Part 7
And 8. If that notion be true of Mr Brightman's, that they are types of all churches to come to several nations (as it is most probable they are), then it hath a clear other meaning than thatof there being many particular churches in each of those cities.
To conclude, we find that in all those epistles of Paul when he writeth to the several churches of Philippi, Colossus, Thessalonica, &c., he writeth to them most and chiefly concerning the duties whieh lay upon them in respect of their particular relation to that particular congregation whereof they are members, and with whom they have a fixed communion, and do ordinarily converse with both officers and people.
Now, if there had been more congregational churches than one in each of these cities (as is supposed), there is far more reason why he would rather have written to them under the style of several churches in such a place (as he doth when he writes to the Galatians), when he urgeth such duties upon them, rather than to have given them the title of one church, in respect of an association for government only.
If he had written of matters of government only or chiefly to them, then the expression of calling them one church had been suitable to the duties he exhorts them to; but the duties principally concerning them, as they were members of distinct congregations, having a nearer communion both towards
| their officers fixed to them, and the people fixed in a near communion with | them, he would rather have used the style of churches than of one church, ifthere had been many churches in those cities.
And farther, since, according Caap. IX.] THE CHURCHES OF CHEIST. to this sapposition, the primary relation of pastors to churches being in the several distinet congregations, but the relation of these members one to another, as they are a classical church, being but a secondary relation, it were strange that when the Holy Ghost writes and speaks to such and such ° eburebes in such and such a city (supposing many), he should write to them only under the notion of a classical church, and mention that only, and not mention their other church state as being several churches, making one church, nay, net so much as speak, that they were several congregations.
Sineo they are churehes congregational in the language of the Holy Ghost, and that the main of what is a church (as hath been shewed) falls upon them as such, how can we think that this association into one chureh, which isa secondary thing, should wholly carryaway and swallow up the name, style, and title of the other?
And that which farther strengthens this consideration is, that when they write to churehes, in a nation or in a province (as in Galatia, and in Asia, and in Judea, and the like), if that a politic assoeiation
(such or the like association to this whereby it is affirmed that in one city many particular congregations are made one classical church for government), if such 9 one were intended, then they would as well, and by the same reason
(in writingto such churches in a nation or province), have written to them under the notion of one church as well as when they did write thus to them ina city.
Butthe apostle when he writeth to a whole provinee, then he saith churches (although according to presbyterian principles they are as traly one chureh in the same political respect that a classical church is one in respect of many eongregationes of a city); but, on the contrary, when he writeth to acity, he doth give them the name of church, without the least mention of charches therein as making that one church.
And the reason is strong, that he should have done the one as well as the other; for if many churches wero called one church in'a city, beeause that is the greater association whereby the lesser ehurches were governed, by the same reason he would much rather have called the churehes of Judea one ehurch, because the association in a provinee or nation is larger and greater than that of manycongregations in a classical church in a city.
And whereas some argue from the multitude of believers in a city, as too great to make but one congregational ehurch; if the case had been so, it had been then more conducible for the apostle to have expressed the multitade in sneh cities by the name of churches in a city than by calling them one church.
And it is strange that when the story is told of the apostles coming to such or sucha city (as in the Acts it is), it is still said they called the church together, as when the people were called together in Antioch,
For if they had been many eongregations, and had met in parts by way of distribution, it had been a much more proper phrase to say, they called the churches, if there had been more in sucha city.
Object. The apostle still, in writing unto the saints in great cities, calleth them one church; and it were strange if that, in the apostle's times, they thould not have multiplied in such great cities to more than one congregation.
Ans, 1, As you sayit is hardto think that there were no cities that had bat® one congregation, so it is as hard to think that all the churehes in other places, villages and cities, should not be uniform.
2. There might be some cities where there might be more churches than one, to whom they wrote, as the city of Rome to whom Paul wrote, might have more ehurehes than one ; for he doth not in his epistle call the saints there one ehurch ; and though he speaks of a church in Aquila and Priscilla's house, yet his phrase of writing otherwise is only to the saints at Rome.
%* Qu 'more than'?—Ep.
THE GOVERNMENT OF {Boox II.
8. All those that write against episcopacy, both of the Scottish nation and of our own, have with one mouth affirmed, that it cannot by manifest argument be made out that the churches mentioned in the New Testament were more than could meet in one congregation.
4. The meaning is, that when the story of the Acts and those Epistles were written, that then there were no more, but not that afterwards there were no more, 6. Although the apostles did specially preach to cities, yet let it be considered how little time they were forced to stay in cities, because they were to lay the foundation of the gospel in all the world.
And though Paul stayed three years in or about Ephesus, yet it doth not appear that he stayed 20 long time in Ephesus itself; but, as in the 18th and 14th chapterof the Acts it is said they went into the countries, so likewise he did.
6. The apostles did teach the saints in every city to become one church, and to hold together so long as possibly they could continue in:one congregation with edification.
And how great and large a synagogue in a city was, we may see by that instance of Capernaum.
And thé Christians met in the cities, and built synagogues for meeting-places, as well as the Jews were allowed to do in the cities of the Gentiles.
The constitution of a congregational church evidenced to be by the wise appoint ment of Christ, because tt ts so exactly accommodated to the varivus conditions of saints.
Let us now see whether of these two should in reason be the institution of Christ, and which, a classical or congregational church, would suit most with the condition of the saints under the New Testament.
God hath still moulded his institution, and varied it himself according to what was the fature condition of his church.
Whilst the church was continued in families, as under the old law, he sorted his government and ordinances accordingly.
When they grew up to a nation, he fitted a new government on purpose for them.
When in the wilderness, a tabernacle only; when fully settled under a kingly power, a temple. Now, under the gospel, the condition of saints in nations varying in several ages, he hath ed his ordinance of church-state suitably.
If it be said that therefore when churches should multiply to a nation, then { the government is to be suited unto that nation.as such.
We reply, 1. When we see whole nations truly turn Christian, an answer is to be given.
2. God saw it would fall out otherwise with his saints in the New Testa- | ment, that they would still be redeemed out of nations, therefore still suited
| his government to his own design.
8. If in his providence he foresaw that nations, being turned to him, should have an answerable government, as the Jews had, he would have given rules answerable.
As although the church in the wilderness was not grown up to a kingdom, and had not a set place for worship, and was not come to be disposed of in several cities (as when they should inherit the land of Canaan they should), yet God, foreseeing what he would bring them to, did not give laws only that suited their church state in the wilderness for the present, but he told them that when they should come into Canaan he would choose a place to which they should bring their offering, that this should be the law
| Cur. X.] THE OHURCHES OF CHRIST. of their king, and also appointed what their government should be when dispersed into several cities and towns.
And so answerably if he had intended a national form of government for his saints under the New Testament, and all things suitable thereunto (when as yet they were not grown up to national churches), he would aforehand have prescribed laws accordingly.
Now, 1, this institution of congregational churches was such as would suit all times, of the beginning of the gospel and of the continuance of the gospel.
The first churches were such necessarily, as was said afore, and when multiplied did still continue so, and might govern themselves, without foreign oppression.
2. It snits all places, villages as well as cities ; .and we must suppose saints to be as well in villages as in cities.
And those villages had elders for worship and government, and the rights of a church.
And if God were to make one uniform law, why should the institution be conformed to cities, as is pretended, and that made the pattern and the jurisdiction of all the rest, rather than that of villages; for God is the God of the valleys as well as the hills, and there must be the same uniform rule of both?
But now, though the institution, to have the saints with their elders make one classical church, might be supposed to suit cities well enough (for it was but having many churches in them), yet the lesser towns it would not suit, thus to form them up, under the government of a presbytery of many congregations, especially in those times when they were scattered.
8. This institution ofcongregational churches suits also with all conditions of the church of Christ.
1. With the times of persecution as well.as the times of peace.
I may say of this congregational government as of faith; it is said of faith that it is a standing grace, it is the materia prima, the first matter, out of which all riseth and into which all resolveth.
A man liveth by it in prosperity, and if he be in desertion, all is resolved into it.
And go it is of congregations, it agrees with all estates, with all times.
And though you suppose other governments, yet that always existeth, and all begin from thence; therefore these are called esclesia prima, and the other ecclesia orta.
2. It suiteth the condition of the saints, being scattered all the world over.
Whole nations are not saints fit for churches, for the saints are but a company redeemed out.of nations.
As therefore among the Jews, when they were geattered, their government was a synagague government (therefore some think they began thatof synagogues when they first went into Babylon, vhich we will not dispute), therefore as synagogue government suited with the seattered, the dispersed condition of the Jews, so this suits best with the scattered condition of the saints under the gospel.
, 8. The constitution alsoof churches was certainly uniform, in cities and in : villages, or wheresoever or in what time soever, the government of them was uniform.
When Obrist bade them teach every nation to do what he commanded them, he intended that the rale should 'be uniform, whatever government the nations had; and therefore also the apostle's phrase and style is still, 1 Cor. xvii. 17, '80 I ordain in.all the churches.'
And that which will suit all churehes, all states, all times, is certainly rather the pattern than any other.
Christ did not make one form for cities and another for villages, one form for times of persecution and another form for times of peace, for what suited times of persecution would suit times of peace also; and, as the laws ofmen consider what is best for the generality of men, so the institutions of Christ considered what was best for his church of the New Testament, throughout all ages, and all conditions and places whateoever.
4. It suita best for the condition of churches, in times, whether pure or ye| [Boox II. corrupt, reformed or to. be reformed, when the churches are generally overgrown with corruptions.
6. By reason of this, that the institution of Christ doth thus fall upon congregational churches, to be those churches which should be the complete seat of worship and governmient, there was 8 provision made (and in the event it hath fallen out prosperously) that the truth and the substance of his ordinances, and of church state (takingit as it is itself, a ministerial ordinance), and of the ministry, might and hath eontinued in all ages. For there being a necessity (if there should be any worship at all) to have congrtegations for to continue, and uphold the public worship of God; and to that end, to have ministers over them to performthe worship, in this fandamental institution of his, all that profess the Christian name throughout the world in all ages have agreed; and by this means, Jesus Christ hath preserved the truth of a church and ministry, and substance of worship, in the midst of all those varieties of government of several sorts of patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops in that hierarchical way, a6 also of general councils and other assemblies subordinate to them; and so whatsoever false superstructions have been made, or whatever interruptions, yet still this fanda- | mental constitution of his hath remained, and could not have been secured to continue in all ages (fall out what would) in any other way.
Bat the great thing, upon which all depends, is to find out what essential thing it is that church institution should fall upon.
We say, that the end of churches is a fixed and immediate communion of saints in all ordinances, and that the formal and external part of the institution is but suited so as to attain this end; which is, that saints should be knit together to meet in one for ordinances, having their officers that have relation to them, by whom the ordinances are externally dispensed.
So as it is not an accidental thing, or mere external thing (as that they should meetin one place) that the institation falleth upon, but it is the most solid, and substantial, and essential thing, that can be supposed te be the ground of so great an institution.
We shall gradually make out the meaning of this. assertion, by these following considerations, which will make the glory of Christ in this institution, and the consentaneousness of it to spiritual reason, and the highest ends that may be supposed to be aimed at, to appear.
1. Communion of saints is the adequate end of a church as such, be it what kind of chureh soever; and therefore in the creed, the church catholic and communion of saints are joined together, and do follow one another, for the one is the end of the other; and all particular churches are therefore also called the churches of the saints.
And as the church is framed and formed, answerably, such is the communion ; and such as the communion is to be, such is the church to be reckoned, the one being suited to the other.
The church catholic (as now it is called, in respect it is in ali nations), although it is one body to Christ, yet the saints therein cannot have, as saints, a fixed, standing, set communion, but occasional; either occasional if outward, or secret and invisible if inward, such as the church, in one age, hath with the church of another age that went afore; such as the church now in heaven and in earth may have together, and in that respect, an ordinance or an institution could not so well fall upon it.
But meet it was, that besides this kind of communion, there should be on earth a communion of saints, suited to the state of the ehurch whilst on earth, that should be most entire, and the nearest that can be, and most resembling heaven, for the public worship and glorifying of God in a commen enjoyment of ordinances. i 2. Under the gospel, the communion of saints is nearer and more inti- ' mate than was under the law. As the church exceedeth it, go the communion
Car. X.] THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. is to exceed it; amd as their ordinances are more spiritual, so their communion.
There is a greater distance of the saints of the church catholic in their habitations under the gospel, than of the Jews under the law.
The Jews were nearer as people dwelling in one land, and so were capable of a nearer communion all together than the church catholic now is capable of; yet because it was a nation, therefore their communion was ordered in the way of a national polity, as a government by representation and a representative worship, wherein the females were represented in the males, and yet not frequent and often neither, for it was but three times a year.
The communion therefore of saints, then, was carried on in a worldly way (as the . state of men in kingdoms, and -commonwealths, and in civil things is), and therefore it was a worldly external frame, and the communion answerable.
And that of the synagogues was but for the reading the word and prayer only, and not for all sorts of ordinances of worship.
The catholic universal church cannot attain to so general a commonion under the gospel, as the ustional church of the Jews did, by reason of the difference of language, and distance of places, and dispersions into all nations; and yet they were to attain to a nearer communion, and more intimate, and the entirest that the saints on earth are capable of, and so to have churches framed as to attain to this.
8. The greatest and entirest communion that saints are capable of, must therefore be by parts on earth, to have communion in publie worship and ordinances. it is therefore necessary that the saints should be cast into such assemblies, wherein they might partake of one spirit by 'one bread,' whereby they might partake of one and the same bread individually, which is therefore called the communion of the body of Christ, and whereby they are made one bread, asin the 1 Cor. x. 17. And therefore it is that the Scripture doth express that communion by that word meeting, or being together, in ordinances, Acts ii. 46, suo¢juadev, 'with one mind or spirit,' importing that which is the spirit and life of public worship, which (above all other actions done by a multitude) is to have the nearest union of spirits, wherein the entire communion of saints lieth, and whereby God is glorified.
And for several churches te meet in the same manner, or at the same time, for the same kind of ordinances, herein doth not lie so much communion, as an ~ miformity between them. But this is the most internal lively communion, to jom in the same act, at the same instant, altogether to God, and is the greatest imitation of heaven, where one spirit will ran through all, and God will be all in all at once.
4. And to make yet the communion nearer (for it is to be the nearest), it must be of persons fixed and constant in such a communion; for that is sill a more entire nearness, that the same persons should still in an ordinary way meet to join in their spirits in the same ordinances, and so inwardly and jointly thus to glorify God as well as externally.
The continuance and the fixedness of the same persons, makes still the union the entirer.
And therefore, if, for to enjoy the entirest communion of saints on earth, it was necessary to part the saints for public worship, then also it is needful to part them into fixed bodies, which still also is the nearest resemblance to heaven, which is the perfection of communion.
5. To make this communion yet more entire, it is necessary that, as they should fixedly join in ordinances of worship, so in all other; and that the same persons should enjoy the same ordinances, and one kind of ordinances
* as well as another, that as they are preached to by the same elders, so they should join in the same prayers, have the same breathings of the Spirit from those prayers, partake of the same bread, feed at the same table; as in a THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox I. family, the entireness of it lies in this, that they have the same father and mother, the same master and mistress, partake of the same bread every way, and of the same family duties and family comforts ; and so now this communion, in a particular church, both as to worship and government, is uniform.
Yea, and acts of government being worship (which the souls of men are edified by, as well as they are by sermons) are wholly spiritual.
It is not here as in Israel, whose government was more carnal; for it was the judging of civil causes (civil and ecclesiastical government being all one, mixed together, as the church itself was), it was in such controversies and cases, a8 now men plead in civil bars about estates ; only God was pleased to give laws himself for ordering of such things.
But the apostle in 1 Cor. y., and in 1 Cor. vi., severeth the judging of matters in the church, as a church, by way of excommunication, éc., from their judging of things about this life.
A church as a church meddleth not now with them, for these affairs of it are wholly spiritual.
So that, for a conclusion, if all the wits of the world should have studied a way to contrive what kind of church to erect for the entirest communion of saints, to attain to that end which is the end of a echureh instituted, they could have pitched upon no other but this; neither could there have been such a way found out of all other as this is.
If that the church universal, the communion of it, had been only occasional, the saints meeting only by virtue ofbeing members of the catholic church promiseuously and indefinitely, sometimes in one company, sometimes in another, though by this promiscuous and indefinite way, there had been a more extensive communion of saints indeed (that is, each saint might have come to have joined in publie worship with more numbers of saints, at several times, with more variety) ; yet it had not been eo intensive, so near and high a communion, as for the same saints under the same officers fixedly to meet.
And besides, they could not have had an excommunication out of this communion, unless first knit into fixed bodies ; neither could they have chosen officers, unless such whose office should cease with the act and performance, which indeed is not an office ; for that is a separation of a man to a continued performance of a duty. i Nor would it have brought that blessing, that a constant dedication of men
| to an office for perpetuity would do, whieh could not be done in that occasional fluid way.
| If that such congregations and officers, though bounded within such a compass of a city or so, should have remained unfixed, though associated together within sucha circuit or compass, yet this would not have made this entireness of communion of saints, as by this way of fixed congregations there is.
And also, in this case, the institution of a church would have been pitched upon some one part, or particular kind of eommunion, and upon something less principal in it, and not upon the adequate and full foundation of it.
For, first, in this uniixed way of people and officers, though bounded in ® compass, this number of saints should have heard this minister to-day, and with other saints have heard another to-morrow, none meeting one day together, that do another day, in which also all might run to one officer still where he preached and leave the other, which would not breed an orderly communion, but rather a confusion ; but to have the same officers to be fixed, and the same persons to enjoy the dispensation of the same officers, as in a family children and servants are under the same governors, this is a nearer and entirer communion.
Secondly, in this classical way, there would indeed be a constant and a fixed communion in government, of the elders (namely, of such a circuit)
Cuap. X.] THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. who, when matter of government was to be exercised, should all moet; but they would not permit (in such a way) or let in the elders of the same province, to meddle as often as they would come, no, not though occasionally they were present there, or came thither to that end.
But now to have the same elders and people fixed for all acts of government, and yet to have them unfixed in respect of performing of worship (when that is the main end both of the communion, and for which elders are appointed), and not to have the samo fixed companies of people that communicate in this company with those elders, as in this unfixed way they have not, this would put too great an inequality between communion in government and communion in worship, and make the inequality on the part of worship rather, because government is fixed of the same persons, people, and elders, and yet worship, wherein is the nearest communion, is left unfixed.
And surely, if communion, and entireness of public communion, be the end of a church, the frame and mould of the chureh should rather be cast and shaped to that which is the entirest communion, than unto that which is more loose.
Now, in worship (as to the acts and duties of it performed) there is a capacity of an entirer comtmunion than in government, because the duties thereof are more constant.
If, thirdly, the people be fixed for worship in several bodies, but the elders fuid in a circulatory preaching (as it is pleaded), and so they are made one church, beeause the same elders that teach do also govern them too, and so they have a near communion in worship too, because they are at times taught by the same elders; if this (I say) be made a ground of moulding these several congregations into one church, yet it is defective, for it makes the people's communion, in enjoying the same elders at times suceessively, to be the foundation of church institution (yea, and in this case of the first church proprie dicta, or properly so called), rather than the communion of saints, and of the same persons of the saints meeting fixedly for worship.
But it is hard to conceive how the oneness of a church should be settled, rather on such a temporary eommunion in elders, than on a constant communion in ordinances, whenas the same elders are enjoyed by these persons but at times (which is an uninterrupted* communion also); yea, and there are no times neither, wherein as to acta of worship they enjoy the same elders all together.
Now that such a relation of elders, and communion in them, in such a broken way, should carry away tho great privilege of a thing (becoming the ground of the institation of it) from constant communion, both of the same saints and elders, and be preferred thereto in this respect,seems strange. And if it be said, that yet the saints themselves in this way meet, and have all communion in these acts of government, though not in worship, yet first, however, it cannot be thought that an occasional communion (as acts of government comparatively are) should carry away the formation, the shaping, and the institution of the first church ; secondly, the women (who though they have not the interest ofjurisdiction, yet of communion, and of deprivation, and of virtual assistance by their prayers, &c., they have) ate excluded, unless such churehes be so framed that they also be present.
Fourthly, if we take that other presbyterial way that is practised, wherein . they are fixed for communion in worship, both elders and people, but not for government, yet even here that fore-mentioned entireness of government is parted, and the communion of saints in that one respect divided; and, being divided, the ground and foundation of all and either being (as was said) the communion of saints, is thereby weakened many ways.
For, 1. Still this communion is partial, and by that means each stands but upon one single basis, whereas both joined it might stand on two.
For now, in * Qu. ' interrupted '?—Ep.
| this case, the communion in worship (the blessing of which should strengthen i that of censures, which is a casting out of the communion) is the ground of the meetings of each congregation; but communion in government in common, is the foundation of another church over all congregations.
2. A communion of elders, rather than of the saints, is the foundation of this supposed institution of a church ; and the communion of sainte*therein is but representative, and at seeond hand, themselves being absent.
It is a communion for them, but not a communion of them ; yea, they have no communion, not of presence in the sentence and in the execution, but are only congregations of those elders, that did make a church concerned therein; but, on the contrary, a communion of saints, even in government, is the ground and end of erecting of a church, and therefore it is called one church in relation principally unto them.
Now, then, to wind up all: if there may be such a communion of saints under the gospel, so adequate and entire, and churches so formed, as that the same saints should join in the same worship, with a joint, constant, inward, individual communion therein, and these saints may have, and do enjoy (as our brethren grant) fixed elders, by whose ministry and dispensation they partake with them in the same worship, which makes their communion yet comparatively more entire (for, in the presbyterial way, there communion is principally by elders, and therefore in this also, a due consideration is to be had, as adding a farther entireness); and these elders being a presbytery, yea, and enough to make a presbytery for all acts of government
(as we shall after shew a company of elders in congregations to be), at all which acts of government, which are for the edification of the saints, they can be present and have a personal communion, as well as in those of worship ; if, also, the communion of saints be the end of erection of particular churches, and is the measure fitted ; for fines dat mensuram mediis, the end gives measure to the means; and if this end may be adequately and entirely attained this way, why should partial ends be preferred to total and complete, all ends meeting inone?
Yea, if communion of saints in worship be the chief communion, yea, and the communion of saints be the principal fundamental cause of all church institution, why should not it draw to itself communion in government also, when there is a sufficiency for the performing the acts thereof?
Why should the communion of elders be taken off from the communion of the saints ?
Why should a presbytery be erected that is taken off from a church and assembly of saints, when yet there is a sufficient pyesbytery over a church of saints, that meet for all acts both of worship and government, and when yet these greater presbyteries would challenge their power from this lesser presbytery of churches, rather than from the name church, and yet take it off from these churches they pretend to be a presbytery unto?
Yea, why should any affirm that, although a particular congregation had a sufficiency of elders, yet it is God's ordinance that they should associate, for whereas the avoiding of division is pretended, it makes, a worse division, dividing worship from government, and elders from the particular
| churches of saints, and so parting from them, that wherein they ought to i have the entirest communion.
So as, all things considered, the institution of a particular church falls mosthappily, uniformly, and adequately upon a congregation entirely and alone, and upon no other manner of assemblies at all. f Cusp. XI] THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST.
That theforming of saints into churches, under the government of elders, is a matter of that needful order as requires a divine institution for it.—That it was also requisite that the extent of those churches, and the limits ofthe elders' jurisdiction, should be set and determined by Christ.
Bat this being granted, that churches in the New Testament are formed and fixed bodies, which are either the seat of worship or of ecclesiastical government, and likewise that there is a necessity it should be so, yet the next question will be, whether the settled form and order of these bodies, the extent, bounds, and compass thereof, into which the church universal should be parted and divided, and which should be the seat of government, be set out by Christ's special appointment and institution, or hath been left by him to men to frame and order, according to the common rules of edification, as matters of circumstantial order use to be.
But we humbly conceive this to be a point of such order, and of so much weight and moment, and belonging to the substance of government, as that, if there were any special institution and designment of other things belonging to the order of church government, then also of this ; as appears to us whilst we take estimate and comparison with any other particular acknowledged to be the subject of institution, as also established by more direct warrant.
For the satisfaction of this query, we shall give the genoral demonstration of the ir: of it, that it is and must needs be so, whatever the form and extent of these churches and bodies that are the seat of government shall prove to be, which, whether congregational, classical, provincial, or national, wo yet dispute not.
What at the present we endeavour to make forth is only this in the general, that whatsoever kind of form or extent they are moulded into, this form and extent must be set out and taken from some institution.
The quale, or what sort of bodies, and what measure thereof Christ hath instituted, is to be afterwards discussed.
And although the proof hereof will not be fall and complete until the demonstration of the quale, or of what is the particular form or boundary and extent, both of church and the elders' jurisdiction, and this be shewn to have been instituted, yet we shall for the present endeavour such a demonstration as shall be sufficient for a general foundation to that which follows, and enough to confirm the point as in the general.
Now, for the more distinct proceeding in this, there is a double seat of government conceived to be in these bodies of saints and elders, whether according to our brethren's principles or our own.
According to our brethren's, all government is put into a body of elders, and so they make the elders the subjectum inhesionis, the inherent subject of all power; and the church or the company of the faithful to be subjectum occupationis, that is, the subject committed to them to be governed.
Even as in a corporation, where, though the power and government is in the magistrates alone, and go they are the subjects of inherency in whom the power resides, yet a limited extent of jurisdiction, namely, a corporation of people, in such # compass or precinct, is the subjectum occupationis, the seat, the circuit over whom and among whom their government is extended, and within which confined.
But if, according to our principles, the government is instituted by Christ to be mixed of an aristocracy of elders and a democracy of the VOL, XI.
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox IL. people, yet still the like supposition necessarily ariseth, that there is, and must be, a limited seat or precinct in which this ecclesiastical government is exercised, which we call the seat of government.
And look what authority is in the body of elders, as elders, it is within that seat or compass.
That which therefore these following general arguments and demonstration aim at, is to prove that the extensive limits and bounds of such ecclesiastical authority, and accordingly the proportion and measure of those bodies, or churches, the seat thereof, and in which it is exercised, is a matter of that nature, weight, and moment, as to have a special line of institution, by which it may be measured forth.
And to that end the demonstration hereof shall be framed and fitted to prove these two things.
1. That the forming up of elders into bodies or presbyteries, and the limits and boundaries of the extent of their power, is a matter of that nature, as must be set out by institution.
2. That, answerably thereunto, the setting out the compass, measure, limits, and extent of those bodies of saints and elders making churches
(which are the seat or subject in which a company of elders shall have a jurisdiction, and that company of saints the privilege of government, and unto which the extent of their jurisdiction is te be limited), must also be set out by special institution, and that their privilege to become such depends upon a special charter also.
We might speak to each and either of these severally and apart, but that indeed these two, the setting the limits te the extensive power of elders, and also the setting out the measure of those bedies umto which their government (whether joined with the people, or alone, we yet argue not) shall extend and be eonfined, are both commensurable each to other, and do mutually argue each other.
For all power and government, in what company or body of rulers soever, that are the subject in whom it resides, must have a seat, compass, or precinct of men united in one in which to exercise their power.
And the true measure of their extensive power is from the measure of the extent of that seat, so as the proving ef either of them to be necessarily done by institution is to prove both; for they mutually argue each other, and the extent of the one is resolved into the other.
And therefore if the extent of any one be of divine institution, the other must be of divine appointment also, as we shall after shew.
+ Seeing, therefore, that these two are so conjunet in the nature of the thing, and mutually the demonstrations each of other, we will, in discoursing of them, put them together, sometimes having demonstrations that jointly concern both and are common unto both, sometimes such as concern either of them singly, in sueh a method as may best servo to clear the truth of this assertion, which to us lays the foundation of deciding this great controversy, as in the sequel will appear.
We shall rank our arguments under these four heads:
1. That these two fore-mentioned are substantial points of order, and therefore are to be fetched from institution.
2. That they are matters of such erder, as other things are of, which we do find (and all do so acknowledge) to have been matter of institution.
8. That the wisdom and prerogative of Christ (who is the supreme instituter and lawgiver to his church) is as much concerned and interested in the institution of these, as in any other things he hath instituted about officers and church government.
4. That spiritual reasons, suited to the nature of the things themselves, fall in to confirm this.
_ The truth of the consequence of these three first is justly founded upon Cuar. XI.] THE CHURCHES OF OBRIST. what we have already said of institution, as that the Colossians received their order from Jesus as the Lord, as well as their faith. And besides, that the substantials of church government should be set out by institution, all sides have acknowledged, and the case therefore must needs be like, in all matters of like order and substantialness; for the wisdom and prerogative of the lawgiver is alike concerned to appoint one as well as another; and else, too, church government consisting of things of like rank and nature, some of them should yet be divine, some human, and so it would consist some part of gold and some of wood.
So as here we need but apply those genetals to the confirmation hereof; but yet we shall further endeavour to confirm them all along, in the mention of, and together with, those particular proofs which we shall allege-for the heads fore-mentioned.
And those reasons shall not only or simply be drawn from paralleling these two points of order with other things, which are substantial in all government, and are acknowledged almost by all, especially by our brethren, to be matter of divine institution, in and about church officers and government.
We shall not thus only deal by consequence in the closure of the proofs for the second head, but also by Scripture, more directly holding forth the trath thereof, and all backed and seconded with an harmony of spiritual reasons, according to the nature of the thing, falling in and suiting to it.
Only let this be taken along and remembered, that the scope of these reasons in this place is only to demonstrate this in the general, and in the és, that it is so, % fi not now to prove the point, by laying out the very particular bounds and limits set by the Holy Ghost; for that is to be tried out
: afterwards by our brethren and us, who of us can shew the surest and most ancient landmarks hereof; which particulars, when they shall come to be delineated and set ent, and confirmed by Scripture and reason, the proof of this general truth will be found more full and complete, by whatever either side can shew to be the true and notive characters of the institution thereof.
But till then we must necessarily, here in this place,.content ourselves with general arguments, and which are accordingly suited to this seope, and none other.
1. I shall begin with the first head,. that both these are as substantial | matters in church government as any of those other about the institution of Officers' powet, éc., can be supposed to be. To evidence which, what fairer estimate can be taken, whereby to judge of what is substantial in this government, than from what is in all men's apprehensions such, in any government' whatever ? Now, take any society of men that are embodied for government, and if the officers and laws of it are defined, the commonwealth or body itself, the bounds and limits of its jurisdiction, are defined also, and by the same hand the one atfirstis constituted, the other is too; and this is true especially of such bodies as hold, from a supreme power, the charter ~ for their government, as all churches do hold their order from Christ the supreme founder.
In this case, it is every way as essential to have the body of people itself formed up into an. unity, and the extent of their jurisdiction set by that supreme power, as to have officers over it, and laws by which they are governed.
The first is necessary in itself for the good of | those bodies (in relation to orderly government), and it is as necessary as the setting out the extent of every man's lands which he possasseth, and of which the abutments and limits are as exactly mentioned in their deeds as anything else ; and thus necessary is setting down the extent of jurisdiction of every incorporate town, and accordingly set forth in their charter.
Thus London is differenced from Westminster, which otherwise would be Jndged but one city and one incorporate body; and this was necessary in THE GOVERNMENT OF (Boox II. their first edition, and to preserve distinction and entireness of government, without confusion and usurpation.
2. For the other particular, it is as necessary to confine those officers and their jurisdiction within the compass of certain seats and bodies politic, as te define and limit the acts of their power, and wherein to judge and intermeddle.
In all-civil bodies, kingdoms, commonwealths, &c., their laws are as exact to set down the limits of jurisdiction, the extent of power, as the degree, or kind, or sort of acts of power to be put in execution by those entrusted with it; and all officers in several provinces, or bodies incorporate, that get a commission of power from the supreme power, have in their commissions and charters as express-a mention and definition of the circuit and extent of power as of their acts of power, so as a greater nullity ariseth not from any other thing than from extending power.committed beyond the bounds of jurisdiction; and it is a premunire as well to do an act of government out of their jurisdiction as an undue act within it, as to arrest or imprison out of their jurisdiction.
And that mayors or bailiffs shall judge only within such a town or borough, is as express in their-charter (or at least that the limit of their jurisdiction being determined within the same, their power without is null and void), as that they shall be mayors and bailiffs there.
And thus this parailel confirms both parts of the argument, both that it is alike substantial, and also that therefore it alike depends upon the determining of the supreme lawgiver.
And although this estimation be taken from man's law and civil government, yet it is in a matter that is alike common to-both.
If indeed church government-could be supposed to-be a matter of that-nature, that such boundings and determinings of the seat and extent of elders' jurisdiction, in order to government, were not existent in it, and necessary thereunto, as well as to other government also, but might be transacted promiscuously without any such boundings, then indeed the form of the parallel would not carry it to.erect anything in church government by a parallel from the civil.
But all that do or will acknowledge any ecclesiastical government, as they do acknowledge fixed bodies of saints and elders (which the former assertion cleared), so withal they must acknowledge such a determination necessarily to be made to bound those seats of government and extent of elders' jurisdiction, either by God or men.
Now, therefore, in this we only argue that the determination thereof is of that nature that it must be set out by the supreme Lawgiver, as well as other things are that concern this government.
Thus much, however, is preparatory to what follows, that this assertion is most rational and ooincident with the like principles of reason human, though of and aboat a matter spiritual.
'Yet because it will be said it is but an argument from men (which yet in the case of ministers' maintenance, as in other things also, the apostle useth to produce and confirm thereby the rationality of a divine ordinance about this matter, when yet there were other grounds also for it in the Scripture that it is such), therefore we will proceed to the other general head, that the forming saints into churches, and setting the bounds thereof, are matters of such order as God and Christ hath instituted, we shall endeavour to make forth (proceeding by degrees) beth by paralleling these with other matters of order about officers and church government which God hath instituted, and 'by demonstrating that these are as great points of order as those other whieh Christas a Lord hath given ; and we shall also evidence it by the addition of such Scripture proofs and instances as do directly hold forth the truth thereof, and so confirm too that other parallel reason about them.
Now, to prove the parallel between this and other matters of order, let | | Cur. XI.) THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. this be premised and taken along, that this second sort of reasons, drawn from comparing these, or either of them, with other things that are institated, and thence proving the institution of these also (though we insist not only or wholly on them) is in this case just and sure; for we stretch not the argument from parallel or like reason to find out any new thing in chureh government, whose existeney is argued and founded. merely upon parallel reason.
That way of reasoning we leave to our brethren, in rearing up their whole fabric upon the parallel reason of a particular church,
Mat. xviii., to the prejudice of that foundation which these are built on.
Bat the limiting of elders' jurisdiction and the seat of their ordinary government being a thing that necessarily existeth, and which must be acknowledged to have place already, or else no orderly government. can at all be supposed to be (as both sides do acknowledge); if, then, the question shall be (which is the thing now before us), whether the setting out those limits,
&c., be a matter of that nature, as. should be set out by the institution of Christ, as other matters: of parallel nature are, or whether Christ hath left
, them as things of that inferior alloy and nature, and so of small moment as to be determined by the common rules for' edification, as other eiroumstan- : tial matters are; in deciding this case and question, and for the general demonstration of it, certainly parallel reason will carry it, that these things are to be set ont by God and not left to men, especially when there.shall be added unto these, scriptures that directly speak the same thing that parallel reason doth.
This being premised, we shall speak.to each singly.
I. We begin first with that of the bounding the extent of the power and jorisdietion of elders.
That this is to be found set ont. by institution will appear, for the ors of it in the general, both ways, either, 1,.by comparing it with other matters of order, &c. ;. or, 2, by what the Seriptures do mora directly hold forth about setting the limits of the extensive power of. officers; or, 8, by reason falling in therewith.
1. It is evident, by comparing this point of order with-other things which our brethren themselves, according to their principles, do hold to, and acknowledge to be matters of instituted order,.in many. of which we also concur with them.
"Let but an impartial comparison and estimate be taken and made with other things, concerning church elders and their power, which they cleave to, as instituted, even to a nullity for the want of it in other
They do shew themselves sufficiently tender and jealous ' of having institations, for the exercise of any part of ecclesiastical power, and will allew none but persons authorised by an institution, and in such and such a way, to the exclusion of others for want of institution.
For example, 1, why else do they exclude the body of the people from having an interest of suffrage: in excommunication, or casting out of the church, or ordaining elders, and confine these acts, and all other supposed acts of government, unto elders only?
2. Although to excommunicate, &., be an act of government that belongs to the office of eldership, yet they would allow no one elder to excommunicate alone, no, not in that church whereof he is pastor in a apecial fixed relation, but it must.be elders united into an | aristocracy, beeauseit is by institution so implied, 'Tell the church,' &., which is always more than one.
Yea, they assert* that such an act of excommunication is null and void, if but by one elder alone.
Yea, 3, if any one pastor, though never so eminent, should be set up in a lawful presbytery to be of the quorum in that presbytery wherein he is a member and an elder, 80 a8 nothing should be done but with and by his consent and suffrage, though not without the rest of the presbytery also (which was all that power
© Mr Rutherford's Temperate, Peaceable Plea, p. 5.
[Boox II. that bishops anciently challenged and exercised), yet this would be, and is denied to any, as a thing beyond that degree of power given any one man among the rest.
And, 4, those that are acknowledged elders, namely, raling elders, they would strictly debar from preaching, from praying in public, or blessing the people, or administering the sacrament, because these are acts of the preaching elder's office by institation, or else why are they excluded if Christ would not have them so?
Yea, 5, though the substance of the act of ordination (which they call missio potestativa) be an act of the whole presbytery, ruling elders and others, yet the right of laying on of hands, which is the lesser, they allow not to ruling elders, but appropriate it to preaching presbyters in the presbytery.
And, 6, although there may be many elders in « particular church that make up therein an eldership, who, when alone, without neighbour churches, did exercise all, and had complete power of excommunication, &., within themselves (as they grant), yet when churches come to be multiplied, or there are neighbour churches whom they may associate with, many of our brethren 'hold that in this ease they have no longer warrant or power {at least not as te the exercise of government within themselves), but are to jom in common with those other elders of churches for all acts of government.
And all this.must be because \ Christ hath, by institution, so fixed the power of governing (in respect of the { acts thereof), as they.are not, by.any other or any otherwise, to be put in execution.
Yea, 7, if that the churches go and choose, c., cull out a certain company of their officers, and all the churches in a kingdom should choose them that should be set apart for acts ofjurisdiction only, and attend them ina set-and-constant way (as the-Sanhedrim in Jerusalem was chosen), our brethren would.say, that although here were elders chosen out of all the churches unto such acts-as are the acte of elders, according to their principles, lawfally thus chosen, and that they make np {according to them) one body or corporation representatively of all the rest, ag the national assemblies use to do; yet if these should be thus constantly set apart onto such a work, they would deny this to be lawful; and the unlawfulness must lie in this, that they are not formed up according to the institution.
So that a little variation, in this kind, must still have a new institution for it, according unto them.
And shall there not be the like for the bounding the exercise of elders' extensive power, which is of as much, ifmot far more moment, than many of these things can be supposed to be of?
And then, lastly, add to all these.an eighth principle, which singly and alone concludes the general point in hand, but, joined with those other, brings the forces of them all more strongly up to the conelusion.
In the controversy with the bishops, there is a distinotion of a double ecclesiastical power; the onepotestas intensiva, the other extensiva.
The one imports a farther degree or kind of power, the other a further extension ofpower. And in both these respects they distinguished a bishop from an ordinary presbyter.
In respect of power intensivé, a bishop might do seme acts a presbyter might not do, even as a presbyter might do actsa deacon might not do, which constituted these three several orders in the church.
A bishop might ordain and excommunicate, not so a presbyter.
And as they made them to differ thus in acts oforder, and intension of power, so in respect ofjurisdiction, and in that respect chiefly, that is, that | an ordinary presbyter was set over some particular flock and congregation, but | . a bishop was, for acts of ordinary government, set over a whole diocese, and ' over many congregations, to rale them in common, as making one charch.
| And go an archbishop, though he was of the same order with a bishop (for they made those two not to constitute two several orders), yet, in respect ofa larger extent in territory or jurisdiction, they were said to differ in respect of exCuar. XI.]
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST.
Now our brethren, and all those who writ against this farther power of extension and jurisdiction in bishops, called for an institu- \ tion for such a farther degree and extent of power, as well as for a new order of power, and that not only as to the large pretended power in a bishop beyond presbyter's, but also of an archbishop over a bishop.
So do we also require an institution for that power which our brethren claim.
An usurpation lies not only in an undue form of government that Christ hath not institated, as to set up one man to rule, when it is in the hands of many, which is to erect a monarchy when Christ hath ordained an aristocracy, which is the ground of exception against episcopal power.
Nor doth it only lie in usurping undue acts of power, which Christ never instituted ; but, farther, it lies in a company of elders taking on them an extent of power, for territory and jurisdiction, larger than that extent which an evidence of institution can be produced to warrant.
In this case, although a company of elders do in their proceedings take on them to execute none other but such as are due acts of government, for the kind of them, and those regulated according to such rules as the word warrants (as in respect to the sins proceeded against), nor none other acts but which belong to the office of elders; yea, and though all this be done by them, as cast and combined into a joint body (no ona man amongst them assuming more power than the rest), and so this government be carried in an aristocratical way (which is the right form that Christ, according to them, hath instituted), yet if they stretch the extent of their power unto a larger line or cireuit than Christ hath made the territory or seatof church government, this must needs prove an usurpation, let the pretence be never so specious, and the proceedings otherwise never so'just.
For extensive power must be warranted by institution, as : well as intensive, or the measure or kind of power; whereas yet we perceive many that are zealous for institutions in those other things, would (so far
48 we can understand) have the boundaries of the extent of power ecclesiastical to be left (with other things of less moment) to be ordered only according to the common rules of edification, and of the law of nature, as human pradence shall think fit to dispose and set them out.
IL Unto which add, secondly, that God hath, both under the Old Testament, as also the New, made the bounding and setting the extent of church officers' extensive power the subject of his own institution and designment; which confirms the trath of this point in the general.
1, First, in the Old Testament (which we have not now recourse to, a8 our brethren use to have, as an instance that the same particular extent of government that was then should be the model of Christ's institution under the New, we shall confate that largely afterwards) ; this was the matter of Christ's institution.
As therefore, under the Old, the several sorts of officers were appointed, and also their limits ofjurisdiction, so now under the New, as Christ hath instituted the kind of officers and elders, so he should set out the extent of their jurisdiction ; especially since we suppose such officers having such a power (as our brethren and we suppose) by institution, it is therefore necessary that it should be determined, either by God or man, what the extent of their jurisdiction should be.
We do not herein urge the analogous like reason, of the Old Testament and the New, to raise up the like particular role and institution, for the extent of elders' power, now as then ; but only as a proof of this general maxim, that when we find the like sabject of institution in the New, the reason will hold, that as there was an institution set for the bounds ofthe intensive power of officers among them (as ofthe order of priests above Levites, &c.), and their several work accordingly designed, so the bounds ofjurisdictjon and of extensive power, in the governTHE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox II. ment of that state and church, were set out by the same hand also.
So, in like manner, Christ hath ordered things in the new gospel administration.
They under the Old Testament had those that were their elders of cities and towns, whose power was bounded within their several cities and territories, and this set out by a law.
They were, in the case of murder, to measure the ground, and the elders of that city unto which the field a man was killed in was nearest, were to intermeddle in it.
And they had their general elders for the nation or people distinguished from the other, so that the extent of their jurisdiction was general, proportioned to the extent of the nation, who are therefore called ' the elders of the people' in general, Luke xxii. 66, and which were that Sanhedrim and' state of elders' at Jerusalem for the nation,
Acts xxii. 5, and so distinguished from those they called elders ofa city, Ruth iv. 2, Judges ix. 8, 2 Kings xxiii. 8.
And as in these scriptures singly, so Ezra x. 4, we have both mentioned with their titles of distinction :
'Let the elders of all the congregation stand, and with them the elders of every city, and the judges thereof.'
The one had the whole body of the nation for their jurisdiction ; the other had only their several cities.
Thus also the bounds of extensive power, as well as intensive, was set out by the word of the Lord in the hand of Moses.
The several charge of four sort of Levites, in the things of the sanctuary, was divided amongst them to have care of, and the limits of extensive power of jurisdiction were fixed in the hands of four men over each of those companies and bodies of those
Levites, as you have it, Num. xiii. 8, which were called overseers over the rest, Num. xi. 14, 22.
The like might be shewn in the order of priesthood; there was the intensive power, which was equal among them all; and above the Levites (for order of office) there was by institution, in the high priest
(as Aaron), a further or intense power of office, for some services above the rest ; which degree of intense power was by the special call of God, Heb. y. 4, And as of a power of intension, so of extension or jurisdiction, there was a settled appointment.
There were set over several companies of priests, chief priests that were in those several cireuits superior to them, Mat. ii. 4 and xxvii. 1, Acts xix. 4, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 14, who were twenty-four in number.
2. Secondly, In the New Testament, we find the several extent of officers' power and jurisdiction to have been matter of institution.
Our scope is not here to set out what the particular limits are, for that belongeth to an after discussion.
Bat all that we shall now produce, is but to confirm the point in the general.
(1.) We find differing extent of officers' jurisdiction to have been, not only matter of institution, but also to have, among other things, put a difference upon officers, such as, in imitation hereof, the pope and the bishops chal- * lenged, in difference from ordinary presbyters.
This was one thing made an apostle differ from an evangelist, and an evangelist from ordinary pastors and teachers, that an apostle had the care of all churches committed to him, whereas an ordinary elder was designed to an actual care of a church,
88 a governor in a family is of his house, 1 Tim. iii. 5.
In the 1 Cor. v., the apostle strongly intimates the difference by a comparison of his power as an apostle, and theirs as Corinthians, and that this power differed in extent:
'Do not ye,' says he, 'judge them that are within ?'
Namely, yourselves, and within your own body:
' What have I to do to judge them that are without ??
His main scope is to shew, that in their proportion they had power to judge all within their jurisdiction, as he had in his; and that as his jurisdiction was, in the extent of it, limited to all within, that is, all churches of Christ, in opposition to heathen, and he had no power, he had nothing to do to judge them without, so theirs was also extended to all Cuar. XI.) THE CHURCHES OF CBRIST. within themselves, but no farther.
I that am an apostle (says he) have a limited jurisdiction in my kind, and you in yours, and as I am to do my daty in my jurisdiction, so you in yours.
And if the apostle would not stretch himself beyond his line (as his own phrase is) of jurisdiction set out to him, then ordinary elders much less are to go beyond theirs.
(2.) The New Testament is express for it. The Holy Ghost hath appointed the extent of elders' jurisdiction over their own flocks, and to extend to every soul therein in particular, even over the whole flock whereof they are elders, and that as a whole flock, importing an entire body of persons committed to them.
Therefore, the extent of a like kind of power any further, or over any other, ought much more to have a special institution, which so far as it wanteth and cannot produce and shew the bounds for, from institution, so far it is a nullity.
Now we have an express scripture concerning the elders of the church of Ephesus (whether it be congregational, or presbyterial, or diocesan, we do not now dispute, but shall afterwards try it out upon which the institution falls), that they all and overy one of them had an extent of power by express commission given them to that whole flock, and that the Holy Ghost set them over that whole flock, as in charge commended to them :
Acts xx. 28, ' Take heed to yourselves, and all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost bath made you overseers.'
Men had not chalked out the limits of this flock, nor set them out this their bounds of power and care over it, but the Holy Ghost made them overseers, that is, constituted them, as, Heb. iii. 2, it is said of Moses, And when it is eaid the Holy Ghost made them, it is not meant in respect of the personal call of those elders, for ordinary elders were not chosen by an immediate revelation of the Holy Ghost, as Paul and Barnabas was:
' The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Paul and Barnabas,' Acts xiii. 2.
But so these elders were not made here = the constitution, or making, or appointing and instituting them, must therefore necessarily be meant of the Holy Ghost's appointing that office of elders in which they wave, and that he specially was the author by his institution of that kind of designment of elders to an whole flock as elders, as their special charge, within which to take care as elders of all, and by virtue of which (they undertaking the charge) the institution and commission of the Holy
Ghost fell upon them.
As when a king hath granted a charter to such or such towns, to have such and such rulers over eaeh of those whole towns, though the king put not in the officers, yet beeause thé towns ehoose them, as authorised by his special eharter, ordering their choice and designing their juriediction, it may in charge be given to them, that the king hath set them over this whole town to govern it.
And what is attributed to the Holy Ghost thus, respects not a prudential management only, but the Holy Ghost's office being in a special manner to be the author of that word, and those directions of Christ, by which the apostles did give forth the pattern of ordering and framing churches to these Ephesians and other churches, therefore it is peculiarly appropriated to him to be the author of all such constitutions ecclesiastical, and this by so peculiar a prerogative, as is as Proper to him as to redeem is to the Son.
And therefore man may no more assume to set up a new kind of officers, or appoint them the bounds of their Jurisdiction in the church, than he can redeem us.
And therefore, as to the work of the Holy Ghost to the chureh herein, mention is made of it, parallel with Christ's redemption, in those words :
' Take heed to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased by his own blood.'
And one special thing which is attributed to the Holy Ghost (as an instituter and ordainer of matters in the chureh, and for which we cite this place) is, as to constitute the office of THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox II. elders, and the form of government, that all should take care in common