Part 13
& complete government) to be in a congregation by Christ's institution; and yet for this demonstration of that (as our brethren full well know), it had been necessary to debate and discuss at large, first, that fore-mentioned principle, by what ways the institutions of Christ in the New Testament are held forth, whether in ordinary examples and practices of the primitive churches, yet that had been (as to our brethren) an insufficient argument to disprove this proposition, that therefore a presbyterial government over many congregations may not be.
And the eonsequence would have been denied by many of our brethren that hold all power of government to be in a congregation, but not solely or only ; and so a classical government over many congregations may yet be.
And, therefore, to have overthrown their assertion, there were two propositions yet more necessary to have been proved by us, or the proof had not been sufficient as to them: first, that an ecclesiastical government may not be set up (unless warranted by institution) over many congregations that have it by institution within themselves; or, secondly, that the Scriptures do not hold forth by institution an ecclesiastical government in classes, &c., over many congregations.
One of these, or both, must have been proved by us.
If the first, we should fall again ito a new general head about institutions, namely, that what in chareh government is not by institution, may not be.
The latter, we also saw, the assembly did decline, and stated their assertion upon an é may be; and then, again, this latter algo being a negative, the demonstration lies not in positive arguments to the contrary, but in a defensive denial, with answers to the arguments which VOL, XI, ° —!
THE GOVERNMENT OF {Boox IV. might be brought to prove the affirmative.
And our brethren not undertaking to prove an institation of the presbyterial government, all our answers to their arguments had answerably still fallen short of disproving the institution of that government; so that our attempt this way to oppose their proposition would have been unavailable and in vain.
But this was not all the obstruction that lay in our way to the confating this proposition, in respect of this their stating it upon an it may be; but the difficulty was increased farther also, and yet no less from the vast indefinitenéss and indeterminate ambiguity and uncertainty of that other term, presbyterial government over many congregations, which, importing an association of the elders of many congregations for government, doth admit many variations, and includes in it several patterns of government, and also differing constitutions of those congregations.
For (to give an instance) there might be conceived a twofold presbytery or association of elders over many congregations.
There might be one for the ordinary and standing government thereof, so as the greatest matters appertaining to any of those congregations should be in a constant way brought before their consistory as belonging to their jurisdiction; so as the congregations and their several elderships should not proceed but as firat warranted by the sentence of the higher presbytery.
And there might be another presbytery or meeting of elders (and the assembly had not declared any difference between synodical
. and presbyterial assemblies set for a standing government), but only in case that schisms and contentions fall out in the several congregations, either about matters of doctrine or government, or for difficult cases, which the several elderships of the congregations do find too hard for them, and so seek their help and direction ; or otherwise, when the eldership of a particular congregation hath scandalously managed their government, or wrongfally excommunicated, &., then the neighbouring elderships offended, or appealed unto by the persons offended, are to judge and determine of it.
This is the first and most general division of the presbyterial government, into which, as it is propounded in the may be, it can be cast.
If it be limited to an ordinary and standing government, yet still as great an ambiguity as the former remains touching the several ways, sorts, or kinds into which this presbyterial government, and the constitution of these congrega- | tions, may be and are cast in the reformed churches, arising froma differing
| relation that the elders (that thus are to make a common standing presbytery) do bear unto these congregations.
1. The one is common and promiscuous, unfixed for all sorts of duties, of preaching, &., as well as for ruling; that as in common they make one presbytery over them all for government, so likewise they all are alike elders and pastors to each congregation, and do bestow like pains and care for all pastoral duties of-preaching, feeding, &., in their courses and rounds, as is practised in some cities in Holland.
2. A second variety is, that they are a presbytery unto all in common for acts of discipline, yet they are pastors or elders fixed in their relations properly but to one congregation, to perform all such duties thereunto, and not unto the rest.
In the first, the ministers of all these congregations do, in a circular way, preach to them all in their course, as well as they do rule in common; as if three or four parishes be together, the ministers of each should in their turns feed them all, and the people partake of the gifts and graces of all, a3 well as the ministers rule all.
Now, if these congregations, for the number of the persons belonging to them, consist only of so many as can at times meet altogether, with their common elderships, for matters of diseipline,
Cuap. IV.] THE CHURCHES OF CHEIST. choice of ministers, admonitions, and excommunications, and can be all present upon such great and solemn acts of government, in which we con- . ceive all are interested, so to join in them, and to be edified by them, although, in respect of convenience, they make several set and fixed congtegations for worship, either on the account of persecution, or of distance from each other, or the like ; and if they are so few congregations, and so near as that elders, that make up an eldership in common, can fulfil the daties of the relation of pastors to them all in their round and course, 80 ag those congregations do partake of the gifts and graces of them all, as well as are ruled by them all, this kind of presbytery of elders in common over such a number as can and do for their great acts of government, meet in one assembly upon such occasions, both people and elders altogether make up one kind of government and constitution of congregations.
But when there are preabyteries, that either through their extent and compass of the number and distance of the congregations under them, or otherwise by the law of their combination, neither do nor can hold the relation, nor discharge the duties of pastors in common unto them, but do only and merely rule them (and so do, in respect to this, make a greater presbytery over their many lesser congregations, and this for the ordinary government of them), and when the members of these congregations cannot meet to be present at the acts of discipline (wherein they have an interest of prasence and edification), this is a second sort of presbyterial government, and which is generally practised in the reformed churches.
8. And again, yet farther, this latter may also be (in rational supposition) cast into two sorts of government.
The first sort of government is wherein the elders of these many congregstions have no share of government in public admonitions or censures, nor bear no rule in those congregations they are respectively affixed to, but such
4s under the bishops, the pastors of the congregations had, of preaching, Private watching, visiting the sick ; all suspensions from the sacrament, public admonitions, censures, being immediately to be brought to the common presbytery of elders, set over them all for government.
2. Another form of government is, that many congregations (as in Scotland), having their proper and peculiar pastors and elders, hereby come to be
80 many formed and distinct churches, for the relation of a pastor and other elders or rulers cannot but be unto a church properly so called, for church and elders are relative, as rulers and a commonwealth; and therefore they are called ecclesia prima, as those to whom the notion and true nature and state of a church doth first belong.
And further, these officers, and pastors, and teachers, being first in these several churches, and there being in each 'some competent number of elders or officers, as a pastor or teacher, with other ruling elders (for otherwise the greater presbytery should not be made up complete of some of all these sorts of officers out of each church, since the first seat of all these officers is some particular church), these pastors and ruling elders do make up @ presbytery over each of these churches respectively.
And farther, being thus particular churches, or having a presbytery or eldership, they have some, yea, and a great part of government allotted to them within their several churches, as suspension from the sacrament, public admonitions, &e.
For to suppose them churches, and to have elderships over them, and to have no privilege of governing, would betomake an empty title, without any of those things the Scripture gives to the churches and their elderships.
There is only this difference, that when it comes to the great matters of ordination or excommunication, these are taken up to the great presbytery; and THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox IV. thus within the territory of this presbyterial government intended in the proposition, two sorts of elderships are to be understood as included, lesser, and greater ones over them, and two sorts of churches (though called only congregations), churches lesser and incomplete, joined to make one church, as the subject of the common presbyterial government.
In these unlimited and incomprehensive senses was this proposition (the first-born of all that follow about this government) propounded to the debate, although we urged upon the assembly that they would specify and determine which of these governments they intended and would maintain ; but it would not be granted, nor anything added for the limitation thereof, as must be, nor rather be, instead of it may be, not over many churches instead of many congregations; the advantage of which on their part was a liberty to defend it in any of these senses, and each upon the lowest terms, it may be
; for the proposition might vary and alter with any of these shapes for its defence; as if a standing government immediately over many congregations could not be defended, then extraordinary and mediate of elders associated in synods might.
Ifthe common standing government of fixed elders to their several congregations would not abide the touch, then still the proposition (they might say) is not confuted, for presbytery of promiscuous unfixed elders might notwithstanding be true, and so the truth of the proposition would stand.
Being reduced to this narrowness in the entrance into the debate, both for the state of the question, and for the medium of arguing, we (1) profess to lay our arguments against that way of presbyterial government over many congregations, as it is extant, or practised in the church of Scotland over many congregations, having elders fixed to them ; and we did also desire that no other answers might be given, but such as they would, in rearing up the presbyterial government, reduce to practice; and, 2, for the medium of arguing, we had little else left us to have in a direct and open way recourse anto, but those exhortations and charges given to elders in the epistles of the apostles, as lying apparently cross to this way of presbyterial government, as thwarting the rule of Christ and directions of the apostles.
The state of the question then is this:
1. By government is meant a standing, ordinary, and constant government, exercised over many congregations, in all the matters of greatest moment that concern any persons therein.
2. These congregations are such, and so continued, as to have severally or apart each their proper elders affixed to them, to preach to them and watch over them, and to be interested in lesser cases of government, as admonition, &c.
8. But it is questioned whether for all cases of government that are the greater, as excommunication, &c., that shall fall out in any of those congregations, those elders in common, meeting in one great presbytery or eldership, and made up of them all (even as for lesser matters, the elders of particular congregations meeting are lesser presbyteries to their several congregations respectively) should not appropriate this greater government to themselves, which we deny, and shall endeavour to refute in the following chapter.
Cup. V.J THE CHURCHES OF OHRIST.
That if a presbytery of elders be elected, having power over many congregations, besides their general relation, they would also bear a particular relation to ach congregation.
That no company of elders assembled together hath a power and rule over many congregations, will appear if we do but consider what the New Testament declares concerning elders in their relations to their flocks committed to them, and concerning the exhortations and charges to them, of duties towards those flocks founded upon that relation, as also the duties of their
: flocks to them; all which is like to be the surest measure to find out the extent of their power and bounds of their flocks, and whether that power for the ordinary way be limited to one congregation or many.
For those exhortations and charges must needs be supposed suited to that boundary of churches, and that constitution and extent of relation, that the elders of those primitive times were placed in over them; likeas in the question about polygamy, what the Scripture hath said of the duties between man and wife, which were given and suited to the extent of that relation, as God from the beginning bounded it, manifestly evinceth that one man cannot have many wives, but one.
We have hitherto taken this for an undoubted maxim, that as a matual telation is the ordinary foundation of all power, whether economical, civil, or ecclesiastical, ao the extent of all power is commensurable with the extent of that relation.
A master, asa master, hath power but over such servants of whom he may say, I am your master, and they of him, We are your servants; for what hath any man to do to judge another man's servant ? as the apostle saith.
And the same is trae correspondently here.
Thoge elders that assume to be over either one or many congregations, must have, as the office of eldera, so the relation of elders unto that one, or those many, congregations, that they may be able to say, We are your elders, and you are our ehurch ; which two are in Scripture expression the relate and the correlate, as king and kingdom, magistrates and commonwealth.
Now, against this standing government of these elders in greater presbyteries (as the question hath been stated), we shall humbly make use of the fore-mentioned maxim for a medium to overthrow this government, by presenting together therewith the incongruities and inconsistencies of it, and also by arguing what the New Testament speaks of the elders and their duties in relation to the flocks committed to them, which all do argue that according to the Scriptures such a government may not be,
And we frame our argument thus.
Ifmany congregations, having all elders already fixed respectively unto them, may be under such a standing presbyterial government, then all those elders must also (according to the Scriptures) sustain a special relation of ordinary and standing elders to all the people of those congregations, as one church their flock, and to every one as a member thereof.
But for a company of such elders already affixed, &c., to sustain such a relation, carries with it so great and manifold incongruities and inconsistencies with what the Scripture speaks of elders in their relation to a flock or church committed to them, and likewise with the principles of the reformed churches themselves, as cannot be admitted, and therefore such a government may not be.
That according to the Scriptures such a standing presbyterial government | THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boor IV. necessarily draws such a standing special relation, we endeavour to evince by parts, thus.
1. They must have the relation of elders, for church and elders are : relatives.
And the argument for the presbyterial government is taken by the presbyterial divines from this, that many congregations in Scripture are made one church, and the elders thereof elders of that church.
This we had the greatest reason to take for granted from the former writings and expressions of the presbyterial divines; yea, the main arguments by which themselves have proved this government, have been taken from this, that many congregations in the New Testament do make one church, and the elders thereof elders of that one church, and therefore are to govern that church.
And this we have the greatest reason to take for granted still, for in the proof which was presented to the honourable houses of parliament by the reverend assembly
(and before we entered into the debate was brought in by the committee in the instance of the church of Jerusalem), this is one medium, that mention is made of multitudes there as of one church, and of elders as the elders of that church.
Yea, and there being no mention made of any distinct particular congregations or churches therein, but of a church, and the elders thereof, as thereby the prime notion of a church is held forth and attributed thereto, so the prime and more principal relation of elders, as elders to this one church, and every member of them, is imported, and so as true and as genuine a relation (according to the Scriptare's intent and expression) must be supposed to be intended, as can be supposed between any particular congregation and their elders.
Yea, and moreover, to make out the presbyterial government over those many congregations, as one church, whilst the apostles were the rulers of it, the apostles themselves are made to act and become as ordinary elders to that church.
It was therefore desired that they who should deny this proposition would raze out of their writings for ever all such expressions; and that in the proofs after to be brought to establish the presbytery, they would forbear that medium, which yet, as a main stud in this building, cannot be wanting.
2. This relation, which these elders have, must be a more speeial relation, as is evident from the practice and principles of this government.
For when the congregations in shires are divided into several presbyteries or deaneries, the elders (though neighbours) of a bordering presbytery intermeddle not with the congregations under another presbytery, and yet they are for their office elders.
It is therefore a special relation puts the difference, that those of these presbyteries judge the congregations under them, as having a special relation to them, such as not to other congregations.
Sothe | elders of the church of Jerusalem, as they all had the relation of elders to that church, so they had a special relation to that church; and the church was an entire distinct church within itself from the rest of the churches in Judea, and the elders of that church were in such a special manner elders thereof as of no church else in Judea; yea, in such a sense as they might be
| said not to be elders of those other churches, but of this.
8. It is an ordinary standing relation; for they exercise and assume aconstant and ordinary power, as the presbyters of leaser congregations do.
Their meetings as elders in a presbytery are constant and ordinary, as those of the lesser presbyteries are; and as these are established for the smaller matters of government, so these always are for the greater and most solemn, and they are both alike ordinary; for their meeting, work, and exercise of power being standing, their relation must be suitable and answerable to that of elders in their congregations respectively.
Unto the argument several answers were given by the reverend responCup, V.] THE CHUROHES OF CHRIST.
1, Some said that they meet not qua elders, only gui; they meot as commissioners, but not as elders.
But this answer is taken away by the first snd second argument, which proves they have the relation of elders in ruling.
2. It was denied by others, that if they make up a presbytery to these congregations, and all the people of them, that then they must bear the relation of elders to these congregations, and every member of them; for though they are elders taken singly and apart, as in relation to their several congregations which they are affixed unto; yet in this their conjunction into a common presbytery over them all, they bear not the relation of elders, but of a presbytery or eldership acting all in common.
For as all these congregations, under this govarnment, are to be considered as one body, and as making up one church, so all these elders, met in this community, are to be considered as one body and community ; and therefore, although they be considered altogether a presbytery to that whole church, yet it follows not that they bear the relation of elders to each congregation or person they govern; for accordto that logic rule, quod convenit toti qua toti, non convenit cuilibet parti, what agrees to the whole, as a whole, doth not agree to every part. These elders,
&s in a presbytery, make one totum aggregatum; and these congregations, a8 making up one church, make another totum aggregatum correlative thereunto; but take any elder out of this presbytery, and consider him in a single relation to any of those churches under the presbytery, and he is not an elder of any of those churches, no more than if you take any member of all those congregations that make up a classical church, it would follow that therefore he is a member of all those many congregations, whereas he is only a member of that community as making one church.
And it was exemplified thus, that in Judah the heads of the tribes governed the tribes, but 20 as the heads of the tribe of Benjamin were not the heads of the tribe of Manasseh; and so in the university, the particular heads of Trinity College and of Queen's College are altogether heads of the university as a common body, but it follows not that the head of Trinity College is head of Queen's and of all other colleges.
And so in parliament, a burgess of Warwickshire acts for all England, yet it follows not he is a burgess of Norfolk; so the case is here, they are elders in sensu composito, as united into one presbytery or community, but not in sensu diviso, to each of these congregations, but each to their proper congregations to which they are affixed; as the colonels in an amy are colonels but to their several regiments, yet they all join in one body as a council of war to the whole army.
And so these are elders here in sensu aggregato,- collectively to all the congregations, though apart with a more special relation to each.
It was retorted also that in a particular congregation, according to our principles, the community of all the brethren have power over any particular member, as Thomas and Peter, with the rest, over John; but it follows not that Peter hath power over John apart, but only as in this community considered; and so in this presbytery, all these elders are
4 preabytery to the whole, but yet bear not the relation of elders to each apart considered.
But we answer, 1. That we had the greatest reason to take it for granted (from the former Writings and expressions of the presbyterial divines, as also because the main arguments, by which themselves had proved this government, have been taken fromit), thatmanycongregations in the New Testament do make upone church, and that the elders thereof are elders of that one church, and therefore they are to govern that church.
2. That logical axiom is indeed true, quod convenit toti, qua toti, non convenit cuilibet parti; and so here, that which doth competere toti, to the whole of those elders, belongs not to every part; for take them all as met together,
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox IV. they are a presbytery, and accordingly each elder is not a presbytery to all these congregations.
Nor doth the argument suppose it, but only that if they all be a common presbytery to all these congregations, that then they bear the relation of elders to them.
Thus in a particular congregation, though all the elders are acknowledged by all to be elders to every member of the congregation, yet each cannot be said to be a presbytery to the whole or each member; for that which belongs to the whole as the whole, belongs not to every part.
That indeed which belongs to an aggregate whole, or collective community, formally considered as such, cannot be attributed to every part; but what materially belongs to them, belongs to each apart.
As take an heap of stones, it is true each stone is not an heap of stones, but each stone is a stone; and both the stones apart and as an heap maybe said to be such or such a man's propriety, and to relate to him; so this company of elders must be supposed both a presbytery and also elders to this whole people, and every member of them.
8. If they be a presbytery in common to those congregations, then according to the Scripture notion and expression (and what the Scriptures hold forth is the subject-matter of this debate), they bear the relation of elders also ; and then they must be such elders as the exhortations and duties of elders mentioned do concern.
Now, this consequence we make good by these arguments.
(1.} The Scriptures would have the people look at them, and honour them as elders in all acts of raling and governing, those especially wherein the most and chief of government lies, and wherein the excellency of their ruling is seen.
Now the chief of the acts of government, and the most excellent j thereof, are assumed and exercised by these elders, met in a common pres- | bytery, as excommunication, &c.
And therefore they that exercise such acts of government over congregations, must bear the relation of elders to them ; for upon that relation we are to honour them as performing this rule, and under that relation they must be said to perform it : ' The elders that rule well are worthy of double honour, especially those that labour in the word and doctrine,' 1 Tim. v.17.
From whom are they to have this honour given them, but from the people under them, and to be honoured in their relation;
: and this as well in ruling as in preaching, though an especially is pat upon that.
And therefore, if in giving this honour to them that labour in preaching to them, they are to look at them, under the relation of elders, and their elders labouring in the word to them, then, in giving that honour to them that rale them, they are so to look upon them, and therefore they must sustain that relation in that ruling ; and besides, otherwise we destroy the relation of elders as elders in the highest acts of governing, which are exercised in a presbytery, whereas the apostle calls them elders in ruling as well as in preaching.
(2.) The New Testament doth indifferently and promiscuously use the word presbytery and the word elders of the same persons, in relation to the same people ; and therefore to whom the elders are supposed to be a presbytery, to them they must bear the relation ofelders.
That the phrase is promiscuously used, is evident by Mat. xxi. 83, where those that are called 'elders of the people' are called, Luke xxii. 66, +d ageoBurigev rot Acov, 'the presbytery of the people,' so that if they were related as a presbytery to the people, to the same people they were related as elders.
Neither are they said to be elders in relation to their being a presbytery, but to the people; therefore it is not said the elders of the presbytery, but of the people, as bearing a direct relation as elders to the people; and so in analogy thereunto, if they be a presbytery to many congregations, they must be supposed elders of those
Cur. V.] THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. congregations; for to whomever they are a presbytery, to them they are elders; and to whomever they are elders, to them upon occasion they are a presbytery.
And in analogy, the New Testament useth the word presbytery as under the gospel but once, and in all places else, the Holy Ghost still, when he exhorts them to their duties, calls them elders, or them ' that have the rale over you;' and yet, in all those places, he intends to involve the duty of elders as met in a presbytery, as well as those singly performed to each person.
(8.) It is evident from the like parallel instance of the eldership of a particular congregation, where the elders bear the relation ofelders to each member, and when met in commen, they are an eldership or presbytery in common to that chureh, and each member of it. And then this their being a community takes not away their relation of being elders, as, if the answer given by the respondents should hold, it would; for they would only be a presbytery, and not elders in that community, whenas they never are elders more than then, and are not elders of that church, because met in a presbytery, but therefore meet in a presbytery over that congregation, because they personally bear the telation of elders to it; and when they meet in that presbytery, they are elders particularly to each member, as well as are universal elders in the assembled presbytery.
The Scripture commits the care of churches to these aa in a presbytery, as well as out of it; and therefore they are elders of their particular flock in this presbytery, as well as when out of it.
Thus (Acts xz, 28) all the care of the flock was committed to them as elders, and having relation to it as such; and therefore when met in a presbytery (therein to have care of the flock, or any member of it) they were elders to it.
And they are therefore to meet in a presbytery, because they were first eldérs to their several respective congregations; and that they must be acknowledged elders ofall the people in thoge congregations, the very instance itself alleged by our brethren will evidently clear; for the general elders of all the tribes were called elders of the people, Mat. xxi.
80 as suppose the same individual persons had been members of the general sanhedrim, or common eldership of the people, and also elders of the tribes respectively, yet they might as Justly be called elders of all those tribes in their general relation, for such ends and purposes, as truly as they were elders to their particular tribes, for other ends and purposes.
Now, therefore, by like reason must all the elders in this common presbytery have the relation of elders to all the congregations, a8 well as severally they have their proper relations to their several congregations.
For if, in the instance given of the Jewish government, we take all causes common to all the tribes, as the elders of Manasseh were elders to the tribe of Benjamin, go in like manner must these elders of a presbytery, in common to all these congregations, be supposed to be to each congregation, when any cause comes afore them in their cognisance.
(4.) Lastly, Those places and exhortations of Scripture concerning the duties of elders, &c., to their flocks, and their flocks to them, may be alleged to strengthen the argument : Heb. xiii. 7,
' Remember them that have the rule over you, and have spoken the word of God to you.'
And 1 Thess. v. 12, 'Know them which labour among you, and are over you, and admonish you.'
And to the 'same purpose is the charge, Acts xx., to the elders of Ephesus, 'Feed the flock,' &¢. These are all spoken of them, and to them, under the very notion and relation of elders and rulers (which is equivalent), and as their ralers and elders.
And surely if any person in a congregation were called afore one of those presbyteries over many congregations, they would urge upon the conscience of the person these and the like places, to obey them by virtue of these commands.
If he should reply, that these places THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox IV. speak of such as have the relation of elders to their flocks, and every person therein ; and that by virtue of their being such to them this obedience is urged upon them ; but you of the presbytery do not own the elders of your presbytery to have a relation to the congregation I am of, and so I am quit of obedience to you ; how could they, by virtue of these places, holding this principle, that they have not the relation of elders to him, enforce obedience from him?
And how will his conscience ever be brought to a submission to their sentence against him, if not satisfied of this relation to him thus specified?
And yet would not these elders, by the presbyterial principles, expect equal, if not more obedience from him, than the elders of that particular congregation he is a member of would do?
Iam sure that in practice they assume more; and I doubt not, but any one of these elders, or all of them apart, would as authoritatively admonish him (as an elder to him) in private after the cause is brought afore the presbytery, to obey and submit to them, as any of his own elders would do before or after their public admonition, and would require obedience to him as an elder, by virtue of these places of Scripture before mentioned.
If therefore they would require it, then the relation must be the same; yea, do not often some few of the elders of a common presbytery come into particular congregations, and perform acts of government, and ordain elders to them; and, in case of obstinacy, excommunicate the elders of any particular congregation?
Upon what plea of authority do they this ? as elders to that particular congregation or not ?
4. We come now to consider the other distinction: 1, Of their being elders only in a community to all these congregations as one church, in sensu aggregato ; and, 2, of their being apart elders unto their particular congregations respectively.
And so the duties mentioned of feeding the flock, &c., concern them only as considered apart; but acts of government belong to | them as elders in a presbytery.
We reply, 1, that this answer supposeth two distinct differing relations, the one a more particular relation of elders, as proper elders to their several congregations apart ; and another more common relation of the same persons considered as elders merely, as in a presbytery.
Now, for the confirmation or establishment of this distinction, by the one side or the other, the foundation on which we proceed must be remembered, viz., what the Scriptures hold forth; and therefore whatever suppositions or instances may be found in other constitutions, to illustrate such distinctions here, yet, if what the New Testament speaks of elders in relation to their flock, warranteth it not, yea, crosseth it, it may not be.
Now then, it is to be considered that, when the New Testament speaks of elders and churches, it speaks universally, and without distinction of a different relation.
It calla them simply and singly elders of the church, and delivers (in that relation) to their church they were elders of, exhortations to their duties, which that relation specially called for; and in those exhortations intends their duties, as their elders, met in a presbytery, as well as those they are to perform in other ministrations towards their flocks; and on the other side, exhorts the people, in like similar expressions, to obey and honour their elders that preach the word, rule them, and admonish them, prescribing obedience to them in their rule as a presbytery, as well as in other administrations; and all this without any distinction of this relation of elders, in common and in special.
And farther it is enjoined, that these presbyterial elders must perform those duties which belong to their office, unto all those they are thus elders unto, without any manifest distinction of any several bounds 'of this so differing relation.
This evidently argueth that there is bnt one single relation of elders to one flock, to whom they perform these duties, and that the same that preach ought to rule them in pubCmr. V.]
THE CHUROHES OF CHRIST. lic; and that the same persons that admonish them privately, do also in the public presbytery rale them; and that the same persons that rale them in those public presbyteries do admonish them in private.
So then, the same persons sustain in the Holy Ghost's intention and view, when he made those exhortations, one and the same univocal relation of elders to their flocks, committed by him to them, whether they be met in a presbytery for acts of government, or otherwise perform the duties of elders apart.
And it is evident, that in a particular congregation they are elders in one univocal similar relation unto the whole flock, and every member thereof.
But now this is the wonder, that when elders are thus affixed to particular congregations, and that their relation is a differing relation from that other in common presbyteries (yea, so vastly differing, that our brethren dare scarce acknowledge them elders, calling them rather a presbytery than elders of those ehurehes), that yet the exhortations in the Scriptures should so univocally fall on them, to so differing duties, founded on different relations; and that yet this only general relation of elders to their particular congregations should not be mentioned apart, and the duties accompanying it, singled out from the rest, seems to us very strange.
Yoa, and to direct the discharge of the duties of the people likewise to either of these elders (that they might know what duties to perform to their more proper elders, acknowledged theirs by way of so eminent and differing a relation, and what to those more common; and that all confusion might be prevented, that the one assume not the duties of the other), it was as necessary to have set the differing limits of these, as to set the bounds of officers in the church, which the Holy Ghost hath done.
2. And secondly, if there had been this differing relation of elders, which from those similitudes in commonwealths, armies, and universities is given, it was necessary that the Scripture should have held it forth, either by differing names and respects, or by differing charges, whereby it might appear that this relation obligeth them to this duty, and the other relation to that ; which being not done in Seripture, the distinction will not pass upon us.
That it is thought necessary that the Scripture should prescribe herein, appears from the instances brought by the reverend respondents.
As, 1, that of the tribes, where there were general elders of all the tribes, and there were {and perhaps some of them the same men) heads and elders of tribes ; but as this was a differing relation and respect in the same or diverse persons,
80 they had names and titles of difference and distinction; for the heads general (as we call them) were called elders of the people ; the particular elders of particular tribes were called, by way of distinction from them, elders of such cities, families, &c.; and there were as distinct laws given, 80 that in some causes the elders of the several tribes did judge such and such perticnlars in their tribes respectively; and the general elders had reserved eases of war, blasphemy, &e.
So in that instance of heads of colleges and heads of the university, there is a differing relation, so a distinguishing character; for the names are changed, since the particular bodies are called colleges, and the general body the university. And their several special relation to their colleges is expressed by the title of masters of such or such colleges, and the other by the title of heads to the university.
Yea, and accordingly there are differing statutes, the local statutes for each college apart, or for colleges as colleges, and the duties of masters in their special relations; and there are statutes for the university, and for their duties as heads of it.
And this distinction or difference was necessary here too, if there were this differing relation ; but, for the case in hand, if we come to the New Testament, to find out the THE GOVERNMENT OF {Boox IV. several modifications and relations of elders therein, we still read but simply and singly, elders and churches, as relatives, without any such note of distinotion of a classical church, and the presbytery thereof, and the congregational church, and the elders thereof.
The New Testament, in all its mentioning : of elders, speaks uniformly of them as elders of the chureh, and this rale is touscertain.
Ubi Scriptura non disténgutt, nec debemus distinguere, where the Scripture makes no distinction, we ought not to make any.
But, however, I will represent the difference between us and our brethren by the proposition ofsuch a case in law as this is: If all the records and ruled cases and laws of this kingdom should, in setting down the ordinary government thereof, have made mention only and singly of burgesses (as the ralers)
: of corporations (as the correlate te them), and used no other distinguishing word (when yet there were undeniably burgesses of every incorporate town continued from antiquity), might any one afterwards pretend that this word corporation was intended by our ancestors to import an association or community of many of these corporations in one shire; and that by burgesses of these corporations were meant a community of all these burgesses in one body for government; and so pretend to the same name without distinction, and say that these communities were also meant, and to prove it, give instance in some foreign government, where there are states general of provinces, and states particular of cities, whenas they have in their laws a distinction and differencing character, but in the laws of this kingdom there is no such distinction made?
But now, ifthe laws about the choice of such burgesses in each corporation, and the duties given them in charge, and their relation to their corporations, do run without any distinction of what the burgesses in the supposed greater corporations should do in that relation and community, from what the same burgesses in their lesser corporations do in their more proper relations; yea, and if the duties set down in those laws, mutually between corporations and those burgesses, should argue an inconsistency with the government of burgesses over many corporations in common; but should all naturally fall in with that of burgesses over single corporations, and argue sucha relation, would not this plainly evidence that therefore the laws of the kingdom did hold forth, there might notbe (that is, according to the laws thereof), such a government of the burgesses of corporations over many others? And if, in answer to such arguments, it should be said, that both these might be consistent; for that in other foreign states, and kingdoms, and societies, there are burgesses of particular corporations, and there are burgesses in an assembly of parliament (so called by way of distinction) met in common for the ordinary government of all those corporations in common, and therefore the like may be hero in this; the reply were easy, that whatever such distinction there is in other states, yet the question
. is of such burgesses as the laws of this state holds forth, and as this kingdom hath set up, where there is no such distinction of burgesses of corporations and burgesses in parliament mentioned ; but, on the contrary, only one single uniform style and title in the laws, namely, burgesses of the corporations; and further, the rules about their choice and duties mutually between them, and the corporation they have relation to, be also delivered without any dif- . ference ; which doth argue them to have been anciently the relation of burgesses to some one corporation, and not many, yea, to be utterly incongruous and inconsistent with such a manifold relation.
Now, parallel to this case, are our arguments, and the answers given to the arguments of our presbyterian brethren.
But they retort the argument upon us, and say, that it follows no more | that they are to be elders to each congregation, becatisejoined in a common
| Cur. VI.J THE OHUROHES OF CHRIST. presbytery, than that in a particular congregation, Peter, or one member apart, hath a power over John, because, in community with the rest of the brethren, he hath power over any one.
We answer, that let this parallel decide it, and then, as the foundation of any one member's having an interest in that community over John or any other, consists in this, that he stands in the relation of a brother to John, asa member of that church, and so in like manner to all the rest of the members in that community; so likewise all, and every one, when in that common fraternity, stand in the very same relation of brethren to John, ag well as when they are apart out of it, and do not become brethren, having power over him, because met in a community, but therefore meet, because, as brethren, this duty lies on them in common, to judge him, as much as in private to admonish him, and so one and the same relation puts them upon both these duties.
And in Scripture, the exhortations run to the same persons te perform these duties, though of differing sort, because of their relation as brethren.
Let this parallel be applied to the thing in hand, and as it answers the instance, so it strengthens our argument.
Lastly, If they be acknowledged to have the relation of elders as assembled in a presbytery, and in that respect to have a relation to all the people in the several congregations, yet still the same incongruities mentioned will follow upon it.
For many of those duties, from all the congregation, as honour, maintenance, &c., are due to them, as well as to their own elders, for that their work's sake; and the acts, too, also of these elders in this presbytery, though in common, are the most eminent acts that belong to the office of elders, and in which the consciences and interest of the people, and each member, is as much concerned, as in the daily preaching of their more proper elders (as for distinction's sake we now call them), for they have power, and they alone, to cut them off from all ordinances, and to deliver them unto
Now, then, if they are to be interested in the choice of their proper elders, to rale them in smaller things, then their concern ought to be as mueh in the choice of, and consenting to these their general elders, and they should be present at the ordination of all of them; for one great part of their fanction is to be exercised towards any and all of those congregations, in a standing way, yea, and to rule them in matters of tho greatest concernment.
Thas, then, so far as they are acknowledged elders, so far these inconveniences will still follow upon the heels of that acknowledgment; and the Scriptures indifferently speaking of the same thing, without distinction of both these kinds of relations, under the common name of elders, the people have as much cause to challenge their right about the one as they have about the other, and these elders may expect the same (by virtue of those scrip- | tares) from the people.
The incongruities which flow from the elders of a presbytery sustaining special relation of elders to all the particular congregations.
I have proved that if a presbytery be set over many congregations, the presbyters thereof must bear a special relation of constant and established elders to all those congregations.
I shall now evince, that for these elders already fixed to several charges, to sustain also a special relation of ordinary and standing elders to all these congregations, as one church, and all the THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox IV.
'people thereof as members of that church, carries with it great and manifold incongruities and inconsistencies also, with what the Scriptures hold forth concerning elders and other officers of churches, as also with the principles professed by the reformed churches themselves.
1. This breeds an incongraous disproportion between the relation of the officers of a church, of this sort of officers, namely, elders, in the extent of their relation and power ; and of those other sort of officers of the churches acknowledged by the reformed churches, viz. deacons.
Now let us therefore put it to the examination of the conscientious, whether what the Seripture speaks of elders, and of their commission, duties, &., in their several relations to the flock under them, will afford clearer characters of the extent of their standing government, to be congregational to one congregation, than of its being classical over many.
'Yea, let us see whether the descriptions of elders, and exhortations given unto them concerning their several charges, do not plainly overthrow any such relation of elders (as elders) unto many
. congregations, as inconsistent thereunto.
Surely unto us there appear many great and unanswerable incongruities and inconsistencies in this classical government.
If we compare the extent of this office of elders in their relation with the extent of other church officers in their relation, we shall find that what holds true of one sort of ordinary officers of a church, according to the word, may well be supposed to hold true of another
; or else there is a disproportion between the several relations of officers, and the one is not of like extent . with the other, which yet the Scriptures make commensurable, and to be of equal extent.
More plainly, if the Scriptures had intended, and held forth many churches as making one church; and the elders of those many chnrches to have been elders in common to those churches, as one church; then the deacons of all those churches should make up a-common deaconry, and be deacons in common unto all those churches in an ordinary way, as the other are elders.
But this is contrary to the practice of the reformed churches, though subject to the presbyterial government, in which the deacons have the ordinary relation of deacons, in no respect extended further than to a particular congregation ; nor do they exercise acts of that office in a set way to other congregations, nor to neighbour congregations more than to another, much less is there a common deaconship of them ail.
And f yet, why shoyld not this common deaconry be erected over all those churches as one church, as well as a common eldership, especially if in matters of this nature a parity of reason should carry it?
For, 1. A church in Scripture, and all the officers, are alike relatives, as a church and the elders are.
The best of the presbyterial arguments for this common presbytery are founded upon the commengurable extent and relation of church and elders, that if any churches make one church, then tho elders of them all make one eldership, and they are elders in common unto them; then why not the deacons also? Now this reason of theirs, fetched from this mutual relation of one church, and one eldership or elders thereof, will require the like for deacons; for every church, as it is a church, being a body, hath a relation to all its officers as organical members thereof. As we
| have it asserted, Rom. xii. 4, 'As we have many members in one body, and | all members have not the same office,' so it is also in the charch of Christ; and the members have several offices in the church, which he mentioneth, ver. 8; and so if that church of Rome were one body, and a church of many churches, then the deacons were deacons in common of those many churches as they all were one church.
For as the pastor's and teacher's office is held forth in that following description, ver. 8, 'he that exhorteth,' and 'he that | Cuap. VI.] THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. teacheth,' so the deacon's in that, 'he that giveth.'
And in the analogy of the natural body (to which there the apostle refers us, to exemplify this of a church organised with officers, as a body to Christ), though one member may be less and inferior to another in bulk or use, yet it is a member of that whole body in its use.
The little finger is a finger of the whole body, as well as the arm is 8 member of the whole; the foot that serves the whole body is a member in its {office as fully as the hand, and the extent of its jurisdiction or use, according to its kind, is the same, by virtue of the same relations.
If, therefore, these are elders in common, or an eldership do rule in common those congregations as one church, and as organical members thereof, as one body, then why should not the deacons, in as ordinary a way, perform their office in common, and bear the relation of deacons in common unto all as one church?
And, 2. The Scriptures do confirm this like commensurable extent of the deacons' and elders' offices, as relating to a church, for the apostle writing to Philippi, a church in a city (which therefore we suppose our brethren will needs have to have been a presbyterial church, of many congregations, lest any one instance of a complete congregational church should be left unto us), he writes to the bishops (the elders) and the deacons of that church.
And Acts vi., the deacons of the church of Jerusalem (if there were many congregations, as our brethren suppose) were chosen by the whole multitude when gathered together by the twelve, and therefore were deacons of that whole church, as well as the elders were elders thereof.
Now if the deacon's office should thus be extended to all the congregations, as the elder's is, then why should not each church be bound to bring contributions to the deacons of each church, to be distributed in common ; and so our purses should be subject to the deacons in common, as far as our consciences to the elders in common, and they might challenge the same power in their office over the one that the elders do over the other; and then also each congregation were in as ordinary and standing an obligation bound to relieve all the poor in those churches, as well as those in their own, not only by the common law of charity, but by virtue of a special relation of their being one church, which relation in all these things doth beget the like obligation that it doth in government, and so all things in this nature should be alike common to all and each, and there should be a common treasury for this one great diaconate eharch (as we may in a parallel allusion to that other name of presbyterial eall it), as there is a common regimen or government for this great presbyterial church.
This strange disproportion between the officers or members of this body which the presbyterial government doth make, seems to us, at least, unnatural, whereas this (as all other things) fall in suitably and naturally, when the relation of elders and elderships is extended no further than each congregation, which, as it is to be an organical body unto Christ, so the officers and members thereof, according to the law of nature, are alike members of and for that body, and the use, service, relation, of all and each in their several kinds bear a like proportion to the whole.
And that, even by the practice and judgment of the reformed churches themselves, the deacons are confined to each particular congregation, is to us a testimony
(as the remaining office of overseers for the poor under the episcopal government hath been judged a pregnant evidence of the deacon's office once in the church) that the limits of a church and elders were all once within a particular congregation, although the elders, because a superior office, have
. assumed to extend their power and jurisdiction in their kind further than the other more inferior in theirs.
Bat let it be supposed that some reason of difference might be given of y i THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boos IV.
| this disproportion in the elders' office, and the deacons', and that a common deaconry would not follow upon a common presbytery; yet,
\ 2. There are other as great incongruities will fall upon the very relations of the elders' officethemselves, which this frame of fixed elders to some congregations respectively, and yet of ordinary elders to all of them, causeth.
God hath made some preaching elders, some ruling elders (as the reformed churches allow) or church governors, to assist the pastors in government.
And to preaching elders both preaching and ruling belongs, which are conjunct in that office, according to the principles of she presbyterial government and the Scriptures.
But the business of ruling belongs only to the other, and by this they are distinct, as two subordinate species, or as the sensitive and reasonable soul, whereof the one hath sense only in all its acta, the other both sense and reason, and yet are specifically distinct.
Every church of Christ isabody ordered, Col. ii. 1, 'rejoicing' (says Paul) 'to see your order.' And the intent of the presbyterial goverment is professed to be, to preserve order in the church; and if in anything this order is most to be seen, it is in the distinction and order of the officers thereof.
Now this frame of government brings in a great disorder in the offices and officers, and confounds them and their relations.
To demonstrate this, let us consider the pastors, or preaching elders.
They are all undeniably preaching elders to their particular congregations, of which they are the fixed pastors; and yet they have another relation of elders (by means of this preebyterial government) to all these congregations, considered as one church; and if these pastors be any way elders to both, they must sustain the title of both sorts of elders in these two differing relations, which is an evident confounding of both these offices in one and the same person.
For, 1. It is evident that they do each apart bear the title and relation of preaching elders unto their particular congregations, and such pastors, or such preaching elders, they can be to no more or other than those they ordinarily preach unto, for they labour in the word and doctrine unto no other ; and this is the character of distinction from the other elders and governors in 1 Tim. v.17, And it is evident that they, being fixed each as pastors to their particular congregations, cannot labour in the word and doctrine to them all; therefore they sustain this title in distinction of elders only unto those their several charges.
And it is certain that all offices have their distinction and denomination from that special praxis or funetion they are ordained unto, as that is an eye to the body whose praxis or function is to see for the whole body.
They can therefore be said to be preaching elders to no other of this classical church than that praxis of preaching is extended unto.
It is an argument which Whitaker useth against the pope, and our divines make use of it against the bishops, that nor he nor they can be said to be pastors unto all they yet pretended to be pastors unto, because they are not able to exercise the functions of pastors unto them.
Therefore, 2. We ask what sort of elders the pastors are that are in this common presbytery?
What sort of relatiqn of elders do they bear to this one presbyterial church, over and above that relation they as pastors bear to their own (and this church and elders as elders are relatives, as well as the particular congregations and their elders, or else this great church must want its correlative of elders to it)?
Surely they bear no other relation than of ruling elders, if they be elders at all (and to make them no elders, and not to have the relation of elders to this great church in this presbytery, we believe will not be affirmed) ; and if they be elders, then the notion of their being elders must have one of those two fore-mentioned formal differences annexed to it, either of preaching elders or merely ruling ; and this difference and denomiCup. VL]
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. nation must be fetched (as was said afore) from the differing praxis or use they serve for.
And it is evident that the ordinary acts they serve for and exercise in those common presbyteries are merely acts of ruling elders (in all which therefore ruling elders concur in common with them), and accordingly it ia called the presbyterian government.
And farther, the power of an office in the church (though exercised but as conjoined with others) is arelation in respect to some administration in a constancy; now the constant and ordinary administration they serve for in such a presbytery is only raling, not teaching, there being no acts but such that roling elders join in.
So as by this frame, the same preaching elder or pastor must bear two sorts of ordinary offices in these two relations, of a preaching and a mere ruling elder, as if one were both a physician and a chirargeon, and were fixed to one of the companies in the city to practise physic to them, he sustained the office of a physician to that company; and if he were besides ealled to practise chirurgery to many other companies, he were certainly only a chirargeon unto them, as truly as a physician to the other.
80 as we shall not need to dispute the point of ruling elders any more; for here are such as are elders, acknowledged such by all sides, and yet for the sort of their office but plain ruling elders, and deserve properly in this relation no other name, if we hold the presbyterial government; and they are as traly and property to this presbyterial church such, and no other, ag those governors that preach not at all are unto those they are elders unto.
And this incongruity no distinction will salve; call them elders in this presbytery, in what sense you please, whether in sensu diviso or conjuncto, yet elders they are ; and if so, then ono of these two sorts of elders they must be to this presbyterial church, either both preaching and ruling elders, or merely ruling.
Their being elders together in this presbytery, cannot be supposed to divest them of the title of some sort of elders (and there is not a third sort), no more than the elders of a congregation, met in a presbytery, do thereby lose the title of elders which they sustain to that congregation, or no more (as was even now instanced) than when the body hath two eyes that always concur in one act of sight, either of them should not be denomied eyes unto the body apart, and the one called the left, and the other
The disorder and confusion hereby may be further set out, 1. That by this means the same officer hath a full relation to one church, and but half arelation unto another ; and it causeth him to perform the whole of his offices to one church (the particular church) to which he hath relation, and bat the half thereof to the other.
It makes an ordinary pastor, not only perform the work of two officers, but to bear the relation of two offices; for in his several relations to these two soveral churches, his congregational and classical, his relations are parted and divided.
And it brings up the same absurdity which was put upon episcopal government, that a bishop, professing himself to bear the relation of a pastor to the whole diocese, yet was but a ruling elder to them, not a teaching.
8. To extend a pastor's power of ordinary ruling beyond the extent of his ordinary teaching, is against the order which Christ hath set (and all extent of power must as well have an institution of Christ, as the power or office itself; for the difference of evangelists, and of ordinary pastors, lay bat in extent of power), and then we argue thus: If the extent of a pastor's ordit ruling power, as a pastor and elder, be but to the flock, as his whole fock, which he is able to feed, then to bear the relation of a pastor
[Boox IV. or elder for ordinary government to any more than he is able, and doth thus feed, may not be; but the extent of a pastor's ordinary ruling power is but to that flock, as his whole flock, which he is able to feed.
And this argument, as also the former, besides that it serves to make up more incongraities of this presbyterial government, sp it might stand alone, and make a complete argument of itself against it; for if the pastor's ordinary power in ruling be not to be extended farther than of his ordinary preaching, then this ordinary standing government of pastors fixed for preaching to their own congregations may not be over those many in common.
Now, that the extent of a pastor's ordinary ruling power reacheth only to that flock which he is able to feed, I prove, 1, by Scripture;
1. I prove it by Scripture : Acts xx. 28, 'Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock (the whole flock, savr? rq wosuviy) over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.'
Here are, 1, elders (ver. 17) spoken to.
Their having relation to a flock, an whole flock, is mentioned.
8, They sre enjoined to ' feed the flock,' and 'the whole flock ;' and all these are commensurable.
Whence, 1, we see that the special limitation of their extensive power and relation to a flock, arti to all the flock, is set by the Holy
Ghost, and not by man ; and therefore is not to be extended by man, farther than the ;Holy Ghost hath appointed, 2. The extent of that relation is to that flock, and the whole flock they feed; and they are to feed all that flock alike.
And if they be preaching elders, then they must feed it by preaching; and therefore are overseers to them, to feed them, and because they feed them.
8. He speaks to preaching elders especially, that feed by doctrine; for (1.) he propounds his own example to them, ver. 20, that he had revealed the whole counsel of God; and (2.) he says, ver. 80, 'Some of you shall arise, speaking perverse things,'
And it is Paul's farewell; and (as Bains argues against bishops) those to whom at last the apostles commended . churches, were the ordinary governors left; but he commended them not to a bishop, but ordinary elders.
Thus we argue also, for the extent of the relation of those elders, that they are to govern only that flock that they are able to feed ; and therefore they havo not the office of overseeing, as ordinary eldera, over those whom they feed not.
And Peter seconds Paul in this:
1 Peter v. 2, ' Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.' The flock, éviz%, among you, is that flock that any of them had relation to, as his flock respectively.
Thereupon, writing unto the churches in a whole nation, in chap. i. ver. 1 (whereas in Acts xx. 28, the charge is to the particular elders of Ephesus, to that whole flock), he therefore pats
| in that note of respectiveness, iv iz, among you, that is, that which respectively belongs to you, answerable to which is that text, Col. i. 17,
' Who is for you a faithful minister,' that is, your proper pastor; and Acts xiv. 28, | they ordained elders church by church, elders to them, that is, proper elders to them; so the flock, év iw, signifies your several proper flocks that | belong to you.
Hereby it appears, that their feeding and their oversight | over any of those flocks are commensurable; and that flock which they are not able to feed, they have not the oversight over, for they are 'both of the | same extent.
Thus also, Heb. xiii.7, 17, ' Remember them that have the rule over you, and have spoken to you the word of God,' which he speaks ofpreaching elders, for the extent of their rule and their preaching is all one.
And of ruling elders he speaks, ver. 17, 'Obey them that have the rale over you; for they watch for your souls, as those that must give an account.'
And not to dispute whether these places note out two sorts of officers, presching elders, ver. 7, and ruling elders, ver. 17, or but one sort, and so but several
Cap. VI.) THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. acts of the same office, yet this is certain, that these are commensurable, for they are officers together in the same church.
And if the pastor's power of ruling extends no farther than his preaching, then the mere ruling elder's power, or his that is assistant to him, must extend no farther alec.
1. Remember those that have spoken the word to you.
2. Obey and submit to those that watch for your souls.
This is the natural obligation to obedience, and so is the measure to set the bounds of the extent of ordinary church power.
It is one argument used against episcopal power, that they are enforced to obey him that speaks not the word to them, nor watcheth over their souls ; and this holds as well against these presbyterial officers.