(1) How does it appear to be the mind of God, that, in every Church, there should be recognized Elders?
Ans. From the following passages compared together, Matth. xxiv. 45, Luke xii. 42. From these passages we learn that some are set by the Lord Himself in the office of Rulers and Teachers, and that this office (in spite of the fallen state of the Church) should be in being even down to the close of the present dispensation. Accordingly, we find from Acts xiv. 23, xx. 17, Tit. i. 5, and 1 Pet. v. 1, that soon after the saints had been converted, and had associated together in a Church character, Elders were appointed to take the rule over them and to fulfil the office of under-shepherds.
This must not be understood as implying, that, when believers are associated in Church fellowship, they ought to elect Elders according to their own will, whether the Lord may have qualified persons or not; but rather that such should wait upon God, that He Himself would be pleased to raise up such as may be qualified for teaching and ruling in His church.
(2) How do such come into office?
Ans. By the appointment of the Holy Ghost, Acts xx. 28.
(3) How may this appointment be made known to the individuals called to the office, and to those amongst whom they may be called to labour?
Ans. By the secret call of the Spirit, 1 Tim. iii. 1, confirmed by the possession of the requisite qualifications, 1 Tim. iii. 2-7, Tit. i. 6-9, and by the Lords blessing resting upon their labours, 1 Cor. ix. 2.
In 1 Cor. ix. 2, Paul condescends to the weakness of some, who were in danger of being led away by those factious persons who questioned his authority. As an Apostleappointed by the express word of the Lord--he needed not such outward confirmation. But if he used his success as an argument in confirmation of his call, how much more may ordinary servants of the Lord Jesus employ such an argument, seeing that the way, in which they are called for the work, is such as to require some outward confirmation.
(4) Is it incumbent upon the saints to acknowledge such and to submit to them in the Lord?
Ans. Yes. See 1 Cor. xvi. 15, 16, 1 Thess. v. 12, 13, Heb. xiii. 7, 17, and 1 Tim. v. 17. In these passages obedience to pastoral authority is clearly enjoined.
II.--Ought matters of discipline to be finally settled by the Elders in private, or in the presence of the Church, and as the act of the whole body?
Ans. (1) Such matters are to be finally settled in the presence of the Church. This appears from Matth. xviii. 17, 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, 2 Cor. ii. 6-8, 1 Tim. v. 20. (2) Such matters are to be finally settled as the act of the whole body, Matth. xviii. 17, 18. In this passage the act of exclusion is spoken of as the act of the whole body. 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, 7, 12, 13. In this passage Paul gives the direction, respecting the exercise of discipline, in such a way as to render the whole body responsible: verse 7, "Purge out the old leaven, that ye maybe a new lump;" and verse 13, "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." From 2 Cor. ii. 6-8, we learn that the act of exclusion was not the act of the Elders only, but of the Church. "Sufficient to such a man is this punishment (rather, public censure) which was inflicted of many." From verse 8 we learn that the act of restoration was to be a public act of the brethren: "Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm (rather ratify by a public act) your love towards him."
As to the reception of brethren into fellowship, this is an act of simple obedience to the Lord, both on the part of the Elders and the whole Church. We are bound and privileged to receive all those who make a credible profession of faith in Christ, according to that Scripture, "Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God." Rom. xv. 7.
III.--When should Church acts (such as acts of reception, restoration, exclusion, &c.) be attended to?
Ans. It cannot be expressly proved from Scripture, whether such acts were attended to at the meeting for the breaking of bread, or at any other meeting; therefore this is a point on which, if different churches differ, mutual forbearance ought to be exercised. The way in which such matters have hitherto been managed amongst us has been by the Church coming together on a week-evening. Before we came to Bristol we had been accustomed to this mode, and, finding nothing in Scripture against it, we continued the practice. But, after prayer, and more careful consideration of this point, it has appeared well to us that such acts should be attended to on the Lords days, when the saints meet together for the breaking of bread. We have been induced to make this alteration by the following reasons:--