“He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ…”
Eph. 4:11,12
.
.
Subsections
Is Secondary
Regulative Principle of
Views of
Keys
Church Ministry
Church Offices
Governing of Church
Church Membership
Ladies: Right to Vote for Church Officers?
Extraordinary Acts of Church Government under Necessity
Local Church Membership: Not Necessary to Visible Church or Sacraments
Reformed vs. Aquinas
.
.
Order of Contents
Historical
Importance of 1
Church Government Different from Civil in OT 5
Prescribed in Scripture 1
Governed by Word’s General Rules
Partial Conformity in
Indifferent
Power is Wholly Spiritual 3
Government: How Below & Above People
Simony 1
Deficient or Corrupt Entrance: Valid 6+
.
Articles
1500’s
Melanchthon, Philip – Article 28, Of Ecclesiastical Power in The Apology of the Augsburg Confession tr: F. Bente & W. H. T. Dau (1531)
Calvin, John
15. ‘Of the Power of the Church’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1541 French Edition tr. Elsie A. McKee (1541; Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 628-56
Institutes of the Christian Religion tr. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 3, bk. 4
10. ‘Of the Jurisdiction of the church and the Abuses of it, as exemplified in the Papacy’ 226
Bucer, Martin – ch. 12, ‘The Fourth Law: The Restoration of the Ministries of the Church’ in On the Reign of Christ tr. Satre & Pauck in Melanchthon & Bucer in The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 19 (1550; 1557; London: SCM Press LTD, 1969), bk. 2, pp. 283-95
Melanchthon, Philip – 28. ‘Of the Power of the Church, or of the Keys’ in Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, Loci Communes, 1555 tr. Clyde L. Manschreck (1555; NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), pp. 255-66
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ch. 13, ‘Of a Magistrate, of the Difference between Civil & Ecclesiastical Power’ in The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 4, pp. 226-45
Musculus, Wolfgang – ‘Of the Power of the Church’ in Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), ‘Church’, folios 265.b-267.a
Theodore Beza – A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1565)
ch. 5, 33. To what purpose or end serves the ecclesiastical jurisdiction and which be the parts thereof
ch. 7
12. In the Papistry there is no ecclesiastical government
14. Of the abuse which is committed in the order of Priesthood and in the government of their spiritual jurisdiction
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573)
The Summary of the Christian Doctrine, set forth in Form of Dialogue & of Catechism
Of the Ministry of the Church & of the Use of the same
Of the Parts of the Ministry of the Church
The Summary of the Christian Doctrine, set forth in Form of Dialogue & of Catechism
Of the Ministers of the Church & of Magistrates
Zanchi, Girolamo – Confession of the Christian Religion… (1586; Cambridge, 1599), pp. 206-42 & 330-49
Ch. 25, ’Of the Government of the Militant Church & of the Ecclesiastical Ministry’
. On Aphorisms 10-12
. On Clergy Discipline
. Aphorism 12
. Aphorism 21
Finch, Henry – The Sacred Doctrine of Divinity gathered out of the Word of God… (Middelburg: 1589), bk. 3
8. Of Faculties
9. Of Ministries
Finch (d. 1625) was an English lawyer and politician.
Beza, Theodore, Anthony Faius & Students – 76. ‘Of the Power & Authority of the Church’ in Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva by Certain Students of Divinity there, under Mr. Theodore Beza & Mr. Anthony Faius… (Edinburgh: Waldegrave, 1591), pp. 242-51
.
1600’s
English Puritans – pt. 1, Objections 3-5 in A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), pp. 228-40
Bucanus, William – 43. ‘Of the Power & Authority of the Church’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), pp. 570
Is there any power of the Church?
By what name is it called?
What is the ecclesiastical power?
Whence or from whom is this power?
Does this ecclesiastical authority differ from the civil authority?
Of how many sorts is the ecclesiastical authority or government?
What is the power of ministry?
What is the first part of these keys?
How many keys are there?
Whereon depends this power?
To whom are these keys given?
Which is the other part of ecclesiastical power?
What is the power of the Church concerning doctrine?
Are we simply to hear the voice of the Church, to receive whatsoever it teaches?
Is it in the Church’s power to consign the canon of Scripture?
May not yet the Church be a means to believe that there is a Word written and other things which pertain to salvation?
Whether has the Church authority and full power to interpret the Scriptures?
What power has the Church in traditions or making laws?
Show some examples of those laws which were appointed or those traditions which were to be made by the Church, or these ecclesiastical constitutions delivered by word of mouth
What cautions are to be used and observed in writing those laws and human traditions?
Who can ratify or abolish those laws?
What is a lawful synod?
By whom are synods to be called and appointed?
Are all things which synods decree to be accounted always for true and undoubted?
Is there any authority of the synods?
Does not the apostle command us to obey rulers and governors? Heb. 13:17
By what name were they wont to call the definitions of synods?
Do such constitutions bind the conscience before God?
What is the end of this power?
What effect or use have they?
What things are repugnant to this doctrine?
Ames, William – The Marrow of Theology tr. John D. Eusden (1623; Baker, 1997), bk. 1
ch. 32, ‘The Church Instituted’, pp. 178-82
ch. 37, ‘Ecclesiastical Discipline’, pp. 199-202
Ames (1576-1633) was an English, puritan, congregationalist, minister, philosopher and controversialist. He spent much time in the Netherlands, and is noted for his involvement in the controversy between the reformed and the Arminians. Voet highly commended Ames’s Marrow for learning theology.
Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation Buy (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 3
48. ‘On Church Discipline’, pp. 372-410
49. ‘On Ecclesiastical Councils or Meetings’, pp. 410-62
Wolleb, Johannes – 26. ‘The External Administration of the Church’ in Abridgment of Christian Divinity (1626) in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius & F. Turretin (Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), bk. 1, pp. 141-50
Wolleb (1589–1629) was a Swiss reformed theologian. He was a student of Amandus Polanus.
Rutherford, Samuel – A Defense of the Government of the Church of Scotland 20 pp. being ch. 20 of his A Peaceable & Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland (1642)
Rutherford describes and defends from scripture the church government of the Church of Scotland in his day. It is an excellent, brief, overview and defense of a four office view of church government, the calling and ordination of office bearers, and the Scottish practice of the administration of the Lord’s Supper. It also has helpful articulations of Biblical views of days of fasting, marriage, offering, church censures, private and family worship and spiritual conferencing.
Leigh, Edward – ch. 3. Of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction & Government in A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 6, pp. 466-85
Cappell, Louis – ‘On Ecclesiastical Power & Government’, theses 1-10, 11-20 in Syntagma Thesium Theologicarum in Academia Salmuriensi… Pars Prima (Saumur, 1664), pp. 5-7 tr. Michael Lynch
Le Blanc de Beaulieu, Louis – Theological Theses Published at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica (1675; London, 1683), Posthumous Works
3. Controversies on Church’s Governance and Roman Pontiff Latin
1. Nature of the governance instituted by Christ in the Church 991
2. Primacy of Peter 994
3. Succession of Pope in place of Peter 996
4. Pope’s infallibility in judging controversies of faith and morals 1000
5. Certainty of Papal judgment or the Pope’s infallibility 1001
6. Infallibility of the particular Roman Church 1004
7. Whether the Roman Pontiff and all Church prelates have coercive jurisdiction so they can enact laws that bind in conscience, and judge and punish transgressors 1005
8. Whether Christ conferred ecclesiastical jurisdiction directly to the Roman Pontiff alone, from whom it derives to other bishops? 1011
9. Temporal power of the pope and other Church officials 1013
10. Antichrist 1020
11. Elijah and Enoch (the two witnesses of Revelation) 1024-26
4. Controversies on Councils
5. ‘Authority of councils, what it is and how great’ 1035-45
6. Controversies on the Members of the Militant Church
1. Designation of ‘clergy’ and ‘laity’ 1087
2. Ranks and distinction of the Church’s ministers 1089
3. Grades and distinction of Church ministers according to our theologians 1094
4. Institution or creation of Church ministers 1098
5. Celibacy and bigamy [remarriages] of ministers of the Church 1103
29. ‘Does any spiritual power distinct from the political belong to the church? We affirm.’ 274
30. ‘Is the ecclesiastical power concerned with doctrines, creeds and confessions of faith? We affirm.’ 281
van Mastricht, Peter – ch. 7, ‘Church Government’ in Theoretical Practical Theology (2nd ed. 1698; RHB), vol. 5, pt. 1, bk. 7
Heidegger, Johann H. – 27. ‘On the Government of the Church’ in The Concise Marrow of Theology tr. Casey Carmichael in Classic Reformed Theology, vol. 4 (1697; RHB, 2019), pp. 191-201
.
1700’s
à Brakel, Wilhelmus – The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 2 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout Buy (1700; RHB, 1992/1999)
ch. 27, ‘The Government of the Church, & Particularly the Commissioning of Ministers’, pp. 107-31
ch. 28, ‘The Offices of Minister, Elder & Deacon’, pp. 131-57
ch. 29, ‘Ecclesiastical Authority & the Use of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven’, pp. 157-91
a Brakel (1635-1711) was a contemporary of Voet and Witsius and a major representative of the Dutch Further Reformation.
.
1800’s
Alexander, Archibald
‘The Faithful Elder’, HTML, no date or source info, 6 paragraphs
‘A Dialogue Between a Presbyterian & a ‘Friend” (1792) 40 pp.
Miller, Samuel – ‘On Ecclesiastical Polity’ (1833), p. 171 ff., 42 pp.
Dabney, Robert – ‘A Speech against the Ecclesiastical Equality of Negro Preachers in our Church and their Right to Rule over White Christians’ (1867) 16 pp.
For the other side of the argument, from a southern white pastor of black slaves, urging their capacity to rule as elders, see John L. Girardeau’s ‘Our Ecclesiastical Relations to Freedmen’ (1867). Girardeau’s position came to prevail and was enacted within a few years.
Girardeau, John – ‘Our Ecclesiastical Relations to Freedmen’ (1867) 18 pp.
Girardeau, a southern white pastor of black slaves, argues that blacks may be elders (governors) in church courts. For an exposition of what Girardeau is arguing against, see Robert Dabney’s ‘A Speech against the Ecclesiastical Equality of Negro Preachers in our Church and their Right to Rule over White Christians’ (1867) 16 pp. Girardeau’s position came to prevail and was enacted in the southern church a few years later.
Hodge, Charles – What is Presbyterianism? An Address, Re-typeset PDF (1855) 80 pp.
Vos, Geerhardus – ch. 2, ‘Organization, Discipline, Offices’ in Reformed Dogmatics tr: Richard Gaffin 1 vol. ed. Buy (1896; Lexham Press, 2020), vol. 5, ‘Ecclesiology, the Means of Grace, Eschatology’, pt. 1, ‘Ecclesiology’, pp. 876-919
.
1900’s
Berkhof, Louis – ‘The Power of the Church’ (1950) 21 paragraphs in Systematic Theology
.
2000’s
Isbell, Sherman – ‘The Church in Relation to its Constitution’ (April, 2006) 12 pp. in Master’s Trumpet, vol. 3
Isbell describes the European understanding of a constitution and argues that a church’s constitution is inviolable and cannot be changed.
.
Books
1800’s
Cunningham, William – Discussions on Church Principles: Popish, Erastian & Presbyterian Buy (1863) 565 pp.
Many people are aware of Bannerman’s Church of Christ, which positively expounds the doctrine of the Church from scripture. Cunningham’s work is more polemical, against the errors of alternative views. Both are needed. This is his main work on Church writings, a subject too often neglected in our day.
Hodge, Charles – Discussions in Church Polity Buy (1878) 560 pp.
This and his Essays and Reviews are the main source for Hodge’s important and influential writings in church theory and practice, especially in the context of the 1800′s debates between the northern and southern presbyterians. In it you will find him defending the historic reformed view that the Roman Catholic Church is part of the Visible church, that her baptism is valid, and that baptized infants are under the discipline of the church. On the other hand he argues against the historic reformed view of the Establishment Principle for a Voluntary position with regard to Church and State, and for an Americanized three office view of church government. In his day the new issue came up of church boards, which he defends, as opposed to the more rigorously Biblical view of Thornwell against them. Many other interesting points of polity are also discussed.
Miller, Samuel
Letters Concerning the Constitution & Order of the Christian Ministry… with a Prefatory Letter on the Episcopal Controversy (1830) 558 pp. The Letters are systematically laid out in the table of contents starting with the testimony of scripture concerning church government, then the testimony of the history of the church, followed by the rise and progress of prelacy and its practical problems.
Miller became heavily involved in public debates about prelacy (top-down church government by bishops) due to the rise of the influence of Episcopalians in his area. This is must reading for a defense of presbyterianism from scripture and history, and for showing the Biblical and historical errors of episcopalian government.
Letters to Presbyterians, on the Present Crisis in the Presbyterian Church in the United States (1833) 340 pp.
The Primitive & Apostolical Order of the Church of Christ Vindicated (1840) 398 pp.
The Ruling Elder: respecting the Warrant, Nature & Duties of the Office, HTML Buy (1840) 335 pp.
The best American book on the subject preserving the historic reformed view that the Ruling Elder is a distinct office from the Minister and that the Ruling Elder is also a “presbyter” (“elder” in the English) along with the Minister. Thornwell would come along and claim that the Ruling Elder holds the same office as the Minister. Hodge in the North then rightly distinguished the Ruling Elder as a separate office, but excluded the Ruling Elder from the category of “presbyter” (“elder” in English), as do the Episcopalians.
.
Latin
Articles
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert
Appendix: Of the Parts & Members of the Visible Church, even of Ecclesiastical Ministers, Government, Censures, etc. in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 4 Abbr.
Ecclesiastical Politics (Amsterdam: Waesberge, 1663)
vol. 1, pt. 1, bk. 1
Prolegomena to Ecclesiastical Polity
Of the Knowledge, or Discipline, which Ecclesiastical Polity Describes [Dicitur]. Of the 1. Nature, 2. Causes, 3. Relations, 4. Division, 5. Study and of the Apparatus to this Study. 1
Tract 1, Of the Instituted Church
1. The Nature of the Instituted Church Explained, with Respect to its Genus, Material, Form, Efficient and Final Causes, Relations, Opposites and Divisions. 11
2. The First Class of Problems, or Questions, about the Genus, Material, Form, Object and Ends of the Instituted Church. 26
3. The Second Class of Questions, about Efficient Causes. 42
4. Questions about the Relations of the Instituted Church. 55
5. Containing the Fourth Class of Questions about Divisions of the Instituted Church, where is treated of the Parochial, Village or Rural, Domestic, Princely, Camp, Nautical, Scholastic and Provincial Church. 71
[?] 6. Of Ecclesiastical Colleges, Cathedrals or Dioceses, Archbishops or Metropolitans, Patriarchs and Ecumenics. 80
Tract 2, Of the Power, Polity & Canons of the Churches
1. The Term ‘Ecclesiastical Power’ is Distinguished. The Proper Power itself, as it is Used in Speech, is Defined. 114
5. Some Particular Questions are Determined about the Subject of Ecclesiastical Power [Who may Hold and Exercise it]: Is it of the Magistrate and other Political Confederations? At Least During a Corrupt or Turbulent State of the Church? [Is it held by] The Pope, Bishops, etc. Courts of them, Cathedrals of the Church, Councils; or of Solely the Ministry, a Court of Them, or an Ecumentical or Catholic Church; or the Populus? 211
6. Of the Object of the Ecclesiastical Power, even Personal and of Things. 235
7. Of the Polity or Government of Churches. 241
8. Of Ecclesiastical Canons, Decrees, Ordinances and Custom. 254
. Custom 261
9. Some Thesis Questions about Ecclesiastical Canons are Explained. 262
10. Contains Chronicles of Some Questions, even General and Particular. 272
11. Contains Questions on Ecclesiastical Decrees and on Custom. 288
12. Ecclesiastical Law or Canon in General and Historical Explained. 295
13. An Explication of the Historical Body of Canon Law. 309
14. Of the Judgment of the Body of Canons, or of the Pontifical Right, and of the Study of Them. 325
15. Some Questions on Canon Law. 332
vol. 4, pt. 3
bk. 3, Of the Government of the Church with Respect to a State of Turbulence, Tract 1, Of the Dispersion and Regathering of the Church
6. Of Reformation in the Government and Discipline of the Church 446
bk. 4, Of Ecclesiastical Discipline, tract 1, Of Ecclesiastical Power
1. Of the Necessity and Use of the Doctrine of Ecclesiastical Power 770
2. Whether there is any Ecclesiastical Power? 778
3. Of the Distinction of Ecclesiastical Power from Political Power, etc. 781
4. Of the Spirituality of the Power and Polity, or of the Ecclesiastical Government 783
5. Of the Mandatory Power and Mandates [Greek] or [Greek] of the Churches 787
6. Of Ecclesiastical Government, or of the Sacredness of the Underpinnings of the Church, being distinct from the Political Government, etc. 792
7. Of the Legislative Power of the Churches 795
8. Of the Jurisdiction or the Judicial Power of the Church 798
9. Of Ecclesiastical Punishment or Correction, and Censure 800
10. Of the Sacredness or Sanctity of Ministers under the New Testament 801
12. Whether the Ecclesiastical Power Imparted by Churches having been Reformed is a Papal Mastery [Imperium]? 805
12. Another Certain Mode is Shaken Off, of Another Method of Sacred Power and Government which Ought to be Refused, and of those Church Magistrates which Ought to be Allotted 806
13. Another Method to the Building of Caesaro-Papism is Examined 817
.
Wettstein, Gernler & Buxtorf – 20. External Government of the Church in A Syllabus of Controversies in Religion which come between the Orthodox Churches & whatever other Adversaries, for material for the regular disputations… customarily held in the theological school of the academy at Basil (Basil, 1662), pp. 75-79
.
Book
1600’s
Brown of Wamphray, John
‘Preface to the Reader’ in Two Books… in the Second, the Libertine-Erastian Judgment of Lambert Velthusius in his book in the [Dutch] vernacular, on Idolatry & Superstition, newly set forth, is detected and confuted; also the orthodox truth is vindicated from the exceptions of adversaries, whether Libertines, Erastians or others and is illustrated and confirmed by 32 Assertions opposite the Velthusian judgment, to which is prefixed a small preface, in which some things are briefly and summarily propounded on the Nature of the Visible & Invisible Church, and so of the Communion of the Church, tearing down the illegitimate Separation already begun in Belgium in 2 vols. (Amseterdam, 1670), vol. 1 This volume only contains the work on the interpretation of the Scriptures.
This preface, translated into English by Grange Press (2024), briefly lists out and illustrates Brown’s 32 assertions on the Church and Church government that are more extensively propounded and defended in the volume below.
Brown was a Scottish covenanting minister who abode for many years in the Netherlands. Velthuysen (1623-1685) was generally reformed. Other reformed theologians likewise had complained of his concessions to Erastiansim in responding to Arminianism.
“Brown of Wamphray, while in exile in Holland, published, in 1670, an important and valuable work on this subject [of Erastianism], entitled Libertino-Erastianae… which is well worthy of perusal.” – Cunningham, HT 2.582
The general outline of this volume follows the 32 assertions Brown laid out in the preface to the first volume above.
.
Historical
On the Early Church
Calvin, John – Institutes of the Christian Religion tr. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 3, bk. 4
4. ‘Of the State of the Primitive Church, and the Mode of Government in use before the Papacy’ 73
5. ‘The Ancient Form of Government utterly corrupted by the tyranny of the Papacy’ 89
.
On the Importance of Church Government
Quote
1600’s
London (Presbyterian) Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), p. 1
“The external government and discipline of Christ (though it be not necessary to the being, yet it) is absolutely necessary to the well-being of a Church: So necessary, as that we cannot but be deeply affected with grief and sorrow when we consider how long the thorough settling of it has been delayed (notwithstanding the [Solemn League and] Covenant we have taken, with hands lifted up to heaven to endeavor a reformation in point of discipline) and cannot but conceive it to be one chief reason of all the miseries that are now upon us; because those that have been in authority amongst us have labored to build their own houses and have suffered the house of God to lie waste.
If Nehemiah sat down and wept and mourned certain days because the wall of Jerusalem was broken down, etc. Much more have we cause to mourn that the wall of Zion is not yet reared up; for as a city without walls, a sea without banks, a vineyard without a hedge, so is a Church without discipline, and he that shall consider the multitude of heresies and blasphemies, the abundance of iniquities and abominations that have crowded into the Church, whilst this wall has been unbuilt, and this hedge unmade; cannot but take up the lamentation of David, though with a little difference:
‘Why hast thou suffered thy Vineyard to be without a hedge, so that all they which do pass by pluck her. The boar out of the wood doth waste it and the wild beasts of the field devour it. Return, we beseech thee, O Lord of Hosts; look down from Heaven and behold and visit this Vine, and the Vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that thou madest strong for thyself, etc.’ (Ps. 80:12-15)
And likewise to pray the prayer of the same prophet in another place, ‘Do good in thy good pleasure to Zion, and build thou the walls of Jerusalem.’ (Ps. 51:18)”
.
Secondary Source on Westminster
Quote
Kirsteen M. MacKenzie, The Solemn League & Covenant of the Three Kingdoms & the Cromwellian Union, 1643-1663 (Routledge, 2018), ch. 1
p. 45
“In August 1645, the Independents withdrew from the Assembly, and English members who were well disposed towards Presbyterian Church government accepted Scottish advice to continue to set up Presbyteries and synods, despite the lack of support from the [civil] Houses of Parliament. By December 1645… the drafting of the Confession was delayed due to days of thanksgivings and debates over church government…
Indeed, Baillie commented that without a system of church government, the catechism would be of little use.”
.
p. 46
“London Presbyterians took a positive approach [in 1645], arguing for the existence of a well-ordered, structured and inclusive national church as outlined in Jus Divinum Regiminis Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or the Divine Right of Church Government.
This weighty book argued that toleration was but human decree and not divinely sanctioned. No one can claim exemption from divinely appointed church government, as it applies to everyone. Therefore, from this perspective, separate, self-governing congregations [such as the Independents advocated for] look elitist. A national church must have an orderly and fully accountable structure; otherwise, confusion and chaos will reign.”
.
That there was a Different Church Government from the Civil Government in the Old Testament by Divine Right, the Equity of which carries over into the New Testament Church
See also below, ‘That the Substantials of Church Government Bind from the Word, or there is a Divine-Right Church Government’.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 3
Quotes 3
.
Articles
Gillespie, George
An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland in the Points of Ruling-Elders and of the Authority of Presbyteries & Synods… (Edinburgh, 1641)
pt. 1, ch. 3, ‘The first argument for ruling elders, taken from the Jewish Church’ 17-28
pt. 2, ch. 7, ‘The third argument, taken from the Jewish Church’ 164-78
bk. 1 ToC of Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, or the Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated… (Edinburgh: Ogle, Oliver & Boyd, 1844),
1. That if the Erastians could prove what they allege concerning the Jewish Church government, yet, in that particular, the Jewish church could not be a precedent to the Christian 1
“I do heartily acknowledge that what we find to have been an ordinance, or an approved practice in the Jewish Church, ought to be a rule and pattern to us, such things only excepted which were typical or temporal, that is, for which there were special reasons proper to that infancy of the Church and not common to us.” – p. 1
2. That the Jewish Church was formally distinct from the Jewish state or commonwealth 3
3. That the Jews had an ecclesiastical sanhedrim and government distinct from the civil 4
“Whatsoever kind of office-bearers the Jewish Church had, not as it was Jewish, but as it was a Church, such ought the Christian Church to have also. But the Jewish Church, not as it was Jewish, but as it was a Church, had elders of the people who assisted in their ecclesiastical government and were members of their ecclesiastical consistories. Therefore such ought the Christian Church to have also. The proposition will no man call in question, for ‘quod competit alicui qua tali competit omni tali.’ That which agrees to any Church as it is a Church, agrees to every Church. I speak of the Church as it is a political body and settled ecclesiastical republic.” – p. 13
4. That there was an ecclesiastical excommunication among the Jews and what it was 19
5. Of the cutting off from among the people of God frequently mentioned in the law 26
6. Of the casting out of the synagogue 30
7. Other scriptural arguments to prove an excommunication in the Jewish Church 34
8. ‘Of the Jewish exomologesis, or public declaration of repentance by confession of sin’ 36
9. Whether in the Jewish Church there was any suspension or exclusion of profane, scandalous, notorious sinners, from partaking in the public ordinances with the rest of the children of Israel in the temple 41
“The analogy which I understand is to hold between the Jewish and Christian Church is this: As profane persons were forbidden to enter into the Temple because of the sacramental and typical holiness thereof (for the Temple was a type of Christ), so profane persons are now much more to be kept back from the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, which has more of sacramental signification, mystery and holiness in it than the temple of Jerusalem had, and whereby more ample evangelical promises are set forth and sealed unto us.
And as profane persons might of old come into the court of the gentiles, and there hear the Word preached in Solomon’s porch (where both Christ and his apostles did preach, Jn. 10:23; Acts 3:11; 5:12, which porch was in the utmost court, that is, the court of the gentiles: of which elsewhere out of Josephus), but might not come into the court of Israel, nor have communion in the sacrifices: so profane, obstinate sinners are to be excluded for their impiety from the Church-communion of saints, though they may hear the Word, as heathens also may do.” – pp. 46-47
10. A debate with Mr. Prynne concerning the exclusion of profane, scandalous persons from the Passover 47
11. A confutation of the strongest arguments of Erastus, namely, those drawn from the law of Moses 51
12. Fourteen arguments to prove that scandalous and presumptuous offenders against the moral law (though circumcised and not being legally unclean) were excluded from the Passover 56
“But we have yet more to do, for the consequence of our argument is also denied both by the prelatical faction and by others [congregationalists] (whom we are more sorry to contradict) holding that reasons fetched from the Jewish Church do better fat the prelates than the consistorians; howsoever now to fetch the form of government for the Church from the Church of the Jews, were, say they, to revive the Old Testament.
To me it seems strange that both the one side and the other do when they please reason from the forms of the Jewish Church and yet they will not permit us to reason in like manner. The former go about to prove the prelacy by the high priesthood and the lawful use of organs in the Church from the like in the temple of Solomon.
The latter do argue that a congregation has right not only to elect ministers, but to ordain them and lay hands on them because the people of Israel laid hands on the Levites. That the maintenance of the ministers of the Gospel ought to be voluntary, because under the Law God would not have the priests and Levites to have any part or inheritance in the land of Canaan, but to be sustained by the offerings and altars of the Lord. That the power of excommunication is in the body of the Church, because the Lord laid upon all Israel the duty of removing the unclean and of putting away leaven out of their houses at the feast of Passover.
Is it right dealing now to forbid us to reason from the form of the Jews? I will not use any further expostulation, but let the reader judge. The truth is this, even as that which is in a child, as he is a child, agrees not to a man, yet that which is in a child, as he is animal rationale, agrees also to a man: so what we find in the Jewish Church, as it was Jewish or in infancy and under the pedagogy of the Law, agrees not indeed to the Christian Church. But whatsoever the Jewish Church had as it was a political Church, or ecclesiastical republic (of which sort of things, the diversity and subordination of ecclesiastical courts was one) does belong by the same reason to the Christian Church.
I say further, though the commonwealth and civil policy of the Jews be not in all points a pattern to our civil policy, yet I am sure it is no error to imitate the civil policy of the Jews in such things as they had, not for any special reason proper to them, but are common to all well constituted commonwealths, and so we may argue from their commonwealth that it is a good policy to have diverse civil courts and the higher to receive appellations from the inferior, as it was among them. Shall we not by the very like reason fetch from their ecclesiastical republic, diversity of spiritual courts, and the supreme to receive appellations from the inferior, because so was the constitution of the Jewish Church and that under the common respect and account of a political Church, and not for any special reason which does not concern us.” – p. 57
13. Mr. Prynne’s argument from 1 Cor. 10 (which he takes to be unanswerable) discussed and confuted 62
Appendix to Bk. 1 65
.
Westminster Assembly – ed. Van Dixhoorn, Chad – pp. 431-60 of The Minutes & Papers of the Westminster Assembly 1643-1652, vol. 2 These are minutes of the debate on the subject, mainly involving Calamy, Gillespie, Nye, Goodwin and Vines.
.
Quotes
1600’s
English, Non-Conformist, Puritan Ministers – A Confutation of the Errors of Separatists (c. 1604-1609; RBO, 2025)
“But this reason taken from the examples of the godly that lived under the law, Henry Barrow [a Separatist] in the 39th and 40th pages of his Discovery seeks to shift off after this manner, viz. that nothing then defiled the godly if the priest and people with whom they communicated were not legally and ceremonially polluted: for the priests and ecclesiastical state then were not to meddle with the faults of manners, nor to separate any from the congregations for moral sins. But it is now under the gospel far otherwise where all things are become new and spiritual, and where all manner of known sins obstinately held and maintained have as great force to defile men in the judgment of the Church and to deserve separation as legal pollutions, leprosies, running issues and other diseases had then. To which reply we answer:
First, that moral transgressions did defile men and make them worthy to be separated from God’s public worship then as well as they do now, for it is evident by the Law that they who had morally offended were kept from the congregation till they had professed their repentance and till atonement had been made for them. For to what purpose can we imagine that public confession, bringing a sin offering and seeking of atonement to be made by the priest should be enjoined him that had committed a moral transgression (Lev. 4:13–14, 22, 27; 5:1, 16; 6:27; Num. 15:22-25) if without the doing of these things he might be still partaker of the public worship; and if these things do not import a restraint from the public worship, then will it follow that the moral transgressor was left free from all censure and ecclesiastical punishment notwithstanding this his open and manifest contempt of God’s ordinances: for there is no other censure appointed in the whole law for the punishment of this contempt, and consequently the whole worship of God did lie open to most notorious profanation and confusion.
Secondly, the man that did morally offend is as well called unclean by the Holy Ghost as he that had transgressed the ceremonial law; and the very same [Hebrew] word, tame, that is put for ceremonial uncleanness in one place (Lev. 5:2–3), is put for moral uncleanness in another (Lev. 18:23–24, 29); and consequently where it is said in the book of Chronicles that by Jehoiadab’s appointment porters were set by the gates of the house of the Lord that none that was unclean in anything should enter in (2 Chron. 23:19), it may and ought to be understood of the restraining of them that were morally, as well as those that were ceremonially, unclean.
Thirdly, the priest was commanded to deal with him that in some things sinned of ignorance against the moral law (Lev. 5:1, 4; Num. 15:22–25), even in the same sort as he was to deal with him that was legally polluted through ignorance. (Lev. 5:2–3, 6)
Fourthly, he that was privy to himself of moral transgression was bound in conscience to abstain from the sacrifices and sacraments, though he were not ceremonially polluted: Isa. 1:10-14; Jer. 7:9-11; Mt. 5:23–24. And were not the Church governors then bound to separate such when they also and the congregation were made privy to such transgressions?
But why spend we so many words in confuting this most absurd assertion seeing themselves in the 89th and 90th pages of their Refutation affirm and labor to prove by many testimonies that under the Law many persons were to be separated from the congregation for moral transgressions?”
.
Westminster
The Reasons presented by the Dissenting Brethren against certain propositions concerning presbyterial government… Together with the answer of the Assembly of Divines to those reasons of Dissent (London, T.R., 1648), p. 147
“The Jewish subordinations, being no temple ordnances, nor typical or ceremonial, do in the moral equity of them concern us as well as them; at least we may with much more reason urge an argument, a pari ratione [from the reason of parity], from subordinations in the Jewish Church to prove a subordination still; then our brethren can argue from thence against it: For the grounds of that subordination being from moral equity; and the ends and necessity of it being the same, now as then (viz. revolving difficult cases, ordering matters of common concernment, reforming offences in inferior societies, receiving appeals, redressing of injuries and neglect in mal-administration, etc.) the same reason still remains, that for the same ends and purposes, there should be subordinations now in the Chrisitan Church that was then in the Jewish.”
.
London Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650)
“3. That the Scripture holds forth a subordination of congregations unto synods, together with appeals thereunto. To prove this, we will bring two places: The first is Dt. 17:8-12, together with 2 Chron. 19:8, 10-11. Out of which two places compared together we gather these two conclusions:
1. That the Jews had two supreme judicatories in Jerusalem; the one ecclesiastical for the matters of the Lord, the other civil for the matters of the king. This appears by Dt. 17:8, where we have a distinction of causes; some forensic between blood and blood, belonging to the civil judicatory; some ceremonial, between stroke and stroke; that is (as not only Jerome, but the Chaldee and Septuagint read the words, and as appears by the frequent use of the word in that sense, Lev. 13 and elsewhere) between leprosy and leprosy, belonging to the cognizance of the ecclesiastical judicatory. And in the 12th verse these two judicatories are distinguished by the disjunctive ‘or’: ‘And the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the priest (that standeth to minister before the Lord thy God) or unto the judge, etc.’
This further appears by 2 Chr. 19:8, 10-11, in which we have clear mention:
First of two sorts of judges, the Levites and priests, and chief of the fathers, verse 8;
Secondly, of two sorts of causes, some spiritual and ecclesiastical, called ‘the judgment of the Lord,’ verse 8, and ‘the matters of the Lord,’ verse 11, others civil, as between blood and blood, verse 10.
And thirdly, of two presidents, Amariah the chief priest in all matters of the Lord, and Zebadiah the ruler of the house of Judah in all the matters of the king. And this distinction between the civil and ecclesiastical judicatory is the opinion of many orthodox and learned authors which are cited by Mr. Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, [pt. 1] ch. 3, p. 8 where this conclusion is largely and learnedly debated and asserted.
2. That there was a subordination in the Jewish Church of the synagogues in all hard and difficult controversies and in all the matters of the Lord unto the ecclesiastical judicatory at Jerusalem, and appeals thereunto; this appears evidently, Dt. 17:8-9; 2 Chron. 19:8, 10.
Now that this subordination, together with appeals, did not belong to the Jewish Church as Jewish only, but as it was an ecclesiastical republic, is evident. For though the high priest, amongst the Jews was a type of Christ, yet these gradual judicatories wherein the aggrieved party did appeal from the lesser to the greater (that against the very light of nature the adverse party might not be the sole judge and party too in his own cause) were not in any kind ceremonial or typical.
Appeals (says Dr. [William] Whitaker), they are of divine and natural light and certainly very necessary in every necessity because of the iniquity and ignorance of judges, Whitaker, Controversy 4, De Romano Pontific., bk. 4, ch. 2. And generally all Protestant writers against appeals to the Pope acknowledge yet their necessary usefulness to a synod. So did that renowned martyr [Thomas] Cranmer, the form of whose appeal to a council three several times urged by him with much instance, we have recorded by Mr. [John] Foxe at large, Acts & Monuments.
And indeed, if the benefit of appeals and consociation of churches should not be as free to us as to the Jews, how much more defective and improvident were the Gospel than the Law, contrary to all ancient prophesies of Gospel-communion? How were our Savior, King of Peace and Righteousness, should He have ordained now under the Gospel such a government as by making parties sole judges, were neither righteous, nor peaceable? what Judaical type or ceremony can there be in this communion and mutual assistance in government which God (as by his Word, so) by the very light of nature teaches all societies whatsoever, whether commonwealth, armies, universities or navies? etc. as learnedly Mr. [Charles] Herle, in his Independency, etc.”
.
“The Jews in the Old Testament had two sorts of elders: elders of the priests and elders of the people, suitable to our teaching and ruling-elders, as appears, Jer. 19:1. And these elders of the people did sit and vote with the priests and Levites in all their ecclesiastical consistories, and that by divine appointment. That they were constituent members of the great Sanhedrim appears, 2 Chron. 19:8, where we read that some of the chief of the fathers were joined with the priests, to judge in the matters of the Lord.
And howsoever many things among the Jews after the captivity did decline to disorder and confusion, yet we find even in the days of Christ and his apostles that the elders of the people still sat and voiced in the council with the priests, according to the ancient form, as is clear from Mt. 26:57, 59; 27:1, 12; 16:21; 21:23; Mk. 14:43; Lk. 22:66, and Saravia himself, who disputes so much against ruling elders, acknowledges thus much (De divers. grad. Minist. Evang., ch. 11, p. 108): ‘I find indeed,’ (says he) ‘elders in the assembly of the priests of the old synagogue, which were not priests; and their suffrages and authority in all judgments were equal with the suffrages of the priests.’ But he adds that these elders of the people were civil magistrates, which is a poor shift directly against many Scriptures which contradistinguish these elders from the civil magistrate, as appears: Acts 4:5; Judg. 8:14; Dt. 5:23; Josh. 8:33; 2 Kn. 10:15; Ezr. 10:14. And though it were possible that some of them might be civil magistrates, as some elders amongst us are justices of the peace, yet they did not sit under that capacity in the ecclesiastical Sanhedrim, but as ecclesiastical elders.
And that the Jews also had elders of the people, sitting and voting in their inferior consistories, appears (as we humbly conceive) from Acts 13:15; 18:8, 17; Mk. 5:22. In which places we read of the rulers of the synagogue, who were neither priests nor Levites, and yet were rulers in Church-matters, and had power, together with the priests, of casting men out of the synagogue, and of ordering synagogue-worship, Jn. 12:42; 13:15.
Now this association of the elders of the people with the priest in the Jewish Church-government was by divine appointment, for Moses first instituted it and afterwards Jehosaphat restored it according as they were directed by God, Num. 11:16; 2 Chron. 19:8. And it did belong to the Jewish Church, not as it was Jewish, but as it was a Church, and therefore belongs to the Christian Church as well as Jewish. For whatsoever agrees to a Church as a Church, agrees to every Church. There was nothing Judaical or typical in this institution, but it was founded upon the light of nature and right reason, which is alike in all ages.”
.
That the Substantials of Church Government Bind from the Word, or there is a Divine-Right Church Government
.
Quotes
Order of
Edwards
London Presbyterians
.
1600’s
Thomas Edwards
Antapologia, or a Full Answer to the Apologetical Narration (London: G.M., 1644), pp. 75-77
“Thirdly, I demand of you [Independent divines at Westminster], how you could so nakedly propound the apostolical directions, patterns and examples of the primitive Churches to walk by (excepting mere circumstances and the rules of the law of nature) and not except withal extraordinary and miraculous, personal and particular, occasional and accidental, temporary and local patterns and examples.
I own the Scripture for the rule, rightly understanding it, and in matters of discipline and Church-order, profess to walk by it, desiring to be tied to the Scripture patterns, particularly to the patterns of examples and precepts recorded in the New Testament (provided this be understood in essentials and fundamentals of order, in matters of perpetual use, and of a common reason to all times and places); only I add that in some things, where in matter of order and external government there may be no such clear directions either by precept or example, there general rules of the Word, with deductions out of Scripture examples, and from precepts by way of analogy, with rules of common prudence be taken in too.
Now the interpretation of this rule (as I have laid it down) being rejected, and the rule simply taken up without such limitations, will produce a wild and strange discipline and Church-order, to practise all things recorded in the Acts of the apostles and epistles, without distinction and difference of those times, persons, places and ours: and on the other hand to practise nothing but what has a clear example or precept is strange too, and in so doing, reasonable men cannot become a Church society, nor exercise Church communion.
And however in matters of external government and administration of holy things in the visible Church some pretend to this, to practise whatever they find recorded in the Scriptures, and to practise nothing whatsoever they find not there, yet none of the Independents, no not the highest form of them, the Anabaptists, nor the highest sort of Anabaptists (who were called Apostolici from their pretending to imitate the Apostles in all things) ever yet have or do practise all patterns and examples recorded in the New Testament, or are contented with them alone, but practise somewhat over and above not particularly recorded in Scripture.
I could lay downe a catalogue of many particulars specified in the Acts of the apostles and epistles, not practised in your churches, nor in any churches of the Independent way, as also of many things practised by you (which we never read of in the Scriptures), so that all the Independents are in many things according to the first pattern both defective and excessive. But I referre the full handling of this to a tractate I intend concerning the Scriptures, How far the Scriptures are a rule for all matters of Church government and order in the visible Church…
This foolish imitation of the apostles in all things in matters of external order, has been and is the great foundation of evils on all hands, both in many practises and points of Popery, and amongst the Anabaptists (as I could demon∣strate in particulars). Learned Danaeus in his Commentaries upon 1 Tim. ch. 5 (vv. 13 & 17) speaks of it. Schlusselburgius (de Secta Anabaptist.) writes also that there is a sort of Anabaptists called Apostolici, so named because they professed to imitate the apostles in all things: they washed one anothers feet, they held all things ought to be com∣mon, they travelled up and down without staff, shoes, cloak, money, because of Christ’s words, they went up to the tops of houses to preach, because Christ had said, ‘what you have heard in the ear, preach upon the house top.’
Now how far the want of these limitations and distinctions in this your first rule has led some of you into errors and strange practices and may lead you further, as into annointing the sick with oil, baptizing in rivers, etc. I leave you to consider of.”
.
London Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry... (London, 1650), pp. 3-6
“That there is a particular Church-government by divine right: not that we think that every circumstance in Church government is set down precisely in the Word, or is of divine right in a strict sense: But this we say, that the substantials and essentials are recorded particularly in the Word by Christ, the King of his Church, and are unalterable by any State whatsoever; and that the circumstantials are set down under general rules, sufficient for the ordering of them; and that therefore even they also in a large sense may be said to be of a divine right. Now this we shall endeavor to prove by these ensuing arguments:
1. From the fulness and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures. The apostle Paul says that his first epistle to Timothy was written to teach him how to behave himself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). And in his second epistle he tells us that the holy Scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Ps. 19:7). Now to know how to govern the Church is one of the great works that belong to the minister: And therefore, to say, that this is not recorded in Scripture, is to make the holy Scripture a rule defective, and ineffectual for the end for which it was written, and to cast a very great reproach and dishonor upon it.
And surely, if some substantial parts of Church-government, are expressed in the Word (as few will deny) then (as we conceive) all of them of necessity must be expressed, or else the Word should not be able to attain its end; which to affirm, is no small error: And for our parts, we cannot conceive any reason to induce us to believe that the Holy Ghost should set down in the Word some of the substantials of Church-government as binding and unalterable unto the end of the world and leave other things as substantial as they arbitrary and alterable, according to the will and pleasure of the Christian magistrate.
2. From the excellency of the kingly office of Jesus Christ; For Christ Jesus is the only King of his Church, governing it not only inwardly and invisibly, by the working of his Spirit; but outwardly also, and visibly, as it is a visible, political, and ministerial body, in which He has appointed his own proper ambassadors (2 Cor. 5:20; Eph. 4:11), assemblies (Mt. 18:20), laws (Jm. 4:12; Isa. 33:22), ordinances (Mt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:23, etc.) and censures (1 Cor. 5; Jn. 20:21-23; Mt. 28:18-20), to be administered in his name and according to his own way. As a King of this political and ministerial Church, He breathed on his disciples and said:
‘Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose sins ye retain, they are retained.’
As a King of this visible Church, He said unto his apostles,
‘All power is given to me in heaven, and in earth; Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.’ [Mt. 28]
As a King of the same Church, He gave gifts to men, when he ascended up to heaven, some to be apostles, some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11). As a King, He now sits at God’s right hand and is made Head over all things to his Church (Eph. 1:22); which Church is called the House of God (1 Tim. 3:15); and who should appoint orders for the government of the House, but the Lord of the House? And to say that He has not ordained how his house should be governed, is to make the Master less faithful in his own House than his servant Moses was (Heb. 3:2); which Church is Christ’s Vineyard, Christ’s Garden (Isa. 5:1-7; Cant. 4:16; 6:2), and can we think Christ so negligent as not to appoint a hedge to fence his Vineyard, and a wall to preserve his Garden? which Church is a spiritual republic (Eph. 2:12).
And shall we deny that to Christ in the government of his kingdom, which we grant unto all earthly monarchs? Shall we say that Christ has ordained no laws by which his kingdom shall be governed; no censures, by which his rebellious subjects shall be punished; no officers to dispense those censures? This is a high defamation to Jesus Christ and his kingly office.
3. From the immediate and proper end of Church government, which is not only matter of order and decency, but spiritual and supernatural, being appointed for the edification of the body of Christ in grace unto glory (Eph. 4:12); and more particularly, for the gaining of an offending brother unto repentance (Mt. 18:15), and for the saving of his soul in the day of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 5:5).
Now this is a certain rule, whatsoever has a spiritual efficacy, must of necessity have a divine original; human institutions can but produce human effects: And therefore, seeing Church government is designed for divine and supernatural ends, it must of necessity, plead its original from God Himself.
4. We argue from an enumeration of the substantials of Church-government. The Word of God declares unto us that there are Church-officers, and who they are, viz., pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11), ruling-elders (1 Tim. 5:17; 1 Cor. 12:28; Rom. 12:6-8), and deacons (Acts 6:5-6; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8); And how they are to be qualified for (1 Tim. 3:2-13 ff.; Acts 6:3), and externally called unto their respective offices (Acts 6:5-6; 1 Tim. 3:10; Acts 13:1-2; 14:23; Tim. 5:22; 4:14), together with all the ministerial duties in those offices, by them to be performed respectively; as public prayer (Acts 6:4), the ministry of the Word, by reading (Acts 15:21; 13:15) and preaching (Mt. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:1-2), the blessing of the people in the name of the Lord (Num. 6:23; Lk. 24:50; 2 Cor. 13:14), administration of the sacraments (Mt. 28:19-20; Mt. 26:26-31; 1 Cor. 11:23), censures (Tit. 3:10; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; Mt. 18:15-21; 1 Cor. 5:3; 2 Cor. 2:6-10) and distribution of alms (Acts 4:35; 6:1-3; 11:29; Rom. 12:8). The Scripture also tells us of a Church (1 Cor. 14:34; Rom. 16:1), consisting of no more than can conveniently meet in one place to partake in all the ordinances of public worship: and of a Church consisting of diverse congregations (Acts 2:41, 47; 5:4; 6:1; 21:20). The Scripture also speaks of synods (Acts 15), with ecclesiastical authority, together with the subordination of the lesser, to the greater, and appeals thereunto (Dt. 17:1-12; Mt. 18:15-18).
Now all these are the substantials of Church government, and are sufficiently set down in the Word, as may partly appear by the quotations in the margin [parentheses], and shall further appear by what we shall say afterwards. And more than these, and such as are necessarily included in these, are not (as we humbly conceive) substantials in the outward government of the Church.
The rest are circumstantials, for which Christ has given general rules sufficient to direct the Church in the ordering of them, and from which therefore she may not depart. These rules are set down, 1 Cor. 14:26, 40, ‘Let all things be done unto edifying, decently and in order,’ 1 Cor. 10:31-32, ‘Do all to the glory of God, etc.’ Rom. 14:19, ‘Let us therefore follow after the things that make for peace, etc.'”
.
On Church Government being Governed by the Word’s General Rules
Article
2000’s
Fentiman, Travis – “The Westminster Standards: Confession 1.6” in “Editor’s Extended Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), pp. 65-68
.
On Partial Conformity to Deficient Church Government
See also ‘Accommodation while Working towards the Goal is Consistent with Reformation & Covenants’ and ‘On Occasional & Principled Partial Conformity without Sin, or Moderate Puritanism’.
.
Article
2000’s
Fentiman, Travis – “Principled Partial Conformity in [Church] Government” in “Editor’s Extended Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), pp. 94-160
.
The View that the Particular Form of Church Government is Indifferent Not Recommended
Article
1600’s
Stillingfleet, Edward – pt. 2, ch. 8, An Inquiry into the Judgment of Reformed Divines concerning the Unalterable Divine-Right of Particular Forms of Church-Government in Irenicum: a Weapon-Salve for the Church’s Wounds, or the Divine-Right of Particular Forms of Church-Government: Discussed & Examined according to the Principles of the Law of Nature, the Positive Laws of God, the Practice of the Apostles & the Primitive Church, & the Judgment of Reformed Divines, whereby a Foundation is laid for the Church’s Peace & the Accommodation of our Present Differences (London: Mortlock, 1662), pp. 383-416
Abstract: “…wherein it is made appear, that the most eminent divines of the Reformation did never conceive any one form necessary, manifested by three arguments:
1. From the judgment of those who make the form of Church-government mutable and to depend upon the wisdom of the magistrate and Church. This cleared to have been the judgement of most divines of the Church of England since the Reformation. Archbishop Cranmer’s judgments with others of the Reformation in Edward VI’s time, now first published from his authentic MS. The same ground of settling episcopacy in Queen Elizabeth’s time. The judgement of archbishop Whitgift, bishop Bridges, Dr. Loe, Mr. [Richard] Hooker, largely to that purpose in King James’s time. The King’s own opinion. Dr. Sutcliffe. Since of Crakanthorp, Mr. Hales, Mr. Chillingworth. The testimony of foreign divines to the same purpose. Chemnitz, Zanchi. French divines, Peter Moulin, Fregevil, Blondel, Bochartus, Amyraldus. Other learned men, [Hugo] Grotius, Lord [Francis] Bacon, etc.
2. Those who look upon equality as the primitive form, yet judge episcopacy lawful. Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon, Smalcald Articles, Prince of Anhalt, Hyperius, Hemingius: The practice of most foreign Churches. Calvin and Beza both approving [or tolerating] episcopacy and diocesan Churches. Salmasius, etc.
3. Those who judge episcopacy to be the primitive form, yet look not on it as necessary. Bishop Jewel, Fulke, Field, Bishop Downame, Bishop Bancroft, Bishop Morton, Bishop Andrewes, Saravia, Francis Mason and others.
The conclusion hence laid in order to peace. Principles conducing thereto:
1. Prudence must be used in Church-government at last confessed by all parties: Independents in elective synods and Church-covenants, admission of members, number in congregations; Presbyterians in classes and synods, lay-elders, etc.; Episcopal in dioceses, causes, rites, etc.
2. That prudence best which comes nearest primitive practice. A presidency for life over an ecclesiastical senate showed to be that form; In order to it: presbyteries to be restored, dioceses lessened, provincial synods kept twice a year.
The reasonableness and easiness of accommodation showed. The whole concluded.”
.
The Power of Church Government is Wholly Spiritual
Order of Contents
Article 1
Book 1
Quote 1
.
Article
1600’s
Davenant, John – ‘The Power of the Priesthood is Wholly Spiritual’ in The Determinations, or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions, Publicly Discussed in the University of Cambridge trans. Josiah Allport (1634; 1846), pp. 294-301 bound at the end of John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification, or the Disputatio de Justitia... trans. Josiah Allport (1631; London, 1846), vol. 2 Davenant’s chief antagonist is Romanism.
.
Book
1300’s
Dante – The De Monarchia of Dante Alighieri trans. Aurelia Henry (Boston, 1904)
Dante Alighieri (1265-1321), who eulogized Pope Boniface VIII as being cast into the 8th circle of Hell, also wrote a treatise against papal usurpation of civil power. This is on the long list of banned books by the Papal church.
Dante defended the reign of a single monarch ruling over a universal empire. He believed that peace was only achievable when a single monarch replaced divisive and squabbling princes and kings. However, he also believed in a separation of powers in that the emperor has jurisdiction over temporal matters, whilst the Pope administered over things spiritual.
.
Quote
1600’s
London Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), p. 23
“3. The presbyterial government challenges no power over men’s bodies or estates. It meddles not in civil affairs or with inflicting civil mulcts [fines] or corporal punishments. It is a government purely spiritual, dispensing the keys of the kingdom of heaven, not of earth; and how then can it be cruel and tyrannical, in fining and imprisoning men’s persons, as was objected?”
.
How Church Governors are Above & Below the People in Various Respects in Worth, Function & Authority
As Church government is founded significantly upon natural law, common to society, so also see the very relevant and enlightening materials in ‘The Relations of the People to their Civil Government’.
.
Quote
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
A Peaceable & Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland... (London, 1642), ch. 3, pp. 33-35
3. The Church of believers in eminence and primacy of Christian dignity is above the Church ministerial as ministerial: 1. in dignity. 2. stability. 3. causality.
In dignity 1. Because the Church of believers is the redeemed and conquested purchase of our Lord Jesus, but all the office-bearers, or the ministerial Churches of pastors and elders on earth, are not his redeemed ones, in so far as they are no more but officers and mini∣sters Page 34 of the house, except they be believers, and so they fall in to the redeemed Church which is a better world, than to be naked pulpit-men.
2. In stability, because the advocation of Christ that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church of believers, and the promises of the Covenant for perseverance stands good for them: But no such promises of stability are made to naked Church guides; but if they guide well, they fare the better; only common gifts are promised to them which cannot take them to heaven.
3. In causality, the Church of believers are superior, and above the Church of Church-guides, because rulers and officers are servants and means employed by Christ for the Church of believers, as for the end, office-bearers are for believers, as the means for the end, but believers are not for office-bearers. Medicine is for our health, and meat for our life, and the end is the cause, and so excellenter than the means.
Because of these three respects, and of the necessity of consent of believers in all acts of government, Christ’s kingdom being a willing people, the fathers, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Augustine, Epiphanius, Jerome, Cyril, Hilary, and our late divines, Junius, Chemnitius, Martyr, Calvin, Beza, Willet, Fulke, Bucer, and our brethren Baynes and Ames, do ascribe a superiority, and so an authority to believers, as to the fountain and cause of jurisdiction above ministers, and give the exercise of juris∣diction only to officers, not because officers have not the power, as well as the exercise, but because the being and operation of officers is all for the Church. Gerson also in this subjects the Pope (and we every pastor, suppone he were a double lord prelate) to the Church, that is, to the council or assembly of the Church, and that in a fourfold respect:
1. Ratione indeviabilitatis, because the ports of hell shall not prevail against the Church, but the Pope or the pastor is a man; [he] may nod and totter.
2. Ratione regulabilitatis; because the Church in a synod may regulate and line the Pope or pastor when he crooks, because he is not essentially a right line.
3. Ratione multiplicitatis, because the Church contains in it the the Pope’s or pastor’s power, but the pastor contains not in his bosom the Church’s power.
4. Ratione obligabilitatis, because the Church may appoint laws to oblige both Pope and pastor, but the Pope or pastor cannot oblige the Church.
Now as the Church of believers is above the Church guides in Christian dignity and excellency of grace: forasmuch as the saving grace of faith is more excellent than the common graces of the power of the keys, yet in another respect the Church guides are a Church ministerial in authority and jurisdiction above the believers. Therefore Junius says, the pastor and the flock are in diverse relations above and inferior to one another.
Hence, 1. Every one of these two Churches are first and highest each in their own kind: the Church of believers is the highest and most supreme Church (I speak of a Christian supremacy and dignity) in the one kind. Also a ministerial Church is the highest and most supreme Church in its kind, to wit, in a ministerial authority.
But that which we prove [in the rest of the chapter] is that we see not in God’s Word a Church of sole believers that is a governing and ministerial Church having the keys and power and exercise of jurisdiction over the eldership and Church-guides, whatever our [congregationalist] brethren say on the contrary.”
.
On Simony
Latin Articles
Voet, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations (1667), vol. 4
33. ‘On Simony’, pt. 1 515
34. pt. 2 523
35. pt. 3 533
36. pt. 4 540-55
.
That Persons who enter Church Office in a Deficient Way, or by Corruption, with the Standing Consent of the Rest of the Church Governors, is Valid
See also sections of ‘On an Extraordinary Calling’ and ‘That an Unbiblical Office may be Undergirded by & may yet Retain a Biblical Office’s Authority’.
.
Order of
Article 1
Quotes 6+
.
Article
1600’s
English Puritans – English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025)
pt. 2, We have a True Ministry in England 241
They [Separatists] hold our ministers are false as:
1. They are not called to Christ’s ordained office, but Antichrist’s 243
2. Their entrance is not by Christ’s ordinance, but is Antichristian 253
3. Their office’s administration is with vows of obedience to bishops 262
4. Their maintenance is Jewish and Antichristian, viz. by tithes, etc. 268-76
.
Quotes
Order of
Cartwright
Puritan Ministers
Ames
Rutherford
London Presbyterians
Baxter
Wodrow
.
1500’s
Thomas Cartwright
‘A Letter of T. C. To Richard Harrison concerning Separation’ (1584), p. 12 in The Judgment of Mr. Cartwright & Mr. Baxter Concerning Separation & the Ceremonies (1673) Note that EEBO lists the author as Cartwright (1634-1689), which is untrue. This same work is in Cartwrightiana, pp. 48-58.
“The high priest, although he entered by simony and reward to the Romans, yet notwithstanding we see our Saviour Christ bore him reverence for his office’s sake, and (as before his judge in spiritual causes) gave an accompt of his doctrine.”
.
1600’s
Non-Conformist, Non-Separating, English Puritan Ministers
A Most Grave & Modest Confutation of the Errors of the Sect Commonly Called Brownists, or Separatists… (1604-1609; London, 1644), Answer 1, pp. 34-38 Note that William Rathband only published this work of the previous puritan ministers.
“Though none of those rules which Christ’s Testament has set down for the calling and ordaining of our ministry can be wanting [lacking] without a blemish and maim to the calling: And consequently they should all of them be carefully sought for, both by minister and people, yet may some of them be wanting without loss of the life and being of the calling:
Neither is that true which they [Separatists] affirm, that whatsoever minister has not a true and right calling in all points, though the office whereunto he be called be a true office, is no true minister, but an usurper, an intruder, a thief and a murderer.
For first, whatsoever is of the being and substance of the calling to the ministry, has been common to all true and lawful ministers that ever were in the Church, as well as the substance of the sacraments and discipline, and whole religion, has ever been one and the same in all places and at all times; whereas it is clear that some of the rules prescribed for the outward calling in the New Testament have not been always in use and practiced throughout God’s Church, no not in such ministries as the Word has given testimony to; for proof whereof may be alleged the calling, that those Levites, and preachers exercised, whereof there is mention made, 2 Chron. 17:7, 9.
For as in diverse other parts of God’s service, the omitting and swerving from sundry of God’s holy ordinances prescribed in the Word makes not the action itself void and unlawful (as is evident by that one example, 2 Chron. 30:26, 17-19) so the want and swerving from some rules prescribed, for the outward calling of the ministers, cannot be of force sufficient to make their calling void and unlawful.
…
Their first reason [of theirs] against our entrance is that we are not chosen by that people over whom we are set, or approved by an eldership. Whereunto we give this answer:
…
Secondly, the most of such preachers as have stood for the cause of Reformation have the very same outward election and ordination in substance which the Word prescribes…
Secondly, their gifts are approved by the judgment of sundry learned men of the colleges and places wherein and whereabout they have been trained up
Thirdly, the faithful that are in those congregations where they are placed do either desire them or gladly receive them, or at the least by not taking exception to them do even by their silence consent to their entrance, or by submitting themselves willingly to their godly directions in all things and profiting in knowledge and reformation of life by their labors, do manifestly approve of them and set a seal unto their ministry, whereof this may serve for an evident proof, that many assemblies have both made an earnest suit for sundry ministers before their first coming to them, and when they have been molested [by the persecuting bishops, etc.] afterwards.
And seeing the right that [civil] patrons now have was given them at first by the people’s free consent (though ignorantly and unlawfully as we are persuaded), we see not why the choice that the patron makes may not be accounted the choice of the people, as well as the acts done by the knights and burgesses of the Parliament are deemed the acts of the whole commons, by whom they were deputed; It is evident that by the law mentioned, Num. 30:8, that the silence of the husband or parent that testified not his dislike to the vow which he understood was made by his wife or child, made the said vow of as much force as if his consent had been requited and given: so it is judged in this case of the people’s silence in accepting of their ministers.
Thirdly, the Law itself requires that we should have the same election and ordination in substance which the Word of God prescribes; for by the Law:
…
Thirdly, There may be some entrance into the ministry in substance sufficient where the people at first have not made election, nor their consent been required at all: as in case where the people have not knowledge of their right, or having known it have not been suffered to use it: But yet have afterwards yielded themselves subject thereunto, as also in the case aforesaid, Num. 30:8…
Fourthly, concerning ordination by eldership, this we answer in particular:
First, that unless the eldership be held so essential a thing that there can be no true Church without it (which we are well assured of that our brethren themselves, and all that have any knowledge, will deny), ordination by the eldership cannot be absolutely necessary, albeit in the settled government of a Church; we hold it of the essence of the calling of a minister that we have the substance of the ordination appointed in the Word.
Fifthly, That as in times past, so now also there may be in some places such an estate of the Church as wherein no manner of ordination and investing of ministers has been or could be used in the giving of an entrance into the ministry: And though where it may be conveniently had, we hold it fit that the weakness of the people’s judgment in their choice of their minister should be supported by the discreet knowledge of the ministers and elders that are about them; Yet where it cannot be conveniently had (as in places where the Gospel is newly planted and far removed from other churches already established), there that (amongst other considerations) the course of the Gospel should not be stayed till ordination be fetched from far countries, the Lord Himself oftentimes supplies the places of the ministers and elders and lays on his hands: such evidence of gifts and graces proper for the ministry as not only the Church doth willingly acknowledge, but the enemies also, will they [or] nill they, are in their consciences convinced to be divine and excellent.
And seeing it is evident that neither the prophets under the [Old Testament] Law, nor many worthy ministers that God has raised up since the time of the Gospel, had ever before their entrance into the ministry, their gifts solemnly approved or been ordained.
Our [Separatist] brethren must needs grant that this kind of ordination is not simply or absolutely necessary to the being of a minister. To which also this may be added:
That our Savior in giving notice whereby the true pastor should be discerned from the false, names only these, viz.:
[1.] That he enter himself and lead the people in and out by that door. [Jn. 10:2-4]
Secondly, that the people of God agree with him and consent to his ministry. [Jn. 10:3-5]
Thirdly, that the porter (the Holy Ghost) open the hearts of the hearers to him and his doctrine, which notes doubtless our Saviour would not have rested in if there could have been no true minister without the [complete] ordination which our brethren speak of and urge that as a matter of absolute necessity.
So that to conclude this point, we say that the ordinary course of entering into the ministry is not kept, but a great imperfection and want is to be acknowledged where this election and ordination is not used; Yet is not the want such as takes away the very life and being of a true ministry.”
.
William Ames
Conscience with the Power & Cases Thereof… (London, 1639), bk. 4, ch. 25, thesis 29, p. 69
“Question 7. Where the freedom of election is diminished by bishops, magistrates, [civil] patrons, what kind of calling is there?
29. Answer: Although election be not in that manner and degree free as it ought to be, yet a voluntary consent, as in marriage, so in the ministry, though procured by unjuft means, has the essence of an election and vocation.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
The Due Right of Presbyteries (1644), pt. 1, Question 5, ‘From whence had Luther, Calvin & our Blessed Reformers their Calling to the Pastoral Charge?’, p. 203-8 & 29 irregular numbering
“7. A calling to the ministry is either such:
[1.] as wants the essentials, as gifts in any messenger and the Church’s consent, or these who occupy the room of the Church, the Church consenting: such a minister is to be reputed for no minister; or
2. an entry to a calling, or a calling where diverse of the apostles’ requisites are wanting, may be a valid calling, as if one enter as Caiphas, who entered by favor and money and contrary to the Law, was High-Priest but for a year: yet was a true High-Priest and prophesied as the High-priest [Jn. 11:49-51].”
.
London (Presbyterian) Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), pt. 2, pp. 123-26
“You will reply: It is because they are ministers ordained by antichristian bishops; and therefore, before they have renounced their false ministry we cannot with a safe conscience hear them, nor expect a blessing from their ministry. This reply is, we confess, a great stumbling block to many godly people in this kingdom. For satisfaction to it we offer these particulars:
1. Many of you that make this reply hold that the election of the people is by God’s Word sufficient to make a man a true minister without ordination. Now it is certain that many public [Anglican] ministers have been chosen by the free and full consent of their congregations; and most of them have had an after consent, which was sufficient to make Leah Jacob’s wife (Subsequens consensus Jacobi in Leam, fecit eos conjuges. [David] Pareus, etc.), and why not (to use your own words) to marry a man to a people; and therefore according to your own judgments all such are lawful ministers. For sinful superadditions do not nullify divine institutions.
…
3. We distinguish between a defective ministry and a false ministry, as we do between a man that is lame or blind and a man that is but the picture of a man. We do not deny but that the way of ministers entering into the ministry by the bishops had many defects in it, for which they ought to be humbled. But we add that, notwithstanding all the accidental corruptions, yet it is not substantially and essentially corrupted, as it is with baptism [not being substantially and essentially corrupted] in the Popish Church. All orthodox divines account it valid, though mingled with much dross, because the party baptized is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And therefore, when a Papist turns protestant, he is not baptized again, because the substance of baptism is preserved in Popery under many defects. The like and much more may be said for the ordination of our ministers by bishops: It is lawful and valid for the substance of it, though mingled with many circumstantial defects. And this appears:
1. Because when they were ordained, they were designed to no other office but to preach the Word and administer the sacraments according to the will of Christ.
2. Because since their ordination God has sealed the truth of their ministry (as has been said) by his blessing upon it. If they be antichristian ministers, how is your conversion Christian?
3. Because they were ordained by bishops, not as lord bishops or as a superior order by divine right above a presbyter, but as they were presbyters. For the understanding of which you must know:
1. That by Scripture a bishop and presbyter is all one, as appears by Acts 10:27-28; Tit. 1:5-8; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-2, etc. 1 Pet. 5:1-2, and by what is said by the authors quoted in the margin. (Smectymnuus, The Answer of Mr. Marshal, Mr. Vines, Mr. Caryl, Mr. Seaman returned to the late King in the Treaty at the Isle of Wight)
2. That the lordly dignities of bishops were mere civil additaments annexed to their bishoprics by kingly favor.
3. That this opinion, that bishops are a superior order of ministry by divine right above a presbyter is a late upstart opinion contrary to antiquity, as appears by the authors quoted in the margin. (Ambrose in ch. 4 to the Ephesians and in 1 Tim. 3; Jerome in Tit. 1 and to Evagrius; Augustine, Epistle 19; Chrysostom in 1 Tim. 3)
4. That the laws of this realm do account nothing divine in a bishop but his being a presbyter; and therefore the parliament in their ordinance for ordination tells us that they did ordain [them] as presbyters, not as bishops, much less as lord bishops.
As for their usurpation of the sole power of jurisdiction together with their lordly titles and dignities and dependances, we have renounced them in our Solemn League and Covenant [1643]. But we never did, nor never shall renounce them as presbyters, which by the consent of all sides are by divine right.
4. We shall add one thing more, that ministers do not receive their ministry from the people, or bishops, but immediately from Jesus Christ. For they are ministers and ambassadors of Christ, not of the people. Indeed they are ambassadors for the good of the people, but not ambassadors of the people. All that the people or bishop does is but to choose and ordain a man, but it is Christ that gives him his power and authority, as when a wife chooses a husband and a town a mayor: the town does not give the mayor, nor the wife the husband the power they have, but the laws of God the one, and of man the other. So it is here, it is Christ that gives the office and the call to the ministry; they are his servants and in his name execute their function. It is He that fits them with ability for their work; the people they consent, and the bishop as a presbyter with other presbyters ordain him; which though it had many corruptions mingled with it, when the bishop was in all his pomp and lordliness, yet for the substance of it, it was lawful and warrantable and therefore cannot without sin be renounced and abjured.”
.
Richard Baxter
Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity (London: A.M., 1653), ‘Objections Answered’
“18. It was not necessary to the priesthood before Christ that there were an uninterrupted succession of right ordination: For the priests in Christ’s time were such as had no right to it, not of the right line (which had been long before interrupted), they bought the priesthood for money: and as many judge, were annual and two at a time (though not equal). Yet Christ requires submission to them as priests. I am sorry that we must be put to use the same arguments with these [episcopal] men as we have done against the old Separatists so long.”
.
A Second Admonition to Mr. Edward Bagshaw… (London, 1671), sect. 41, pp. 102-3
“3. …But must we separate from all sinners? or from all that sin in their entrance into the ministry? And why not as well from all other sins of equal greatness? Do you warn all others not to hear yourself? Or do you yet take yourself to be no sinner? or no great sinner? What if the presbyterians think the Independents’ way of entrance to be undue? And the Independents think so of the presbyterians? And both of the Anabaptists [baptists]? and the Anabaptists of them both, etc. Must they all therefore warn all men not to hear each other? Mr. [Philip] Nye [an Independent] thought not so, when he wrote for such hearing public ministers. Is it fit for the author [Edward Bagshaw] of two books of calumnies and bold untruths, besides false doctrines and other crimes, to say ‘Their sin is great, etc. and therefore we both forbear ourselves and warn all others not to hear them?’
4. Most that I speak of did enter into the ministry in the presbyterian or Independent way heretofore, and do but continue on the terms which I dissent from as well as you. How then can you say they unduly enter into the ministry?
5… 4. But suppose that you are the wiser man, and that those that are more ignorant do mistakingly think that canonical obedience and the oath (with that of Supremacy) to be their duty, and no renouncing of their Christian liberty: Is it not false doctrine to conclude that Christ never sent out any that had as great a sin as this? what none? when he sent out Judas himself, who was first a thief and after a traitor? Do you think then that Christ ever sent out liars, railers, furious Church-dividers, false accusers, etc.?”
.
Robert Wodrow
History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland (d. 1734; Glasgow: Blackie, 1842), 2.210 After the second Scottish indulgence in 1672.
“Several of them [common Scottish people] were taught to believe, and urge a position, in itself of most dangerous consequences, that it is unlawful to hear a minister who was guilty of failures in his entry upon ministerial work, or mistakes in his management of it. I wish the remains of this dangerous position may be entirely out from among us;”
.
.
.
Related Pages