Touching congregational elderships, consisting of the ministers and ruling elders of the several single congregations, which are called the lesser assemblies, or smaller presbyteries, and which are to manage and order all ecclesiastical matters within themselves, which are of more immediate, private, particular concernment to their own congregations respectively; and consequently, of more easy dispatch, and of more daily use and necessity. Concerning these congregational presbyteries, we shall not now take into consideration either, 1. What are the members constituting and making up these elderships; whether ruling elders by divine warrant may be superadded to the pastors and teachers, and so be associated for the government of the congregation. For the divine right of the ruling elders, distinct from the preaching elder for the government of the church, hath been evidenced at large, Chapter XI., Section 1, foregoing. And if any acts of government in the church belong to the ruling elder at all, sure those acts of common jurisdiction, to be dispatched in these least assemblies, cannot of all other be denied unto him. 2. Nor shall it here be discussed, what the power of congregational elderships is, whether it be universally extensive to all acts of government ecclesiastical whatsoever, without exception or limitation; and that independently, without subordination to the greater assemblies, and without all liberty of appeal thereunto in any cases whatsoever, though of greatest and most common concernment. Which things are well stated and handled by others;[105] and will in some measure be considered afterwards in Chapter XV.
3. But the thing for the present to be insisted upon, against the Erastian and prelatical party, is, the divine right of authority and power for church government, which is in congregational presbyteries or elderships, in reference to their respective congregations. Take it thus:
Elderships of single congregations vested and furnished with ecclesiastical authority and power to exercise and dispense acts of government in and over those respective congregations whereunto they do belong, are by divine right warrantable.
For confirmation hereof the light of nature, the institution of Christ, the apostolical practice, and the law of necessity, seem to speak sufficiently unto us.
1. The common light of nature thus far directeth all sorts of smaller societies, whether political or ecclesiastical, to compose all particular and more private differences and offences within themselves; and to decide and determine small, common, easy causes and matters, by smaller courts and judicatories appointed for that end: a vain thing to trouble more and greater assemblies with those matters, that may as well be determined by the lesser. It was wise and grave counsel which Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, gave to Moses, that he should set up over the people certain judges inferior to himself, who themselves might judge all smaller matters, but all great and hard matters to be brought to Moses, Exod. xviii. 22, 26. And our Saviour seems to insinuate, that the Jews had their inferior courts for inferior causes, superior judicatories for greater, in that gradation of his, Matt. v. 22. Likewise they had lesser and greater ecclesiastical assemblies, (as after will appear.) Now, to what use are greater and lesser judicatories, civil or ecclesiastical, but that the lesser and lighter causes may be judged in the inferior, harder and greater in the superior?
2. The institution of Christ recorded Matt. xviii. 15-21, seems to hold forth notably both single congregational elderships, and their power. And this, whether we consider the Jewish form, unto which our Saviour seems to refer; or whether we observe the matter of his discourse.
1. As for the Jewish form of church government (unto which our Saviour here seems to allude) we may observe it was managed by two, if not three sorts of ecclesiastical courts, viz: By the Sanhedrin, presbytery, and synagogue, (much like to the evangelical synod, presbytery, and congregational eldership since Christ.) 1. They had their ecclesiastical,[106] as well as their civil Sanhedrin, for high and difficult affairs of the church; which seems first to be constituted, Exod. xxiv. 1, and after decay thereof, it was restored by King Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. xix. 8; and from this court that national church's reformation proceeded, Neh. vi. 13. 2. Again, it is very probable they had between their Sanhedrin and their synagogue a middle ecclesiastical court called The Presbytery, Luke xxii. 66, and Acts xxii. 5, and the whole presbytery. Let such as are expert in Jewish antiquities and their polity, consider and judge. 3. Finally, they had their lesser judicatories in their synagogues, or congregational meetings: for, their synagogues were not only for prayer, and the ministry of the word, in reading and expounding the Scriptures, but also for public censures, correcting of offences, &c., as that phrase seems to import, "And I punished them oft in every synagogue," Acts xxvi. 11. His facts and proceedings, it is true, were cruel, unjust, impious. But why inflicted in every synagogue, rather than in other places, and that by virtue of the high priest's letters, Acts ix. 1, 2; but there the Jews had judicatories, that inflicted public punishments upon persons ecclesiastically offending? Besides, we read often in the New Testament of the rulers of the synagogue, as Mark v. 35, 36, 38; Luke viii. 41, and xiii. 14; and of Crispus and Sosthenes the chief rulers of the synagogue, Acts xviii. 8, 17; whence is intimated to us, that these synagogues had their rule and government in themselves; and that this rule was not in one person, but in divers together; for if there were chief rulers, there were also inferiors subordinate unto them: but this is put out of doubt, in Acts xiii. 15, where after the lecture of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them—synagogue in the singular number, and rulers in the plural. Thus analogically there should be ecclesiastical rulers and governors in every single congregation, for the well guiding thereof. But if this satisfy not, add hereunto the material passages in our Saviour's speech.
2. Now touching the matter of our Saviour's discourse, it makes this very clear to us; for by a gradation he leadeth us from admonition private and personal, to admonition before two or three witnesses, and from admonition before two or three witnesses, to the representative body of one church, (as the phrase tell the church must here necessarily be interpreted,) if there the difference can be composed, the offence removed, or the cause ended; rather than unnecessarily render the offence, and so our brother's shame, more public and notorious. And that the presbytery or eldership of a particular congregation, vested with power to hear and determine such cases as shall be brought before them, is partly, though not only here intended, seems evident in the words following, which are added for the strengthening and confirming of what went before in ver. 17: "Verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again, I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," Matt. xviii. 18-20. In which passages these things are to be noted: 1. That this church to which the complaint is to be made, is invested with power of binding and loosing, and that so authoritatively that what by this church shall be bound or loosed on earth shall also be bound or loosed in heaven, according to Christ's promise. 2. That these acts of binding or loosing, may be the acts but of two or three, and therefore consequently of the eldership of a particular congregation; for where such a juridical act was dispatched by a classical presbytery, it is said to be done of many, 2 Cor. ii. 6, because that in such greater presbyteries there are always more than two or three. And though some do pretend, that the faults here spoken of by our Saviour in this place, were injuries, not scandals; and that the church here mentioned was not any ecclesiastical consistory, or court, but the civil Sanhedrin, a court of civil judicature; and yet most absurdly they interpret the binding and loosing here spoken of, to be doctrinal and declarative; not juridical and authoritative; as if the doctrinal binding and loosing were in the power of the civil Sanhedrin:[107] yet all these are but vain, groundless pretences and subterfuges, without substance or solidity, as the learned and diligent reader may easily find demonstrated by consulting these judicious authors mentioned in the foot note,[108] to whom for brevity's sake he is referred for satisfaction in these and divers such like particulars.
3. The consideration of the apostolical practice, and state of the Church of God in those times, may serve further to clear this matter to us. For, 1. We sometimes read of single congregations; and as the Holy Ghost doth call the whole body of Christ the Church, Matt. xvi. 18, 1 Cor. xii. 28, and often elsewhere; and the larger particular members of that body of Christ (partaking the nature of the whole, as a drop of water is as true water as the whole ocean) churches; as, the church of Jerusalem, Acts viii. 1; the church of Antioch, Acts xiii. 1; the church of Ephesus, Rev. ii. 1; the church of Corinth, 2 Cor. i. 1; (these being the greater presbyterial churches, as after will appear, Chap. XIII.;) so the same holy Spirit of Christ is pleased to style single congregations, churches, "Let women keep silence in the churches," 1 Cor. xiv. 34, i.e. in the single congregations of this one church of Corinth: and often mention is made of the church that is in such or such an house, as Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Col. iv. 15; Philem. 2; whether this be interpreted of the church made up only of the members of that family, or of the church that ordinarily did meet in such houses, it implies a single congregation. Now shall single congregations have the name and nature of churches, and shall we imagine they had not in them the ordinary standing church officers, viz. pastors and teachers, governments, or elders ruling well, and helps or deacons? or is it probable they were furnished with these officers, and yet the officers furnished with no power for the government of these single congregations at all? 2. We find that the apostles being crowned with such success in their ministry, as to be instruments of converting such multitudes to the faith as were sufficient to make up many several churches from time to time, did diligently take care to ordain them presbyters, or elders in every church, Acts xiv. 23; Tit. i. 5. Now can it be clearly evidenced by any, that these were not ruling as well as preaching presbyters; especially when it appears by other places that the primitive churches had both? Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 28;
1 Tim. v. 17. Or can we think that the apostles were not as careful to erect elderships in several congregations, as to appoint elders? otherwise how could the apostles have answered it to their Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in leaving them without that necessary provision of government, which Christ himself had allowed to them, at least, in some cases, as hath been evidenced?