Chapter XXVI: Section I (2)

_Ans_. 1. As the apostles, prophets, and teachers are here set down concretely, and not abstractly, and are confessed to be three distinct orders enumerated: so all the other five, though set down abstractly, are (by a metonymy of the adjunct for the subject) to be understood concretely, helps for helpers; governments for governors, &c.; otherwise we shall here charge the apostle with a needless impertinent tautology in this chapter, for he had formerly spoken of these gifts abstractly, ver. 8-10, as being _all given to profit_ the Church _withal_, ver. 7; but here, ver. 28-30, he speaks of these gifts as they are in several distinct subjects, for the benefit of the organical body the church; else what saith he here, more than he said before? 2. That all these eight here enumerated, one as well as another, do denote, not distinct offices or acts of the same officer, but distinct officers, having distinct administrations, and distinct gifts for those administrations, is evident, partly by the apostle's form of enumeration, _first, secondly, thirdly, afterwards, then_ or _furthermore_: if he had intended only three sorts of officers, he would have stopped at thirdly, but he goes on in an enumerating way, to show us those that follow are distinct officers as well as those that go before; partly, by the apostle's recapitulation, ver. 29, 30, which plainly points out different officers, persons not gifts, besides those three: _Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers?_ (and here he stops not, but reckons on) _are all workers of miracles? have all the gifts of healing?_ &c. If it should be replied, But he doth not add, Are all helps? are all governments? therefore these are not to be accounted distinct officers from the rest; otherwise why should the apostle thus have omitted them, had there been any such distinct officers in the Church in his time? It may be replied, These two officers, helps and governments, are omitted in the recapitulation, ver. 29, 30, not that the Church then had no such officers, for why then should they have been distinctly mentioned in the enumeration of church officers, ver. 28? But either, 1. For that helps and governments were more inferior ordinary officers, and not furnished with such extraordinary, or at least, eminent gifts, as the other had, (which they abused greatly to pride, contention, schism, and contempt of one another, the evils which the apostle here labors so much to cure,) and so there was no such danger that these helps and governments should run into the same distempers that the other did. Or, 2. For that he would instruct these helps and governments to be content with their own stations and offices, (without strife and emulation,) though they be neither apostles, nor prophets, nor teachers, nor any of the other enumerated, which were so ambitiously coveted after; and the last verse seems much to favor this consideration, _but covet earnestly the best gifts_, viz. which made most for edification, not for ostentation.[60]

_Except_. 3. But helps here are placed before governments, therefore it is not likely that governments were the ruling elders; Helps, i.e. deacons, which is an inferior office, seeming here to be preferred before them.[61]

_Ans_. This follows not. Priority of order is not always an argument of priority of worth, dignity, or authority. Scripture doth not always observe exactness of order, to put that first which is of most excellency: sometimes the pastor is put before the teacher, as Ephes. iv. 11, sometimes the teacher before the pastor, as Rom. xii. 7, 8. Peter is first named of all the apostles, both in Matt. x. 2, and in Acts i. 13, but we shall hardly grant the Papist's arguing thence to be solid--Peter is first named, therefore he is the chief and head of all the apostles; no more can we account this any good consequence--helps are set before governments, therefore governments are officers inferior to helps, consequently they cannot be ruling elders: this were bad logic.

_Except_. 4. But the word governments is general, and may signify either Christian magistrates, or ecclesiastical officers, as archbishops, bishops, or whatsoever other by lawful authority are appointed in the Church.[62] And some of the semi-Erastians of our times, by governments understand the Christian magistracy, holding the Christian magistracy to be an ecclesiastical administration.[63]

_Ans_. 1. Governments, i.e. governors, (though in itself and singly mentioned, it be a general, yet) here being enumerated among so many specials, is special, and notes the special kind of ruling elders, as hath been proved. 2. As for archbishops and diocesan bishops, they are notoriously known to be, as such, no officers set in the Church by God, but merely by the invention of man; therefore they have no part nor lot in this business, nor can here be meant. And if by others, by lawful authority appointed in the Church, they mean those officers that God appoints well: if those whom man sets there without God, as chancellors, commissioners, &c., such have as much power of government in the Church, as they are such, as archbishops and bishops, viz. just none at all by any divine warrant. 3. Nor can the civil Christian magistrate here be implied. 1. Partly, because this is quite beside the whole intent and scope of this chapter, treating merely upon spiritual church-matters, not at all of secular civil matters, viz: of spiritual gifts for the Church's profit, ver. 1 to 12; of the Church herself as one organical body, ver. 12 to 28; and of the officers which God hath set in this organical body, ver. 28, &c. Now here to crowd in the Christian magistrate, which is a mere political governor, into the midst of these spiritual matters, and into the roll of these merely ecclesiastical officers, how absurd is it! 2. Partly, because the magistrate, as such, is not set of God in the Church either as a church officer, or as a church member, (as hath been demonstrated formerly, chap. IX.;) and though he become a Christian, that adds nothing to the authority of his magistracy, being the privilege only of his person, not of his office. 3. Partly, because when this was written to the Corinthians, the apostle writes of such governments as had at that time their present actual being and existence in the Church: and neither then, nor divers hundreds of years after, were there any magistrates Christian, as hath been evidenced, chap. IX.[64]

_Except_. 5. Teachers are here expressed, but pastors omitted; and therefore well might governors be mentioned instead of pastors.[65]

_Answ_. 1. Then, according to his judgment, pastors were a distinct kind of officers from teachers; otherwise the naming of teachers would have sufficiently implied pastors, without the addition of the word governors, one act or function of the office being put for the whole office. But prelates did not love to hear of such a distinction. However, it is the judgment of many others no less learned or pious than they, that in the same congregation where there are several ministers, he that excels in exposition of scriptures, teaching sound doctrine, and convincing gainsayers, may be designed hereunto, and called a teacher or doctor: he that excels in application, and designed thereunto, may be called a pastor; but where there is only one minister in one particular congregation, he is to perform, as far as he is able, the whole work of the ministry. 2. If pastors are to be understood by this term governors, as contradistinct from teachers, formerly enumerated in the text; doth not this seem to devolve the matter of government so wholly upon the pastor, as that the teacher hath nothing to do with it? and hereby both pastor and teacher are wronged at once: the teacher, while power of governing is denied him, which belongs to him as well as to the pastor; the teacher being a minister of the word, hath power of administration of the sacraments and discipline, as well as the pastor: the pastor, while he consequently is deprived of the necessary and comfortable assistance of the teacher in point of government. Therefore the pastor cannot here be intended by governors. 3. Bilson himself was not very confident of this gloss, and therefore he immediately adds, "If this content you not, I then deny they are all ecclesiastical functions that are there specified," &c. What then doth he make them? viz. he makes divers of them, and governments among the rest, to be but several gifts, whereof one and the same officer might be capable. And a little after he ingenuously confesses he cannot tell what these governors were, saying, "I could easily presume, I cannot easily prove what they were. The manner and order of those wonderful gifts of' God's Spirit, after so many hundreds may be conjectured, cannot be demonstrated--governors they were, or rather governments, (for so the apostle speaketh,) i.e. gifts of wisdom, discretion, and judgment, to direct and govern the whole church, and every particular member thereof, in the manifold dangers and distresses which those days did not want. Governors also they might be called, that were appointed in every congregation to hear and appease the private strifes and quarrels that grew betwixt man and man, lest the Christians, to the shame of themselves, and slander of the gospel, should pursue each other for things of this life before the magistrates, who then were infidels; of these St. Paul speaketh, 1 Cor. vi. 1-7. These governors and moderators of their brethren's quarrels and contentions I find, others I find not in the apostle's writings, but such as withal were watchmen and feeders of the flock." Thus inconsistent he is with himself: one while these governors must be pastors; another while arbitrators or daysmen about private differences; another while gifts, not officers; another while he cannot easily prove what they were. But they have been proved to be ruling elders, and the proof still stands good, notwithstanding all his or others' exceptions.

_Argum_. III. The third argument for the divine right of the mere ruling elder shall be drawn from 1 Tim. v. 17, "Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honor, especially they that labor in the word and doctrine." From which words we may thus argue for the divine right of the ruling elder:

_Major_. Whatsoever officers in the Church are, according to the word of Christ, styled elders, invested with rule in the Church, approved of God in their rule, and yet distinct from all them that labor in the word and doctrine; they are the ruling elders in the Church which we inquire after, and that by divine right.

This proposition seems clear and unquestionable. For, 1. If there be a certain kind of church officer which Christ in his word calls an elder, 2. Declares to have rule in his church, 3. Approves in this his rule, and, 4. Distinguished from him that labors in the word and doctrine; this is plainly the ruling elder, and here is evidently the divine right of his office. Such a divine approbation of his office, testified in Scripture, implies no less than a divine institution thereof.

_Minor_. But the officers mentioned in 1 Tim. v. 17, are, according to the word of Christ, styled elders, invested with rule in the church: approved of God in their rule, and yet distinct from all them that labor in the word and doctrine. This assumption may be thus evidenced by parts.

1. The officers mentioned here in this word of Christ, are styled elders. This Greek word translated _elder_, is used in the New Testament chiefly in three several senses: 1. For men of ancient time, not now living; and so it is opposed to modern: Tradition of elders, Matt. xv. 2, i.e. of them of old time, see Matt. v. 21. 2. For elders in age now living; so it is opposed to younger, 1 Tim. v. 1; 1 Pet. v. 5. 3. For elders in function or office, opposed to private men not in office, as Acts xiv. 23; and in this last sense it is to be taken in this place, an office of ruling being here ascribed to these elders. They are called elders, say some, because for the most part they were chosen out of the elder sort of men: others better, from the maturity of knowledge, wisdom, gifts, gravity, piety, &c., which ought to be in them. This name elder seems to have rule and authority written upon it, when applied to any church officer; and it is by the Septuagint often ascribed to rulers political, _elders in the gate_, Judges viii. 14; Ruth iv. 2, 3; 1 Sam. v. 3; 1 Chron. xi. 3. In this place (as it is well noted by some[66]) the word elders is a genus, a general attribute, agreeing both to them that rule well, and also to those that labor in the word and doctrine: the one sort only rule; the other sort both rule and preach; but both sorts are elders.

2. The officers here mentioned are not only styled elders, but invested with rule in the church. For it is plain both by the text and context duly considered, and the apostle's scope in writing of this epistle, 1 Tim. iii. 15, that these elders are officers in the Church. And that in the church they are vested with rule appears not only by their name of elders, which when applied to officers, imports rule, authority, &c., as hath been said; but also by the adjunct participle _that rule_, or _ruling_, annexed to elders--_Let the elders ruling well_. So that here we have not only the office, the thing, but the very name of ruling elders. The word seems to be a military term, for captains and commanders in an army, _foremost slanders_, (as the word imports,) that lead on and command all the rest that follow them: hence metaphorically used for the foremost-standers, rulers, governors in the church. It noteth not only those that go before others by doctrine, or good example: but that govern and rule others by authority. For, 1. Thus the word is used in Scripture: "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity," 1 Tim. iii. 4: where it plainly notes an authoritative ruling. Again, "If a man know not how to rule his own house," 1 Tim. iii. 5. And again, "Ruling their children and their own houses well," 1 Tim. iii. 12. And can any man be so absurd as to think that a master of a family hath not a proper authoritative rule over his own children and family, but rules them only by doctrine and example?

2. Thus learned divines[67] and accurate Grecians[68] use the word to denote authority: so that the Holy Ghost here calling them ruling elders, implies they are vested with rule: and those that deny this place to hold out two sorts of elders, yet confess it holds out two sorts of acts, ruling and preaching.

3. These ruling elders are here approved of God in their rule; and that two ways, viz: 1. In that God's Spirit here commends their ruling, being duly discharged, _ruling well, excellently_, &c. Did no rule in the Church belong to them for matter, God would never command or approve them for the matter. He cannot be accounted with God to do any thing well, that hath no right to do it at all. 2. In that God's Spirit here commands their well ruling to be honorably rewarded. _Let them be counted worthy of double honor:_ or, _Let them be dignified with double honor_. Here is not only reward, but an eminent reward appointed them, and that urged from Scripture, ver. 18. Where God thus appoints rewards, he approves that for which he rewards; and what God thus approves is of divine right. See part 1, chap. V.

4. Yet, finally, These elders, vested with rule in the Church, and divinely approved in their rule, are distinct from all them that labor in the word and doctrine. This may thus he evidenced from the text, as some[69] have well observed: For, 1. Here is a general, under which the several kinds of officers here spoken of are comprehended, _elders_; all here mentioned are elders. 2. Here are two distinct kinds of elders, viz: _those that rule well_, there is one kind; and _they that labor in the word_ (as the pastors) _and doctrine_, (as the doctors and teachers,) here is the other kind. 3. Here are two participles expressing these two species or kinds of elders--_ruling_, and _laboring_: those only rule, that is all their work, and therefore here are called ruling elders; not because _they_ alone rule, but because their only work is to rule: but these not only rule, but, over and besides, _they_ labor in the word and doctrine. 4. Here are two distinct articles distinctly annexed to these two participles--_they that rule; they that labor_. 5. Finally, here is an eminent disjunctive particle set betwixt these two kinds of elders, these two participles, these two articles, evidently distinguishing one from the other, viz. especially _they that labor in the word_, &c., intimating, that as there were some ruling elders that did labor in the word and doctrine, so there were others that did rule, and not labor in the word: both were worthy of double honor, but especially they that both ruled and labored in the word also. And wheresoever this word, here translated _especially_, is used in all the New Testament, it is used to distinguish thing from thing, person from person, that are spoken of; as, "Let us do good to all, but especially to those of the household of faith," Gal. vi. 10: therefore there were some of the household of faith, and some that were not; and accordingly we must put a difference in doing good to them. "All the saints salute you, especially those of Cæsar's household;" some saints not of his household: all saluted them, but especially those of Cæsar's household. "He that provides not for his own, especially for them of his own house, he hath denied the faith," 1 Tim. v. 8. A believer is to provide for his friends and kindred, but especially _for those of his own house_, wife and children. See also 1 Tim. iv. 10; Tit. i. 11; 2 Tim. iv. 13; 2 Pet. ii. 10; Acts xx. 38, and xxvi. 3; in all which places the word _especially_ is used as a disjunctive particle, to distinguish one thing from another, without which distinction we shall but make nonsense in interpreting those places. And generally the best interpreters[70] do from this text conclude, that there were two sorts of elders, viz: the ruling elder, that only ruled; the preaching elder, that besides his ruling, labored in the word and doctrine also.

Now, therefore, seeing the officers here mentioned are, 1. According to the word of Christ, (for this is the word of Christ,) styled elders; 2. Vested with rule; 3. Approved of God in their rule; and yet, 4. Distinct from all that labor in the word and doctrine, as hath been particularly proved; we may conclude, that,

_Conclusion_. Therefore the officers here mentioned are the ruling elders in the Church which we inquire after, and that by divine right.

But against this place of 1 Tim. i. 17, and the argument from it, divers cavils and exceptions are made; let them have a brief solution.

_Except_. 1. There were two sorts of elders, some laboring in the word and doctrine, some taking care of the poor, viz. deacons; both were worthy of double honor, especially they that labored in the word, &c.[71]

_Ans_. 1. This is a new distinction of elders without warrant of Scripture. Deacons are nowhere in all the New Testament styled elders;[72] nay, they are contradistinguished from elders, both teaching and ruling. "He that giveth _let him do it_ with simplicity: he that ruleth, with diligence," Rom. xii. 8. "Helps, governments," 1 Cor. xii. 28. Compare also Tit. i. 5, 6, &c., 1 Tim. iii. 2, &c., with 1 Tim. iii. 8, &c. 2. As deacons are not elders, so deacons have no rule in the church. It is true, they are to "rule their children and their own houses well," 1 Tim. iii. 12; this is only family rule: but as for the church, their office therein is to be _helps_, 1 Cor. xii. 28; _to distribute_, Rom. xii. 8; _to serve tables_, Acts vi. 2, 3; but no rule is ascribed to them.

_Except_. 2. But by ruling well, some understand living well, leading a holy, exemplary life. The apostle would have ministers not only to live well themselves, but also to feed others by the word and doctrine; they that live well are to be double honored, especially they who labor in the word, &c., as 1 Thess. v. 12, 13.[73]

_Ans_. 1. The apostle here speaks rather of officers than of acts of office: of persons rather than of duties, if his phrase be observed. 2. Living well is not ruling well here in the apostle's sense, who intends the rule of elders over others; he that lives well rules well over himself; not over others: else all that live well were church rulers; they conduct by example, do not govern by authority, Altar. Damasc. c. xii. 8. If well ruling be well living, then double honor, double maintenance from the church is due for well living, (1 Tim. v. 17, 18,) consequently all that live well deserve this double honor. 4. This seems to intimate that ministers deserve double honor for living well, though they preach not. _How absurd_! 5. D. Downham, once pleased with this gloss, after confessed it was not safe.

_Except_. 3. Those that rule well may be meant of aged, infirm, superannuated bishops, who cannot labor in the word and doctrine.[74]

_Ans_. 1. Here is no speech of prelatical bishops, but of ruling and preaching elders in this text. 2. How shall old, decrepit bishops rule well, when they cannot labor in the word and doctrine? 3. By this gloss, the preaching elders that labor in the word and doctrine, should be preferred before the most ancient bishop in double honor; such doctrine would not long since have been very odious and apocryphal to our late prelates. 4. Those preachers that have faithfully and constantly spent their strength, and worn out themselves with ministerial labor, that they cannot rule nor preach any longer, are yet worthy of double honor for all their former travels in the service of Christ and his Church.

_Except_. 4. Among ministers some did preach, others only administered the sacraments; so Paul showeth that he preached and "labored more than all the apostles," 1 Cor. xv. 10; but baptized few or none, 1 Cor i. 14, leaving that to be performed by others; and when Paul and Barnabas were companions, and their travels were equal, yet Paul is noted to have been the chief speaker, (Acts xiv. 12:) all were worthy of double honor, but especially they who labored in the word and doctrine.[75]

_Ans_. 1. This gloss imagineth such a ministry in the apostles' times as the prelates had erected of late in their days, viz: many dumb dogs that could not bark nor preach at all, yet could administer the sacraments by the old service-book. But the apostles, as Cartwright[76] observes, allowed no such ministers, will have every bishop or preaching elder to be both "apt to teach, _and_ able to convince," 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 9. So that it was far from Paul to countenance a non-preaching or seldom-preaching ministry, by allowing any honor at all, much less a double honor, to such. Sure, preaching is one part, yea, a most principal part or duty of the minister's office, (as hath been evidenced before, Part 2, Chap. VII.,) and shall he be counted worthy of double honor that neglects a principal duty of his office? Nay, he deserves not the very name of such an officer in the church: why should he be called a pastor that doth not feed? or a teacher, that doth not teach his flock? &c., saith Chrysost. Hom. xv. in 1 Timothy. 2. Why should Paul's laboring be restrained here to his preaching only? when Paul speaks of his own labor elsewhere, he speaks of it in another sense, 2 Cor. xi. 17, "in labor and weariness"--compare it with the context; and in this place judicious Calvin seems rather to interpret it of other manner of labor, and Pareus extends it, besides preaching, to divers other labors which Paul did undergo. 3. What warrant doth this exception hold out for two sorts of ministers here pretended, some _preaching_, others _only administering the sacraments_? Thus, _Paul preached much, baptised but few_: therefore, _there were some that only administered the sacraments_: well concluded. Yet Paul baptized some, 1 Cor. i. 14, 16, distributed the Lord's supper to some, Acts xx. 7, 11; so that he both preached and dispensed the sacraments. Let any show where any person dispensed the sacraments that was not a preacher. Again, _Paul and Barnabas equally travelled together, but Paul was chief speaker_: what then? therefore _some labored in the word, others in the sacraments only_. This is woful logic. 4. To whomsoever the power of dispensing the sacraments was given by Christ, to them also the power of preaching was given; dispensing the word and sacraments are joined in the same commission, Matt, xxviii. 18-20: what Christ joins together let not man put asunder. 5. Touching the preaching elder there is mentioned only one act peculiar to his office, viz. _laboring in the word_, &c.; but, taking a part for the whole, we may understand his dispensing the sacraments also, and what else is peculiar to the preaching elder's office, though for brevity's sake it be not here named.[77]

_Except_. 5. By elders that rule well may be meant certain governors, or inferior magistrates, chosen to compose controversies or civil strifes. Suitable hereunto is the late Erastian gloss, that by elders ruling well may be meant kings, parliament-men, and all civil governors.[78]

_Ans_. 1. It is well known that in the primitive times there was no Christian magistrate in the Church, and for the Church to choose heathen judges or magistrates to be arbitrators or daysmen in civil controversies, is a thing utterly condemned by the apostle, 1 Cor. vi. 1, &c. 2. The apostle speaks here of ecclesiastical, not of civil officers, as the latter phrase intimates. The main scope of this epistle was to instruct Timothy how to behave himself, not in the commonwealth, but in the Church of God, (1 Tim. iii. 15,) and here he speaks of such officers as were in being in the Church at that time. 3. If kings, parliament-men, and all civil governors be these ruling elders, then ministers have not only an equal share with them in government by this text, which the Erastians will not like well; but also are to have a superior honor or maintenance to kings, parliament-men, and all civil governors. Certainly the magistrates will never triumph in this gloss, nor thank them that devised it. 4. Sutlive seems to be against this opinion, (though no great friend to ruling elders,) saying Beza bestows many words to prove that the judges in 1 Cor. vi. were not of the number of presbyters: which truly I myself should easily grant him. For there were none such ever constituted. 5. This is a novel interpretation, as some observe,[79] unknown among ancient writers.

_Except_. 6. Those words [_especially they who labor in the word and doctrine_] are added to the former explanatively, to teach us who they are that rule well, viz. _they who labor much in the word and doctrine_, and not to distinguish them that labor in the word, from elders ruling well; as if Paul had said, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, greatly laboring in the word," &c. For the word translated _especially_ here more aptly signifies _much, greatly_, than especially. For though with the adversative _but_ along with it, it signifieth especially, yet alone (as it is here) it signifies _much, greatly_.[80]

_Ans_. 1. If this sentence [_especially they who labor_, &c.] were added only to explain who are well-ruling elders, viz. such as greatly labor in the word, &c., then few of the prelatical bishops were to be counted well-ruling elders, for very few, if any of them, were guilty of laboring greatly in the word and doctrine. 2. Then also the apostle would have said, either who especially labor, or simply without the article, especially laboring; then especially, they who labor, as here he doth, carrying his speech rather to distinct persons and officers, than to distinct duties or actions. 3. This word translated _especially_, hath been already in the minor proposition proved to be rather disjunctive, than explanatory; a term of distinction to point out a several sort of elders from only ruling elders, rather than a term of explication, signifying who are to be reputed these well-ruling elders. 4. The word _especially_ is used for a term of distinction, even in those places where the adversative _but_ is not joined to it, as in Tit. i. 10, "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision:" where _especially_ distinguishes _them of the circumcision_, from all other _vain talkers, and deceivers_; and in 1 Tim. iv. 10, "Who is the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe;" here _especially_ without _but_ distinguishes them that believe from all other men, as capable of a special salvation from God; if here it were not a note of distinction, according to this gloss, we should thus read the place, "Who is the Saviour of all men, greatly believing;" but this were cold comfort to weak Christians of little faith. So here _especially_, though _but_ be wanting, distinguished them that labor in the word and doctrine, from them that labor not therein, and yet rule well.

_Except_. 7. It is one thing to preach, another thing to labor in the word and doctrine. If there be here any distinction of elders it is between those that labor more abundantly and painfully, and between those that labor not so much. This objection takes much with some.[81] B. Bilson much presses this objection from the emphasis of the word _laboring_; signifying endeavoring any thing with greater striving and contention, &c., to this sense, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor and sweat, &c., in the word--who give themselves even to be tired and broken with labors;" and this, saith he, is the genuine signification of the word translated laboring, when it is borrowed from the labor of the body, to denote the contention or striving of the mind, &c.[82]

_Ans_. 1. This gloss takes it for granted, that this text speaks only of preaching, or the ministry of the word, and therein of the lesser or greater pains taken: which (besides that it begs the thing in question) makes the ministry of the word common to both sorts here distinctly spoken of, whereas rather the plain current of the text makes ruling common to both, over and beyond which the preaching elder _labors in the word_. 2. Doth not this interpretation allow a double honor to ministers that labor not so much as others in the word? And can we think that the laborious Paul intended to dignify, patronize, or encourage idle drones, lazy, sluggish, seldom preachers? Ministers must be exceeding instant and laborious in their ministry, 2 Tim. iv. 1-3. If this were the sense only to prefer the greater before the less labor in the ministry, the apostle would have used this order of words, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor," &c., take upon themselves more weighty cares. For those words (in the word and doctrine) should either have been quite omitted, as now was expressed, or should have been inserted immediately after them that rule well, and before the word especially, to this effect, "Let the elders that rule well and preach the word and doctrine well, be counted worthy of double honor; but especially those who labor much in well ruling and in well preaching:" in such an expression the case had been very clear and evident. 4. Should this comment stand, that they who labor more in the ministry than others should have more honor, more maintenance, than others, how many emulations and contentions were this likely to procure? Who shall undertake to proportion the honor and reward, according to the proportion of every minister's labor? 5. As for the criticism of the word _laboring_, which Bilson lays so much stress upon, these things are evident, 1. That here _laboring_, signifies emphatically nothing else but that labor, care, diligence, solicitude, &c., which the nature of the pastoral office requires in every faithful pastor; as is implied 1 Thess. v., 12, 13, "Know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord;" and the apostle saith that every minister "shall receive a reward according to his own labor," 1 Cor. iii. 8. Such labor and diligence also is required in them that rule, whilst they are charged to rule _with diligence_, Rom. xii. 8, which is as much as _with labor_: yea, the common charity of Christians hath its labor; and this very word _labor_ is ascribed thereunto, _labor of love_, 1 Thess. i. 3; Heb. vi. 10. 2. That if the apostle had here intended the extraordinary labor of some ministers above others, not ordinarily required of all, he would have taken a more emphatical word to have set it out, as he is wont to do in some other cases, as in 2 Cor. xi. 27, "In labor and weariness." 1 Thess. ii. 9, "For ye remembered, brethren, our labor and weariness." 6. Finally, "If there be but one kind of church officers here designed, then," as saith the learned Cartwright, "the words (_especially those that labor_) do not cause the apostle's speech to rise, but to fall; not to go forward, but to go backward; for to teach worthily and singularly is more than to teach painfully; for the first doth set forth all that which may be required in a worthy teacher, where the latter noteth one virtue only of pains taking."

_Except_. 8. Though it could be evinced, that here the apostle speaks of some other elders, besides the ministers of the word, yet what advantage can this be for the proof of ruling elders? For the apostle being to prove that the ministers of the word ought to be honored, i.e. maintained; why might he not use this general proposition, that all rulers, whether public or domestic, whether civil or ecclesiastical, are to be honored? And when the apostle speaketh of the qualifications of deacons, he requires them to be such as have ruled their own houses well.[83]

_Ans_. 1. This slight gloss might have appeared more tolerable and plausible, were it not, partly, that the grand scope of the apostle in this chapter and epistle is to direct about church officers and church affairs, as both the context, and 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15, clearly evidence; and partly, had the word rulers been expressed alone in the text, and the word elders left out: but seeing that the apostle speaks not generally of them that rule well, but particularly of the elders that rule well in the Church; here is no place for this poor faint gloss. 2. Had the apostle here intended such a lax and general proposition for all sorts of rulers, then had he also meant that an honorable maintenance is due from the Church to domestic as well as public, yea, to civil as well as ecclesiastical rulers: then the Church should have charge enough: yea, and then should ministers of the word (according to this interpretation) have more honor and maintenance than any other rulers, domestic or public, civil or ecclesiastical. Magistrates will never thank him for this gloss. 3. Though some kind of skill to rule and govern be required in deacons, yet that is no public rule in the Church, but a private rule in their own houses only, which the apostle mentions, 1 Tim. iii. 12.

_Except_. 9. But these Well-ruling presbyters may be referred to these pastors and teachers which were resident in every church, who therefore are properly said to have care and inspection of the faithful, as being affixed to that place for that end; but the word _laboring_, or _they that labor_, may be referred to them who travelled up and down for the visiting and confirming of the churches.[84] "There were some that remained in some certain places, for the guiding and governing of such as were already won by the preaching of the gospel: others that travelled with great labor and pains from place to place to spread the knowledge of God into all parts, and to preach Christ crucified to such as never heard of him before. Both these were worthy of double honor, but the latter that builded not upon another man's foundation, more especially than the former, that did but keep that which others had gotten, and govern those that others have gained."[85]

_Ans_. 1. If this be the sense, that there were some ministers fixed, and limited to particular places and churches; others unfixed, having an unlimited commission, and these are to be especially honored: then the meaning is, that the apostles and evangelists who were unfixed, and had unlimited commissions, and laid the foundation, were to be especially honored above pastors and teachers that were fixed and limited, and only built upon their foundation. But how should this be the meaning? For this seems a needless exhortation; what church would not readily yield an especial honor to apostles and evangelists above pastors and teachers? This would savor too much of self-seeking in the apostle, and providing for his own honor. This implies that the text hath reference to apostles and evangelists, whereas it evidently speaks only of ordinary ruling and preaching presbyters.

2. If this be the sense of Dr. Field and Bilson, that some mere ordinary presbyters travelled laboriously to lay the foundation of Christianity, others were fixed to certain places to build upon that foundation: this seems to be false; for we read that mere ordinary presbyters were ordained for several cities and places as their peculiar charges, whom they were to feed, and with whom they were to remain, as Acts xiv. 23; Tit. i. 5; herewith compare Acts xx. 28; 1 Pet. v. 2; 1 Thess. v. 12. But that mere ordinary presbyters were ordained and employed in the Church without limitation of commission, where can it be evidenced in all the Scriptures? Wandering presbyters are nowhere commended; wandering stars are condemned, Jude, ver. 13.

3. To refer the word _laboring_ to them that travelled from place to place for visiting and confirming of the churches, is very weak and unjustifiable in this place; for this clashes with Dr. Field's former gloss, (mentioned Except. 4, limiting _laboring_ to preaching.) But any thing for a present shift. This word is sometimes given to the apostle, as 1 Cor. xv. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 27: but where are apostles and evangelists called _laboring_, merely in respect of their travelling from place to place, to lay the foundation of Christianity, thereby to distinguish them from ordinary pastors and teachers? Nay, the apostle himself makes _them that rule_, and _them that labor_, the same, 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. So here in 1 Tim. v. 17, _they that rule_--_and they that labor_--are the same, i.e. both of them ordinary presbyters, both of them ruling, only to one of them the office of _laboring_ in the word and doctrine is superadded; yea, the very women that _were_ godly were said _to labor in the Lord_, Rom. xvi. 6, 12, not for their far travels up and down several countries to propagate the gospel, for where are Mary and Persis reported to have done this? Yet doubtless such good women privately labored much to bring in others, especially of their own sex, to hear the apostles, and entertain the gospel; and if the women may be said to _labor much in the Lord_, in respect of their private endeavors, how much more may labor be ascribed to presbyters in respect of both their private and public employments! So that this word _laboring_, which is applied in Scripture not only to ordinary presbyters, but also to women, cannot (without violence) be drawn peculiarly to signify apostles and evangelists, as this exception intends.

_Except_. 10. Seeing in every minister of the word three things are requisite, unblamableness of life, dexterity of governing, and integrity of doctrine; the two first are commended here, but especially the labor in doctrine above them both; therefore here are set down not a two-fold order of presbyters, but only two parts of the pastoral office, preaching and governing; both which the apostle joins in the office of pastors, 1 Thes. v. 2-13.[86] "The guides of the church are worthy of double honor, both in respect of governing and teaching, but especially for their pains in teaching; so noting two parts or duties of presbyterial offices, not two sorts of presbyters."[87]

_Ans_. 1. It is true, pastors have the power both of ruling and preaching belonging to their office, as is intimated, 1 Thes. v. 12, 13, and Heb. xiii. 7, and in other places; but doth it therefore follow, that none have the power of ruling, but those that have the power of preaching? or that this text, or 1 Tim. v. 17, intends only those rulers that preach? 2. Bilson, in this exception, confesseth that _laboring_ belongs to ordinary fixed pastors, and therefore contradicts himself in his former objection, wherein he would have appropriated it to unfixed apostles and evangelists; yea, by this gloss it is granted, that preaching presbyters are to be more honored than non-preaching ruling prelates. These are miserable shifts and evasions, whereby they are necessitated thus to wound their own friends, and to cross their own principles. 3. According to this gloss, this should be the sense, "Let the ministers that rule well by good life, and skilful government, be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine." Now doth not this tacitly insinuate, that some ministers may rule well, and be worthy of double honor, though they labor not in the word and doctrine? and how absurd were this? But if the text be interpreted not of several acts of the same office, but of several sorts of officers, this absurdity is prevented, _Let ruling elders be doubly honored, especially those that both rule and preach_. 4. The text evidently speaks not of duties, but of persons; not of acts, but of agents; not of offices, but of officers; for it is not said, "Let the elders be counted worthy of double honor, for well ruling; especially for laboring"--but, _Let the elders that rule well, especially they that labor in the word, &c._ So that this gloss is vain, and against the plain letter of the text.

_Except_. 11. Though the emphasis of the word, _they that labor_, be not to be neglected, yet the difference betwixt presbyters is not put by that word, but by those (_in the word and doctrine_.) This does not signify two kinds of presbyters, but two offices of ministers and pastors; one general, to _rule well_; another special, _to labor in the word and doctrine_. To rule well, saith Hierom, is to fulfil his office; or, as the Syriac interpreter expounds it, "to behave themselves well in their place;" or as the Scripture speaks, _To go in and out before God's people as becomes them, going before them in good works in their private conversations, and also in their public administrations_; whence the apostle makes here a comparison betwixt the duties of ministers thus, "All presbyters that generally discharge their office well are worthy of double honor; especially they who labor in the word, which is a primary part of their office."[88]

_Ans_. 1. For substance this objection is the same with objection 10, already answered, therefore much more needs not to be added. 2. It is to be noted, that the apostle saith not, "Let the presbyters that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially because they labor in the word--for then he should have pointed at the distinct offices of ministers;" but he saith, _especially they that labor_, which clearly carries the sense to the distinction of elders themselves, who have distinct employments. 3. If preaching presbyters only should here be meant, and under that phrase (_that rule well_) their whole office in general, and the right managing thereof, should be contained, whereas _laboring in the word and doctrine_ (as this exception implies) is but one part thereof, then hence it would inevitably follow, that a minister deserves more honor for the well administration of one part of his office only, than for the well managing of the whole, which is absurd! Here therefore the apostle doth not compare one primary part of the pastor's office, with the whole office and all the parts thereof; but one sort of presbyters with another, distinguishing the mere ruling presbyter from the ruling and preaching presbyter, as the acute and learned Whitaker hath well observed.

_Except_. 12. It is evident in the text itself, that all these elders here meant were worthy of double honor, whether they labored or governed; which by St. Paul's proofs, presently following, and by the consent of all old and new writers, is meant of their maintenance at the charges of the Church.[89] Now that lay-judges and censors of manners were in the apostle's time found at the expense of the Church, or by God's law ought to have their maintenance at the people's hands, till I see it justly proved, I cannot believe it: which yet must be proved before this construction can be admitted.[90]

_Ans_. 1. This word _honor_ signifies (after the custom of the Hebrews, Exod. xx. 12) all pious offices and relief. This phrase (_double honor_) interpreters expound either absolutely or comparatively. Absolutely thus: _double honor_, i.e. great honor, so some; maintenance in this life, happiness in the life to come, so others; honor of reverence to their persons, and of maintenance for their labors, so Chrysostom, of which saith Calvin, "That Chrysostom interprets double honor to be maintenance and reverence, I impugn not." Comparatively thus: _double honor_ here seems to relate to what was before spoken, ver. 3, "Honor widows that are widows indeed." Now here he intimates, that though widows are to be honored, yet these should be much more honored; they should have single, these double honor. In this last sense, which seems most genuine, it seems most likely that the apostle here intended principally, if not only, the honor of maintenance; partly because the honor appointed for widows, ver. 3, &c., was only maintenance; partly because the reason of this charge to honor, &c., refers only to maintenance, ver. 18. Thus far we grant, that the text speaks of maintenance. 2. It may be further yielded that all the presbyters here spoken of are to be counted worthy of double honor, of honorable, liberal maintenance; even they that rule well (if need require) are to be thus honored, but the principal care of maintenance ought to be of them that labor in the word and doctrine, because the apostle saith _especially they that labor, &c._: the like injunction, see Gal. vi. 6, "Let him that is catechized, communicate to him that catechizeth him in all good things;" and thus much this text plainly evidenceth. 3. What then can be inferred hereupon by the adversaries of ruling elders? "Therefore the ruling elders (in the reformed churches) that take no maintenance of the church, are not the elders that rule well here mentioned?" This follows not: the apostle Paul took no wages of the church of Corinth, 2 Cor. xi. 7-9, and xii. 12, 13, &c., was he therefore not an apostle to them, as to other churches of whom he took maintenance? Divers among us in these days labor in the word and doctrine, and are not sufficiently maintained by their churches, but forced to spend of their own estates to do others service; are they therefore no ministers? _Forgive them this wrong_. Most churches are not able (or at least not willing) to maintain their very preaching presbyters and their families comfortably and sufficiently, as the gospel requireth: if therefore in prudence, that the Church be not needlessly burdened, those ruling elders are chosen generally that need no maintenance, doth their not taking maintenance of the church make their office null and void? Or if the church do not give them maintenance (when they neither need it, nor desire it, nor is the church able to do it) is the church therefore defective in her duty, or an ill observer of the apostolical precepts? Sure maintenance is not essentially and inseparably necessary to the calling of either ruling or preaching elder. There may be cases when not only the preaching, but the ruling elders ought to be maintained, and there may be cases when not only the ruling but also the preaching presbyter (as it was with Paul) should not expect to be maintained by the church. 4. It is as observable that the apostle here saith, let them be counted worthy of double honor, though the reformed churches do not actually give double maintenance to elders that rule well, yet they count them worthy of double maintenance, though the elders do not take it, though the churches cannot give it.

Finally, unto these testimonies and arguments from Scripture, many testimonies of ancient and modern writers (of no small repute in the Church of God) may be usefully annexed, speaking for ruling elders in the Church of Christ from time to time: some speaking of such sort of elders, presbyters, or church-governors, as that ruling elders may very well be implied in their expressions; some plainly declaring that the Church of Christ _in fact_ had such officers for government thereof; and some testifying that of right such officers ought to be in the Church of Christ now under the New Testament for the well guiding thereof; by which it may notably appear, that in asserting the office of the ruling elder in the Church, we take not upon us to maintain any singular paradox of our own devising, or to hold forth some new light in this old opinionative age: and that the ruling elder is not a church officer first coined at Geneva, and a stranger to the Church of Christ for the first 1500 years, (as the adversaries of ruling elders scornfully pretend,) but hath been owned by the Church of Christ as well in former as in later times.[91]

_An Appendix touching the Divine Right of Deacons._

Though we cannot find in Scripture that the power of the keys is committed by Christ unto deacons, with the other church governors, but conceive that deacons, as other members of the church, are to be governed, and are not to govern; yet forasmuch as deacons are ordinary officers in the Church of God, of which she will have constant use in all ages, and which at first were divinely appointed, and after frequently mentioned in the New Testament; it will not be thought unfit, before we conclude this section, touching the divine right of Christ's church-officers, briefly to assert the divine right of deacons, as followeth.

Deacons in the church are an ordinance of Jesus Christ. For,