comprised under the word teachers; yea, some think that both evangelists and pastors are comprehended under the word teacher.[55] But, however, be that as it will, these two things are evident, 1.  That this enumeration (though evangelists and pastors be left out) is the fullest and completest enumeration of church officers which in any place is to be found throughout all the New Testament. 2.  That though we should grant this defect in the enumeration, yet this is no way prejudicial to the present argument, that governments here mentioned are ruling officers in the Church, distinct from all other church officers that have rule; for they are plainly and distinctly recited as distinct kinds of officers, distinct from apostles, from prophets, from teachers, from all here mentioned.  And thus interpreters[56] commonly expound this place, taking governments for a distinct kind of church officer from all the rest here enumerated.

Now to sum up all that hath been said for the proof of the assumption; it is evident, 1.  That the church here spoken of is the Church of Christ now under the New Testament. 2.  That the governments here mentioned, are officers set in this church, (not out of the church,) as rulers governing therein. 3.  That these governments set as rulers or governors in this church, are set there not by man, but by God himself; God hath set in the Church—­governments. 4.  And, finally, That these governments thus set in the Church, are distinct, not only from all governors out of the Church, but also from all governing officers within the Church.  And if all this laid together will not clearly evince the divine right of the ruling elder, what will?  Hence we may strongly conclude,

Conclusion.  Therefore these governments in 1 Cor. xii. 28, are the ruling elders we inquire after, and that of divine right.

Now against the urging of 1 Cor. xii. 28, for the proof of the divine right of the ruling elders, divers exceptions are made, which are to be answered before we pass to the third argument.

Except. 1.  The allegation of this place is too weak to prove the thing in question.  For will any man that knoweth what it is to reason, reason from the general to the particular and special affirmatively? or will ever any man of common sense be persuaded that this consequence is good:  There were governors in the primitive church mentioned by the Apostles—­therefore they were lay governors?  Surely I think not.[57]

Ans.  This exception hath a confident flourish of words, but they are but words.  It may be replied, 1.  By way of concession, that to argue indeed from a general to a special, is no solid reasoning; as, This is a kingdom, therefore it is England; this is a city, therefore it is London; the apostle mentions government in the primitive Church, therefore they are ruling elders:  this were an absurd kind of reasoning. 2.  By way of negation.  Our reasoning from this text for the ruling elder, is not from the