Again, as I mentioned, today we are concluding our seven-part series on Cotton's book, The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. And to summarize the book, John Cotton has really walked us through an exegesis of Jesus' words in Matthew 16, where He says to Peter, I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. And as we've seen throughout this series, we've seen how Jesus' words are foundational to proper church order in church government. And we've seen how each one of us, as members of the church, have a duty in response to these things, in relation to these things. So, over the course of these six chapters, we've considered the rights and the authority and the roles of officers, pastors, elders, deacons. We've considered the same in relation to members, both individually as members, but also collectively as a voting, consenting body. And we've also considered the role of associations. churches and officers other than our own outside of our own church here and what role they have in church government. And all of this has led to in this kind of again this series as a defensive congregationalism. in contrast to Presbyterianism, or Episcopalianism, or even a strictly elder-ruled church, which is more and more popular nowadays, particularly in non-denominational churches, or even a denominationally-ruled church. Think of like the Methodists, for example. So, you know, even in non-denominational churches, you know, often, Often it is whatever the pastor says goes, or whatever the elders say go, and oftentimes how they function and why they function really isn't defined. We want, in this sense, to put our convictions on paper. We want to be very clear about what we believe and why, and how the church is to govern and how it is to be ruled, because these are the things that promote peace and order and unity. So, in this sense, Cotton has argued, as our own confession argues, that we are elder-led, but congregationally ruled, and associationally accountable. Elders lead, congregations rule, associations keep us accountable. And that's what brings us then to chapter seven. And chapter seven here is kind of a conclusion, kind of a summary. It's a long chapter. Cotton kind of just lays out what he's already said, but then he also kind of deals with objections along the way. We're not going to cover it in great detail, but I'm going to highlight some of the main points that he makes and interact with some of his arguments. I'm going to give you a chance at the end to ask some questions, of course. But this kind of does wrap things up here. And, you know, as I've said from all along, it's a short little book. It's not the last word. but it is a kind of overarching summary of Congregationalism and it should be helpful at least for us to see some of the major arguments and why in Scripture or what Scripture they are based upon. So there's going to be a number of points. I'm not going to cover every one or every objection, but I want to hit the high marks. And I think I've put forth 10 or summarize them under 10 today. So let me jump into that. I'll put them up on the screen to make it easier for you to follow. The first point, again, Cotton is summarizing and concluding. And in this way, repeating a lot of what he's already said. But the first point he makes in this concluding chapter is that Jesus Christ is the first and supreme subject of the power of the keys. When we think about the keys, again this goes back to Matthew 16, how Jesus used the keys as a metaphor to illustrate authority to govern the kingdom of God. the authority to bind and to loose, to open and shut, specifically in relation to the church. Just like the person who holds the keys of a building possesses a measure of a power and authority for the building's usage, who gets in and who's kicked out, as it were, or kept out. The keys are what Jesus uses to illustrate the authority of the house of God, the building of God, the church. So what Cotton wants to begin with, first and foremost, is to emphasize that Jesus Christ alone is the head of the church. Christ alone has the sovereign power to welcome into the kingdom or to exclude. We know this from the book of Revelation. Jesus speaks of having the key, the key of David, is the metaphor he uses there. Jesus Christ is the head of the church. He is the one who makes the laws for his church. He is the one who governs his church. And this is emphasized for us right away in the Great Commission, Matthew 28, 18. First thing that Jesus says is, all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. It's on that basis then he says disciples go, baptize, teach, he tells his apostles to make disciples. So Christ alone is head of the church. Christ alone builds his church. I will build my church. The gates of hell shall not prevail. Christ alone working through the Holy Spirit ultimately is the one who ordains men to the ministry. Christ alone is the one who through the Holy Spirit gives gifts to his church, spiritual gifts. Christ alone must bless the ministry of the church. Cotton starts with this, and in some sense we might say, well, this is pretty obvious. It's all over the New Testament. But if we accept this, we must also say that all authority in the church is ministerial as well. It's derived from Christ. And so even as we look at authority, as we look at the authority of members, even as we look at the authority of officers, it's not legislative. It's not ultimate. Those who serve the church serve under the chief shepherd. They are ministers. They are entrusted with a stewardship. They are to serve Christ's people. according to his word, and they must not go beyond that, which gives us a measure of comfort as well, that we are not to be bound by the commandments and opinions of mere men. So in practical terms, and in Cotton's day this was big, there is no pope or bishop or synod or state government that has ultimate authority over the church. That's why our confession says this blasphemous, that it's anti-Christ-like for someone to claim to be the head of the church, like the Pope of Rome. The Pope is not the head of the church. He is not the vicar of Christ. Christ alone has ultimate authority and he rules through his word. But secondly though, following this, as we might think, if Christ is at the top, with sovereign powers of the keys of the kingdom, how does he delegate this authority, or who or what might come next? This is where Cotton argues, secondly, that the particular congregation, the local church, has the ministerial power of the keys. I don't know why my, there we go. The local church has the ministerial power of the keys. The local church gathered a congregation, a particular congregation, is the first subject of church offices and gifts. Caught in by first subject means that the local church ordains pastors and deacons. They are responsible for that. The first subject of that. So, in this sense, who's directly below Christ in relation to exercising the power of the keys? It's not a bishop over a region of churches. It's not a national church. It's not a state church. There's no Christian nationalism here. It's not a collection of churches. We don't see those things in the New Testament. What we see in the New Testament is local congregation acting and exercising power. Now, of course, as we considered last week, there are synods or associations that advise and keep us accountable and we cooperate with them, but Cotton's talking about authority. Where does authority lie? It doesn't lie in any dependent or independent hierarchy. It resides in the local church. And of course, this has been the thesis that we've considered in each and every chapter all along, so I won't say any more on that. But Christ, the local church. But here, Cotton raises, or answers an objection. And the question is raised, by the way, did we give up on finding me a mic? because I really could use one, that would be great. So I don't yell, speak so loudly, thank you. Even if a handheld mic, that would be nice. What about the apostles? He answers this objection because we might say Christ is ahead of the church, the local church, but didn't the apostles have authority over the local church? Cotton argues that apostles were a unique, temporary office of ministerial power. A unique, temporary office of ministerial power. Now, we're not Roman Catholic. We're not Anglican. We're not Eastern Orthodox. We're not Episcopal. So, this may not seem like a huge deal, but it's an important point when we're talking about those traditions and those forms of church government. Have you ever heard of apostolic succession? You heard the doctrine of apostolic succession. Apostolic succession is the belief that the authority that Christ gave his apostles to exercise the keys has been handed down over the centuries through an unbroken line of bishops through the laying on of hands. when I visited the Vatican last year, they had a plaque on the wall that had every pope in their history named, and it traced all the way back to Peter. And so again, their argument is Peter laid his hands on this guy, this guy laid his hands on this guy, and they have the names, all the way down to the present pope in this unbroken line. If you study the history, it's a pretty dubious claim, and it's contradictory, but it certainly gets a lot of mileage in their circles. But this is partly what Cotton is addressing here. Nobody denies that the apostles had a unique authority. Nobody denies that Christ gave the keys to Peter and to the rest of the apostles. Nobody denies that to the Apostles they were given the Great Commission. But Cotton argues, as all Protestants argue, that the office and authority of the Apostles was unique to them alone, and that it ended with them alone. And of course, if you're familiar with Reformed doctrine, we believe in a form of apostolic succession, the apostolic succession of doctrine. That is, that the apostles laid their hands on, not physically to ordain bishops and church authority, but that when an apostolic doctrine is held to, this is the succession. So not a physical ordination lineage, but a doctrinal ordination lineage, if you understand what I mean by that. So they have handed down the faith once for all delivered to the Saints and that is how they still exercise their power and their authority Through their doctrine the pistols of Paul they still speak he still exercises authority in our church when his epistles are read and So in that sense, we do believe in apostolic succession. But Cotton entertains this to point out that the apostles were first and last in that physical, personal, extraordinary authority, and that is not passed down to bishops or popes. Fourthly then, turning back to the local church, The power in the church is jointly held by the elders and the members. Again, we're recapping what we've already considered by way of summary. Thank you, Jordan. Is that working? Is that not working? The members of the church have the right to elect their officers and to participate in matters of discipline in other church matters. That's the point we've considered many times. This liberty that they have, this right, it's not derived from their elders, ultimately. It's not derived from other churches. It's not derived from synods or presbyteries. It's derived from and entrusted to them by the Lord Jesus Christ. The rights of members. Elders, of course, have the authority to rule based upon being appointed to rule, appointed to the office by the congregation. So in this sense, the congregation examining and consenting and ordaining men to the ministry is the means by which Jesus uses or exercises his authority to appoint a man to the office. This is how the authority comes from Christ, ultimately not the people. That's why when we lay hands on an officer, an elder or a deacon, we recognize not that we are giving them authority and we have this authority to pass down to them. We are recognizing what Christ has already done and calling and gifting a man for the work of the ministry. So we are recognizing Christ exercising his authority. So the congregation in this sense does not create authority, but it exercises it, it recognizes it. It recognizes what Christ has done. And so at this point Cotton deals with a few objections. I'm going to summarize them down to two. First objection is if the people choose elders, doesn't this mean that the people themselves have a special authority to give? In other words, if the people elect officers, doesn't that imply that they have a greater authority than the officers? Well, think about our government, for example. This would kind of be like saying, if we elect the President of the United States, doesn't that mean that we have a greater authority than the President? Well, of course not. But even more so in the church because we've seen that the congregation can only elect an officer with and alongside the approval of other officers. Remember, there's a balance of power there. Except in a case when a church has no officers, it has no outside churches to help, Only then can a congregation elect an officer that hasn't been previously put forward by another officer. So this shows that the congregation doesn't have authority in and of itself. It's not just a ranked democracy. They participate in the exercise of authority jointly held by both the members and the officers. The second objection to this is that, isn't the church Christ's bride? And shouldn't she hold the keys in that sense? And again, it's kind of a, piggybacking on his first objection, basically saying, doesn't the church hold all the authority? And as he's argued all along, let's not go too far when we talk about congregational rule over into just a democracy that breeds chaos. He wants to recognize that the elders still do have a special rule and authority. and that it's not, but this is not absolute power. So the congregation is not fully in charge, absolute power, neither are the elders fully in charge, absolute power. There is a balance of power for the peace and order of the church. So in that sense, power is jointly held by the elders or by the officers and the members. Fifthly, the joint exercise of elders and the congregation is the complete expression of church power. Cotton argues here that when elders and members walk together in truth and in peace, they have all the power that they need in and of themselves. They can elect officers, they can add or remove officers or members, and his point is that They don't need any outside help from synods or bishops or any other outside body to perform these acts. If you recall last week, when we considered the need for associations, remember the primary need, why we need associations? It's to help troubled churches. But when the congregations are at peace, When the elders and the congregation agree and they are unified, no outside help is needed. Now, of course, we want outside help to plant churches, to send missionaries, to train ministers, pulpit supply, financial aid. We need the prayers of other churches as well, but we don't need any help to govern the church if we are at peace. For example, one application of this is in the matter of church discipline. If the church is in agreement and the officers and the members consent, why would we need help from the outside? We don't need help from the outside. We shouldn't need help from the outside. Christ has entrusted that to our body alone. Cotton argues that this is what we see in the New Testament. We only see apostles and others stepping in from the outside when the church is disturbed. When it's disturbed by false teaching or controversy. Or they are divisive. When we are at peace, we have everything we need to govern ourselves. Sixthly, Ordination is valid within the local church alone. We briefly discussed this, but it was very brief a few weeks ago. I think somebody asked a question about that. Thank you, Sam. Let's get this microphone set up. Easier on my voice. Here, a minister ordained to the office of pastor, elder, or deacon. The officers nominate him, the congregation elects him, the elders lay hands on him. In this case, such a man is an officer in that church alone. Cotton goes into an argument here from the New Testament that there's no such thing as a diocese where one bishop is over various congregations. In the same way, we have no case in the New Testament where a man is ordained as a pastor in one church, and he's just automatically a pastor in another church. And this is, of course, as we've talked about, One distinction between Presbyterianism and maybe denominationalism. In Presbyterianism, a pastor is ordained by the presbytery, not the local church. A presbytery is made up of elders from the wider body of multiple churches. and they examine a man, they ordain a man to ministry, they might give him a certificate of ordination, and when he's ordained, he can be a pastor to any one of their churches. Now, in the PCA, though, for example, before they appoint a man to a specific church, they will ask the church to vote and receive him. But that's fairly recent in Presbyterianism. It's a move towards Congregationalism. But even still, even in that case, the man's ordination, even the man's membership, doesn't lie in the congregation. It lies in the Presbytery. Denominations act this way as well. For example, in some Baptist denominations, if you're ordained in one church, that ordination carries over to any other church in their denomination, which makes it pretty easy to skip around, especially in Baptist circles where you get tired of one place and you just jump to another. You don't have to worry about ultimately being ordained again. You've already been ordained. If the church wants you, you can just go. So in this sense, a pastor is kind of like always a pastor, even if he has no church to pastor. But that's not according to our beliefs. We believe that ordination is local, specific to the local church. If I am the pastor of this church and I step down or leave or even if I want to go to another church, that other church has a responsibility to examine me, to vote on me, to call me, to lay hands on me, to ordain me. And until they do so, I'm not a pastor. Now, as I've said before, If a pastor, well, I should say the process does look different if a man's been a pastor before. Several years ago, we called a pastor. He's no longer here, but he was a pastor of another church, and we called him to our church. And we didn't just install him as a pastor though. We examined him. We tested him. We voted and called on him. We ordained him as a pastor here. And that looks a lot different. It was much more of a streamlined, easier process than we did so for someone who's never been a pastor before like we did with Pastor Kim. Regardless though, ordination is local church only as we believe according to the New Testament. Seventhly, we're running out of time. Seventhly, the local church censors and disciplines are binding in heaven. We consider this, but this was a long time ago. It was like the second week, I think. But Matthew 18, 17, when Christ gives the keys, he says, whatever you bind and whatever you loosed shall be loosed in heaven as well, or bound in heaven. And Cotton nails this down to show that the authority of the church is not a trivial thing. It's not just something for good order, but that the church has real power. When the church welcomes a member, When the church excommunicates a member, Jesus says that such action is recognized by heaven itself. And thus Cotton argues that the local church's judgments are independent and no earthly authority can reverse them. I think here maybe an illustration would be how the president of the United States can issue pardons to convicted criminals. Well, in some forms of church government, there are men like the pope or bishops or boards of men who take upon themselves to overrule decisions made by lower bishops or regions or churches. And Cotton is saying, not so. There is nobody who has the power in that sense of pardon. other than the local church. No one has the authority to overthrow or overrule a decision made by the local church. A decision made by the local church cannot be overthrown, for example, by another local church. Say a member is excommunicated and they go to another local church and the church says, oh, it's okay, you're not excommunicated, we welcome you. They don't have that authority. Because as Christ says in Matthew 18, 17, the decision by the church is reflective of the decision of heaven itself. The church has real power and authority. At this point, Cotton entertains a few objections. I won't cover them all, but a few of them here is he asked, for example, if we follow the process of Matthew 18, wouldn't it be disorderly to sell someone's sin to the whole congregation? You might not think this is a big deal, but it is a common objection that why would we tell the entire church someone else's sin? Wouldn't it always be best just to trust that with the elders alone? That's kind of an argument against congregationalism. Why would we expose someone's sin before everybody? Let's just trust it to a small group of people. But this is, again, our understanding. Matthew 18, when Jesus says, tell it to the church, he means the church. In Presbyterianism, tell it to the church means tell the elders. That's how they interpret it. We interpret that differently. Tell it to the church. We believe that the church as a whole has a role in calling people to repent. We believe the church has an important role that everybody should know that is greater impetus for the sinner to repent in that sense. And so Cotton says, this is not disorderly. The Lord Jesus Christ commanded this, and he appeals to some instances in Old Testament Israel as well. But also in the fact that, you know, you read through the epistles and the Apostle Paul sometimes names names. He calls out specific people. You know, that's pretty embarrassing, I think. Especially, you know, 2,000 years their name has been codified as being divisive or sinful. The Apostle Paul named names, and so we should not quarrel with the commands of Christ. Eighthly, when a church falls into error or scandal, and a faction maintains it, a synod, which is an assembly, is to correct and judge it. We covered this last week, but Cotton argues that the promise of binding and loosing in Matthew 18 only applies to churches that agree. If two or three of you agree, Jesus says there, about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. Jesus saying two or three kind of in that in that sense emphasizing how you need two or three witnesses. But also in a tiny church, a church of just three members, if two of them agree Christ is saying you know that authority is binding. So Cotton appeals to this to say if a church is divided or if they're acting in error as a false church then it loses that promise of Christ's authority. And in that case, a church is subject to the admonition and judgment of other churches. Again, as we saw last week, he appeals to the church in Antioch, divided in Acts 15 over circumcision, and they called together the apostles, the elders, and the church at Jerusalem to deliberate and to pronounce a judgment on it, because they could not agree. The churches needed help to resolve it. Ninthly, a church's spiritual authority is independent of the civil sword, but the church must submit to civil government and things that concern civil peace. And he lists things like property justice, taxes, and social order. Cotton, in this sense, encourages civil rulers to promote true religion. He encourages churches to cooperate with a civil magistrate, even in things like praying for the nation or giving counsel to the civil magistrate. But he says, look, civil rulers have no authority in the church. And churches ought not to resist civil rule, like in taking up the sword to defend themselves. Because Cotton goes on to argue, our weapon is the Word and the Spirit. It's not force. He says, even in persecution, churches are to submit to persecution patiently, like Christ and the apostles, rather than resorting to violence. Those are sobering words. It's not exactly Christian nationalism. It's an early form of separation in church and state, where there's a cooperation, but there's also a separation, and that was worked out in greater detail in the decades to follow. Tenth and finally, and we've got to wrap up, independent churches ought to voluntary associate and covenant and commune with other churches. Our confession says that we ought to hold communion with other churches. Cotton concludes with this by saying, look, I'm not arguing for autonomy. I'm not arguing for independent Baptist churches, as they're often called. Just because you self-govern does not mean that you aren't accountable to other churches outside of your four walls. Cotton argues that there is safety, according to the scriptures, in a multitude of counsel. He argues that it's wholesome to promote unity and doctrinal soundness among churches. He argues that it's holy and follows the pattern that we see of church cooperation in the New Testament. So, congregationalism does not mean autonomy. It does not mean isolation. And sadly, many in our day it does, but it shouldn't. We ought to be part of an association of other churches. We ought to be accountable to other churches. We're not meant to stand all on our own just because we govern all on our own. With all this then, let me summarize the entire book down into one thesis statement. I can't remember. No, I did not put it up on the slideshow, but fitting way to conclude. Every properly ordered local congregation possesses within itself the full authority needed to govern its own members in matters of discipline, worship, and doctrine. Yet it remains subject to counsel and accountability from like-minded churches if it errs. And that's really kind of the thesis of the book. Every properly ordered, properly ordered local congregation, local church, possesses within itself all the authority that it needs to govern itself, to govern its own members in matters of church discipline, in matters of worship, and in matters of doctrine. except it is subject to the counsel and accountability of other churches if it errs or if it is divided. It's a fitting way to conclude Cotton's book, and again, I hope it was helpful in the sense of an overview of the substance or the foundational arguments of Congregationalism. I certainly recommend you read it yourself one day if you're able, but that's a fitting conclusion, and we can stop now and take a few moments for questions.