A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 1 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IIII. Containing my first Reason, why Lay-Elders are not proued, out of 1. Tm. 5.17.
Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 9. The Presbyters (saith Paul) that rule well, let them be accounted worthie of double honour, especially they, who labour in the VVord and doctrine. From whence they gather a distinction of Presbyters, or Elders; that some are Gouerning Elders onelyonly; others, also Ministers. Wherevnto I answere, that not any of the Fathers, nor any other before our age, did euer vnderstand this text of anie other, but of the Ministers of the word; they conceiuing of it, as if the Apostle had saide, Let those Ministers or Priests which rule well, &c.
THeir reason briefly standeth thus: The Apostle in this place, doth set downe 2. sorts of Elders, the one, onelyonly ruling; the other labouring also, in the word and doctrine.
Therefore besides the Ministers which laboured in the Word and Doctrine, there were other Presbyters or Elders, which were no Ministers.
This, as I sayd, is the principall reason that is alleadged for the Lay-Elders, wherewith the Disciplinarians doe wonderfully please themselues.
T. B. is so confident, that hee iudgeth them to be of no sound iudgement that will not acknowledge two sorts of elders to be contained in this place.D… grad. Minist. …. 13 Another T. B. that spied them vnderunder the wings of the 4. Beasts, Apoc: 4. saith plainely: they are blind, and of no vnderstanding, that cannot or will not see them in this place. T. C. setting some colour vponupon Act. 14.23. to make it shewe for Lay-Elders, at length he saith, Why should wee follow coniectures? when S. Paul, 1. Tim. 5.17. doth declare what these Elders are? The author of the counterpoison affirmeth, that the Apostle in expresse words, doth in this place set downe their two sorts of Elders. And this is vsuall with them all, to confirme their exposition of other places which are ambiguous, by this which they esteeme most cleare.
To their reason I answered, by denying their antecedent, and because I would not shake off the opponents with a bare deniall as enemies, but satisfie them as bretheren, I yeelded some reasons of my deniall, which I set downe in 2. degrees. For whereas they vrge the Lay-Elders, as necessarily collected out of this place;
First, I answere, there is no necessitie that the place should be vnderstood of any other but Ministers. And secondlie, that this place is so farre from concluding Lay-Elders, that it doth exclude them, or conclude against them.
The former againe, I maintaine by two reasons: The which I can well bee content that my aduersary shall reduce into Syllogismes, so hee would frame them, as beeing the reasons of a respondent, that is, such as bee propounded, to shew that there is no necessitie of their inference from this Text. For that as I saide, is a sufficient defence for the respondent.
The first reason is this; If none of the Fathers, nor any other before our age, did euer vnderstand this text of Lay-Elders, but all with one consent, conceiued of it, as spoken onelyonly of Ministers: Then is it not necessary, nor yet likely, that Lay-Elders are meant in this place.
For surely if there had beene anie such Elders in the Apostles times, the ancient Fathers, which were neere those times, had bene more likely to hauehave noted these two sortes of Elders, then those who came so manie hundred yeares after.
But none of the ancient Fathers, nor any other before our age, euer vnderstood this Text of Lay-Elders: but all with one consent, conceiued of it as spoken of Ministers.
Therefore it is not necessarie, nor yet likely, that Lay-Elders are here meant.
Of this Syllogisme he denyeth both the the parts.§ Sect. 2 Ad Pag. 1… His first reaso… of his denyal… of the consequence. And of his deniall▪ of the consequence in the proposition, hee giueth three reasons.
The first, because wee may not argue negatiuely, concerning the sense of the Scriptures, from the authoritie of the Fathers, &c.
Wherevnto I answere, that I argue as affirmatiuely from the consent of the Fathers, and of all before our age, who alwaies conceiued of these words, as if the Apostle had said, Let the Ministers or Priests which rule well, &c: as negatiuely: Neither doe I reason as he would make me to argue, that either because this place is not by the Fathers expounded, of Lay-Elders, therefore that exposition is necessarily to be reiected: or because it is alwaies by them interpreted, as speaking of Ministers onelyonly: Therefore this interpretation is necessarily to be receiued. But thus I reason, that this exposition is more likely, which hath the perpetuall and vniuersall consent of the Fathers, and of all writers before our age, then that which not onelyonly hath not their allowance, but is cleane contrarie to their interpretation.
Wherevnto I now adde that, which my aduersarie will neuer be able to answere.
That exposition of the word Presbyters. 1. Tim. 5.17. which is agreable to the perpetuall vse of the word in Scriptures, Councells, and Fathers, is to be admitted, and contrariwise, that exposition thereof, which cannot bee warranted by any one example or testimony, either of Scriptures, Councells, or Fathers, (it being a word in all of them of frequent vse) may not be admitted, and much lesse vrged, as the onelyonly true sense of that place.
But by the word Presbyteri to vnderstand the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments alone, is an exposition thereof, agreeable to the perpetuall vse of the word, in Scriptures, Councels, and Fathers; and not one testimony can be alleadged, where the word (signifying an Ecclesiasticall function) doth import any other but a Minister: and cōtrarywise, to vnderstand the word Presbyters in that place, as containing in the signification thereof Lay-Elders, is such an exposition of that word as cannot be warranted by any one example or testimony, either of Scriptures, Councels, or Fathers.
Therefore the former interpretation, expounding that word of Ministers alone, is to be receiued; and the other, including Lay-Elders, is not to be admitted, and much lesse is it to be vrged, as the onelyonly true sense of that place.
For my part, vntill my aduersarie shall bee able to disprooue this assumption by some one instance, which I am well assured hee shall neuer be able to doe: I will take it for graunted, and in my conscience am fully resolued, that the Apostles meaning in this place, is all one, as if he had said; Let the Ministers or Priests which rule well, &c: which argument, if no more could bee added, is sufficient to shew, that Lay-Elders cannot be prooued out of this Text.
§ Sect. 3. His 2. reason, because their exposition fauouring Lay-Elders, hath the cōsent of new writers.His second reason is this:
That interpretation which hath the consent of the new writers, though contrary to the exposition of the Fathers, is to be preferred before that which hath the consent of the Fathers.
The Interpretation of the word Presbyters, as implying Lay-Elders, hath the consent of new writers.
Therefore that is to bee preferred. The proposition is propounded. pag. 20. lin. 22. &c: the assumption is set downe, pag. 16. lin. 17. &c.
To the parts of which syllogisme before I answere, I must knowe of the disputer, whether he meane the consent of all the new writers, or not, for if the word all bee not added, the proposition is absolutely to be denied. For it is against sense, that the opinions of some new writers should be preferred, not onelyonly to other, and perhaps as many, and as learned new writers; but also to the generall and perpetuall consent of all writers before our time. If it be added, then is the assumption manifestly false. For that exposition hath not the consent of all, nor as I am perswaded, of the most protestant diuines. Notwithstanding, hee endeuoureth to prooue both.
That the proposition is true,His propositiō examined, and whether the authority of old writers, or new is to be preferred. hee appealeth to my conscience. Whence he shall receiue this resolution. Where the contrary expositions of the old and new writers concerne a point of doctrine, I would not encline to the authoritie of the new, vnlesse they hauehave better reason then the olde. For where the question is simplie of authoritie, which is the greater; I say with the Philosopher, that whereas witnesses be of two sorts foreign, some olde, some new:Rheti. l. 1. c. 15. foreign, the ancient are of greatest credit. If it concerne a matter of story or fact, as whether there were any Lay-Elders in the primitiue Church, or not; I would without comparison, giuegive credit to the ancient writers, who liued in, or neere those times, then to them who liued 13. or 14. hundred yeares after them.
Yea, but the points being in question in these dayes, and not in the Fathers, the newe writers hauehave beene the more occasioned to search into them.
Tell me then, why was not this point called into question in the Fathers times? Was it not because there was none to contradict their iudgement? And doth not this proue, that the Assertion, which in this cause is opposite to antiquitie, is to be condemned of noueltie?
Againe, you say the iudgement of the new writers is to be preferred, because they hauehave more searched into the matter, as being now in question.
Wherevnto I answere, that in this very respect, the authoritie of the ancient is to bee preferred, for the reason which the Philosopher giueth in the place before alleadged. foreign. The olde be of most credit, for they are vncorrupt, or vnpartiall. Whereas contrary wise, the new writers, which oppose themselues to vsus, who follow the auncient, are parties in the cause; and therefore to be preiudged as partiall.
And whereas he challengeth mee to shew if I can, what mou…th … to thinke that the spirit of God, who enlightned them, as touching the substance, in which they were so sound, did faile them in this particular: I aske him whether hee doth thinke they were free from all errour or mistaking in the expounding of Scriptures? and if hee thinketh that they did faile in any particular, I would desire him to shew what moueth him to thinke, that the spirit of God, who enlightned them as touching the substance, in which they were so sound, did faile them in that particular? This therfore was a meere colour: or if there were any weight in it, might not I more iustly make the like demaund of him concerning the Fathers; what reason he hath to think, that the auncient Fathers who had such profound knowledge in the greatest mysteries of diuinitie, whereby they confounded the most subtill heretikes, should be ignorant of those things which appertaine to the outward gouernement of the Church? or what reason he hath to imagine, that the writers of our age do know what was done or not done in the primitiue Church, better then the Fathers, that liued in those times?
§ Sect. …. His assumption answe…ed … the … of … writers.As touching his assumption: if hee speaketh of all the new writers, it is manifestly false, if not of all, it is to no purpose, neither doth it need to be proued, because it is not denied. Yea, but the naming of 25. writers, and boasting of more in a case not denied, though to the learned and iudicious it seeme a verie idle and vaine flourish, and in this writer, who is copious onelyonly in this kinde, a manifest signe of a desperate cause, which cannot be fortified by better proofes, which hee forbeareth to alledge vnderunder a poore pretence, that hee is the answerer, and yet spendeth aboue 20. whole pages in his booke, in proouing what wee denie not, that manie writers are partly of his minde. Notwithstanding, it is a matter of great content to the vnlearned Reader, to be ledde along, (for so hee speaketh more then once) by such a worthie leader, from one to another till he hath seene the whole Troupe, and hath heard the commendation of eueryevery one.
For that also is to be noted, how hee playeth the egregious Mountae …banke, in commending and setting forth his authorities in most glorious manner.
Luther that rose vp as a bright morning starre, euen another Elias of these times. Bullinger, that learned and faithfull Pastor of the Church of Zuricke: Peter Martyr, that burning and shining lampe of Oxeforde: Zanchius, a man admirable for iudgement and paines: the very Oedipus, (saith the abortiue booke) of the Schoole-mens riddles: Chemnitius, the worthy examiner of the Tridentine Councell, and ouerthrower of their heresies: Olde Father Nowell, in his booke published by authoritie, and commaunded to be taught: D. Whttaker, who like another Dauid, fought valiantly against the popish Goliah. D. Fulke, one of the wonders of our daies, &c. Iust commendations I confesse of worthy men, whose memories are blessed.
Notwithstanding when he hath all done, one good reason alledged, though it were by the meanest of his 25, had bene of more worth then the allegation of all their authorities, though they had bene as many more. But this was done as I said, to please the vnlearned: for otherwise where the new writers gainsay him and his fellowes, as they do in the points of their new-found parish discipline, they set not a button by them all.
But if bragging of all, or almost all the new writers, he name but 25,§ Sect. 5. Not all those whom he citeth, doe expound this tex… of Lay-Elders. and stoope very low for some of them, (especially if you consider that they are to be weighed with the auncient Fathers) and if of the 25. hee thought good to cite but 8: now if all these 8. be not cleare on his side, what shal we thinke of the rest? Surely Luther, though he tell him that hee rose vp as a bright morning starre, euen another Elias of these times, will not be gotten to speake a word for him.Aduers. falso nomi…. Episc. 331. For in the place by him cited, hee doth not so much as speake of this Text, and much lesse expound it: But hee speaketh onelyonly of the 19. verse, Receiue not an accusation against an Elder: where vnderstanding Elder, according to the vse of the word, in the first verse of that chapter, as a word of age, as well as of office, (as Chrysostome also doth, though he vnderstand, vers: 17: of Ministers onelyonly) he saith, that how soeuer the popish Bishops, against whome hee writeth, did expound this place of Priests, that is themselues, that they might be the more free from accusation or reproofe: yet the Apostle speaketh of Presbyteri, that is, Elder and graue men, (for such then, bare rule in the Church) meaning thereby most plainely auncient Ministers, as appeareth by the words following; which the refuter hath Sophistically and shamefully peruerted. For the Apostle doth not speake, De ijs Episcopis (saith Luther,) & Sacerdotibus, qui iam nostra aetate plerum que sunt aetate florenti & penè adolescentes, sed de senibus & grand… bus in Scriptura peritis loquitur; Of those Bishops and Priests, which now in our time are, for the most part of a flourishing age, and in a manner young youthes, and lusty gallants, (which hee meant in the words going a little before, when he calleth them Penelopes sponsos,) but hee speaketh of such as be aged, and ancient men, skilfull in the Scriptures.
Obserue now our Sophysters dealing.
First hee saith, Luther expoundeth this verse of Lay-Elders; when as Luther doth not so much as speake of this text: 2. that he should say, their Lay-elders ruled in the Church then, when hee plainely speaketh of ancient and aged Ministers. 3. that Luther denieth simplie, that Paul speaketh of BB. and Priests. For so hee citeth his words; Ne que enim loquitur de Episcopis & Sacerdotibus, whē he saith, that he speaketh not of such Bishops as were in his time, young & lusty men; but of such as were aged & skilfull in the scriptures.
Bullinger in neither place alledged, doth say, that there were elders in the chuch, which were not ministers, but rather the cōtrary. For on 1. Tim. 5.17. he vnderstādeth that text, as requiring the stipend of the ministery, & seemeth to confound the words Ministers and Presbyters in that sentence which the refuter citeth by halues. Cum emin varià sint in ecclesia munia non vnius quo que generis ministri aut Presbyteri sunt. For where Bullinger saith, Ministers or Presbyters be not all of one kind, by Presbyters, meaning no other but Ministers, he citeth him thus: the Elders are not of one kind, leauing out the word Ministers. And vponupon the words following in the nineteenth verse, he saith, as to a diligent & good Minister of Christ sustenāce is due, so also defence, the reason of which law is this, a Presbyter is the Minister of truth, and truth procureth hatred,Dec. 5. Serm. 3. &c. In his Decades he saith, the Elders in the Church of Christ, are either BB. or otherwise prudent and learned men added to the BB. who albeit they did not teach alwaies as did the BB. yet were they present with them that taught, &c. Where he doth not speake of lay and vnlearned Elders, but of wise and learned men of the Clergie.
The rest, in the places cited, doe acknowledge a second sort of Elders, besides those which chiefely laboured in the word and doctrine, but whe they were of the laitie or Clergie they doe not mention.
As for D. Fulk in his answere to the Rhemists on 1. Tim. 5.17. he giuing two interpretations of that place, preferreth that whereby the Apostles words are vnderstood of Ministers or Priests onelyonly, that as eueryevery one of them laboureth more in preaching and teaching, he is so much the more to be honoured.
But of his assumption this is more then enough, seeing this is not the question betweene vsus, whether any of the new writers doe stand for the new Elders, for that is confessed.
His third reason for the deniall of my proposition:§ Sect. 6. Ad pag. 21. His third reason: because my exposition is not made by any of the Fathers. that if that consequence is good, my interpretation of this place is naught, seeing it hath not so much as the naked shade of any father to couer it. Naked to couer! But what figge leaues can he find to couer this naked, and shamelesse vntruth? For whereas my exposition consisteth of two points, the first and principall that by Presbyters I vnderstand, Ministers, as if the Apostle had said let the Ministers that rule well &c:Primas. in 1. Tim. 5.17. … 1. Tim. …. foreign This is to rise well, to spare or forbare nothing for the care of the sheepe. § Sect. 7. the secōd that by the words foreign which commonly are translated gouerning well, I vnderstand the cōmendable performance of their duetie in generall, for the latter I alledged the authoritie of Ierome and of the Syricke Paraphrast, to whom others might be added; for the former, I hauehave the generall consent of all the Fathers and of all writers before our age, who hauehave expounded this place, and not one of them can be produced to the contrarie; and yet he is not ashamed to say, that my interpretation hath not the patronage of any one Father.
And thus much of the proposition: in confuting whereof, when he hath spent fiue whole pages with very ill successe as you see, he concludeth with as vaine and causelesse a bragge, as his successe was badde.
The assumption (that none of the Fathers nor any before our age did euer expound this text of any but Ministers) though he dares not plainely denie it; yet that it may appeare, how he setteth himselfe to wrangle with eueryevery thing, he seeketh all the corners of his wit to find some starting holes: out of which he may easily be driuen, if the Reader wil but remember these two things. First, that I speake of such as hauehave before our age, (meaning hoc seculum this cēturie or hūdred of yeares) expounded this place, either in their commentaries, or in their other writings, which be extant. For it were foolish presumption to rely vponupon their iudgements, who, either did not write of it, or whose writings are not extant, whereby their iudgement might be knowne. Secondly, that I am in this point the respondent, answering their allegation out of this place; and that the refuter is the opponent; who, if he will say any thing to the purpose, must proue by good instance the affirmatiue, that some one of the Fathers, or some other before our age hath expounded this place of Lay-Elders; and not absurdly vrge me, being the respondent, to proue the negatiue; which as it cannot be otherwise proued, but by alledging, that no instance can be giuen to the contrarie; so might it be easily disproued by any one instance, if any such could be giuen. If these two things be remembred, the bare recitall of his fiue exceptions wilbe a sufficient euidence of his folly.
First diuerse of the Fathers may so hauehave expounded it, though their writings be not come to our hands: there is one instance, therfore some hauehave so expounded it. 2. Some of them as Augustine, Ierom, Chrysostome, &c: hauehave so written, that th…y may well be so vnderstood, (which is vtterly false for they vnderstand by Presbyters, no other but Ministers) ergo, &c.
3. Others write so briefly, that they expound not the former wordes of this text, (because Presbyter to them was as plaine as Minister to vsus) ergo, &c.
4 The ancientest of them (as Ignatius, Polycarpus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, &c:) whose workes are now extant, though they left nothing written vponupon this place, yet (no doubt) they vnderstood it of Lay-Elders; for they alwaies in their writings (wherein Presbyter is oft mentioned) doe vnderstand thereby a Minister of the word, yea but they were most like to beare witnesse to this truth. No doubt for three of them, Ignatius, Polycarpus, & Cyprian, were Metropolitan Bishops; & by the other two, Tertullian and Origen, who were Presbyters you may easily conceiue, what manner of men the Presbyters (who were distinguished from Bishops) were.
Yea but in many mens iudgements (who would faine hauehave it so) they did giuegive witnesse to this truth, though they left nothing written vponupon this place.
But the fift passeth all, for therein hee giueth plaine instances I warrant you of some before our age, &c. For Luther, Bucer, Bullinger, and diuerse others in their time, vnderstood this place of Lay-Elders, therefore diuerse before our age. The antecedent he taketh for granted, as well as he might, because as we heard before how Luther who doth not speake of this text, by Presbyteri vnderstādeth verse. 19. ancient Ministers, and Bullinger expounds it not of Lay-Elders; so, what Bucer saith, we hauehave not yet heard. But the consequence he proueth by such an argument, as sheweth he was very neare driuen, because D. King in a Sermon preached in the yeare 1606. saith,In Cant. 8.1…. that the Geneua discipline had not at that time seene the age of a man, though you should reckon the age of a man not at an 100. but 70. yeares, and well might he say so. For in Geneua it was first conceiued in the yeare 1537.… when Caluin hauing with Farell & Viret, in the yeare before, attempted, as Beza saith; Ecclesiam compo…e… and had drawne the first draught of it, got the assent of the Senate and people of Geneua on the 20. of July, 1537. howbeit before the yeare,… 1541. it was not established, hauing in the meane time beene banished together with Caluin.
But why should time which is so precious be spent in cōfuting such seelly shifts, whereof euen the refuter himselfe is by this time (I hope) ashamed.