Chapter 7. Of Ruling Elders.
CHAPTER 7. OF RULING ELDERS.
1. THE rule and government of the church, or the execution of the authority of Christ in it, is in the hand of the elders in office. They have rule, and none have rule in the church but elders. As such, rule belongs to them. The apostles, by virtue of their especial office, were entrusted with all churchpower; but therefore they were elders also, 1Pet 5:1; 2John 1; 3Joh 1 (see
Act 21:18; 1Tim 5:17). Some of them, on other accounts, are called "bishops, pastors, teachers, ministers, guides;" but what belongs to any of them in point of rule, or what interest they have in it, belongs to them as elders, and not otherwise, Act 20:17, 28.
So under the Old Testament, where the word does not signify a difference in age, but is used in a moral sense, elders are the same as rulers or governors, whether in civil or ecclesiastical offices; especially, the rulers of the church were constantly called its elders. And the use of the word, with the abuse of the power or office intended by it, is traduced to signify men in authority
("seniores, aldermanni") in all places.
2. Church-power, acted in its rule, is called "The keys of the kingdom of heaven," by an expression derived from the keys that were a sign of officepower in the families of kings, Isa 22:22; and it is used by our Savior himself to denote the communication of church-power to others, which is absolutely and universally vested in Himself under the name of "The Key of David," Rev 3:7; Mat 16:19.
3. These keys are usually referred to two headings — namely, one of order, and the other of jurisdiction.
4. The "key of order" intends the spiritual right, power, and authority of bishops or pastors to preach the word, to administer the sacraments, and doctrinally to bind and loose the consciences of men.
5. "Jurisdiction" designs the rule, government, or discipline of the church; though it was never so called or esteemed in the Scripture or in the primitive church, until the whole nature of church rule or discipline was depraved and changed. Therefore, neither the word "jurisdiction," nor anything signified by it, nor applied to it, ought to be admitted to any consideration in the things that belong to the church or its rule. For "jurisdiction" expresses and directs us to that corrupt administration of ecclesiastical things, according to the canon law, by which all church rule
and order is destroyed. I therefore at once dismiss all disputes about it, as things that are foreign to the gospel and to Christian religion — I mean as to the institutions of Christ in his church. The civil jurisdiction of supreme magistrates, about the externals of religion, is another consideration. But it is freely granted that these keys include the twofold distinct powers of teaching and rule, of doctrine and discipline.
6. In the church of England (as in that of Rome) there is a peculiar distribution made of these keys. (1) To some — that is, to one special sort or order of men — they are both granted, both the key of order and of jurisdiction; these are diocesan bishops with some others, under various canonical restrictions and limitations, such as deans and archdeacons. (2) To some is granted the key of order only, without the least interest in jurisdiction or rule by virtue of their office; these are the parochial ministers, or mere presbyters, without any additional title or power, such as commissary surrogates or the like. And (3) to a third sort there is granted the key of rule or jurisdiction almost plenipotent, who have no share in the key of order — that is, they were never ordained, separated, or dedicated to any office in the church; such are the chancellors, etc.
7. These chancellors are the only lay elders that I know anywhere in any church — that is, persons entrusted with the rule of the church and the disposition of its censures — who are not ordained to any church-office, but in all other things continue in the order of the laity or the people. All church-rulers by institution are elders; to be an elder of the church and a ruler in it is all one thing. Therefore, these persons being rulers in the church, and yet thus continuing in the order of the people, are lay elders. I wonder how so many of the church came so seriously to oppose them, seeing that this order of men is owned by none but themselves. The truth is, and it must be acknowledged, that there is no known church in the world (I mean, whose order is known to us, and is of any public consideration) which does not dispose the rule of the church, in part, into the hands of persons who do not have the power of authoritative preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments committed to them. For even those who place the whole external rule of the church in the civil magistrate, do it as they judge him to be an officer of the church, entrusted by Christ with church-power. And those who deny that any such officers — usually called
"ruling elders" in the reformed churches — are of divine institution, still
maintain that it is very necessary that there be such officers in the church, either appointed by the magistrate, or chosen by the people; and that is done with cogent arguments. See Imp. Sum. Pot. circ. sacra.
8. But this mentioned distribution of church-power is unscriptural; nor are there any footsteps of it in antiquity. It is so as to the two latter branches of it. That anyone should have the power of order to preach the word, to administer the seals, to bind and loose the conscience doctrinally, or to ministerially bind and loose in the court of conscience — and yet by the virtue of that same office which gives him this power, not to have a right and power of rule or discipline, nor to bind and loose in the court of the church — is that which neither the Scripture nor any example of the primitive church gives countenance to. And because by this means those persons are abridged and deprived of the power granted to them by the institution and law of Christ (as it is with all elders duly called to their office), so in the third branch (see 6 above) there is a grant of church-power to those who, by the law of Christ, are excluded from any interest in it. The enormity of this constitution I will not at present insist upon.
But inquiry must be made as to what the Scripture directs us to in this. And — 1. There is a work and duty of rule in the church, distinct from the work and duty of pastoral feeding by the preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments. All agree in this, unless it is Erastus and those who follow him, who seem to oppose it. But their arguments do not lie against rule in general, which would be brutish, but only a rule by external jurisdiction in the elders of the church. So they grant the general assertion of the necessity of rule, for who can deny it? But they contend about the subject of power required for it. Few of that opinion deny a spiritual rule by virtue of mutual voluntary confederation for the preservation of peace, purity, and order in the church; at least that is not what they oppose. For to deny all rule and discipline in the church, with all administration of censures in the exercise of a spiritual power internally inherent in the church, is to deny that the church is a spiritual political society, to overthrow its nature, and to frustrate its institution, in direct opposition to the Scripture. That there is such a rule in the Christian church, see Act 20:28; Rom 12:8; 1Cor 12:28;
1Tim 3:5, 5:17; Heb 13:7, 17; Rev 2:3.
2. Different and distinct gifts are required for the discharge of these distinct works and duties. This belongs to the harmony of the dispensation of the gospel. Gifts are bestowed corresponding to all prescribed duties. Hence, they are the first foundation of all power, work, and duty in the church: "To every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ;" Eph 4:7 — that is, an ability for duty according to the measure in which Christ is pleased to grant it. "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; ... but the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit with," 1Cor 12:4, 7-10. "Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us," etc., Rom 12:6-8.
"As every man has received the gift, so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God," 1Pet 4:10.
Hence they are called "The powers of the world to come," Heb 6:4, 5. This is why differing gifts are the first foundation of differing offices and duties.
3. That differing gifts are required for the different works of pastoral teaching on the one hand, and practical rule on the other, is evident —
(1.) From the light of reason, and the nature of the works themselves being so different; and, (2.) From experience. Some men are fitted by gifts for the dispensation of the word and doctrine in a way of pastoral feeding, who have no useful ability for the work of rule; and some are fitted for rule who have no gifts for the discharge of the pastoral work in preaching.
Indeed, it is very seldom that both these sorts of gifts concur in any eminence in the same person, or without some notable defect. Those who are ready to assume all things to themselves are, for the most part, fit for nothing at all. And hence it is that most of those who esteem both these works to belong principally to themselves, almost totally decline the one (that of pastoral preaching), under a pretense of attending to the other (that is, rule), in a very preposterous way. For they omit what is incomparably the greater and more worthy, for that which is less and inferior to it, even if it were attended to in a due manner.
But this, and various other things of like nature, proceed from the corruption of that traditional notion which is true in itself and continued among all sorts of Christians — namely, that there ought to be some on
whom the rule of the church is incumbent in a special manner, and whose principal work is to attend to it. For the great depravations of all churchgovernment proceed from the corruption and abuse of this notion, which in itself and in its origin, is true and sacred. In this also, "Malum habitat in alieno fundo" — there is no corruption in church order or rule that is not corruptly derived from or set up as an image of some divine institution.
4. The work of rule, as distinct from teaching, is in general to watch over the walking or conversation of the members of the church with authority — exhorting, comforting, admonishing reproving, encouraging, directing of them, as occasion requires. The gifts necessary for this are diligence, wisdom, courage, and gravity; as we will see afterward. The pastoral work is principally to "declare the whole counsel of God," to "divide the word aright," or to "labor in the word and doctrine," both as to the general dispensation and the particular application of it, in all seasons and on all occasions. For this, spiritual wisdom, knowledge, sound judgment, experience, and utterance are required — all of which are to be improved by continual study of the word and prayer. But this difference of gifts, for these distinct works, does not of itself constitute distinct offices, because the same persons may be fitly furnished with gifts of both sorts.
5. Yet, in the wisdom of the Holy Ghost, distinct works and duties (though some men were furnished with gifts for both) were a ground for distinct offices in the church. One sort of works was as much as those of one office could ordinarily attend to, Act 6:2-4. Ministration to the poor of the church for the supply of their temporal necessities is an ordinance of Christ. For the administration of it, the apostles were furnished with gifts and wisdom above all others. Yet, because there was another part of their work and duty that was superior to it, and of greater necessity for the propagation of the gospel and the edification of the church — namely, a diligent attendance to the word and prayer — the wisdom of the Holy Ghost in them thought it fitting to erect a new office in the church for the discharge of that part of the ministerial duty. It was to be attended to, yet not so as to be any obstruction to the other. I do not observe this as if it were legally required for any others after them to do the same — namely, upon a supposition that a special work erects a special office. I would only demonstrate from this, the equity and reasonable ground of that institution, which we will afterward evince.
6. The work of the ministry in prayer and preaching of the word, or labor in the word and doctrine, to which the administration of the seals of the covenant is annexed, with all the duties that belong to the especial application of these things (insisted on before) to the flock, are ordinarily sufficient to take up the whole man, and the utmost of their endowments who are called to the pastoral office in the church. The very nature of the work in itself is such as that the apostle, giving a short description of it, adds as an intimation of its greatness and excellency, "Who is sufficient for these things?" 2Cor 2:16. And the manner of its performance adds to its weight; for — not to mention that intension of mind in the exercise of faith, love, zeal, and compassion, which is required of them in the discharge of their whole office — the diligent consideration of the state of the flock, so as to provide spiritual food convenient for them, with a constant attendance to the issues and effects of the word in the consciences and lives of men, is enough for the most part, to take up their whole time and strength.
It is gross ignorance or negligence that occasions anyone to think otherwise.
As the work of the ministry is generally discharged (consisting only in a weekly provision of sermons and the performance of some stated offices by reading), men may have time and liberty enough to attend to other occasions. But we are not at present concerned with such persons. Our rule is plain, 1Tim 4:12-16.90
7. It does not follow from this, that those who are called to the ministry of the word as pastors and teachers, who are also elders, are divested of the right of rule in the church, or discharged from its exercise, because others who are not called to their office are appointed to be their assistants — that is, helps in the government. For the right and duty of rule is inseparable from the office of elders, which all bishops or pastors are. The right is still in them; and consistent with their more excellent work, its exercise is required of them. So it was in the first institution of the Sanhedrin in the church of Israel, Exo 18:17-23. Moses previously had the sole rule and government of the people. In the addition of an eldership for his assistance, there was no diminution of his right nor its exercise according to his precedent power. And the apostles, in the constitution of elders in every church, derogated nothing from their own authority, nor discharged themselves of their care. So when they appointed deacons to take care of supplies for the poor, they did not forego their own right nor the exercise of
their duty, as their other work would permit them, Gal 2:9-10. And in particular, the apostle Paul manifested his concern in this, in the care he took about a collection for the poor in all churches.
8. As we observed at the entrance of this chapter, the whole work of the church, as to authoritative teaching and rule, is committed to the elders. For authoritative teaching and ruling is teaching and ruling by virtue of the office; and this office to which they belong is that of elders, as it is undeniably attested in Act 20:17, etc. All that belongs to the care, inspection, oversight, rule, and instruction of the church, is expressly committed to its elders; for "elders" is a name derived from the Jews, denoting those who have authority in the church. The first signification of the word in all languages, respects age. Elders are old men, well-stricken in years; to whom respect and reverence are due by the law of nature and Scripture command, unless they forfeit their privilege by levity or wickedness — which they often do. Now, aged men were originally judged to be, if not the only, yet the fittest for rule; and they were constantly called to it before others. Hence the name of "elders" was appropriated to those who presided and ruled over others in any kind. Only, it may be observed that in the Scripture there is no mention of rulers who are called elders, except those who are in a subordinate power and authority. Those who were in supreme, absolute power, such as kings and princes, are never called
"elders;" but elders by office were only those who had ministerial power under others. This is why the highest officers in the Christian church being called elders, even the apostles themselves, and Peter in particular (1Pet
5:1-2), it is evident that they have only a ministerial power; and so it is declared, verse 4.91 The pope would now scarcely take it well to be esteemed only an elder of the church of Rome, unless it is in the same sense in which the Turkish monarch is called the Grand Seignior. But those who could be in the church above elders, have no office in it, whatever usurpation they may make over it.
9. To the complete constitution of any particular church, or the protection of its organic state, it is required that there be many elders in it, at least more than one. In this proposition is the next foundation of the truth which we plead for, and therefore it must be distinctly considered. I do not determine what their number ought to be, nor is it determinable as to all churches. For the light of nature sufficiently directs that it is to be proportioned to the
work and end desired. Where a church is numerous, there is a need to increase their number proportionately to their work. In the days of Cyprian there were ten or twelve of them in the church of Carthage, who are mentioned by name; and at the same time there were a great many in the church of Rome, under Cornelius. Where the churches are small, the number of elders may also be small; for no office is appointed in the church for pomp or show, but for labor only. And as many are necessary in each office, as are able to discharge the work which is allotted to them. But that church, be it small or great, is not complete in its state, it is defective, which does not have more elders than one, and which does not have as many as are sufficient for their work.
10. The government of the church, in the judgment and practice of some, is absolutely democratic or popular. They judge that all church power or authority is seated and settled in the community of the brethren, or the body of the people. They look at elders or ministers only as secants of the church.92 This is not only materially in the duties they perform, and finally for their edification — serving for the good of the church in the things of the church — but formally also, such as acting out the authority of the church by a mere delegation, and not by any authority of their own as received directly from Christ by virtue of His law and institution. Hence, they occasionally appoint persons among themselves who are not called to nor vested with any office, to administer the supper of the Lord, or any other solemn office of worship. On this principle and supposition, I see no necessity for any elders at all, though usually they confer this office on some with solemnity. But because among them there is no direct necessity of any elders for the role, we will not address them at present.
11. Some place the government of many particular churches in a diocesan bishop, with those who act under him and by his authority, according to the rule of the canon law and the civil constitution of the land. These are so far from judging it necessary that there be many elders for rule in every particular church, that they allow no rule in them at all, but only assert a rule over them. But a church where there is no rule in itself, to be exercised in the name of Christ by its own rulers, officers, and guides who immediately preside in it, is unknown to Scripture and antiquity. This is why we do not deal with these in this discourse, nor do we have any apprehension that the power of presenting men to the bishop's or
chancellor's court, for any pretended disorder, is any part of church power or rule.
12. Others place the rule of particular churches, especially in cases of greatest moment, in an association, conjunction, or combination of all the elders of them in one society, commonly called a classis. So in all acts of rule there will be a conjunct acting of many elders. And no doubt it is the best provision that can be made on a supposition of the continuance of the present parochial distribution. But those of this judgment who have most weighed and considered the nature of these things, also assert the necessity of many elders in every particular church — which is the common judgment and practice of the reformed churches in all places.
13. And there are some who begin to maintain that there is no need for any more than one pastor, bishop, or elder in a particular church, which has its rule in itself — other elders for rule being unnecessary. This is a novel opinion, contradictory to the sense and practice of the church in all ages;
(1.) The pattern of the first churches constituted by the apostles, which it is our duty to imitate and follow as our rule, constantly expresses and declares that many elders were appointed by them in every church,
Act 11:30, 14:23, 15:2, 4, 6, 22; 16:4; 20:17, etc.; 1Tim 5:17; Phi 1:1; Titus 1:5; 1Pet 5:1. There is no mention in the Scripture, no mention in antiquity, of any church in which there were not more elders than one; nor does that church correspond to the original pattern where it is otherwise.
(2.) Where there is but one elder in a church, there cannot be an eldership or presbytery, as there cannot be a senate where there is but one senator; this is contrary to 1Tim 4:14.
(3.) The continuation of every church in its original state and constitution is, since the ceasing of extraordinary offices and powers, committed to the care and power of the church itself. To this belong the calling and ordaining of ordinary officers, pastors, rulers, elders, and teachers. And in this, as we have proved, concurs both the election of the people, submitting themselves to them in the Lord, and solemnly setting them apart by imposition of hands. But if there is only one elder in a church, upon his death or removal, this imposition of hands must either be left to the people, or be supplied by elders of other
churches, or be wholly omitted — all of which are irregular. And that church-order is defective which lacks the symbol of authoritative ordination.
(4.) It is difficult, if not impossible, on a supposition of only one elder in a church, to preserve the rule of the church from being either prelatical or popular. There is nothing more frequently objected to those who dissent from diocesan bishops, than that every one would be bishops in their own parishes and to their own people. All such pretences are excluded on our principles of the liberty of the people, of the necessity of many elders in the same church in an equality of power, and the communion of other churches in association. But practically, where there is but one elder, one of the two extremes can hardly be avoided. If he rules by himself, without the previous advice, in some cases, as well as the subsequent consent of the church, then it has an eye of unwarrantable prelacy in it. If everything is to be originally transacted, disposed, and ordered by the whole society, then the authority of the elder will quickly be insignificant; he will be little more, in point of rule, than any other brother of the society. But all these inconveniences are prevented by fixing many elders in each church, which may maintain the authority of the presbytery, and also free the church from the despotic rule of any Diotrephes (3Joh 1.9).
But in case there is but one elder in any church, unless he has wisdom to maintain the authority of the eldership in his own person and actings, there is no rule, but only confusion.
(5.) The nature of the work to which they are called requires that, in every church consisting of any considerable number of members, there should be more than one elder (when God first appointed rule in the church under the Old Testament, he assigned to every ten persons or families a distinct ruler, Deu 1:15). For the elders are to take care of the walk or conversation of all the members of the church, so that it is according to the rule of the gospel This rule is eminent as to the holiness that it requires, above all other rules of moral conversation whatsoever. And there is, in all the members of the church, great accuracy and circumspection required in their walking after it and according to it. Also, the order and decency which is required in all church assemblies stands in need of exact care and inspection. That all
these things can be attended to and discharged in a due manner in any church, by one elder, is for them to suppose things, who know nothing about them. And although there may be an appearance for a season of all these things in such churches, yet if there is not in this a due compliance with the wisdom and institution of Christ, they have no present beauty, nor will they be of any long continuance.
These considerations, and also those that follow, may seem jejune 93 and contemptible to those who have another frame of church rule and order drawn in their minds and interests. A government vested in a few persons, with titles of pre-eminence, and legal power exercised in courts with coercive jurisdiction — by the methods and processes of canons of their own framing — is that which they suppose better becomes the grandeur of church-rulers and the state of the church, than these creeping elders with their congregations. But whereas our present inquiry about these things is only in and out of the Scripture, there is neither shadow nor appearance in this, of any of these practices, I beg their pardon if at present I do not consider them.
We will now apply these things to our present purpose. I say, then — 1. Whereas there is a work of rule in the church, distinct from that of pastoral feeding; and, 2. Whereas this work is to be attended to with diligence, which includes the whole duty of the one who attends to it; and,
3. Whereas the ministry of the word and prayer, with all those duties that accompany it, is a full employment for any man, and consequently it is his principal and proper work which it is unlawful for him to be remiss in by attending to another with diligence; and,
4. Whereas there ought to be many elders in every church, so that both the works of teaching and ruling may be constantly attended to; and,
5. Whereas, in the wisdom of the Holy Ghost, distinct works required distinct offices for their discharge (all which we have proved already), our inquiry on this is — Whether the same Holy Spirit has distinguished this office of elders into two sorts — namely, those who are called to teaching and rule also, and those who are called only to rule? — which we affirm.
The testimonies by which the truth of this assertion is confirmed, are generally known and pleaded. I will insist only on some of them, beginning with that which is of uncontrollable evidence if it had anything to conflict with besides prejudices and interest; and this is 1Tim 5:17.
"The elders, or presbyters in office, elders of the church, who rule well, or discharge their presidency for rule in due manner, are to be counted worthy, or ought to be reputed worthy, of double honor, especially those of them who labor or are engaged in the great labor and travail of the word and doctrine." 94
In 1Tim 3:4, 5, 12,95 it is applied to family rule and government. 96 In Tit 3:8, 14, it is also applied to care and diligence about good works.97 And some things may be observed in general concerning these words: —
1. This testimony relates directly to the rules and principles laid down before, which direct to the practice of them. These words are to be interpreted according to the analogy of those principles; and unless they are overthrown, it is to no purpose to put in exceptions against the sense of this or that word. The interpretation of them is to be suited to the analogy of the things which they relate to. If we do not consider what is spoken here in consent with other scriptures treating the same matter, then we depart from all sober rules of interpretation.
2. On this supposition, the words of the text have a plain and obvious signification, which at first view presents itself to the common sense and understanding of all men. And where there is nothing contrary to any other divine testimony or evident reason, such a sense is constantly to be embraced. There is nothing here of any spiritual mystery, but only a direction concerning outward order in the church. In such cases the literal sense of the words, rationally apprehended, is all that we are concerned with.
But on the first proposal of this text — "the elders who rule well are worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine" — a rational man who is unprejudiced, who never heard of the controversy about ruling elders, can hardly avoid an apprehension that there are two sorts of elders: some who labor in the word and doctrine, and some who do not. The truth is, it was interest and prejudice that first caused some learned men to strain their wits to discover evasions from the evidence of this
testimony. Being so found out, some others of meaner abilities have been entangled by them. For there is not one new argument advanced in this cause, not one exception given to the sense of the place we plead for, that was not long ago coined by Papists and Prelatists, and managed with better colors than some now are able to lay on them who pretend to the same judgment.
3. This is the substance of the truth in the text: — There are elders in the church; there are or ought to be so in every church. The whole rule of the church is entrusted to these elders; all these and only these rule in it. Of these elders there are two sorts, for a description is given of one sort as distinct from the other, and compared with it. The first sort rules and also labors in the word and doctrine. It was declared before that these works are distinct and different; yet as distinct works they are not incompatible, but are committed to the same person. They are so to those who are not only elders, but moreover pastors or teachers. No rule belongs to pastors and teachers as such, even though by the institution of Christ the right of rule is inseparable from their office. For all who are rightfully called to the office are elders also, which gives them an interest in rule. They are elders, with the addition of pastoral or teaching authority. But there are elders who are not pastors or teachers. For there are some who rule well, but do not labor in the word and doctrine — that is, who are not pastors or teachers.
Elders who rule well, but do not labor in the word and doctrine, are ruling elders only; and they are such in the text.
The most learned of our protestant adversaries in this case are Erastus, Bilson, Saravia, Downham, Scultetus, Mede, Grotius, and Hammond. They do not agree at all among themselves about the sense of the words: for —
1. Their whole design and endeavor is to make exceptions against the obvious sense and interpretation of the words, not fixing on any determinate exposition of it themselves, that they will abide by in opposition to any other sense of the place. Now, this is a most sophistical way of arguing over testimonies, and suited only to make endless controversies. Whose wit is so barren as not to be able to raise one exception or other against the plainest and most evident testimony? So the Socinians deal with us in all the testimonies we produce to prove the deity or satisfaction of Christ. They suppose it is enough to evade their force if they can but pretend that the
words are capable of another sense, even though they will not abide that this or that is their sense. For if they would do so, when that sense is overthrown, the truth would be established. But every testimony of the Scripture has one determinate sense. When this is contended about, it is equal that those who differ will express their apprehensions of the mind of the Holy Spirit in the words which they abide by. When this is done, let it be examined and tested which of the two senses pretended to, best complies with the signification and use of the words, the context or scope of the place, other Scripture testimonies, and the analogy of faith.98 No such rule is attended to in this case by our adversaries. They think it is enough to oppose our sense of the words, but they will not fix on any of their own, which if disproved, ours ought to take its place. Hence —
2. They do not in the least agree among themselves, scarcely any two of them, on what is the most probable sense of the words. Nor are any of them singly well-resolved what application to make of them, nor to what persons, but they only propose things as their conjecture. But of the very many opinions or conjectures that are advanced in this case, all of them but one are accompanied by the modesty of granting that diverse sorts of elders are intended here — which cannot be denied without more than ordinary confidence. But —
Some, by "elders who rule well," understand bishops who are diocesans; and by "those who labor in the word and doctrine," they understand ordinary preaching presbyters, which plainly gives them the advantage of pre-eminence, reverence, and maintenance above the others!
Some, by "elders who rule well," understand ordinary bishops and presbyters; and by "those who labor in the word and doctrine," they understand evangelists, thus carrying the text out of the present concern of the church. Deacons are esteemed by some to have an interest in the rule of the church, and so they are intended in the first place, and preaching ministers in the latter.
Some speak of two sorts of elders, both of the same order, or ministers; some who preach the word and administer the sacraments; and others who are employed in inferior offices such as reading and the like, which is the conceit of Scultetus.
Mr. Mede weighs most of these conjectures, and at length prefers one of his own before them all — namely, that by "elders who rule well" civil magistrates are intended, and by "those who labor in the word and doctrine" the ministers of the gospel are intended.
But some, discerning the weakness and improbability of all these conjectures, and how easily they may be disproved, resort to a direct denial of what seems to be plainly asserted in the text: namely, that two sorts of elders are intended and described here; they countenance themselves in this by taking exception to the application of some terms in the text, which we will immediately consider.
Grotius, as intimated before, argues against the divine institution of such temporary lay-elders as are made use of in sundry of the reformed churches.
But when he has done so, he affirms that it is highly necessary that such conjunct associates in rule from among the people, should be in every church; he proves this by various arguments. And he would have these men either nominated by the magistrate, or chosen by the people.
Therefore, omitting all contests about the forementioned concepts, or any other of a like nature, I will propose one argument from these words, and vindicate it from the exceptions of those of the latter sort.
Preaching elders, although they rule well, are not worthy of double honor, unless they labor in the word and doctrine;
But there are elders who rule well who are worthy of double honor, even though they do not labor in the word and doctrine.
Therefore, there are elders who rule well who are not teaching or preaching elders — that is, who are ruling elders only.
The proposition is evident in its own light, from its very terms. For to preach is to "labor in the word and doctrine." Preaching or teaching elders who do not labor in the word and doctrine, are preaching or teaching elders who do not preach or teach. To say that preachers, whose office and duty it is to preach, are worthy of that double honor which is due on account of preaching, even though they do not preach, is uncouth and irrational. It is contrary to the Scripture and the light of nature, as implying a contradiction that a man whose office it is to teach and preach should be esteemed worthy
of double honor on account of his office, who does not as an officer teach or preach.
The assumption on the matter consists in the very words of the apostle; for he who says, "The elders who rule well are worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine," says there are or may be elders who rule well, who do not labor in the word and doctrine — that is, who are not obliged so to do.
The argument from these words may be framed otherwise, but this contains the plain sense of this testimony.
Various things are excepted to this testimony and our application of it.
Those of any weight consist in a contest about two words in the text: (1) ma>lista (malista, "especially") and (2) kopiw~ntev (kopioontes, "to labor"). Some place their confidence in evading one of them, and some the other, the argument from both being inconsistent. If that sense of one of these words, which is pleaded as a relief against this testimony, is embraced, then that which for the same purpose is pretended to be the sense of the other, must be rejected. Such shifts put men in opposition to the truth.
Some say that malista, "especially," is not distinctive, but descriptive only.
That is, it does not distinguish one sort of elder from another, but only describes that single sort of elder by an adjunct of their office, which the apostle speaks of. The meaning of it, they say, is, as much as, or seeing that: "The elders who rule well are worthy of double honor, seeing that they also labor," or "especially considering that they labor," etc.
That this is the sense of the word — that it is to be interpreted this way — must be proved from the authority of ancient translations, or from the use of it in other places in the New Testament, or from its precise signification and application in other authors who are learned in this language, or that it is enforced from the context or the matter treated.
But none of these can be pretended.
1. The rendering of the word in old translations we have considered before.
They agree in "maxime illi qui," that malista is distinctive.
2. The use of it in other places of the New Testament is constantly distinctive, whether applied to things or persons: Act 20:38 — "Sorrowing chiefly at the word" of seeing his face no more.99 Their sorrow in this was
distinct from their other trouble. Gal 6:10, "Let us do good to all, but chiefly," especially, "to the household of faith." 100 It distinguishes between the household of faith and all others, by virtue of their special privilege.
This is the direct use of the word by that same apostle, in Phi 4:22, "All the saints salute you — especially those who are of Caesar's house." 101
Two sorts of saints are plainly expressed — first, those who were saints in general; they were also so, but under this especial privilege and circumstance, that they were of Caesar's house, which the others were not.
So it is here with respect to elders: all "rule well," but some moreover "labor in the word and doctrine." 1Tim 5:8, "If a man does not provide for his own, especially those of his own house," 102 especially children or servants who live in his own house, and are thereby distinguished from others of a more remote relation. 2Tim 4:13, "Bring the books, especially the parchments;" 103not because they are parchment, but among the books, those parchments in particular and in an especial manner. 2Pet 2:9-10, "The Lord knows how to reserve the unjust for the day of judgment to be punched, especially you who walk after the flesh," 104 who will be singled out for exemplary punishment. It is used but once more in the New
Testament, namely, Act 26:3, where it includes a distinction in the thing that is under consideration.
Because this is the constant use of the word in the Scripture (being principally used by this apostle in his writings), in which it is distinctive and comparative of the things and persons regarded, it is to no purpose to pretend that it is used here in another sense or is otherwise applied, unless they can prove from the context that there is a necessity for their peculiar interpretation of it.
3. The use of the word in other authors is concurrent with that in the Scripture: Herodian, lib. 2, cap. 28, "The Syrians are naturally lovers of festivals, especially those who dwell at Antioch." 105 It is the same phrase of speech used here; for all those who dwelt at Antioch were Syrians, but all the Syrians did not dwell at Antioch. There is a distinction and distribution made of the Syrians into two sorts — those who were Syrians only, and those who, being Syrians, dwelt at Antioch, the metropolis of the country. If a man said that all Englishmen were stout and courageous, especially
Londoners, he would both affirm that Londoners are Englishmen, and distinguish them from the rest of their countrymen. So too, all who labor in
the word and doctrine are elders. But all elders do not labor in the word and doctrine, nor is it their duty to do so. These we call "ruling elders," and as I judge, rightly so.
4. The sense which the words give, being so interpreted as not to make a distinction between elders, is absurd — the subject and predicate of the proposition being convertible terms.106 It must be so if the proposition is not allowed to have a distinction in it. "One sort of elders only," it is said,
"is intended here." I ask who they are, and of what sort? It is said, "The same as pastors and teachers, or ministers of the gospel;" for if the one sort of elders intended is of another sort, then we obtain what we plead for as fully as if two sorts were allowed. Who then are these elders, these pastors and teachers, these ministers of the church? Are they not those who labor in the word and doctrine? "Yes," it will be said, "them and no others." Then this is the sense of the words: "Those who labor in the word and doctrine, who rule well, are worthy of double honor, especially if they labor in the word and doctrine;" for if there is but one sort of elders, then "elders" and "those who labor in the word and doctrine" are convertible terms. But "elders" and "labor in the word and doctrine" are subject and predicate in this proposition.
This is why there are few of any learning or judgment who make use of this evasion. But allowing a distinction to be made, they say that it refers to work and employment, and not to office — those who in the discharge of their office as elders, so labor as intended and included in the Greek word kopioontes, which denotes a particular kind of work in the ministry. Yes, say some, "This word denotes the work of an evangelist, who was not confined to any one place, but traveled up and down the world to preach the gospel." And those of this mind allow that two sorts of elders are intended in the words. Let us see whether they have any better success in their conjecture than the others had in the former answer.
1. I grant that kopian, the word used here, signifies to labor with pains and diligence, "ad ultimum virinum, usque ad fatigationem," — to the utmost of men's strength, and unto weariness. But —
2. To so labor in the word and doctrine is the duty of all pastors and teachers, and whoever does not so labor is negligent in his office, and worthy of severe blame instead of double honor: for —
(1.) Kopos, from which we get kopiaoo, is the labor of a minister; and so it is the labor of any minister in his work of teaching and preaching the gospel: 1Cor 3:8, "Everyone" (i.e., everyone employed in the ministry, whether to plant or to water, to convert men or to edify the church) "will receive his own reward, according to his own labor." 107
Whoever does not strive, kopian, in the ministry, will never receive a reward according to his own labor,108 and so he is not worthy of double honor.
(2.) It is a general word, used to express the work of anyone in the service of God; for which it is applied to the prophets and teachers under the Old Testament: Joh 4:38, "I sent you to reap that for which you bestowed no labor," 109 — "others have labored, and you have entered into their labors;" i.e., of the prophets and John the Baptist.
Indeed, it is so for the labor that women may take in serving the church: Rom 16:6, "Salute Mary, who labored much;" 110 which is more than simply kopian. Verse 12, "Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labor in the Lord.111 Salute the beloved Persis who labored much in the Lord." 112 It is so far from truth, that this word should signify a labor peculiar to some sorts of ministers, which are not obliged to all in common.
3. If the labor of evangelists, or of those who traveled up and down to preach the word, is intended, then it is either because this is the proper signification of the word, or because it is constantly used elsewhere to express that kind of labor. But the contrary to both of these is evident from all places in which it is used. So it is expressly applied to fixed elders. 1The
5:12, "We exhort you, brethren, to know those who labor among you," 113 who are the rulers and instructors.
It is therefore evident that this word expresses no more but what is the ordinary, indispensable duty of every teaching elder, pastor, or minister; and if it be so, then those elders — that is, pastors or teachers — that do not perform and discharge it are not worthy of double honor, nor would the apostle give any countenance unto them who were any way remiss or negligent, in comparison of others, in the discharge of their duty. See 1The
5:12.
Therefore, there are two sorts of duties confessedly mentioned and commanded here: — the first is ruling well; the other, laboring in the word and doctrine. Suppose that both these, ruling and teaching, are committed to one sort of persons only, having one and the same office absolutely, then some are commended who do not discharge their whole duty, at least not as compared to others; which is a vain imagination. It is the mind of the apostle that both of these duties are committed to one sort of elders, and one of them only to another, each discharging its duty with respect to its work; and so both are worthy of honor.
It is objected from the next verse that, "Maintenance belongs to this double honor, and consequently, if there are elders who are employed in the work only of rule, then maintenance is due to them from the church." I answer, it is no doubt so — 1. If the church is able to make them an allowance;
2. If their work is such as to take up the whole or the greatest part of their industry; and, 3. If they stand in need of it.
Without these considerations, it may be dispensed with, not only in them, but in teaching elders also.
Our next testimony is from the same apostle, Rom 12:6-8:
"Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministry; or he who teaches, on teaching; or he who exhorts, on exhortation; he who gives, let him do it with simplicity; he who rules, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness."
Our argument from here is this: There is in the church "one who rules." 114
That word for rule, proi`sthmi (proistemi), is "to rule with authority by virtue of office;" from which come proestw>v (proestoos) and proi`sta>menov (proistamenos), one who presides over others with authority. For the discharge of their office, there is a "differing peculiar gift," 115 verse 6, bestowed on some.116 And there is the especial manner prescribed for the discharge of this especial office, by virtue of that especial gift;117 it is to be done with peculiar "diligence.'' And this ruler is
distinguished from "one who exhorts" and "one who teaches," with whose especial work, as such, he has nothing to do — even as they are distinguished from those who "give" and "show mercy" — that is, there is an elder by office in the church, whose work and duty it is to rule, not to exhort nor teach ministerially. This is our ruling elder. It is answered that,
"In this place, the apostle does not address offices, functions, or distinct officers, but differing gifts in all the members of the church, which they are to exercise as their different nature requires."
I will return to various things here, which will both explain the context and vindicate our argument: — 1. Those with whom we have to principally deal allow no exercise of spiritual gifts in the church except by virtue of office. This is why a distinct exercise of those gifts is here placed in distinct officers, one being expressly distinguished from another, as we will see.
2. If they give such a probable enumeration of the distinct offices in the church which they assert — namely, of archbishops, bishops, presbyters, and chancellors, etc. — we will yield the cause.
3. Gifts alone do no more, and give no other warranty or authority, than to render men fit for their exercise as they are called, and as occasion requires.
If a man has received a gift of teaching, but is not called to office, he is not obliged nor warranted thereby to attend to public teaching, nor is it required of him by way of duty, nor is a charge given to him, as it is here.
4. There is in one "rule" required "with diligence." He is a "ruler;" 118 and as such it is required of him that he attend to his work with diligence. And there are but two things required to confirm our thesis:
(1.) That this rule is an act of office-power; (2.) That the one to whom it is ascribed is distinguished from those to whom the pastoral and other offices in the church are committed.
For the first, it is evident that rule is an act of office, or of office-power: for it requires an, [1.] Especial relation; this is so between one who rules and those who are ruled; and this is the relation of office; otherwise all confusion will ensue.
[2.] Especial prelation. The one who rules is over, is above those who are ruled: "Obey those who are over you in the Lord." In the church, this cannot be in any except by virtue of office.
[3.] Especial authority. All lawful rule is an act of authority; and there is no authority in the church except by virtue of office.
Secondly, this officer is distinct from all others in the church, as we will immediately demonstrate when we have cleared the context a little further.
Therefore — 5. It is confessed that respect is had to gifts — "Having differing gifts," verse 6 — because all office-power in the church is founded in them, Eph
4:7-8, 11-12. But gifts absolutely, with reference to common use, are not intended, as they are in some other places. Rather, they are spoken of with respect to offices or functions, and the communication of them to officers for the discharge of their office. This is evident from the text and context, with the whole design of the place; for —
(1.) The analysis of the place directs us to this interpretation. Three sorts of duties are prescribed for the church in this chapter —
[1.] Those duties which are universal, belonging absolutely to all and every one that pertains to it, which are declared in Rom 12:12.
[2.] Those which are peculiar to some, by virtue of that especial place which they have in the church, verses 3-8. This can be nothing but an office.
[3.] Those which are general or common with respect to occasions, from verse 8 to the end of the chapter. Hence the same duty is doubly prescribed — to some by way of a special office, to others by way of a gracious duty in general. So it is here: "He who gives, let him do it with simplicity," verse 8. It is the same duty or work as to its substance, as "distributing to the necessity of saints," verse 13. And the apostle does not repeat his charge of the same duty in so few words as required in the same manner, and of the same persons. Rather, in the first place he speaks of the manner of its performance by virtue of office; and in the latter by virtue of its discharge as to its substance, such as a grace that is
found in all believers. The design of the apostle lies plain in the analysis of this discourse.
(2.) The context makes the same truth evident; for — [1.] The whole ordinary public work of the church is distributed into prophecy and ministry; 119 for the extraordinary gift of prophecy is not intended here, but only that of the interpretation of the Scripture, whose rule is the "analogy of faith," 120 It is prophecy that is regulated by the Scripture itself, which gives the "proportion of faith." 121 And there is nothing in any or both of these, prophecy and ministry, that does not belong to an office in the church; nor is there anything belonging to an office in the church that may not be reduced to one of these, as all of them are here by the apostle.
[2.] The gifts spoken of are, in general, referred to all those who are intended. Now, these are either the whole church and all its members, or else all the officers of the church only. Hence it is expressed in the plural number, "We having;" 122 that is, all of us who are concerned in it. This cannot be "all of the church," for not all in the church have received the gifts of prophecy and ministry; nor can any distinction be made between who does receive them and who does not, except with respect to an office.
And therefore — [3.] In the distribution which ensues of prophecy into exhorting and teaching, and of ministry into showing mercy, rule, and giving — having stated these gifts in general, in the officers in general, and making a distinct application of them to distinct officers — he speaks in the singular number: "He who teaches, he who exhorts, he who rules." 123
6. It is then evident that offices are intended; and it is no less evident that distinct offices are intended, which was to be proved in the second place; for — (1.) The distributive particle ei]te (eite), and the indicative article, prefixed to each office in particular, show them [to be] distinct, so far as words can do that. As by the particle ei]te (eite, "whether") they are distinguished in their nature — whether they are of this kind or that—
so by the article prefixed to each of them in exercise, they are distinguished in their subjects.
(2.) The operations, works, and effects ascribed to these gifts, require distinct offices and functions in their exercise. If the distribution is made to all promiscuously, without respect to distinct offices, it would only be a way to bring confusion into the church. Whereas, here indeed an accurate order in all church-administrations is represented to us.
And it is further evident that distinct offices are intended — (1.) From the comparison made to the members of the body, verse 4,
"All members do not have the same office;" the eye has one, the ear has another.
(2.) Each of the duties mentioned and given as a charge, is sufficient for a distinct officer, as declared in Act 6:1-4.
7. In particular, "He who rules" is a distinct officer — an officer, because rule is an act of office or office-power; and he is expressly distinguished from all others. But some say, "'He who rules" is whoever does so — that is, the pastor or teacher, the teaching elder." But the contrary is evident:
(1.) He says, "He who exhorts," and then adds, "He who rules," having distinguished before between prophecy, to which exhortation belongs, and ministry, of which rule is a part, and prefixing the prepositive indicative article to each of them. This as plainly differentiates them as can be done by words.
2.) Rule is the principal work of the one who rules, for he is to attend to it "with diligence," 124— that is, attend to whatever is peculiar to rule, in contradistinction to what is principally required in other administrations. But rule is not the principal work of the pastor, such that it requires constant and continual attendance. For his labor in the word and doctrine is ordinarily sufficient for the utmost of his diligence and abilities.
8. We have in this context, therefore, a beautiful order of things in and of the church — all its duties with respect to its edification, are derived from distinct and differing spiritual gifts, exercised in and by distinct officers, to their peculiar ends. The distinction that is in the nature of those gifts, their use and end, is provided for in distinct subjects. The mind of no one man (at
least ordinarily) is fit to be the seat and subject of all those differing gifts in any eminent degree. No man is sufficient, fit, or able, to exercise them in a way of office towards the whole church — especially "those who labor in the word and doctrine" being obliged to "give themselves wholly to it," and those who "rule" being obliged to attend to it with "diligence." Having so many distinct works, duties, and operations, with the qualifications required in their discharge, are inconsistent in the same subject.125 Thus, all things are distributed here into their proper order and tendency for the edification of the church. Every distinct gift that is required to be exercised in a peculiar manner for the public edification of the church, is distributed to peculiar officers to whom an especial work is assigned; and it is to be discharged by virtue of the gifts received for the edification of the whole body. 1Cor 12.7 No man alive is able to fix on anything which is necessary for the edification of the church, that is not contained in these distributions under some of their heads. Nor can any man discover anything in these assignations of distinct duties to distinct offices that is superfluous, redundant, or not directly necessary for the edification of the whole, with all its parts and members. Nor do I know any wise and sober man who knows anything of how the duties enjoined are to be performed — with what care, diligence, circumspection, prayer, and wisdom, suited to their nature, ends, and their objects — who can ever imagine that all of them can belong to one and the same office, or be discharged by one and the same person.
Let men advance any other church-order in place of that which is declared here — one that is so suited to the principles of natural light; one whose operations and duties of diverse natures are distributed and assigned to such distinct gifts, and acted out in distinct offices, that it renders those to whom they are prescribed, fit and able for them; one that so corresponds to all institutions, rules, and examples of church-order in other places of Scripture; one that is so suited for the edification of the church; one in which nothing which is necessary to it is omitted, nor is anything added above what is necessary — and that church-order will be cheerfully embraced.
The truth is, the ground of the different interpretations and applications of this text or context of the apostle, arises merely from the prejudiced apprehensions that men have concerning the state of the church and its rule.
For if its state is national or diocesan, if its rule is by arbitrary rules and
canons that proceed from an authority exerting itself in ecclesiastical courts, legal or illegal, then the order of things described here by the apostle in no way belongs to nor can it be accommodated to it. To suppose [as we do] that we have a full description and account in these words — of all the offices and officers of the church, of their duty and authority, of all they have to do, and how they are to do it — would be altogether unreasonable and senseless to those who have another idea of church affairs and rule, one which is conceived in their minds, received by tradition, and riveted by interest. On the other hand, those who know little or nothing of what belongs to the due edification of the church, beyond preaching the word and reaping the advantage that is obtained by it, cannot see any necessity to distribute these several works and duties to several officers. Rather, they suppose that all may be done well enough by one or two in the same office.
This is why it will be necessary for us to briefly treat the nature of the rule of the church in particular, and what is required for it, which will be done at the close of this discourse.
9. The exceptions which are usually made for this testimony do not have the least countenance from the text or context, nor from the matter treated; nor do they have confirmation from any other divine testimony. It is therefore in vain to contend about these exceptions, for any man may multiply them at his pleasure on like occasion. And they are used by those who, upon other considerations, are not willing have things be as they are here declared to be by the apostle. Yet we may take a brief specimen of them.
Some say the apostle treats gifts absolutely, without respect to distinct offices. This has been disproved from the text and context before. Some say that rule is included in the pastoral office, such as that the pastor alone is intended here. But — (1.) Rule is not his principal work which he is to attend to in a peculiar manner, with diligence, above other parts of his duty.
(2.) The care of the poor of the flock also belongs to the pastoral office; yet there is another officer appointed to attend to it in a peculiar manner, Act 6:1-6.
(3.) "He who rules" is expressly distinguished in this place from "he who exhorts" and "he who teaches." Some say that "he who rules" is he who rules his family. But this is disproved by the analysis of the
chapter declared before. And this duty, which is common to all who have families, and is confined to their families, is ill-placed among those public duties which are designed for the edification of the whole church. It is objected that "he who rules" is placed after "he who gives," that is, the deacon. I say, then, that it cannot be the pastor that is intended (if we may prescribe methods for the apostle to express himself). Rather, he uses his liberty, and does not oblige himself to any order in the enumeration of the offices of the church. See 1Cor 12:810, 28.
Some other exceptions are insisted on of the same nature and importance, which indeed do not deserve our consideration.
10. The same evidence is given for the truth argued for in another testimony of the same apostle: 1Cor 12:28, "God has set some in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, varieties of tongues." I will not insist on this testimony and its vindication in particular, seeing that many things would be required for it which have been treated already. Some things may be briefly observed concerning it. That there is an enumeration here of officers and offices in the church, both extraordinary for that season, and ordinary for continuance, is beyond exception. To them is added the present exercise of some extraordinary gifts, such as "miracles, healings, tongues." Most agree that "helps" intends the deacons of the church, because their original institution was as helpers in the affairs of the church. "Governments" are governors or rulers, the abstract being put for the concrete — that is, those who are distinct from "teachers." God has placed such men in the church, and such there ought to be. But it is said that, "gifts, not offices, are intended
— the gift of government, or the gift for government." If so, then these gifts are either ordinary or extraordinary. If they are ordinary, then how do they come to be reckoned among "miracles, healings, and tongues"? If they are extraordinary, then what extraordinary gifts for government were given distinct from those of the apostles? And what instance is given of them anywhere in the Scripture? Again, if God has given gifts for government to abide in the church, distinct from those given to teachers, and to persons other than the teachers, then there is a distinct office of rule or government in the church, which is all we plead for.
11. The original order of these things is plain in the Scripture. The apostles had all church-power and church-office in themselves, with authority to exercise all the acts of them, everywhere and on all occasions. But considering the nature of the church, with the nature of the rule appointed by the Lord Christ in it or over it, they did not, they would not, ordinarily exercise their power by themselves, nor in their own persons alone. And therefore, when the first church consisted of a small number, the apostles acted out all things in it by the consent of the whole multitude, or the fraternity, as we have proved from Act 1:15-26 (see chap. 4). And when the number of believers increased, the apostles themselves could not in their own persons attend to all the duties that were to be performed towards the church by virtue of office. They added, by the direction of the Holy Ghost, the office of the deacons, for the especial discharge of the duty which the church owes to its poor members. By the same token, it is evident here that the apostles could no longer personally attend to the rule of the church with all that belongs to it, without encroaching on that labor in the word and prayer which was incumbent on them — any more than they could attend to the relief of the poor. And so they appointed elders to help and assist in that part of office-work, as the deacons did in the other work.
These elders are first mentioned Act 11:30 where they are spoken of as those which were well known, and had been in the church for some time.
Afterward they are still mentioned in conjunction with the apostles, and in distinction from the church itself, Act 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 16:4, 21:18. Now, the apostles themselves were teaching elders — that is, those who had the work of teaching and rule committed to them, 1Pet 5:1; 2 John 1. And these other elders are constantly distinguished from them; which makes it evident that they were not teaching elders. Therefore, in all the mention that is made of them, the work of teaching or preaching is nowhere ascribed to them. At Jerusalem, the apostles reserved these to themselves, Act 6:2-4. But they are everywhere introduced as joining with the apostles in the rule of the church, and that is in distinction from the church itself, or its brethren. Yes, it is altogether improbable that while the apostles were at Jerusalem, giving themselves wholly to the word and prayer, they should appoint in the same church many more teaching elders, though it is plain that the elders intended were many.
I will add, for a close to all, that there is no sort of churches which are not of this persuasion that there ought to be rulers in the church who are not in "sacred orders," as some call them — who have no interest in the pastoral or ministerial office as to the dispensation of the word, and the administration of the sacraments. For as the government of the Roman church is in the hands of such persons in great measure, so in the church of England much of the rule of it is managed by chancellors, officials, commissaries, and like officers, who are absolutely laymen, and not at all in their holy orders. Some would place the rule of the church in the civil magistrate,126 who they suppose is the only ruling elder. But most
Protestant churches throughout the world, both Lutheran and Reformed, both in their judgment and practice, assert the necessity of the ruling elders which we plead for. And their office lies at the foundation of all their order and discipline, which they cannot forego without extreme confusion — indeed, without the ruin of their churches. And although some among us, considering particular churches only as small societies, may think there is no need for any such office or officers for rule in them, yet when such churches consist of some thousands, without any opportunity to distribute themselves into several congregations (as at Charenton in France), it is a weak imagination that the rule of Christ can be observed in them by two or three ministers alone. Hence in primitive times we often have instances of twenty, even forty elders in a particular church. In this, they respected the institution under the Old Testament, by which each ten families were to have a particular ruler. However, it is certain that there is such a reformation in all sorts of churches, that there ought to be some attending to rule who are not called to labor in the word and doctrine.