to be followed, rather than the practice of some degenerate churches which, to cover the turpitude of their acting in deserting this example and rule, make use of a mock show and pretense of that which really they deny, reject, and oppose.

The second example we have of the practice of the apostles in this case, by which the preceding rule is confirmed, is given to us in Acts 6, in the election of the deacons. Had there ensued, after the choice of Matthias, an instance of a diverse practice, by an exclusion of the consent of the people, the former might have been evaded as that which was absolutely extraordinary, and thus not obliging to the church. But this was the very next instance of the call of any church-officer, and it was the first

appointment of any ordinary officers in the Christian church. Having occurred in the very year of Christ's ascension, there is no mention of any ordinary elders ordained in that church, as distinct from the apostles. For all the apostles still abiding there for most of this time, who made only some occasional excursions to other places, were able to take care of the rule of the church and the preaching of the word. Not long afterward, they are indeed mentioned as those who were well-known in the church, Act 11:30; but the first instance of the call of ordinary teaching elders or pastors is not recorded. That of deacons is recorded because of the occasion of it; and for our purpose, we may observe the following concerning it:

1. The institution of the office itself was of apostolic authority, and that fullness of church-power with which they were furnished by Jesus Christ.

2. They did not exert that authority except upon reasons that were satisfactory to the church, which they declare in Act 6:2.

3. The action is ascribed to the twelve in general, without naming any person who spoke for the rest. This renders the pretence of the Romanists altogether vain, taken from the former passage concerning Matthias, where

Peter is said to have spoken to the disciples. Upon this supposition, the Romanists would have the actions of the church which ensued from it, to have been by Peter's concession and grant, and not of their own right. For the rest of the apostles were as much interested and concerned in what was then spoken by Peter as they were at this time, when the whole is ascribed to the twelve.

4. That the church was greatly multiplied at that time, on account of the conversion of three thousand to the faith recorded in the foregoing chapter

(2:41). It is indeed probable that many, even most of them, were returned to their own habitations; for the next year there were churches in all Judea,

Galilee, and Samaria, chap. 9:31. And Peter went about "throughout all quarters," to visit the saints who dwelt in them, verse 32, of whose conversion we read nothing but that which fell out at Jerusalem at Pentecost; but they were a great multitude, chap. 6:1-2.

5. This whole multitude of the church — that is, the "brethren," verse 3, — assembled in one place, being congregated by the apostles (verse 2), who would not ordain anything in which they were concerned, without the consent of the multitude.

6. They judged the whole matter proposed to them, and gave their approval of it before they entered upon the practice of it. Verse 5, "The saying pleased the whole multitude."

7. The qualifications of the persons to be chosen for the intended office, are declared by the apostles: Verse 3, "Of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom."

8. The multitude were to judge based on these qualities; and so they judged absolutely, the fitness of any for this office.

9. The choice is wholly committed and left to them by the apostles, as that which of right belonged to them, "Search out among you;" which they made use of, choosing them for the office by their common suffrage, verse

10. Having thus chosen them, they presented them to the apostles as their chosen officers, to be set apart by them for the exercise of their office by prayer and imposition of hands, Verse 6.

It is impossible to have a more evident, convincing instance and example of the free choice of ecclesiastical officers by the multitude or fraternity of the church, than is given to us in this. Nor was there any ground or reason why this order and process should be observed, why the apostles would not themselves nominate and appoint persons whom they saw and knew were fit to receive this office, if not that it was the right and liberty of the people, according to the mind of Christ, to choose their own officers, which the apostles would not abridge nor infringe.

"So it was then," 13 says Chrysostom on the passage, "and so it ought to be now." But the usage then began to decline. It would be well if some considered how the apostles treated that multitude of the people at that time, which is so much despised now, and which is utterly excluded from all concern in church affairs, but what consists in servile subjection. But they have in this pattern and precedent for the future ordering of calling fit persons to office in the church, their interest, power, and privilege secured to them, such that they can never be justly deprived of it. And if there was nothing in this except a record of the wisdom of the apostles in managing church affairs, it is marvellous to me that any who would be thought to succeed them in any part of their trust and office, would dare to depart from the example set before them by the Holy Ghost in them, preferring their

own ways and inventions above it. I will ever judge that there is more safety in a strict adherence to this apostolic practice and example, than in compliance with all the canons of councils or churches afterward. The only objection usually insisted on — that is, by Bellarmine and those who follow him — is that "this being the election of deacons to manage the alms of the church, that is, something of their temporals, nothing can be concluded from that as to the right or way of calling bishops, pastors, or elders, who are to take care of the souls of the people. They may, indeed, be able to judge the fitness of those who are to be entrusted with their purses, or what they are willing to give out of them; but it does not then follow that they are able to judge the fitness of those who are to be their spiritual pastors, nor to have the choice of them."

Nothing can be weaker than this pretense or evasion; for — (1.) The question is concerning the calling of persons to office in the church in general, of which we have here a rule to which no exception is in any way entered.

(2.) This cannot be fairly pleaded by those who appoint deacons to preach, baptize, and officiate publicly in all holy things, except the administration of the eucharist.

(3.) If the people are fit and able to judge who are of "honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom," which is required of them here, they are able to judge who are fit to be their pastors.

(4.) The argument holds strongly on the other side; namely, that if it is right and equal, if it is of divine appointment and apostolic practice, that the people should choose those who were to collect and distribute their charitable benevolence because of their concern in it, much more are they to enjoy the same liberty, right, and privilege in the choice of their pastors, to whom they commit the care of their souls, and submit themselves to their authority in the Lord.

Thirdly. Accordingly they used the same liberty in the choice of their elders: Acts 14:23, "So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting" 14 — that, say Erasmus, Vatablus, Beza, and all our old English translations, is appointing, ordaining, creating elders by election, or the suffrage of the disciples, having prayed with fasting. The whole order of the sacred separation of qualified persons to the office of the

ministry — that is, to be bishops, elders, or pastors — is clearly represented here; for — 1. They were chosen by the people, the apostles who were present, namely,

Paul and Barnabas, presiding in the action, directing it and confirming it by their consent with them.

2. A time of prayer and fasting was appointed for the action or discharge of the duty of the church in this.

3. When they were so chosen, the apostles present solemnly prayed, by which their ordination was completed. Some would have the word mentioned here, ceirotoni>a (cheirotonia) – which is to vote by a show of hands — to instead be ceiroqesi>a (cheirothesia), an authoritative imposition of hands, in which this ordination consisted. They say there is a hysterology in the words 15 — that is, they feign a disorder in them to serve their own hypothesis. They suppose that their complete ordination was effected before there was any prayer with fasting; for by imposition of hands in their judgment, ordination is completed. So say Bellarmine and Lapide on the passage, with those who follow them. But first to pervert the true meaning of the Word, and then to countenance twisting it by assigning a disorder to the words of the whole sentence — such a disorder that it makes, in their judgment, a false representation of the factual matter related

— is a way of interpreting Scripture that will serve any turn.

4. This was done in every church (or in every congregation as Tyndale 16 renders the word); namely, in all the particular congregations that were gathered in those parts. For that collection and constitution always preceded the election and ordination of their officers, as is plain in this place, and also in Tit 1:5.17 It is so far from the truth, claiming that the existence of churches depends on the successive ordination of their officers, for the church, essentially considered, is always antecedent to their being and call.

But because it is some men's interest to entangle things that are plain and clear enough in themselves, I will consider the objection to this rendition of the words. The whole of it lies against the meaning, use, and application of ceirotonh>santev (cheirotonesantes, Act 14.23). Now, although we do not argue here merely from the meaning of the word, but from the representation of the factual matter made in the context, I will observe some things that are sufficient for the removal of that objection; such as —

(1.) The native signification of ceirotone>w (cheirotoneo), by virtue of its composition, is to "lift up" or "stretch out the hands," or a hand;18 nor is it ever used in any other signification.

(2.) The first constant use of it in political or civil things, and consequently ecclesiastical, is to choose, elect, design, or make any person an officer, magistrate, or ruler, by suffrage or common consent of those concerned. This was usually done by making bare the hand and arm with lifting it up. 19

One must be a great stranger to these things not to know that among the Greeks, especially the Athenians (from whom the use of this word is borrowed or taken), ceirotoni>a was an act "of the whole assembly" of the people in the choice of their officers and magistrates. Ceirotone>w is "by common suffrage to decree and determine anything, law, or order;" and when applied to persons, it signifies their choice and designation to office.

So it is used in the first sense by Demosthenes, Orat. De Corona, od{' — "The people confirmed my sayings by their suffrage;" and in the other, Php

1 — ''Neither the senate nor the people choosing him to his office." 20 So the passive verb is used, "to be created by suffrages." 21

3. The word is used only once more in the New Testament, 2Cor 8:19, where it plainly signifies election of a person to employment: "He was chosen by the churches to travel with us." 22

4. It is acknowledged that after this was the common use of the word, it was applied to signify the thing itself, and not the manner of doing it. Hence it is sometimes used for obtaining or collating authority, or dignity, or magistracy, in any manner of way, though not by election: "to appoint, to create." But by an abusive application of the word, it expressed the thing itself that was intended, without regard to its signification and proper use.

Why such a use of it should be allowed here no reason can be given; for in all other places on such occasions, the apostles admitted and directed the churches to use their liberty in their choice. So in Acts 15:22, "The apostles and elders, with the whole church, sent chosen men of their own company to Antioch," those whom they chose by common suffrage for that end; again, verse 25. "Whomever you approve, I will send," 1Cor 16:3: the church chose them, the apostle sent them. "Who was chosen by the churches to travel with us," 2Cor 8:19. "Search out among you," Acts 6:3.

If on all these and like occasions, the apostles guided and directed the people in their right and use of their liberty, as to the election of persons to offices and employments when the churches themselves were concerned, then what reason is there to depart from the proper and usual signification of the word in this place, denoting nothing but what was the common practice of the apostles on like occasions?

5. That which alone is objected to this by Bellarmine and others who follow him, and borrow their whole [argument] in this case from him — namely, that ceirotonh>santev, grammatically agreeing with and regulated by Paul and Barnabas, denotes their act, and not any act of the people — is of no force; for — (1.) Paul and Barnabas presided in the whole action, helping, ordering, and disposing of the people in the discharge of their duty, as is fitting to be done by some on all like occasions; and therefore it is truly said of them that "they appointed elders by the suffrage of the people."

(2.) I have shown instances before out of the Scripture, that when a thing is done by the people, it is usual to ascribe it to whoever was chief in it, as elsewhere the same thing is ascribed to the whole people.

The same authors contend that the liberty of choosing their own officers or elders, such as it was, was granted to them or permitted by way of condescension for a season, and not made use of by virtue of any right they had in it. But this permission is a mere imagination. It was either according to the mind of Christ that the churches should choose their own elders, or it was not. If it was not, the apostles would not have permitted it; and if it was, they ought to ordain it and practice according to it, as they did. Nor is such a constant apostolic practice proposed for the direction of the church in all ages, to be ascribed to such an origin as condescension and permission. Yes, it is evident that it arose from the most fundamental principles of the constitution and nature of the gospel churches, and it was only a regular pursuit and practice of them; for, —

First, the calling of bishops, pastors, or elders, is an act of the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. But these keys are originally and properly given to the whole church, and to its elders only ministerially so as to exercise them. Pastors are eyes to the church. But God and nature, in the first place, intend light for the whole body, the whole person. It is granted to

this end both subjectively and finally; but actually it is peculiarly seated in the eye. So it is in the grant of church-power: it is given to the whole church, though it is to be exercised only by its elders. It is the known judgment of Austin 23 and a multitude of divines who followed him, that the grant of the keys to Peter was in the person, and as the representative, of the whole confessing church. So he fully expresses himself:

"Peter the apostle bore, in a general figure, the 'person' of the church.

For as to what belonged to himself, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, and of special more abounding grace, one and the chief apostle. But when it was said to him, 'I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' etc., He signified the whole church," etc.

Again:

"The church, which is founded in Christ, received from Him, in (the person of) Peter, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which is the power of binding and loosing." 24

To whomever these keys are granted, according to their distinct interests in that grant, they have the right and power to call their bishops, pastors, or elders; for it consists in the exercise of that trust and power. But this grant is made to the whole church; and as there are several sorts of persons in a church that is already constituted — some are elders, others are of the people only — this right resides in them, and is acted by them according to their respective capacities, as limited by the light of nature and divine institution. This means that their election should belong to the body of the people, and their authoritative designation or ordination should belong to the elders. When in any place the supreme magistrate is a member or part of the church, he also has his peculiar right in this. That the power of the keys is thus granted originally and fundamentally to the whole church, is undeniably confirmed by two arguments: —

1. The church itself is the wife, the spouse, the bride, the queen of the Husband and King of the church, Christ Jesus, Psa 45:9; Joh 3:29; Rev

21:9, 22:17; Mat 25:1, 5-6. Otherwise Christ has none; nor does the church have any other husband. Now, to whom should the keys of the house be committed if not to the bride? There is, I confess, another who claims the keys to be his own. But with that he makes himself the head and husband of the church, proclaiming himself not only to be an adulterer with that harlot

which he calls the church, but also a tyrant, in that pretending to be her husband, he will not trust her with the keys of his house — unlike Christ.

Whereas by canon law, every bishop is the husband or spouse of his diocesan church, they for the most part commit an open rape upon the people, taking them without their consent. At least they are not chosen by the people, which is yet essential for a lawful marriage. But the bride of Christ does not otherwise come to be so, except by the voluntary choice of Him to be her husband. For the officers or rulers of the church belong to it as hers, 1Cor 3:2122, and as stewards in the house, chap. 4:1; the servants of the church for Jesus' sake, 2Cor 4:5. If the Lord Christ has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is, of "his own house," Heb 3:6; if the church itself is the spouse of Christ, the mother of the family, the bride, the Lamb's wife, Rev 21:9; and if all the officers of the church are but stewards and servants in the house and to the family; if the Lord Christ makes a grant of these keys to any, upon which the disposal of all things in this house and family depends — then the question is whether He has originally granted them to His holy spouse, to dispose of according to her judgment and duty, or granted them to any servants in the house, to dispose of her and all her concerns at their pleasure?

2. The power of the keys as to binding and loosing, and consequently as to all other acts proceeding from there, is expressly granted to the whole church: Mat 18:17-18, "If he neglects to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he neglects to hear the church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican. Truly I say to you, Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." What church is intended here, we have proved before, and that the church is entrusted with the power of binding and loosing. And what the role is of the body of the people in this, the apostle declares in 1Cor 5:4-5; 2Cor 2:6. 25

Secondly, this right, exemplified in apostolic practice, is comprehended in the commands given to the church or body of the people with respect to teachers and rulers of all sorts. For in a multitude of places, the charge is given to them that they should discern and try false prophets, flee from them, test the spirits or those who pretend to spiritual gifts or offices, reject those who preach false doctrine, give testimony for those who are to be in office, with sundry other things of a like nature. All of these things presuppose, or they cannot be discharged without, a right in the elders to

choose the worthy and reject the unworthy, as Cyprian says.26 See Mat 7:15-20; Joh 5:39; Gal 2:9; 1The 5:21; 1Joh 4:1; 2Joh 1.10-11.

What is objected to this — the unfitness and disability of the people to make a right judgment concerning those who are to be their pastors and rulers — labors with a threefold weakness:

1. It reflects dishonor on the wisdom of Christ, in commanding them to observe and discharge duties which they are in no way fit for.

2. It proceeds on a supposition of that degenerate state of churches in their members, as to their light, knowledge, wisdom, and holiness, which they have for the most part fallen into. This must not be allowed to have any force of argument in it, when it is to be lamented and ought to be reformed.

3. It supposes that there is no supply of assistance provided for the people in the discharge of their duty, to guide and direct them in it. But it is otherwise, seeing that the elders of the church in which any such election is made, and those of other churches in communion with that church, by the common advice and declaration of their judgment, are to be assistants to them.

Thirdly, The church is a voluntary society. Persons who are otherwise absolutely free as to all the rules, laws, and ends of such a society, coalesce into it of their own free will and choice. This is the origin of all churches, as it has been declared, "They first gave themselves to the Lord, and to us by the will of God," 2Cor 8:5.

In this, no one has more power or authority than another, either by prescription, tradition, or succession, but they are all equal. The church is gathered into this society merely by the authority of Christ. And where it is so collected, it has neither right, power, privilege, rules, nor bonds as such, except what are given, prescribed, and limited by the institution and laws of Christ. Moreover, it abides and continues on the same grounds and principles as those upon which it was collected — namely, the will of its members, subjected to the commands of Christ. This is as necessary to its present continuance in all its members, as it was in its first planting. It is not like the political societies of the world, which being first established by force or consent, bring a necessity upon all who are born in them and under them, to comply with their rule and laws. For men may, and in many cases should, submit to the disposal of temporal things in a way that may not be

convenient for them, which they do not judge to be good, and which in many things are not to their advantage. And yet this may be just and equal because the special good which everyone would aim at, not being absolutely good, may be outbalanced by a general good; nor may it be alterable except by the prejudice of what is good in particular.

But it is not so with reference to spiritual and eternal things. No man can by any previous law, be concluded as to his interest in such things. Nor is there any general good to be attained by the loss of any of them. None, therefore, can coalesce in such a society, or adhere to it, or in any way belong to it, except by his own free choice and consent. And it is inquired, how is it possible that any rule, authority, power; or office should arise or be erected in such a society? We speak of that which is ordinary. For the One by whom this church-state is erected and appointed, may and did appoint in it and over it, extraordinary officers for a season. And we suppose that as He has, by his divine authority, instituted and appointed that such societies shall exist, he has granted privileges and powers to them, which are proper and sufficient for this end. We also suppose that He has given laws and rules, by the observance of which these ordinary officers may be made partakers of those privileges and powers, with a right to exercise them.

On these suppositions, in a society absolutely voluntary, among those who in their conjunction into it by their own consent are in every way equal, there can be but three things required for the actual constitution of rule and office among them: — First is that there be some among them who are fitted and qualified for the discharge of such an office in a peculiar manner, above others. This is previous to all government, and beyond what is purely natural and necessary. 28 So it was in the world, so it was in the church:

"Presidents, who have been approved by the elders, have acquired this honor not by price, but by testimony." — Tertullian. 29 This preparation and furnishing of some persons with those abilities and fit qualifications for this office and work in the church, the Lord Christ has taken on himself; and He does and will effect it in all generations.

Without this, there can be neither office, nor rule, nor order in the church.

Secondly, Whereas a new relation is to be made or created between a pastor, bishop, or elder, and the church, which did not exists before

between them (a bishop and a church, a pastor and a flock, are relata), it must be introduced at the same time by the mutual voluntary acts of one another, or of each part. For one of the relata can, as such, have no being or existence without the other. Now, this cannot be other than by the consent and voluntary subjection of the church to persons who are so antecedently qualified for office, according to the law and will of Christ. For it cannot be done by the delegation of power and authority from any other superior or equal, to those who receive it. Neither the nature of this power, which is incapable of such a delegation, nor the relation to Christ of all those who are pastors of the church, will allow an interposition of authority by way of a delegation of power from themselves, to other men. That would make them their ministers, and not Christ's. Nor is it consistent with the nature of such a voluntary society. This, therefore, can in no way be done except by free choice, election, consent, or approval. It cannot, I say, be so regularly.30 How far an irregularity in this may vitiate the whole call of a minister, we do not now inquire into.

Now, this choice or election does not communicate a power from those who choose, to those who are chosen, as though such a power as that to which they are called, were formally inherent in the choosers antecedent to such a choice. For this would make those who are chosen their ministers only; they would act all things in their name, and by virtue of the authority derived from them. Rather, it is only an instrumental, ministerial means to instate them in that power and authority which is given to such officers by the constitution and laws of Christ, whose ministers they then are. These gifts, offices, and officers being granted by Christ to the churches, Eph 4:11-12, wherever there is a church called according to His mind, in and by their choice of these officers, they submit themselves to them in the Lord, according to all the powers and duties with which they are entrusted and to which they are called by Him.

Thirdly, It is required that persons so chosen, so submitted to, also be solemnly separated, dedicated to, and confirmed in their office, by fasting and prayer. This is consonant with the light of nature, which directs to a solemnity in the susception of public officers, from which the coronation of kings proceeds. This does not give them their title,

but solemnly proclaims it, which on many accounts is to the advantage of government. So too, it is prescribed for the church in this case by especial institution. But I will speak further of this immediately.

This order of calling men to the pastoral office is namely, by their previous qualifications for the ministry, by which a general designation of the persons to be called is made by Christ himself. The orderly choice or election of them in a voluntary subjection to them in the Lord, according to the mind of Christ, is made by the church itself.

This is followed with solemn ordination, or setting apart to the office and its discharge, by prayer with fasting. All this is in obedience to the commands and institution of Christ, to which the communication of office-power and privilege, is annexed by law-constitution. This is suited to the light of reason in all such cases, the nature of gospel societies in order or churches, the ends of the ministry, the power committed by Christ to the church, and confirmed by apostolic practice and example.

We rest in this without any further dispute, or limiting the formal cause of the communication of office-power to any one act or duty of the church, or of its bishops or elders. All three of the things mentioned are essential to it.

And when any of them are utterly neglected — where they are not found either formally or virtually — there is no lawful, regular call to the ministry, according to the mind of Christ.

This order was observed inviolate for a long time in the ancient church; and its footsteps may be traced through all ages of the church. But it first gradually decayed; and then it was perverted and corrupted, until it issued

(as in the Roman church) in a pageant and show, instead of the reality of the things themselves. For the trial and approval of spiritual endowments, previously necessary to the call of anyone, was left to the pedantic examination of the bishop's domestics, who themselves knew nothing about them. The election and approval of the people was turned into a mock show in the sight of God and men, a deacon calling out that if any had objections against the one who was to be ordained, they should come forth and speak, to which another cries out of a corner, by compact, "He is learned and worthy." Ordination was esteemed to consist only in the outward sign of an imposition of hands, with some other ceremonies annexed to it. By these,

without any other consideration, there ensued a flux of power from the ordainers to the ordained!

But from the beginning, it was not so. A few instances of the right of the people, and the exercise of it in the choice of their own pastors, may be touched on in our passage: — CLEMENS, Epist. ad Corinth., affirms that the apostles themselves appointed approved persons to the office of the ministry "by (or with) the consent (or choice) of the whole church." 31 Suneudokei~n (euleudokein) is

"to enact by common consent." This makes it somewhat strange that a learned man would think that the right of the people in election is excluded in this very place by Clemens, from what is assigned to the apostles in ordination.

IGNATIUS, writing to the fraternity of the church, — "It becomes you, as a church of God, to choose or (ordain) a bishop." 32

TERTULLIAN, "The elders came to their honor (or office) by the testimony of the people;" that is, by their suffrage in their election.33

ORIGEN, in the close of his last book against Celsus, discourses expressly about the calling and constitution of churches or cities of God. Speaking of the elders and rulers of them, he affirms that they are ejklego>menoi

(eklegomenoi), "chosen to their office" by the churches which they rule.

CYPRIAN. The testimony given by in various places to this right of the people, especially in Epist. 67, written to the elders and people of some churches in Spain, is so well known, so frequently urged and excepted against, to so little purpose, that it is in no way needed to insist on it again. I will only observe a few things concerning and out of that epistle; such as,

— 1. It was not a simple epistle about his own more ordinary occasions, but a determination upon a weighty question, made by a synod of bishops or elders, in whose name (as well as that of Cyprian) it was written and sent to the churches who craved their advice.

2. He not only asserts the right of the people to choose worthy persons to be their bishops, and to reject those who are unworthy, but he also industriously proves it to be their right by divine institution and appointment.

3. He declares it to be the sin of the people, if they neglect the use and exercise of their right and power in rejecting and withdrawing themselves from the communion of unworthy pastors, and choosing others in their place.

4. He affirms that this was the practice not only of the churches of Africa, but of those in most of the other provinces of the empire. Some passages in his discourse, in which all these things are asserted, I will transcribe in the order in which they lie in the epistle: —

"For this cause the people, obedient to the commands of our Lord and fearing God, ought to separate themselves from a wicked bishop, nor mix themselves with the worship of a sacrilegious priest. For they principally have the power of choosing the worthy priests and rejecting the unworthy, which comes from divine authority (or appointment)," 34

He proves this from the Old and New Testaments. Nothing can be said that more fully represents the truth we plead for. He assigns to the people a right and power to separate from unworthy pastors, to reject or depose them, as granted to them by divine authority. This power of election in the people, he proves from the apostolic practice insisted on before: "According to the divine commands, the same course was observed in the Acts of the Apostles;" of which he gives instances in the election of Matthias, Acts 1, and of the deacons, chapter 6. 35

And afterward, speaking of ordination "by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood of the church," 36 he says, "According to which divine tradition and apostolical practice, this custom is to be preserved and kept among us also, as it is through almost all the provinces." 37

Those who are not moved by Cyprian's authority, I think yet have reason to believe him as a matter of fact as to what was done everywhere, or almost everywhere, in his own days. And they may take time to answer his reasons when they can, which comprise the substance of all that we plead in this case.

But the testimonies in following ages given to this right and power of the people in choosing their own church-officers, bishops and others, recorded in the decrees of councils, the writings of the learned men in those councils,

the rescripts of popes,38 and constitutions of emperors, are so fully and faithfully collected by Blondellus 39 in the third part of his apology for the judgment of Jerome about episcopacy, that nothing can be added to his diligence. Nor is there any need for further confirmation of the truth in this behalf. To deny this right, is the same as denying that the sun gives light at noonday.

Bellarmine and others who follow him, and borrow their conceits from him, make a pretense that this liberty of the people in choosing their own bishops and pastors, was granted to them at first by way of indulgence or connivance. But being abused by them, and turned into disorder, it was gradually taken from them. That pretense resulted in the shameful mocking of God and man that is still in use in the Roman church, when at the ordination of a bishop or priest, one deacon makes a demand, "Is the person to be ordained approved by the people?" And another answers out of a corner, "The people approve him." Bellarmine's pretense has been so confuted by protestant writers of all sorts, that it is needless to insist on them any longer.

Indeed, the concessions that are made — that this ancient practice of the church in the people's choosing their own officers, as to its right, is by various degrees transferred to popes, patrons, and bishops, with a representation in mere pageantry of the people's liberty to make objections against those who are to be ordained — are as fair a concession of the gradual apostasy of churches from their original order and constitution, as could be desired.

This power and right which we assign to the people, is not to act only in a subsequent consent to one who is already ordained, in accepting him to be their bishop or pastor. How far that may salve the defect and disorder of the omission of prior election, and so preserve the essence of the ministerial call, I do not now inquire into. But what we plead for is the power and right of election, to be exercised prior to the solemn ordination or setting apart of anyone to the pastoral office, which is communicative of office-power in its own kind to the person chosen.

This is part of that contest which for many ages filled most countries of Europe with broils and disorders; nor is there yet an end to it. But in this present discourse, we are not in the least concerned with these things. For our inquiry is, What state and order of church-affairs is declared and

represented to us in the Scripture? And in this there is not the least intimation of those things from which this controversy arose, and on which it depends. Secular endowments, jurisdictions, investiture, rights of presentation, and the like, with respect to the evangelical pastoral office and its exercise in any place — which are the subjects of these contests — are foreign to all things that are directed in the Scriptures concerning them; nor can it be reduced to anything that belongs to them. This is why, whether this

"jus patronatus" 40 is consistent with gospel institutions; whether it may be continued with respect to lands, tithes, and benefices; or how it may be reconciled with the right of the people in the choice of their own ecclesiastical officers, from the different acts, objects, and ends required for the one and the other — are not things of our present consideration.

And we affirm that this is agreeable to natural reason and equity, to the nature of churches in their institution and ends, to all authority and officepower in the church necessary for its edification, with the security of the consciences of the officers themselves, and the preservation of due respect and obedience to them, and constituted by the institution of Christ himself in his apostles, and in the practice of the primitive church. This is why the utter despoiling of the church, of the disciples, of those gathered in churchsocieties by His authority and command, of this right and liberty, may be esteemed a sacrilege of a higher nature than many other things which are reproached as criminal under that label.

And if any still further appear to justify this deprivation of the right laid claim to, and the exclusion of the people from their ancient possession, with sobriety of argument and reason, the whole cause may yet be further debated from principles of natural light and equity, from maxims of law and policy, from the necessity of the ends of church-order and power, from the moral impossibility of any other way of conveying ecclesiastical officepower, as well as from evangelical institution and the practice of the first churches.

It may be objected, "I know that the restoration of this liberty to the people will overthrow that jus patronatus, or right of presenting livings and preferments, which is established by law in this nation. And so, under a pretense of restoring to the people their right in common, it will destroy other men's undoubted rights in their own enclosures.

IV. But this election of the church does not actually and immediately instate the person chosen, into the office to which he is chosen; nor does it give an actual right to its exercise. It is moreover required that he be solemnly set apart to his office in and by the church, with fasting and prayer. That there should be some particular prayer in the dedication of anyone to the office of the ministry, is a notion that could never be obliterated in the minds of men concerned in these things, nor cast out of their practice. We do not now inquire what sort of prayers there have been among many. But there has been less regard to the other duty, namely, that these prayers should be accompanied with fasting; yet this also is necessary by virtue of apostolic example, Acts 14:23.

The conduct of this work belongs to the elders or officers of the church in which anyone is to be so ordained. It belonged to extraordinary officers while they continued in the church; and upon the cessation of their office, it devolved on the ordinary stated officers of the church. This is so, I say, in case there is any such officer previously fixed in the church to which any one is to be ordained. And in case there are no fixed officers, the assistance of pastors or elders of other churches may and ought to be desired for the conduct and regulation of the duty.

It is needless to inquire what authoritative influence this ordination has in communicating the office or office-power. For ordination is acknowledged to be indispensably necessary, and to belong essentially, to the call to office.

For when various duties, such as these of election and ordination, are required for the same end by virtue of divine institution, it is not for me to determine what is the peculiar efficacy of the one or the other, seeing that one of them without the other has no efficacy at all.

To this is added, as an external adjunct, the imposition of hands — significant of the persons so called to office in and for the church. For it will be proved with difficulty that the use of this ceremony was designed for continuance, after a cessation of the communication of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost. It was the sign of that — an outward means in extraordinary officers. Yet we freely grant it to the ordinary officers of the church, provided that there is no apprehension of its being the sole authoritative conveyance of a successive "flux" of office-power, which is destructive of the whole nature of the institution.41

This may at present suffice as to the call of fit persons to the pastoral office; and consequently, to any other office in the church. The following things are essentially necessary to it, so that authority and the right to feed the church, and to rule in it in the name of Christ, as an officer of his house, may be given to anyone thereby, by virtue of His law and the charter granted by Him to the church itself.

The first is that, prior to any actings of the church towards such a person with respect to an office, he be furnished by the Lord Christ himself with graces, and gifts, and abilities, for the discharge of the office to which he is to be called. This divine designation of the person to be called rests on the kingly office and care of Christ towards his church. Where this is wholly lacking, it is not in the power of any church under heaven, by virtue of any outward order or act, to communicate pastoral or ministerial power to any person whatsoever.

Secondly, there is to be an exploration or trial of those gifts and abilities as to their accommodation for the edification of that church to which any person is to be ordained a pastor or minister. But although the right of judging in this belongs to and resides in the church itself

(for who else is able to judge for them, or is entrusted so to do?), yet is it their wisdom and duty to desire the assistance and guidance of those who are approved in the discharge of their office in other churches.

Thirdly, the first act of power committed to the church by Jesus Christ, for the constitution of ordinary officers in it, is the election of a person who is qualified and tried for his office, which we have now vindicated.

Fourthly, there is required for this the solemn ordination, inauguration, dedication, or setting apart of the person so chosen, by the presbytery of the church (the council of elders), with fasting and prayer and the outward sign of the imposition of hands.

This is that order which the rule of the Scripture, the example of the first churches, and the nature of the things themselves, direct us to. And although I will not say that a defect in any of these, especially if it is from unavoidable hindrances, disannuls the call of a person to the pastoral office, yet I must say that where they are not all duly attended to, the institution of Christ is neglected, and the order of the church is infringed.

This is why — The plea of the communication of all authority for office, and of the office itself, solely by a flux of power from the first ordainers, through the hands of their pretended successors in all ages, under all the innumerable miscarriages to which they are subject, and have actually fallen into, without any respect to the consent or call of the churches, by rules, laws, and orders that are foreign to the Scripture, is contrary to the whole nature of evangelical churches, and all the ends of their institution, as will be manifested if it is needed.

↑ Back to top