Part 8
(for elders, not elder, are mentioned) so to fix also the extent of their care, charge, and commission to all that flock, the charch of Ephesus, whereof they are said to be elders, ver. 17.
It is his institution that elders should take care, according to the extent of their relation to a particular flock, as their whole flock committed to them; and by virtue of this his ordination had they the fall power of elders unto this flock.
So as that such an office of elders (not one elder only), that such a flock, as an whole flock, should stand in relation to these elders in common as the seat of their care and jarisdiction,—all this was the ordination of the Holy Ghost ; and if 80, then the extent ofjurisdiction over such a flock is instituted, as well as the office.
Therefore, if these all, or any company of more elders, will challenge a new and farther extent ofjurisdiction, than to such a flock as Ephesus was, they must shew the like commission for that extent from the Holy Ghost; for it was by a special commission from the Holy Ghost they had power ofjurisdiction to this flock.
And by the same reason that their commission over this flock was by the Holy Ghost, by the same reason they must shew the like new commission for a larger from the same Holy Ghost.
We will only add this, that in cases of this nature a negative argument holds ; for when extent of power depends upon a superior appointment and designment, no further power than what is affirmatively declared and extended in the commission can be extended but with a nullity, yea, and with the greatest danger ; and so, unless the Holy Ghost declares affirmatively the extent of elders' powers as elders, in a body united {as here he doth) over a larger company of churches, as the seat of their jurisdiction, all the elders in the world met together cannot, nor may not, challenge it.
A defect of commission affirmative is exclusive in this case.
Yea, farther, in that he mentions this flock as that whole flock they had commission over, he thereby speaks exclusively of any other, that as elders in a body they were to exercise authority in.
As in the like case, if a king gave a charter to a mayor and company of aldermen, to rule such a company or body of men in s corporation as an whole body they were set over, it manifestly imported, not only that the extent of their power therein being by his charter, therefore they must not exercise it as such a company ont of the confines thereof, without the like charter renewed ; but also, on the contrary, he who is the founder of their power, and of whom they hold it, in his charter, makes that company committed to them to be all or the whole flock committed to their charge.
This evidently argues that his charter sets bounds to them, restraining them from taking on them to exercise their juridical power elsewhere.
So far is it from what the presbyterial principles hold forth, that in an analogous way they may make new extensions ofjurisdictions, and in the same form model them.
(8.) Add to this that the Holy Ghost hath been pleased to set limits and bounds of power to several ordinary officers in the same church, wherein they are, in respect of a continual charge and service, ordinary standing officers, and where all of them are in a joint and common commission for the government thereof.
And look what distinction there is in their offices, and what is proper to each office by his appointment, his command is answerably that the one should not, by assuming to exercise the part of another, entrench upon the office of another; so that he who is a ruling elder should not take on him to teach as an ordinary pastor, no, not in the church where he bears the office of an elder:
' But let him that teacheth, attend on teaching; he that exhorteth, on exhortation ; he that -raleth, on | ruling,' Rom. xii. 6.
Now, if Christ hath so set these bounds in the same Cuap. XT.] THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. ehareh and body, as for any to usurp the other's office, is that iasppoori, or 'taking on him above his proportion' (which he condemns, ver. 8, and Prefaceth 'that general rule with special aim to keep each in their due bounds and station) ; then much more, or at least as much, hath his care extended to set down the bounds of extensive power, which they might know, that as in the same church the officers might not desgpeovh, 80 the elders of other churehes ought not dArcrpomoxomsy, intermeddle as bishops in another's jurisdiction (to use the apostle's allusion), nor stretch themselves beyond their line, as the apostle would not.
Thus I have proved that the extent of elders' jurisdiction is to be fetched from an institution.
What is next to be demonstrated is, that the constituting and setting out the measure and extent of that church which is to be the seat of government, is also matter of divine order, and so to be fetched from an institution.
The popish and episcopal divines have appropriated that word order unto the constituting a church officer, and unto his minietry, whether bishop or presbyter, &c.
This, in their phrase, they called being in orders, which in the thing carried this with it, viz., their being of such orders or kinds of offices as Christ had by his order appointed.
But surely they narrowed the signification of it too much, for it may be extended to all institutions whatever, and, among other, to this of church state, and the constitution thereof, according to an order set by Christ.
For, 1, in that order of the church ef the Colessians, in which the apostle Tejoiced, the right constitution and formation of their church state must needs be a main part intended.
Order (says Bishop Davenant) denotes their coadunation into one body, namely, such as in an army useth to be, and so respects the whole body itself, as united and consenting together, and so made the seat of order.
Now, as the disposement and appointment of the bulk and body of the army itself, and the form, the extent, the wings thereof, iss matter of as much order, and as essential, as to appoint what officers shall be over it, or what discipline in it, so it is here; and the order of this body of the church itself must be by some hand, either human or divine ; and sure it was a divine order the apostle here rejoiced in, as we have before shewed.
And this will appear, For, 1, ifwe consider the moment of this their church constitution and formation, we shall find it was meet and necessary that the Lord Jesus himself should appoint it; for this is the form which the efficient always gives, as well asthe matter. As in natural bedies, the form constitutes them, as well as matter, go in all bodies that are the seat of government, their ordinary frame and form, wherein they are united according to a law or fundamental custom, constitutes them such (that is, as they are politic bodies), as mach as being men of such a function or qualification and rank. Yea (as was said before), since a judicial power of government depends as much upon a formality of order, as it doth upon a material qualification of persons, hence, therefore, it is as necessary (as was shewed by many instances) that Jesus Christ should design out, and constitute, and authorise the form and order, and the bounds of hie church, as that he should determine the qualification of the persons orfunctions to whom the power is committed.'
For acts of government, being to have his blessing in a peculiar manner, to accompany them with a spiritual efficacy, as well as acts of worship, it is as necessary for him to appoint the form or orders of that body, in which he would accompany them with that efficacy, as it is to assign out the material subject of persons and functions that are to execute it; and this our brethren assent to, making it
8s necessary for Christ to institute the form of government, namely, an aristocracy of elders, as to appoint the function or the persons, namely, elders y |
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boor II. themselves.
For it may fall out, and often doth, that for the matter hereof, the members of a church are not such, in respect of their lives and qualifications personal, as should be in the members of a church; and yet, because they take on them to be a chureh,. professing the name of Christ, and public worship, &., hence ministerially they are a true charch, as truly as an ungodly, profane minister is a true minister, not in respect of his personal qualifieations,. but as his office is an ordinance which he bears, and whence it is that all his administrations, while in that office, are not nall, nor to be reiterated.
The like is to be said of the church itself, whereof he is a minister ; it subserves ministerially as a church to God, rightly to have baptism and other ordinances of Christian communion administered in it, so as those ordinances are not null, though administered among such as are generally corrupt, and not fit matter to be a church.
That, therefore, these ordinances come to be rightly and. lawfully administered, in this church as a church, must be by virtue of Christ's institution and charter, that hath made such a company of men, so and so meeting for sueh ends and purposes, to be a ministerial church to: him, and to be that great ordinance, whieh is the seat of all other ordinances.
2. It is no leas than the seat, the idgafaya, the grand repository, as of truth (as 1 Tim. iii. 15), so of government and worship, and so it is the next receptive of all the promises that are made to.accompany the ordinances administered therein. We say it is the seat, as of truth, so ofgovernment and worship ; for, by comparing the 5th and 14th verses with that 15th, we shall find that the church of God is the same with that. house of God mentioned ver. 14, and likewise ver. 5: 'If a man know not how to rule his own house well, how shall he take care of the church of Ged?'
A church, that is, the subjeet of government, as compared to an house, wherein the governor of a family ruleth.
And it cannot be intended of the church universal, though universally, or rather indefinitely expressed, namely, for any or for all the particular churches that. ave by God's appointment the subjects of government, of an elder's care and rule, as a family (to whieh it is
. here set in comparison), is of an economic or household government; for the church there spoken of is such a church as ordinary ministers take an actual special care of, like as he that is a master of a family doth of his own house more than all other..
And this kind of church, to which the proper care and rule of elders is limited, as it is the subject of government, so it is the seat of trath, where by God's ordinance it is held forth with a promise to preserve it among them, and to provide that it shall. be.sown in the hearts of the people of God, in that great ordinance of preaching by pas- ! tors, which are God's own institution, and accordingly gifts are preserved and continued. As, if the officers, the laws and statutes by which a eollege or town is governed, be. by charter, the incorporation itself is sueh much more; 80 now, if the church be the seat of officers, then truly if God instituteth the officers themselves to feed the flock, the flock, over whom they are set, is appointed and ordained much more, and to it, as to an ordinance of his set- | ting up, the promise of preserving truth is made.
And.if it be the seat of all ordinances (as the apostle says, 1 Cor. vii. 17, 'I ordain in all the churches'), then the ehurches themselves, which are in this respect the or- | dinance of these ordinances, where he reposeth and betrusts them, and in ' which he blesseth them, is much more Christ's ordinance.
| Yea, 8, whereas if either of these two, the bounds of elders' jurisdiction, or the churches over which they are elders, are to be fetched from divine right, it necessarily argues both ; yet of the two, the institution of the bounds doth mainly and principally fall upon church, primarily upon church, and Caar. XI.] THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST.
| but secondarily upon the extent of presbyteries.
That of church is the more fandamental measure of the division of jurisdiction, and that of prosbyteries proportioned thereunto.
Thus, when it is said, 'The apostles ordained elders,' xar' ixxAgofar, 'in every church,' or church by charch, it is not said that churches were made, xara axpeoBuripous, accordingto the mould or cast ofpresbyters, but elders were assigned according to the mould, measure, or latitude of churches, and so the-several bounds of church power is limited by the distinction of church.
Thus the style of the Scripture rans, and churches were settled, and not presbyteries; and the distinction was not then taken from the names of classes and presbyteries, provincial and national assemblies, &c. And in Rev. xi. (where John takes the measuring reed in 'his hand), what is the subject that reed is applied to, and whereof the measure is taken?
It is the temple, the church, and not presbyteries or elderships.
Therefore also Mat. xviii., the style runs thus, «Go tell the . charch,' which if it should be granted to be meant of the elders, in our brethren's 'sense, yet of elders in relation to a church, and in that respect so styled, as they are relatively the representation of some church, within which their jurisdiction is bounded.
§o that if there be any institution that limits the bounds of their power, it must necessarily fall upon the bound ef church first.
Again, our brethren's reasonings doth confirm this, for the chief weight of their arguments for the extent of the power of elders over many churches, in those instances of Jerusalem, Ephesus, &c., is taken from hence, that many congregations are called one church; and so, from the extent of elderships and elders, power is derived, and measured thereby; and the chief power that is exercised, is to cast out of the church, i. ¢. to judge them within their circuit.
To conclude: Tf either of these, the jurisdiction of elders, or the measure of churches, are to be fetched from institution, or set thereby, then both are to be so.
The reason of this consequence is clear from this (which was but intimated afore), that all power in governors, or any other company of men whatever, must have a territory, a precinct, a seat in which, and among whom to exercise their power, and accordingly the extent or limits of that seat, is the true measure of the extent of these governors' power and jurisdiction, the one being resolved into the other.
If the one be divine, the other is also; yea, so as although the Holy Ghost should not have expressly and direetly set down both, yet having done either, it is stfficient; for the one follows upon the other, and so consequently (as was said) if either be of divine institution, they both are so. Now the reason of this consequence is clear, not only from common reason, in its parallel of all jurisdictions else (wherein the measure of the officer's extent df power is resolved into the measure of the bodies of men knit together in one, to such or such an extent, whether taken from place, or whatever else is made the boundary); but farther, it may be particularly demonstrated, that this ecclesiastical government is according to the order of the New Testament.
For suppose the power of government, whether 'in whole or in part, be in a company of elders, yet it is not given them simply as elders to their persons, no, nor simply as a presbytery abstractedly considered (that is, as a company of elders merelyas such, continuing as they please over these and these churches, or as few as they will), but whatever jurisdiction is in them is given in relation to a seat; so as the division and partition of elderships and presbyteTies, &c., and their extent and compass, ariseth from the partition and division of churches, and the extent thereof.
And although what these due limita of either are is to be afterwards considered, yet these general do argue, that such are to be found set out' by the Holy Ghost.
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox IT.
That it is the prerogative of Christ's power and wisdom to determine the due limits of churches, and the boundaries of the elders' power.
The prerogative of Christ the instituter, is as much seen in assigning a due extent of power to elders, and in measuring out the just bounds wherein their authority is to be exercised, as in anything which he hath instituted.
1. Christ useth his great prerogative in setting out, and in constituting and bounding ofthe church that shall be the seat of government, which is his house.
1. In all civil government (and if there be a government spiritual derived from Christ, this parallel will hold) the stamp of royal and supreme authority, which is the fountain of government, is seen and exercised in nothing more than in the grant of privileges unto a company of men dwelling together to incorporate for government, as also in setting the bounds and limits of such a jurisdiction ; and this is fandamental to all the rest ; and answerably speaks the Scriptures.
Thus in Heb. iii. 8-6, the prerogative of -Christ above Moses is argued from this as the highest branch of it, that Christ was he that built the very house itself; and therefore, answerably, this is for the honour of Christ.
If a king had an infinite number of subjects scattered over all the world, which could not be governed in the whole or lump, but by parts, distinguished and formed up into several bodies knit together, were it not his prerogative as mach, yea more, to appoint out the several provinces or territories, and the bounds thereof, which hewould have governedexactly, as to appoint the kind of officers, or acta of government?
Therefore, the founders and disposers of the bounds of commonwealths at first have been esteemed great, and more renowned than those that gave laws or established the several kinds of officers.
It cannot be denied, but that there must be a commission from Christ to empower a company of saints, that live in a neighbourhood together as saints, to become a charch to Christ, not in a mystical relation only (for that they are as saints, though they become not a seat of publie worship, and of an orderly government here on earth), but farther to become a subject of public worship, and ulso to enjoy @ government among them.
As the things themselves thus enjoyed are such as nothing more concerns God's glory in the world, and the good and benefit of the saints, so their becoming a church, which is the foundation of this, and unto which, as such, the privilege of these is vouchsafed, is asgreat a favour and privilege as could be bestowed on them ; which, therefore, must needs hold as much upona free gift and charter of Christ, the head and lord of his church, as any other thing can be supposed to do. A gift and favour it is, over and above their being saints and members of the church mystical, electively bestowed, for such they might have been, and yet never have been ordered so to meet.
As to be a minister to the church, it is a favour beyond @ man's being a saint, or having gifts, and none is to take that honour to himself, but he that is called of God, and hath a charter from him for the kind of ministry designed (and therefore Paul makes that great character of himself from God's putting him into the ministry) so for acompany of saints to take on them the title and honour of a charch, and an whole church, as every particular seat of worship and government doth, which is the title of the whole universal body of Christ, yea, to take on them the relation of a body, an whole body to Christ, this must be by a special charter and warrant, whatever company of men there be that do it.
None can give that title of church, unless Christ hath given it, as none can take the title ofbeing Caar. XII.) THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. a city in a kingdom, or of being a privileged place, but by charter.
If none can take on him the dignity of an earl, or of a 'viscount, or of any officer of state, 0 no companyof people can of themselves presume to bea city, but by special charter, much less to be a seat of government, whereby they become not simply a company, but a body politic.
Church, in this sense, is an authoritative word, and such authority ariseth not from place or any external circumstance, no, nor from meeting, but from a charter that adds authority, and above such considerations, unto guch a company.
2. That it should belong to the prerogative of Christ to determine the bounds of elders' jurisdiction, as much as to appoint the elders or kinds of officers themselves, evidently appears by ite parallel.
When any officers derive their governing power from:
@ supreme state, it concerns the honour and prerogative of that state to define the extent of the division of their jurisdiction, as much as the kind of officers.
If, therefore, it be universally found to be the wisdom of all supreme powers, with one consent to judge ' and secount this bounding as justly to coneern their prerogative, shall we think that Christ hath been less jealous and careful of his honour herein ?
Surely, either is no government at all defined by him, and no sort or kind ofofficers set and distinguished by him, but all is alike left to human pradence, as in civil government all these things alike are, or it must be acknowledged, that the one concerns the honour and prerogative of Christ to determine, as well as the other.
I know it may be said, that though it is necessary, yet it must be safely left to the law of nature, and to the rulers* of prudence for men to appoint it; and that yet however the partition or measure of churches' and officers' extent is divine, beeause God hath appointed that to be the measure which men in their prudence shall think good to appoint.
But this is, indeed, to make both the extent of officers' government and the measure of the churches, and the seat thereof, to be both human, even as the extent ofthe power and office of civil magistrates is, and is called, 1 Peter ii. 18.
And magistracy is calledan ordinance of man, beeause the extent of it is left to men to appoint as they shall think meet.
And yet, if God had either set the bounds and extent of officers' jurisdiction, or ef commonwealths, which are both considerable, than had both been of divine institution ; but since neither of them are so set, they are human, although in the general God hath commanded that magistrates shall have that measure of power which men and commonwealths shall give them.
I will add one thing more to strengthen Christ's prerogative in this case, that spiritual reason, suited to the nature of the thing itself, falls in to prove both the bounding the elders' power, and the bounds of churches as the seat of government.
1. I argue from the rise of the eall of elders.
For though it were true, 88 some say, that all saints as saints, or as they are mystical members of the church universal, have a fall and immediate right, without any further relation of order and union to a particular ehurch, ipsofacto to enjoy all ordinances, yet take elders, or ministers, and church governors as such, and they cannot be supposed to have it simply as members of the church catholic, nor have they it from their having gifts.
The law of nature they cannot Plead, why they should have that power rather than other persons in the . church ; and Christ's charter immediately they have not, as naming their
From whence, then, must it be that they have their power as elders, but from an instituted relation?
This must be, then, some other instituted right and privilege given them.
They are given to the church, .
THE GOVERNMENT OF {Book II. and so their rise must be from their relation to a church ; and by the same reason, the extent of the jurisdiction of their office must depend upon the ' like ; for what else should give them power over these, or these churches, and not others?
As it is asserted by some that the power is given to saints, yet not to saints, but as formed up into bodies; so those that will say it is given to elders, must at least acknowledge it is given to elders as knit into bodies, and set over such formed bodies.
So as their jurisdiction doth depend upona relation to, and a rise of call, either from that body, or at least into that body, which is more evident upon 'this further reason, than that fore-mentioned will reach to. Because God makes not elders immediately by his providential converting and working on them, for so he makes saints; and yet he gives not, say our brethren, the power to them, butas united into an orderly body by institution, in which they exercise each te other.
And the case of elders' power is more depending upon an order and institution, because they are called to be elders by a designation of men.
Their being elders at least is in order to a relation, and not by a providential immediate working on them, or from God's giving them gifts, or by an immediate call, as the apostles were chosen, afore God ereeted his church, to that end to erect it.
There must be formed bodies to give a rise to their call, by designing and accepting them ; and there must be a relation te those formed bodies which they are set over, which must be set out by divine appointment, which alone maketh elders, and gives them their powers; and go the rise of their call and their jurisdiction is commensurable.
2. I argue from the necessity of the thing itself.
Necessary it was that the extensive power of elders should be determined (as well as the intensive) either by God or man.
If by God, we have what is desired; if by man, either by the civil magistrates (and they were not Christians for above three hundred years after Christ) or by the elders themselves, and the churches, as they should agree it.
Now see the inconvenience to leave this part of extensive power to be determined by men, especially by the elders themselves, whilst Christ should take on him to determine only the other.
Of all sort of power, church power is that wherein, when men have any part or any pretence to it, they are more apt to be ambitious of extending it than any other.
Witness the ambition of the prelates, and the usurpation of the pope, &c.
And they are as apt to usurp an undue power in the extension of jurisdiction, as well as unlawful intensive authority, as we have seen in popes and bishops.
The latter have assumed an undue extensive power over whole dioceses, archbishops over provinces, and primates over nations, and popes have usurped such a power over the universal church.
This too large power they have all challenged, as well as too much intensive power, by which the bishops appropriate ordination to themselves, which presbyteries (say they) may not do; and the popes lay a claim to infallibility, &.
Now our presbyterian brethren quarrel at that power in bishops, and the bishops oppose that universal extensive power in the popes.
Now the pope challengeth this intensive power of infallibility, but upon this right, that having such universal extensive power as the apostles had, therefore God hath enabled him (as in that ease he did the apostles) with an infallibility suitable to that large extent of power; and therefore he began his usurpation, with the pretence only at first to an universal power for extent, in his title of universal bishop, and that brought on the other, and crept up with it, and is supported by it, as the ivy is by the elm.
Thus Alexander the Great, being lord of all the world in his own opinion, flattered himself into the conceit of divinity, and of being a god, as annexed to that crown universal.
So that men are as apt to err this way as the other, and as dangerCuar. XII] THE OHUROHES OF CHRIST.
| ously in the consequence.
It was therefore as necessary that Christ should set bounds to the usurpation of men who were to be trusted with church power, as to anything else; it was necessary to prevent the claim of any one
(as of bishops) to determine the form of government in the church not to be monarchical; it was necessary to prevent impertinent intermeddling in officers, to set the proper bounds of each several officer
; it was necessary to prevent a lording over the flock, by setting down the acts of government proper to elders.
And so, that a stretching themselves beyond their line, and an intermeddling authoritatively in churches not in their jurisdiction might be prevented, it was needful to set down by certain limits the territory of church government, seeing as true a tyranny and lording might equally arise over the church by an undue extent of jurisdiction as by the exercise of unlawfal and new invented acts of church power.
And all this was the rather necessary, because that if it had been left to common rules (as other things of outward order are), and by human prudence to be shared and divided, the clergy themselves, and elders of churches, were like to arrogate the determination hereof (as in all ages they have done); and if they themselves were to be the allotters of it, they would be sure to look to their share, and that wisdom (they would have it left to) would be sure to cast it so, and mould the frame of the power of jurisdiction into such an order as should advance and set up their power over all the churches.
And herein the whole multitude of elders and the clergy are as apt (yea, more apt) to be tempted, as a few prelates, that usurp it singly, because the dominion extends to the totum genus, the whole kind of them.
Meet therefore it was that the Lord Jesus himself should fix this, and determine it as much as anything else that he hath done.
Then, 8, as to the bounding the churches or bodies of saints and elders that should be the seat of church power, it agrees with all reason that Christ should keep this to him as a part of his prerogative, and that it should depend on his supreme authority.
It cannot be denied, but that (as was said) for a company of saints to be a distinct fixed church within themselves, and so to be the seat of either the ordinances for worship or government, is a superadded privilege to their being saints.
If pastors and teachers be ordinances and the gift of Christ, Eph. iv., then to be churches, and the privileges thereof, in and by means of which the saints come to have a propriety in these, and a special relation unto these, is a gift also, and so dependeth electively upon God's will, and so is the subject of institution as well as any other thing.
And these churches of saints are not only the object of government, and in that respect the seat of it, but the privilege of government; the endowment thereof is in a special manner conferred on the churches, who are the seat of it; and thereunto is the grant primarily made, and unto them the benefit redounds.
Thus in civil bodies that are the seat of government, the privilege and charter of having a government respects the whole community itself principally, and not the officers; and therefore it is called the corporation's, the town's, or the city's charter, and not the mayor's and aldermen.
As, therefore, the main institution or charter falls on the seat itself, and so upon the officers and the power in them for them, and indeed on both by one and the same appointment, so answerably the Scripture style runs still upon the church, taking in the whole community of elders and people (' So I ordain in the churches,' &., says the apostle), because that is the seat, the subject of the privilege, and so of that institution that bestows and endows it.
Yea, and therefore the promise of Christ's blessing and presence is made to the church, that is the seat of government: 'I will
THE GOVERNMENT OF (Boor II. be present,' says Christ, 'in the midst of you,' &., which, if it should be interpreted of a company of elders, yet it must be as relating to a church that is their seat, and to which they have a special relation, and so by @ virtue of the promise made to the church itself, Christ walks in the midst of the candlesticks, which are the churches.
And the efficacy of this government and censures therein depends upon a special blessing, and the promise of a special blessing is always the companion of his own institation.
As no acts of government, but such as are instituted, have the ordinary promise of blessing, nor in the hands of any other than such as Christ hath given the power unto, so all is confined too within that seat or extent of jurisdiction he hath appointed ; and upon this ground he is specially present with those officers and those acts, in relation, and in a respect to that body or charch whose elders they are, and to whom the promise is principally made, and *upon whom the privilege and institution chiefly falls.
In this respect, then, it must also as much belong to his power and prerogative to set out some bounds and limits of these churches, as to institute and appoint that there should be churches that should have such a privilege.
And the reason is, because the greatness and worth of the privilege doth more or less depend upon the ordering the-extent and bounds of that church, and will accordingly more or less redound to the good and benefit of the saints therein, as these are set and ordered.
And therefore it was fit that the saints should owe this to none but the wisdom of Christ himself; yea, nothing concerns the substance of the privilege more; and therefore if the privilege itself be from Christ, then this also.
Take any incorporate body, if it be a privilege to any such body:to-have officers and-vertain acts of government appointed for and over them, then it is as much so too to have also a circumscription of jurisdiction among themselves, as they are incorporate; yea, their privilege and the benefit of it depends so much upon it, that according to the ordering thereofit is rendered greater or lesser,.or perhaps made as good as void,
80 that all depends upon the set determination of it, and had need therefore to be set out by the founder as distinctly as anything else.
The benefit of all privileges depends upon bounds of enclosure, which, if left common, the privilege is impaired.
The privilege of such a body lies, that inclusively they should have such a government and officers within themselves, and also exelusively be free in such and such cases from thejurisdiction of others; and ifthere be not semething of either of these, there is no benefit or privilege in having sach @ government or officers; and yet neither of them can be accomplished unless the extent of the seat of government itself, and jurisdiction thereof, be set out and determined.
And if so much of the privilege depends hereon (as apparently it doth), should not he appoint and set out the limits of these bodies, who is the author, giver, and bestower of the privilege itself, to whom these societies should wholly owe it, and not to the discretion of others, and who also takes.on him as bis peculiar to appoint both the acts of government, and affairs for it, and form of government they should be raled by, the one being of as much consequence as the other?
Thus the proportion of the greatness of the privilege and benefit of government, so much depending on it, it is meet, yea, necessary, that he that is the author of this government should define and fix it.
4. I shall farther add another thing, which depends upon the former, that the efficacy of all ecclesiastical power and censures, depending on so supernatural a blessing, to subject the conscience unto those censures (against which men's consciences are apt to be as obstinate and rebellious as to any kind of punishment inflicted by men) it was as necessary that Christ himself should set out the bounds of jurisdiction, within the compass of which men
Caar. XII.) THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. were to be subject to those whom h@ betrusted with the government, as to appoint any of those other things fore-mentioned ; for men were like to quarrel at nothing more than the right of power in those that executed it, and nothing was more liable to exception than is this.
They still might say, What have you to do to judge me, unless you can shew from Christ I am in the way of your jurisdiction?
Yea, how else also should it be known to whom it belonged, and over whom to execute these censures;and who were in fault if they were not executed?
The apostle therefore stirs up the Corinthians to it, as 8 duty belonging to them; and convinceth them of their sin (on whom it lay, and on none else), that they neglected to censure that offender, who was within their jurisdiction! 'Do not ye judge them that are within ?' says he, 1 Cor. v.12.
And so far as the sword of the Spirit is not managed by that hand, where Christ hath placed it, it will be naked.
And if so much of the blessing depends upon other things of as small moment, as upon the true form of government that Christ hath appointed, that is, to be administered by the many (as Puul speaks), and not by one man, a bishop, and by men in office, and not the people only, though many (as our brethren will say, in so much as for want of these some of them do account the act null and void, and to have been weakened, and as a wooden dagger); surely of these censures it may as well be imagined, they might receive a proportionable strength from the eddition of the like institution of the extent of jorisdiction over those that should be within the reach of them, these being acta of the power of jurisdiction, as they have been commonly called, in distinction from those other of doctrine and the sacraments.
Sure we are that Paul seems to put as much of the promise of the power to accompany it upon this, that the incestuous Corinthian was within the jurisdiction of the ehureh of Corinth, and so had the promise of Christ's power to accompany that ordinance to that man, as upon anything else.
For Christ still blesseth his own ordinance, when in that right hand he hath placed it, and it may well be thought one, if not the main reason, why the edge of this sword hath been found so blunt and dull (as Laurentius. Andreas observes) that there hath been more power in one exeommunication in the primitive times, than in all since, though backed with the civil sword; beeause it hath been in them that have not had the right of jurisdiction to execute it; that whereas
Tertullian says, it was in their congregations tanguamfulmen, as.a thunderbolt, it hath been brutum fulmen to us, & thunderbolt of no force; nulla major nullitas quam defectus juris, nec major defectus quam jurisdictionis, there is no greater nullity than a deficiency of right, nor a greater defect. than that ofjurisdiction.
In the conclusion of the whole, I infer from this assertion chiefly these 1. That our brethren of the presbyterian way,if they. would prove and establish their several orders, and classical, &c. assemblies, they must shew us institution for them.
_ 2. And in this agitation let those that can produea.out of the New Testament the truest, genuine, natural evidences of the bounds of an instituted ebureh, as the seat of officers and government, carry it.
8. That an instituted church, according to the true and lawéal bounds thereof, being the seat of the privilege, all power of elders and offivers is to be drawn down thereto, in the exercise thereof; and in case of defect, elders are to ba chosen to such a chaorch, and not that church taken in to other elders, and also all acts of jurisdiction are to be exercised therein.
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox II. e .
Particular congregations, having a sufficient number of elders and officers, are completely enabled for all acts of government, and excommunication itself, within themselves, as well asfor worship.
That a particular congregation of saints, having a sufficient number of elders, is a complete subject of church power and government, proved: 1, from the power which they have to examine and admit members ; 2, from their power of suspending from the sacrament ; 8, from their being a perfect political church.
Tus is agreed upon by all hands, that some particular church is such a politic body, as hath entire power to cast out by excommunication; and a casting out of that particular body is consequently a casting out of all the rest, by the law of communion of churches, whether implicit (one church reverencing the judgment of another, till they see apparent cause to the contrary), or explicit, by virtue of that their association.
Now the question is, what particular body or church it is, whether a fixed congregation (whereof a man is a constant member), when it hath a sufficiency of elders over it, or a presbytery of many congregations ?
Proposition, One single congregation of saints, having a sufficient number of elders and officers, is an entire seat of all acts of government, and of excommunication itself, as well as of worship.
The truth of this proposition will appear, if we consider the following arguments.
Arg. I. If such a church with the elders are sufficient to try and examine, and so admit ordinary members, without the help of other churches, then it is sufficient to cast them out.
For, 1, The one is an affirmative act, the other a negative act, but both are acts of the keys, only turning several ways; the one opening, the other shutting ; the one is but judging initial repentance, the other is a judging of occasional repentance for a gross sin.
And there is as much reason you should require as evident signs of repentance from the state of nature, as you do in case of scandal.
For as to men grown up, till they shew repentance, there is this prejudice against them, that they are children of wrath by nature even as well as others.
2. The not admitting of men to church ordinances, and not receiving them, is an act of as great moment to men's persons, as to be cast out.
If, then, churches be betrusted with the one, why should not they be betrusted with the other ?
8. If excommunication were more to the man excommunicated, than a not receiving by way of admission, yet Christ's honour is as much concerned
Cua. LJ THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. in what members are taken in and owned for his body, as in what are cast out.
4, In all commonwealths, to enfranchise and to cut off belong to the same power; yea, to enfranchise doth more appertain to it. For parliaments only do enfranchise strangers, but yet lower courts do cut men off by death, according to the law.
And it holds in all bodies else, for in families they have power to take in servants, and power to cast out, and in colleges to admit and to expel.
Object. But it will be objected that, to excommunicate a man, is to cast him out of all churches, and therefore it is the greater act.
Ans. 1. That simply alone doth not make it greater; fora man is cast out of all churches, not formally but only consequently, because the churches have and hold communion one with another.
Let the proportion be held between admission and excommunication in this, and they will be parallels; for if you will say that all churches about have an interest, because they are to reject a man that is excommunicated, so they have an interest also in admission, to receive him also if he be admitted, and they cast a reflection upon that church he is of, if they receive him not by virtue of his fellowship.
Ans, 2, A man in being so admitted into a particular church, by virtue of that fellowship, he is received occasionally into communion with any other arch.
Arg. TI. If a single congregation may suspend from the sacrament without consulting others, then they may excommunicate.
This is evident, 1. From presbyterial principles, for those that hold excommunication to be bat a casting one off from communion with the church, and not to include a farther thing, viz., a formal delivering him unto Satan, do make but a very small difference between suspension and excommunication.
A man excommunicated they will admit to hear, and therefore his being cast out of the communion of the church is but a depriving him of the communion of the Lord's supper, and that is also done by suspension.
Only the ono is but a suspension froma few acts, this from many; but both are till he If it be said that the consequent of excommunication is to avoid civil converse, which is more than suspension, we reply, that even so it is in suspension also; for there is to be a withdrawing from a brother that walks inordinately, before he is excommunicated, 2 Thes. iii, 6.
Yea, because a Private brother ought to withdraw converse with such an one, it is made a ground of suspension from the Lord's supper by the church, that the church should withdraw communion with him, and so suspend him.
Arg. TIL Add to this, that they who are a politic church, having a sufficient presbytery and eldership, have a power to do all acts in a church, and therefore to excommunicate.
But such a congregation is a politic church, and have a sufficient presbytery and eldership.
1, They are a politic church, and the least church hath thus much power, that he that hears it not, let him be as an heathen and a publican ; and the greatest hath no more.
All the churches in the world may add advice in difficult cases, and a reverential authority, but they cannot add power, for that Christ hath given to a church as it is a church.
The presbyterial divines themselves do argue the power of excommunication in a presbytery, ' because it is a charch; only they say a congregation is an imperfect church.
Whereas there is not one Scripture in the New Testament that doth so much as call a presbytery, over many congregations, church ; or if it did, there is then a greater thing to be proved (namely, this distinction which y
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boor Il. the Scripture hath not made), that a congregation having an eldership is an incomplete church politic, and the other complete.
All churches may be imperfect in respect of moral power, in some cases, wherein they need advice ; and so a presbyterian church may be imperfect, and may run into error, and so may a provincial, so may a national, so may a general council.
And if the imperfection of a church should lie in this, that it is subject to another church, and accountable thereunto (according to presbyterial principles), then also a provincial and 4 national church were imperfect, and by that rale they also should not excommunicate.
But in a word, the imperfection of a congregational church must lie, either in respect of what they are as @ church, or in respect of their eldership.
(1.) Their imperfection doth not lie in their being a church, for they have more of church than any classicul meeting of elders hath, because they have both people and elders also, and so partake of both sorts, which the other doth not.
And the assembly have in their vote acknowledged Mat. xviii. to intend a particular church, and the eldership thereof to be # church, although they do not acknowledge it only to be a church, and our reformed writers call congregations, ecclesia prima, the first churches.
(2.) Neither doth their imperfection lie in their eldership, as being insufficient, for if so, then either elders are not an eldership unto them for acts of government; or they are not a sufficient eldership for all acts of governments.
But, {1.] They are an eldership or presbytery unto them for acts of government.
For where there are more elders than one united in common for acts of government, there they are an eldership ora presbytery, but so there are here.
This is evident in the instance of Jerusalem, brought by the assembly themselves, for they therefore prove presbyterial government over many congregations, becanse those elders met for acts of government, and that those many congregations were one church to those elders.
Now ina particular congregation, where there are more elders than one, there is one church, and there are' likewise the elders thereof, meeting (say we) with that church for acts of government, and that they may meet apart (say they) for some acts of government.
Of a bishop it is said, 1 Tim. iii. 5, 'If he do not rule his own house well, how shall he take care of the charch of God?' that is, to rule it, as the answering of one phrase to the other imports.
And surely, if by bishop there be meant a particular elder, having relation unto a particular congregation, ruling in that congregation is there intended; and to suppose that the house of God, that he is to take care of and to rule, is many congregations, as met in a clasts, is too hard a supposition, especially seeing the argument is taken from ruling his family, and he is placed in a congregation; and if the congregation should not be meant here by the house of God, the comparison went per saltum, by too wide a leap.
{2.] As the name church is applied to the house of meeting in our language to this day, so this is an argument that congregational meetings are churches, and so the name rector, which imports ruling, continues also to this day.
' Presbyters (saith Bains*) in ancient time were in great difference, or of a double sort, those who are called proprii sacerdotes, rectores, seniores, minorum ecclesiarum prepositi.
The bishop had not, nor challenged : not, that respective power over them, which he did over those who were | numbered among his clerks, who were helps to himin the liturgy, in chapels | and parishes which did depend on him as their proper teacher, though they
| could not so ordinarily go out to him.
The first sort had power within * Bains' Diocesan Trial, p. 66.
Crap. I.) THE ORURCHES OF CHRIST. thoir churches to teach, administer, excommunicate, and were counted brethten to the bishops, and called episcopi or coepiscopi, even of the ancient; but the presbyters, which were part of their clergy, they had this directive power over them, indeed, the canons ecclesiastical allowing the same.
And this power, in their own congregations, these rectors had, although they were minorum ecclesiarum prepositi, ralers over lesser churches.
And surely they that are fit to teach their own congregation, are fit to govern their own congregation : the word to feed the flock implying feeding them by rulingas well as by teaching. They that are parents to beget, have
= —s. power of the rod betrasted to them ; and if they be fit to governforo interno, then much more with others foro eterno.
It is a more apostolical work to beget, and to plant, and to multiply, than to govern men being converted.
That those that should be fit to gather a church, and to bring it to fulness from small beginnings, should not be fit to govern it, and to reap the fruit of it, but that the power should be in others that are extrinsecal to their congregations, is absurd to think.'
In the classical government, if they admonish not personally only, 4.6. each minister apart, but as a body in common, then they meet for acts of government, and that in common as united ; and if there be no admonition in common wherein they all join, as an act of authority of the whole, then such admonitions proceed from the minister alone that doth admonish, and the other elders therein are but as cyphers.
Now, therefore, when there is eldera, and these elders united in acts and common, and those acts are acts of governme nt, there must needs be an eldership. And this the reformed churches do acknowledge, and the commissioners of Scotland in their papers do own this to be an eldership.
The reformed churches in France call it a presbytery, and the meeting of the elders over many congregations, that they call the classis.
And what doth make a classical eldership to bea presbytery, but that materially there are elders that have relation to those congregations, and that formally they are united for acts in common ?
(2.) It is as evidently troo that they are a sufficient presbytery.
It is true, indeed (as was said afore), no one is sufficient for any ofthese things ; and thus for moral imperfections, power might be taken from the apostles themselves, who acknowledge this imperfection of themselves ; but they have a Political sufficiency.
For (1.] If it be said that the insufficiency lies in the fewness of the number, and that in a classical presbytery there are more, in answer to that, the Tale saith, ' elders of the church,' and so speaks of them indefinitely ; and oor Saviour Christ saith in Mat. xviii.,
'Where two or three are gathered,' which the presbyterial divines do interpret of the elders.
In Acts xiii. 1, there are three elders mentioned at Antioch, and that they ordained two apostles, Barnabas and Paul, who (say our brethren) acted as ordinary elders, when joined together in the same act, and yet they ordained also,
Thus the church of Colosse had two ministers, Epaphras and Archippus, and yet that church was complete, Col. ii. 10.
And they Were but one congregation, for they were pastors to them; ' who is a faithfal minister to you,' saith he, and that in respect of teaching, for, saith he, they had ' heard it from him,' Col. iv.
And when the Scripture hath not pat the sufficiency upon a number, why, if there be but two, should they be excluded ?
And then too it may fall out, that as many elders are in one congregation as in some classes.
It will not be denied by our brethren,; that two churches may associate and makea classis, and one congregation may have as many elders, as these two smaller ones that do associate.
And assaredly their sufficiency doth not lie, that they have relation unto many THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox TI. congregations, for that this should have the influence into their sufficiency is hard to be supposed; besides that this is but a secondary relation, for the primary relation is to their own several churches, insomuch as it was
P sometimes affirmed by our brethren, that they were not elders to all those several congregations associated, but an eldership only.
And that is but an extrinsecal relation neither, whereas that relation they have to their own is more intrinsecal, because they are chosen by them, and because they per- , sonally watch over them, and are fixed amongst them, whereas this is but raised by a mere association.
And therefore this relation, that they are elders over many congregations, can add nothing to their sufficiency.
(2.] Or else, secondly, their insufficiency is supposed to lie in not having all sort of elders in this congregational eldership, both as pastor, teacher, and ruling elder.
But if so, then a classical eldership may be imperfect too, for in some of these, one that hath the office of a teacher, or a doctor may be, is often found wanting; or what if all ruling elders were wanting, and only pastors met, were this an imperfect eldership?
And if all sorta and kinds of elders were necessary to make up the sufficiency of an eldership or presbytery classical, then it were first necessary that every congregation should have all these sorts of elders ; for a classis cannot oblige the congregations under them, that some should have a teacher, others a ruling elder, others a pastor, to make up all sorts among them; and besides, the first relation of all officers, being unto particular congregations, as being primarily ordained for them (for none is an officer simply made for a classical church), therefore the seat of all these sorts of officers is congregations.
And so, if that the classis have it, it is because the congregations have all first ; and if the classes be bound to have all to make theirs sufficient, the congregations also are bound to have all to make theirs sufficient.
(8.] Or else, thirdly, they are supposed deficient, because they want ability.
But (1.| if they are elders of the church universal (as some of our brethren affirm) and of all the world, and accordingly fit for any work of elders, ad their office is, it were strange that a company of them in a congregation, two or three or more, should not be fit for all the business in that congregation.
But [2.] their inability must lie either in want of skill or want of power.
If in want of skill, it must be either skill to discern the proof of the fact, for which men are to be excommunicated; and if so, then they are unable to admonish also, for they should not admonish but upon proof of the fact; and to disable a congregation, people and elders, to do that which any jury of a few men use to do ordinarily in point of life and death, is very hard.
Or else their want of skill must lie in discerning, whether the sin be a sin of that nature, that it deserves excommunication for the matter of fact, if it be not repented of; but they cannot be supposed to want skill in that, for ! then they cannot likewise suspend from the sacrament, for they are to suspend but for such sins as, if not repented of, would deserve excommaunication.
Or else they must want skill to judge of repentance, or the want of \ it; bat surely if a brother may be able to judge of the repentance of a | brother, in case of a flagitious sin (which in public he should be excommunicated for, if he repented not), then a church and these elders may be able to judge of his repentance of public sins.
Yea, if a particular eldership (according to presbyterial principles) do find that the man repenteth upon their admonition, though the sin be gross and heinous, they may forbear to bring him to the classis, and receive him again, or else their admonitions are in vain, and all must be brought however to the classis.
And if they may Cm. LJ THE CHURCHES OF OHRIST. jadge of his repentance, so as to prevent excommunication, then they may 4s well judge of his repentance, or of his obstinacy, when he is to be excommunicated.
If it be said that the fault may be so atrocious that they cannot so well jadge of his repentance, the answer is, 1. Then all such sins should be brought immediately to the classical presbytery, and notto the particular eldership at all, for them to admonish or to deal with him in order to repentance.
2. The more heinous the fault is, the more apparent it is; and therefore the better they may judge of it, and the easier an excommunication should be for it.
Or, 2, their insufficiency must be supposed to lie in want of power.
Bat, 1, if they be a presbytery in a church, they must needs have power and authority to do all that a presbytery is ordered for, or.is ascribed to it.
A presbytery and presbyterial acts are relative and mutual.
2. All Christ's ordinances and means are sufficient unto his end.
As a minister, if he be a true and lawfal minister, hath sufficiency both of gifts and power to do what belongeth unto him as a minister, as to acts of all torts, and the least as well as the greatest, so ifChrist do ordain a presbytery to govern as a presbytery, itis a perfect means for all presbyterial acts; for God's appointments are perfect, and God's means for government are as complete as his other means, of preaching and the sacraments. A presbytery, if it be a presbytery, is as perfect asa presbytery, as a particular minister is asa minister.
A minister is a complete minister, not to preach only, but to baptize; not to baptize only, but to administer the Lord's supper; not to preach one part of the counsel of God, but all; not to administer the bread only, but the cup; and if he is the minister of one sacrament, then also of another, for there are no such ministers as the bishops, deacons.*
Now, look what a minister is in his kind, that elders are in their kind; and if they have power to admonish, then power to excommunicate.
8. If they be fit for one aet of government, then for all acts, of all sorts and kinds (for of them we speak now); we do not say in all cases, for a case may be too difficult for them, and then they seek advice; but we speak of the kinds.
If they be able, they have the power, in one as well as the.other, whieh is proved.
_ 1, Because our presbyterian brethren's own arguments do ron from instances of one part of government to all.
They cannot give instances of all sets of government done by those that they suppose to be classical churches ; but they argue from some few, and those less than excommunication, ag in the instance of the church of Jerusalem, they argue from the less, from having received alms, that they meant to prevent a scandal.
Yea, they argue that because the synod in Acts xv. might with an authority doctrinal declare, that therefore they might excommunicate; so we argue, if a congregational presbytery may do all these, then they may excommunicate, and it is their right to do it.
Our presbyterian brethren can give no instanee of any ono that did all ; and until they have an instance that classical churches did all these, it may still be said that classical churches be imperfect.
And how then shall they or we know what is a perfett presbytery, and what is not?
To give them power to admonish, to suspend from the sacrament, and notto excommunicate, is to make them imperfect.
If, then, they are furnished with power, they must likewise have ability; for what Christ Gives power to do, to that he gives ability sufficient.
If it should be said that congregational elders do but govern inforo interno, * Qu. 'bishops' deacons ' #—En, THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox III.
I answer, 1, that is the same that the bishops allowed, only unto pastors of congregations, affirming themselves had only the external judicature.
Then, 2, they rule more than in foro interno, for they set up an outward judicatare in a charch, of elders, united in common, even while they admonish in common, and suspend from the sacrament in common.
So that, to conclude this argument, to say that they are insufficient for ability and power, it is, 1, a wrong to Christ in reproaching his means as insufficient to his ends.
It is, 2, a wrong to the presbytery itself.
It is enough to take away the power from them; but to take away a man's power and his estate, and make him a ward, under pretence that he is not able to manage it, or hath no power to do it, is the greatest wrong that can be.
8. If some elders and congregations be found insufficient, then they are insufficient to be elders; put them out, or let them only be wards; shall the law be general for their sakes?
4. If you ask what is a sufficient eldership, we ask you what is an insufficient, and wherein insufficiency lieth?
And let not churches be kept imperfect (when it is their due to have a safficient eldership), that under the pretence of that, the necessity of presbyterial government may appear.
But as in case of separation, the assembly hath affirmed that if there be want of officers or the like, it is required that there be a supply, and that there be not a separation ; so in congregations, let there be a sufficient eldership, let there be a supply, let not the power be taken away.
For thus the bishops took away raling elders, and did leave but one pastor in a congregation, that so they might have the better pretence to govern, and to do all themselves.
The fourth, fifth, and sixth arguments,to prove a single congregation to be a complete subject of ecclesiastical power, drawn, 1,from being a body of Christ completely ordained; 2, because worship and government are commensurate;
8, from the nature of excommunication.
Arg. TV. They that are a body organised with all the members, have all the privileges of a body; but a church havinga company of elders, especially if of all sorts, is a body to Christ, and completely organized.
The completeness of the natural body lies not in the multitude of members, but in having all.
And that such a body thus complete should not have all power that a body can be supposed to have over its members, is very strange.
And again, that power and liberty which is to be given to every brother in his proportion, is to be givento every complete bodyof Christ in the like proportion as it is a body.
Now, every brother hath power as a brother (and as it is his duty) to withdraw from him he doth judge to walk inordinately, 2 Thes. iii. 56.
And then every body that is rightly organised must therefore have power as a body, in a suitable proportion, to cut off any rotten member; and if it can heal itself, to do it of itself, the law of nature will teach it, as it is a body, so todo.
That is not a sound body that hath not strength to purge out its own excrements. ll bodies and societies of men have power still within themselves to cast out any who are destructive to the society, 80 families have (every lump purgeth out its own leaven), and every particular company in a greater city have that power so far as their own company reacheth.
The power which the synagogues had and exercised, congregations surely may have now.
The Sanhedrim might give the law in the abstract, direct- | Cuuap. IL} THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. ing who and what kind of persons were to be cast out, and for what; but they meddled not with the particular sentence and applying of it to any man, nor did the towns and cities that judged in their gates.
Neither were the synagogues bound to advise, but only when the case was difficult, which is clear by this, that the Jews had synagogues in all the cities of the Gentiles, dispersed up and down the world, and had their several rulers in them, and they were not bound to come up to Jerusalem to the Sanhedrim.
These synagogues, though they could not cast out of the temple, yet cast out of | themselves they might; and therefore a man was cast out of the synagogue.
As wo argue in the case of baptism of children, that God hath not straitened but rather enlarged his grace, and the liberty and promises thereof under the gospel, so we do argue here, that the liberty of such assemblies
(as the synagogues were), which Christ hath now instituted, must have all the privileges they had, and so much the more, by how much, that the assemblies of the saints are now more noble than synagogues were then,
' they being called a temple, the house of God, a holy nation, and a royal priesthood; and upon every assembly, under the gospel, God creating a dond and 2 pillar of fire, these have all the promises and privileges that the temple and the nation of the Jews had, therefore surely as much as the synagogues.
The prophet Jeremiah, iii. 16, makes the privilege of every church under the gospel to be as great as that of the temple at Jerusalem, where the ark was, the place where God did choose for the Sanhedrim to sit in, and to govern that nation.
' In those days' (saith he, speaking of the times of the gospel), 'they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord' (which, therefore, must needs be meant of the times of the gospel; for the ark of the covenant of the Lord was the chiefest privilege, under the law, till Christ),
'neither shall it come unto mind, neither shall they remember it, neither shall they visit it, neither shall that be done any more.'