A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 1 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V. Containing my second reason, why Lay-Elders are not proued out of 1. Tim. 5.17.
The 2 reason that Lay-Elders …. Tim. 5.17.Serm. Sect. 4. pag: 9. Neither doth the Apostle indeed note two sorts of Elders, as they imagine, but two duties of the Ministers, &c: to pag. 11. med.
IN these words is set downe the second reason of my exception against their allegation of 1. Tim. 5.17. prouing that there is no necessitie this place should be vnderstood, as they imagine, of Lay-Elders. The reason standeth thus: If the words may very well be vnderstood of two duties of Ministers, the one generall, to be good presidents, the other special, to labour in the word & doctrine, in respect whereof the Apostle requireth double honour to be yeelded vntounto them, then is there no necessitie that this place should be vnderstood as they imagine of Lay-Elders:
But the Antecedent is true: Therefore the consequent.
I might hauehave reasoned thus. If diuerse and sundry expositions, all of them vnderstanding this place of Ministers alone, may be giuen, and each of them more probable or likely then that which is for the Lay-Elders; then is there no necessitie, nor yet likelihood, that the place is to be vnderstood of Lay-Elders:
But diuerse and sundry such expositions may be giuen, as after you shall heare.
Therefore there is no necessitie nor yet likelihood, that this text is to be vnderstood of Lay-Elders.
But I thought it sufficient to insist in this one exposition, which seemeth to me to hauehave beene the very meaning of the Apostle. For seeing the word foreign, or Presbyter, as it noteth an Ecclesiasticall person, doth alwaies in all other places, in the writings both of the Apostles & Fathers, signifie a Minister or Priest, and no one testimonie can be alledged to the contrarie: what sense is there, that it should otherwise be expounded here, vnlesse the other words of the sentence did inforce so much. But that they doe not, seeing they note onelyonly two duties of Ministers, for foreign, is the generall dutie of the Ministers, that is, to be good presidents; and to labour in the word and doctrine, is the speciall duetie, for which especially honour is due to them. I had once thought, that the especiall dueties of a Minister had here beene mentioned, the one respecting his behauiour onelyonly; the other, the ministerie of the word, vntounto which all the duties of a Minister may be referred. But I did consider, it would be obiected, that the meaning of the Apostle was not, that double honour should be giuen to Ministers, that onelyonly liued well, vnlesse they did also preach: for in another place where he would hauehave Ministers to be honored and loued foreign, more then aboundantly for their worke sake,1. Thess. … 12.13. he ioyneth these together, foreign, which labour among you, and which gouerne you in the Lord: and therefore I insisted in this exposition, against which, well may my aduersarie cauill after his fashion, but hee can take no iust exception; especially, if the emphasis or force of the word foreign, be not neglected.
As for his triuiall gibes,Ad pag. 22. which are frequent with him, of going lame vponupon both feete, of going vpright on one legge and halting of another, of halting on the former legge, and limping of the hinder legge: they are fitter for him to vse, then for me to answere. But though hee boasteth, that my Syllogismes hitherto hauehave beene lame on both feete; yet I trust the iudicious Reader will testifie with me, that he hath not beene able as yet, to disproue any one proposition, or assumption, which hitherto hath beene produced. And I am verily perswaded, for all his gibes, he will hauehave no better successe in those which remaine.
§ Sect. 2. His answere to the 2. reason, and first to the proposition.As touching the Syllogisme, which now he is about to oppugne, he seemeth to be glad of mine amendment, that whereas hitherto I hauehave gone lame on both feete, now I goe vpright on one legge, the consequence of the proposition being good. But yet he saith I am neuer the nearer, for on my assumption as it were on the other legge, I halt downe right still.
But shall the proposition escape so, thinke we? No, I warrant you: though hee can obiect nothing against the matter, yet he must needs cauill at the words, for he will play small game rather then s…t out: two faults hee findeth with the words, charging me that I speake vnfitly and vnkindly . vnfitly, when I say the Apostle doth here note two duties of Ministers, the one generall, the other speciall. What logicke or reason is there in this kind of speech, saith he. What opposition betwixt these two duties? so much is he set vponupon opposition and diuision, that hee thinkes there is no reason in that speech, where is no opposition.
And what is the logicke that this logicaster doth teach me? forsooth I should hauehave said, that the Apostle first speaketh of the Ministers dutie in generall, and afterwards in speciall. Thus, in disprouing the manner of my speech he doth vnwittingly approue it: such is his iudgement. For if the Apostle first speaketh of the dutie in generall, and afterwards in speciall; then doth hee speake of two duties, the one generall, the other speciall. For when you speake of a dutie in generall, doe you not meane a generall dutie? and when you mention a dutie in speciall, doe you not meane a speciall dutie? Yes, your selfe doe speake so pag. 25. where you say, the duties are in the former clause, generall; in the latter, speciall.
Neither doth that need to offend you, that I call them two, when you speake of them in the same place in the plurall number. For if the one be not the other, as you will grant, then there is no question, but they are two. But, if want of opposition was the fault of my speech, what opposition I beseech you is in yours? or what logicke was in this, to require opposition betwixt the whole and the part? or if you conceiued of Dutie as the Genus, and of this speech as a distribution thereof, what logicke was it, not to discerne an opposition in a distribution of duties into generall and speciall? for generall and speciall I hope be opposite.
All this notwithstanding, my logicke maister chideth me for want of logicke. If a man saith he should say, there are two duties of a Logician, the one generall, to reason well, the other speciall, to iudge well, would he not be thought to speake of logicke, without logicke? Yes verily, if in so speaking hee should intend a perfect distribution of logicall duties: Which, notwithstanding your cauills, might thus be performed.
The duties of a Logician are either generall, as that which is comprehended in the definition of Logicke, to reason well: or speciall, as those which be contained in the distribution of Logicke, to inuent well, and to iudge well.
But, if in imitation of the Apostles speech, you should say, Logicians that reason well, that is all good Logicians, are to be honoured, especially those which are iudicious, or which doe excell in iudgement, I might note out of this speech, not two sorts of Logicians, but two duties or faculties of all Logicians, in respect whereof they are to be honoured; the one generall, to reason well, the other speciall to iudge well, disposed not in a distribution, but in a comparatiue sentēce, which some Logicians call axioma relatae qnantitatis, wherin the duties of a Logician are thus compared; that whereas Logicians are to be honoured for the performance of their page missing take libertie, to disgrace, reuile, slaunder, and libell, against our betters, we may not be touched in the least degree▪ neither will wee sticke obliquè to reuile him,By appl… …o him. … …6.16. that shall but say, wee imagine that, wherein wee foulely, if not perniciously erre. For your misinterpreting of this one place, is the verie foundation of your Presbyterian discipline, and the vr…ging of that discipline, the very cause of that pernicious diuision which is amongst vsus. And thus much of the proposition.
The assumption was this;§ Sect. … but a … shift. that this place may very well (for so much is sufficient for mee, being the respondent, to say, but I doe also adde) and in mine opinion, is to bee vnderstood of two duties of Ministers: the one generall, the other speciall. In respect whereof, double …onour … due vntounto them; This difference onelyonly being put, that whereas double honour is due to all Ministers, for the performance of their dutie in generall: yet especially for their paines in the Ministery of the Word, they being chiefly to be counted worthy of double honour, who excell that way.
This assumption containing the exposition of this place, hee oppugneth with all his force, cauilling that it is but a bare shift, and such as will not serue my turne: and this hee vndertaketh to proue by three reasons, which will prooue nothing, but his owne want of iudgement.
For,Ad pag. 2. & …4. as touching the first: Is not this extreame want of iudgemēt, to alledge the manifold expositions of this place, as a matter of great disaduantage to vsus; when as indeed, it notably disaduantageth his cause? especially, to triumph and insult ouer vsus for this cause, Saying Loe here, how their tongues and pennes in the exposition of this place are diuided, as in the building of the Tower of Babell: and how they hauing no sure holde to trust vntounto, 2. King. 22.flie from one to another, as Zidkia…h went from chamber to chamber, to hide him.
Now whether this multitude of expositions bee an aduantage to his cause, or disaduantage, the Reader may hereby iudge.
For seeing the learned men of our side doe reason thus, as I noted before, (if diuerse and sundry expositions of … text … be giuen, not including your Lay-Elders, eueryevery one whereof is … probable th…n yo…rs: then is it not necessary, nor yet likely that your Lay-Elders be heere meant.) Who seeth not, but by how which the more expositions can bee giuen in this ki…e, by so much the lesse necessitie there is to admit your exposition of Lay-Elders.
But our men doe thus reason: D. Bilson, pag: 130. The fourth reason (saith hee) that holdeth mee from receiuing this construction (implying Lay-Elders) is, that I finde diuerse and sundry interpretations more agreeable to the Text, and more answerable to S. Paules meaning then this. His reason standeth thus. If diuerse and sundry interpretations are found more agreeable, &c. then that for Lay-Elders, then hauehave wee no reason to yeelde that Lay-Elders are meant in this place. But diuerse and sundry such interpretations may be giuen, which he proueth, by producing foure of them.
Likewise D. King, as your selfe doe cite him, arguing to the same purpose, saith, How many interpretations may bee brought to diuert and disappoint Lay-gouernours? and then alledgeth diuerse.
Of all which interpretations, (which by Presbyters vnderstand Ministers) it may truely be affirmed, that they are more agreeable to the meaning of the Apostle, then yours. Seeing they expound the word Presbyter according to the perpetuall vse of it, in the writings both of the Apostles and Fathers: wheras of your vse of the word, after all your paines and laying your heads, and helps together, you are not able to produce any one testimonie, no not one.
Wherefore, looke how manie such probable expositions may be giuen, vnderstanding this place of Ministers onelyonly, they are so manie proofes, that there is no necessitie of admitting your interpretation.
§ Sect. 4.But let vsus now examine your reasons, whereby you would prooue my exposition to be but a bare shift, and such as will not serue my turne.
His 1. Reason that my exposition is a bare shift.The first. If others opposing to Lay-Elders hauehave brought 8. or 9. expositions, which are but shifts to auoid them, all of them being diuerse among themselues, and from that which M. D. bringeth, then this 10. of his, is but a shift also: but the former is true, therefore the latter.
If the reader desire to hauehave examples of such lame legs, as the refuter talketh of, here hee may hauehave a couple. For as touching the proposition: seeing among different expositions, one onelyonly is the true and proper meaning of the place: may not this exception be taken against any exposition be it neuer so true, being but one amongst manie? For suppose the other 9. were but shifts, how will it follow, that therefore the tenth is so: Must all expositions bee false or vnfit, because the most are such?
If those 9. expositions be shifts as you say, and if yours be false as I hauehave proued, this is so farre from preiudging the truth of mine, which is the eleuenth, as that it is a strong presumption to confirme it.
For, seeing it is to be presumed, that some one true exposition of this Text is knowne; and seeing all other knowne expositions of this place, are either supposed by you, or proued by mee to be false: it remaineth therefore, that this eleuenth is true: The consequence therefore of the proposition is starke lame.
The assumption also is false. For those diuers expositions are not shifts, as this shifting Sophister cauilleth, but being all (I meane so many as by Presbyters vnderstand Ministers) more probable then that which stādeth for Lay-Elders: (for that doth not so much as touch the subiect wherof the Apostle speaketh) they are so many proofes to auoid the necessitie of their Lay-Elders, which by thē are as necessary, vrged and obtruded vpō vsus. And this was his first reason, which he brought, to make it appeare that my exposition is but a bare shift .
His second, brought to the same purpose, either proueth it thus,§ Sect. 5. His 2. Reason. or not at all. If M. D. vtterly reiect 8. of the aforesaid expositions, and resteth vponupon one of those 4. which D. Bilson propounded, then his exposition is a bare shift.
But M. D. reiecteth 8. of the former expositions, and resteth vponupon one of those 4 which D. B. propoundeth.
Therefore his exposition is a bare shift.
In the proposition, there is not so much as a shewe of a good consequence, vnlesse it be presupposed (which I hauehave disproued) that D. B. expositions are but bare shifts. His assumption, which in plaine termes he setteth downe, containeth two vntruthes.
For first, if you vnderstand my words, as they may be vnderstood of them that conceiue mee to be the answerer in this place, and as my selfe euen now propounded them, then doth it not follow that I vtterly reiect all other expositions: because, in adding this to the former, I seeme to preferre it before the rest.
Againe, that I rest in one of those 4. expositions, which he recited out of D. B. is not onelyonly false, but if you respect his intent, sclanderous also, as all other his references are, as to any that will compare them, may easily appeare: For not any of D. B. 4. expositions vnderstādeth the former branch as containing the generall dutie of a Minister. Howbeit some of the examples which hee produceth, together with his explication of some of them, doe well agree with my exposition, as you shall heare in my answere, to his third reason, which being his shoot-ancor, if it faile him, his Lay-Elders are like to suffer shipwracke. Heare his words.
§ Sect. 6. Ad Pag. 25. His third reason, cōtaining 3. Syllogisme…Thirdly, that it may appeare, that M. D. is besides the true meaning of the Apostle, in the sense hee resteth on, let vsus weigh the Apostles words well, and wee shall finde them clearely and euidently, to speake of persons, and at the most, but indirectly of duties. The Elders that rule well, especially they: can any man be so blind as not to see, that these Elders, and they must needes signifie persons, who must be counted worthie of double honour?
No, saith M.D. but this account riseth from the consideration of their duties. Euen so, we denie it not: but may it not be so▪ and yet 2. sorts of Elders heere noted? Yes verily. The elders that faithfully discharge their dutie in gouerning the Church, are worthie of double honour: especially those who labour in the Word and Doctrine. Is there any thing in this Scripture thus vnderstood, to shutte out 2. kindes of Elders? Are not the duties in the former clause generall, in the latter speciall? Yes saith he, but for all that, they bee indeed two duties of the Minister onelyonly.
Of which discourse, the best that I can make, is this: If the comparison betwixt the persons euidently noted in this Text, doth seeme to fauour the distinction of Elders, into 2. sorts, and the comparison betweene the duties indirectly noted, doth not hinder the said distinction, that, then is there nothing in this Text, to exclude two sorts of Elders.
But the antecedent is true in both the parts thereof:
Therefore the consequent.
The former part of the antecedent is proued thus:
The persons here mentioned are in the comparison noted to be of two sorts.
Elders are the persons here mentioned:
Therefore Elders are in this comparison, noted to bee of 2. sorts. The latter thus: The distinction of duties into generall and speciall: doth not exclude two sorts of Elders:
For the generall agreeth to both sorts.
The distinction of duties heere mentioned, is into generall and speciall:
Therefore the distinction heree mentiond, doth not exclude two sorts of Elders.
By the refuters maine conclusion, it is euident, that hee hath gotten the wrong end of the staffe. For whereas this place to Timothie, is the chiefe; and, as I iudge, the onelyonly place to speake of in the Scriptures, which all of them without exception obiect, and most confidently vrge, as necessarily including and concluding their Lay-Elders, in answering whereof, this part of my Sermon is spent: my aduersary by his Sophysticall shifts, in making mee the opponent, and himselfe the respondent, would make the Reader belieue, that he hath acquitted himselfe well, if this place bee not against Lay-Elders.
But the Reader must remember, that it lieth vponupon my aduersarie, and those of his side, out of this place, invincibly, and ineuitably to inforce Lay-Elders, or to confesse that they cannot be proued out of the Scriptures. Neither will it suffice him to say, they may be here meant, vnlesse he can necessarily proue and demonstrate, that they are, and must necessarily be meant in this place.
Otherwise I may graunt his maine conclusion, without anie preiudice to our cause: when the chiefe thing which he proueth is, that the principall, and almost onelyonly place obiected by themselues for Lay-Elders, doth not make against them. But if the onelyonly place, which can to any purpose bee alledged for them, doe exclude them, which in the last reason I doe endeuour to proue; being as yet not proceeded so farre, but onelyonly to maintaine that they be not heere included; then is the cause of the Lay-Elders most desperate. The which, that it may appeare, I will not refuse, seeing my aduersarie hath found this starting hole, to examine his proofes.
And first, I denie the connexion or consequence of his proposition.§ Sect. 7. Answere to his first syllogisme For though neither of the things by him named did exclude Lay-Elders; yet there are two words in the Text, which doe plainely shew they are not included. The one is, the word Presbyters, which alwayes signifieth the Ministers, and neuer signifieth the supposed Lay-Elders.
For if this Text include them, then are they included in this word Presbyteri, the Text speaking of none but such. But that word, being a word of order proper to Ministers or Priests, doth not include them, nor can any one example or testimonie produced to that purpose: Therefore Lay-Elders are not included in this Text.
To the 2.The other is double honour, or maintenance appointed to all the Presbyters, of whome Paul speaketh; from which Lay Elders are excluded, as I shall shew in my third reason.
As touching his second Syllogisme, I answere first to the proposition, that the persons here mentioned, are not noted to be of two sorts: but that the comparison is betweene two duties belonging to one sort or order of men; or if you will, betweene men of the same order, in respect of their duties; the words being as plaine in the lāguage of the Apostles, and of all the Fathers, both Greeke and Latine, as if it had bene said in our language, Let the Ministers or Priests, &c: And this I hold for a most certaine and vndeniable truth.
The comparison betweene the dueties, I explane thus, that as to Presbyters or Ministers double honour is due, for their dutie in generall: So especially, for that which is the principall: the comaprison being betweene the generall or whole duety, & a particular, or part of the duty, which is preferred, as being the principall. The comparison betweene the persons, in regard of those duties, and depending vponupon the former standeth thus: that as all they that performe the generall are to be honoured, so especially they, who in speciall sort performe the principall.
Thus much then the words import, that as all Presbyters who demeane themselues well in their places, are to bee accounted worthy of double honour: so especially those that labour painefully in the Word and Doctrine.
Let vsus consider the like examples. All Counsellours that demeane themselues well in their functiōs are highly to be honored, especially, those that are good Patriotes, or Comon-wealthsmen. From whence it were absurde to inferre, that there is a sort of good counsellours that bee not good Patriotes. But in this speech I note, in respect of the duties of counsellours, that this is the principall; and in respect of the persons, that they are chiefly to be honored, who are in speciall manner such. Likewise (to vse the refuters owne example) All Logicians that reason well, that is, all good Logicians are to bee honoured, or well esteemed of: especially, those that are iudicious, or that hauehave a speciall facultie of iudging well.
It may not hence be gathered, that there are any good Logicians, that are not iudicious, or that cannot iudge well. But I note, that as among the faculties of a Logician, good iudgement is the principall; so they which be iudicious, are most to be esteemed.
So, all good Seruants are worthie to bee rewarded, especially, those that are faithfull, &c: In like manner, when the Apostle saith, All Presbyters or Ministers, that demeane themselues well: (that is, all good Ministers) are to be accounted worthie double honour: especiallie those which labour in the Word and Doctrine: Wee may not collect from hence, that there is a sort of Presbyters worthie of double honour, which doe not labour in the word. But the meaning of the comparison is, that as among the duties of Presbyters, or Ministers, Preaching is the principall: so they chiefly are to bee accounted worthie of double honour, who labour; or if you will, who in speciall manner doe labour therein. And this speciall manner is noted in the word foreign: For foreign, is to labour painefully, and vntounto wearinesse. Which paines is to be esteemed, as well by diligence, in the studie of the Word: 1. Tim. 4.3. Attend to reading and doctrine.as either by the frequent, or laborious deliuery of the Doctrine. The comparison therefore is so farre from being made of all Elders, as they imagine; that it is not of all Ministers, but onelyonly of those which be good. And the greatest distinction of persons, that can hence bee gathered is this, that among good Ministers, there are some, who are more especially to be counted worthy of double honour for their paines in Preaching.
Pag. 7. & 8.Now because the refuter referreth you to D. Bilsons preface, and I promised euen now to acquaint you with some of his examples and explication thereof; you shall well perceiue, that my exposition, though it be none of the foure which he propoundeth, is not vnlike to hauehave the approbation of that most learned, reuerend man. Doth not foreign, (saith hee) that is chiefly (the note of comparison) distinguish as well things as persons, and not so well diuerse respects, as diuerse subiects… for example, if we should say, Magistrates that gouerne well are worthie of double honour, specially they that heare the complaints of the poore: Were hee not very fansifull that would hence conclude, there are therefore two sorts of Magistrates, one that gouerne well, another that heareth the complaints of the poore. Nothing is more common, then by this kind of speech to note as well two diuerse qualities in one man, as two sundry sorts of men; yea thereby to preferre a part before the generall comprising that part. As teachers are to be liked for their learning, specially for their knowledge in the scriptures: Good men are to be loued for their vertues, especially if they be liberall.
To the assumption affirming that Elders are the persons here mentioned, I answere, that no Elders are here mentioned but Ministers, and that Presbyteri in this place are vnfitly translated Elders: for though that be the english of it, as it is a word of age, yet it is not the english of it (according to the vse of our language) as it is a word of order, noting (as it doth in this place) an Ecclesiasticall function, but Ministers or Priests, whō we do not vse in our common speech to call Elders. But hereof I hauehave alreadie spoken.
There remaineth his third Syllogisme,§ Sect. 8. His 3. Syllogisme answered. concluding as before, that their two sorts of Elders are not excluded in the distinction of the duties into generall and speciall, because the generall dutie which is to gouerne well, agreeth to the Lay-Elders as wel as to Ministers. To omit that which hath beene said of his conclusion, not concluding as he ought Lay-Elders, if he will vrge them, out of this place, but prouing onelyonly that they are not excluded, which is but a poore proofe, prouing nothing so well as that the cause of the Lay-Elders is come to a low ebbe. And yet for this, all his proofe is, that the generall dutie agreeth to them: which indeed is false, for the generall dutie meant by foreign besides godly life and such attendance of the flocke as might be common to lay Presbyters, implyeth the fulfilling of their ministerie, their going before the flocke in the duties of Gods seruice: their feeding of them with the word and Sacraments. Neither can hee be said foreign, according to the Apostles meaning in this place; that doth not (which a Lay-Elder may not doe) attend and superintend his flocke in these respects. This prosillogisme of his proposition, which is his onelyonly proofe, hee seeth and acknowledgeth to be before denied by me, holding that as well the generall as speciall dutie (as they are here meant) be peculiar to Ministers, and therefore not agreeing to their Elders, making me thus to say, yes saith hee but for all that, they be indeed two duties of the Ministers onelyonly. His proofe therefore was nothing else but a meere begging of the question. And when he should hauehave proued that in the former part of the sentence (Let the Elders that gouerne well) the Lay-Elders are comprised, or else hauehave ceassed to vrge them: faire and mannerly he slippeth his necke out of the collar, putting me to disproue it, and telling me, that otherwise I should offend (wherein as respondents doe not vse to offend, so himselfe being indeed the opponent, in this place is extremely faultie that is to say) in begging the question.
§ Sect. 9. The reasons … exposition examined.Hauing therefore struggled to no purpose with my exposition of this text, in the next place he setteth himselfe, hauing no reasons to proue his owne interpretation, to striue (though with the like successe) against those reasons wherewith my exposition is fortified. Now in my exposition two things are specially to be noted, as I hauehave said; first, that by Presbyters I vnderstand Ministers onelyonly. The second, that by the words which are translated gouerning or ruling well. I vnderstand the whole dutie of the ministerie in generall; and not onelyonly gouerning in that sence, as it may be common to the supposed Lay-Elder. The first is the principall, and alreadie proued; though the refuter had rather seeme not to hauehave seene the reasons, which he did not see how to answere, then goe about either to confute them, or to bring any testimonie where Presbyter doth signifie a Lay-Elder. But as he would not see the former reasons, so either he doth not, or will not see the force of the latter.The first reason. For wheras I proue that foreign ▪ doth signifie the generall performance of the whole dutie of the Ministers, being as much in effect as if the Apostle had said thus: Those Ministers which fulfill their office as Ierome and Prim…sius expound those words, that goe out and in before their people as becommeth them, according to the phrase of the scriptures th…e that demeane themselues well (as the Syriach ▪ paraphrast doth interpret the words) as well in respect of their priuate conuersation, as of their publike administration; whereas I say, I proue all this to disproue their inferrence for Lay-Elders out of this place:A… pag. 26. he, as though he saw no force of argument in all this, feareth not to confesse all: and yet will needs maintaine that inference, because forsooth al this may be verified of Lay-Elders, &c.
But say I, when you vrge your Elders as from this place, your inference is not, that what is said of Presbyters gouerning well, may be vnderstood of Lay-Elders, but must be vnderstood of them, or else you speake to no purpose. Now, although there be some shew of an inference, if by gouerning well were meant onelyonly so much as might be common to Lay-Elders; yet if you vnderstand these words in the generall sense, you shall see not so much as a shew of a good consequence, nor any reason to moue a man to make such an inference: which I did verily thinke, that all men of vnderstanding would readily hauehave conceiued: and yet my lot is, to light vponupon such an aduersary, as either doth not, or will not see it, vnles it be beaten into him. Goe too then: Is not this your inference from this text, that because the Apostle requireth double honour to be giuen to such Elders as gouerne well, though especially to those which labour in the word, that therfore besides those which labour in the word, there are certaine onelyonly-gouerning Elders? Vnderstand therefore those former words in the general sense which I giuegive, and your inference will be both senelesse and false. Senelesse thus: the Presbyters that fulfill their office, or that demeane themselues well in their place, are worthy of double honour, especially those, that labour in the word; therefore besides those which labour in the word, there are certain onelyonly gouerning Elders: for of this inference there is no sence, vnlesse it be supposed, that none can fulfill their office or demeane themselues well, but your Lay-Elders. If therefore you will ground them vponupon this place according to the generall sence which you seeme to allow, call them no more the onelyonly-gouerning Elders, but the onelyonly good, or well demeaned Presbyters. False, because the words being generally vnderstood of the whole dutie of the ministerie can be vnderstood of none but Ministers; the generall, which includeth the speciall, being peculiar to the Minister as well as the speciall. Thus therefore I reason:
Those words which import the performance of the whole dutie of the ministerie, cannot be vnderstood of Lay-Elders but of Ministers onelyonly:
The words foreign, 1. Tim. 5.17. translated which gouerne well, import the performance of the whole dutie of the ministerie in generall:
Therefore the words foreign, 1. Tim. 5.17. translate… which gouerne well, cannot be vnderstood of Lay-Elders but of Ministers onelyonly.
The proposition you cannot be so absurd as to denie, vnlesse you will attribute the performance of the whole office of the ministerie in generall to your onelyonly-gouerning-Elders. The assumption you freely confesse, and all the proofs … and yet with great …oath of idle and addle words, you … maintaine the contradictorie to the conclusion, … nor …e…ng any force at all in my proofe, which yo… valiantly ouerthrow by denying the conclusion. So that I must conclude▪ that you extremely want,… either a sound iudgement, or a good conscience.
Besides the former proofe, I produce for the confirmation of my exposition, the speech of the same Apostle, to the same Presbyters of Ephesus, Act. 20.28. to paralel this. And whereas of my exposition there are two parts, the one concerning the subiect or parties here mentioned, whom I expound to be ministers onelyonly, the other concerning their duties, in regard whereof double honour is due to them, the one generall, the other speciall: in both respects, the one text doth answere the other, as face answereth to face in the water. For first that Presbyters here are Ministers onelyonly, I proue thus:
The Presbyters to whom Paul speaketh Act. 20. were Ministers onelyonly:
The Presbyters of whom he speaketh 1. Tim. 5.17. were the same to whom he spake, Act. 20.
Therefore the Presbyters of whom he speaketh, 1. Tim. 5.17. were Ministers onelyonly.
Secondly that the duties both generall and speciall are peculiar to Ministers, I proue by this argument:
The duties which Paul requireth, Act. 20.28. are duties required peculiarly of Ministers.
The duties for which double honour is due, 1. Tim. 5.17. both generall and speciall are the same with those which Paul requireth, Act. 20.28. therefore the duties for which double honour is due, 1. Tim. 5 17. are duties peculiarly required of Ministers.
This latter Syllogisme my expert aduersarie obserued not: the former he flingeth after his manner into a connexiue Syllogisme. For though his forge doe scarcely afford any other, yet hee hath gotten a pretie smacke of Syllogizing that way, were it not that his Syllogismes for the most part, are too long by the halfe. But here he surpasseth himselfe, for hee hath cast my whole Syllogisme into his connexiue proposition, and in his minor repeateth at large both the proposition and assumption.
But let vsus see what he saith to these Syllogismes. In the first he onelyonly denieth my proposition, viz. that the Presbyters, Act. 20. were none but Ministers: which I must confesse in that breuitie I tooke for granted, because I thought it needed not to be proued. For seeing that verse is not onelyonly generally vnderstood, (euen of them which stand for Lay Elders, writing not foreign,Caluin, in Act. &c. D. Whi…ak de pon…. Rom. pag. 1 but commenting vponupon, or otherwise expounding that place) of Ministers, but also is alledged both by protestants and papists to iustifie the calling of BB. I did presume, that it was to be vnderstood of such onelyonly as are Ministers at the least. But that which before was for breuitie omitted, shall now be supplyed. First therfore I argue thus: All those that are called BB. in the acts and writings of the Apostles are Ministers of the word.
All the Presbyters to whom Paul speaketh, Act. 20.28. are called BB.
Therefore all the Presbyters to whom Paul spake, Act. 20.28. were Ministers of the word.
Or thus: Lay-Elders are no where called BB.
All the Presbyters, Act. 20.28. are called Bishops:
Therefore none of those Presbyters were Lay-Elders.
Shall I need to proue any of the premisses. Are our Presbyterians of late growne so absurd as to denie them? What? are not all BB. Ministers, and are your Lay-Elders growne of late to be Bishops? did not our refuter pag … affirme that these Presbyters, Act. 20. are Angels and Bishops, and that Angels are pastors? and are Lay-Elders, Angels and pastors too? …ie for shame! and yet so absurd is our refuter, as to say that some of these Elders whom Paul calleth Bishops, were not Ministers, but their lay or onelyonly-gouerning Elders.
§ Sect. 11.But if either reason or authoritie will preuaile with him, he may easily be confuted: my reason I frame thus: All Episcopi or Bishops, must by the Apostles rule (which is generall) be foreign able to teach, 1. Tim. 3.2. that is as he expoundeth himselfe, Tit. 1.9. holding fast the faithful word, according to doctrine that they may be able to exhort with holesome doctrine, and conuince the gain-sayers.
But not Lay-Elders, nor any but Ministers, doe need by the Apostles rule to be foreign, able to preach in that sense that he expoundeth it, Tit. 1.9. For on those words Caluin obserueth, that it is required in thē, that they should be learned, and indued with sound knowledge, and that their doctrine should tend to edification, &c.
Therefore not Lay-Elders, nor any but Ministers, are Bishops. As for authoritie; let him shew me any testimonie of scripture, or of any sound writer, old or new, that is not a partie, vsing the word Bishop for Lay-Elder, or any one that is not a Minister,Inst. li 4. c. 3. § 8. and I will yeeld to him the bucklers. Caluin, though a partie, plainly saith, that the scripture vseth promiscuously these words, Bishops, Presbyters, Pastors & Ministers; to signifie those who doe exercise the ministerie of the word. And hauing intreated of them, in conclusion he saith, that as yet he had not spoken of any other functions but such as consist in the ministerie of the word. And in another place, although he coll…teth out of 1. Tim. 5.17. two sorts of Presbyters,Caluin. in Tit. 1.5. yet he saith, that the Presbyters mentioned, Tit. 1.5. are by the context manifested to be no other, but Doctors or Teachers, because Paul presently after calleth them Bishops.
Pag. 101.The author of the booke de Ecclesiastica disciplina, and of the defence thereof, ingenuously confesseth, that onelyonly pastors and teachers are Bishops, and that ruling Elders are not comprehended vnderunder the name Bishop, and so farre is he from comprehending them vnderunder the title of Bishop, that although he were resolued to find a roome for them, 1. Tim. 3. yet he durst not comprise them vnderunder the title and description of a Bishop (though the Bishop be all one with Presbyter, Tit. 1.5.7.) but shrowdeth them vnderunder the title and description of Deacons, as hereafter we shall shew. Againe, all pastors of Christs flocke are Ministers onelyonly: All the Presbyters of Ephesus, were pastors of Christs flocke: therefore they were Ministers onelyonly. Or thus: Lay-Elders are not Pastors of Christs flocke (of other flocks perhaps they may.)
All the Presbyters of Ephesus were Pastors of Christs flocke:
Therefore they were not Lay-Elders.
That they were pastors I proue thus: Bishops set ouer the flocke of Christ by the holy Ghost to feed the Church of God, are pastors:
The Presbyters of Ephesus were such, Act. 20.28.
Therefore they were pastors.In Act. 2 And that Caluin confesseth more then once. And our refuter also in the place before alledged; from whose confession I argue thus:
The Angels were pastors saith our refuter, The Presbyters of Ephesus were Angels, therefore the Presbyters of Ephesus were pastors.
But why should so plaine a thing seeme to be made doubtfull with longer proofe? for if such Presbyters as were also Bishops and pastors, were any but Ministers: then Presbyters, Bishops and pastors were Lay-Elders also; and Lay-Elders were all in all.
And whereas he obiecteth, that Lay-Elders may be comprehended vnderunder the name Presbyter and Episcopus, because D. B. saith, that these words foreign Bishop, Presbyter, Deacō or Minister, are oft so largely taken, as that they comprise all Ecclesiasticall functions: I answere in a word, by Ecclesiasticall functions, he meaneth onelyonly the functions of the Ministerie, including neither your Lay-Elders, nor your Lay-Deacons, no more then our Churchwardens and Collectors for the poore.
As touching the latter Syllogisme which the refuter saw not:§ Sect. 12. The proofe of the proposition dependeth vponupon the former Syllogisme. For if the Presbyters to whom Paul spake, were Ministers onelyonly as hath beene proued, then the duties which hee requireth of them onelyonly in that place; he requireth peculiarly of Ministers. The assumption affirming that the duties both generall and speciall, 1. Tim. 5.17. are the same with those, Act. 20.28. I explaine in the Sermon, shewing that foreign, which are the words translated to gouerne well, and containe the generall dutie, is the same with attending to themselues and their flocke,Pag. 14.15. which I did more fully deliuer in the Sermon of the dignitie and dutie of the Ministerie (which the refuter himselfe doth seeme to approue) shewing that foreign is carefully to attend to themselues & their flocke. To themselues, that they may be precedents, and as the holy Ghost speaketh, foreign patternes and samplers of a godly life. For this in the Apostles phrase is foreign to be presidents of good workes.Tit. 3.8.14. To the flocke also they must attend. First, by ouerseeing and watching ouer them. Secondly, by feeding them in the ministerie of the word & sacramēts; Thirdly, by praying for them both publikely & priuately. The speciall dutie which is to labour in the word and doctrine, is the same with feeding the flocke of Christ, which is also noted as the speciall dutie, Act. 20.28.
The refuter though he saw not the reason, yet he would be sure to contradict my assertion, and therefore stumbling vponupon the proposition,Ad pag. 28. he saith, that neither of the duties mentioned in the Acts are restrained to Ministers onelyonly. For to attend to the flocke is all one saith he with foreign which is more generall, and the speciall dutie of feeding which he confineth to the word and doctrine, is often vsed for gouerning also, as Mat. 2.6. Apoc. 2.27. & 7.17. & 12.5. & 19. 15. Grec. schol. in Act. 14.23.
The truth of my proposition, as I said, dependeth on the former Syllogisme, as vponupon a sure hold, and the dutie signified, 1. Tim. 5. by ruling well: and Act. 20. by attending to themselues and their flocke, being applied (as in both places it is) to Ministers, and importing, as he hath confessed, the whole dutie of the ministerie in generall, must be confessed to bee restrained to Ministers. As for the word foreign which in this pla… is truely translated to feed, besides the proper sense wherin somtimes it is vsed, as Luk. 17.7.1. Cor. 9.7. Iud. 12: it hath indeed 2. metaphoricall significations in the Scriptures: translated from shepheards, to ciuill or spirituall pastors; the one, as it is applied to Princes, & ciuill Pastors, and so it signifieth chiefly to rule;Iohn, 21.1.▪ Act. 20.28 1. Pet. 5.… ▪ the other, as it is attributed to Spirituall Pastors, and so it signifieth chiefly to feed with spirituall food. For our Sauiour cōmanding Peter, if he loued him to feed his sheepe: (which text the Papists, vnderstanding the word foreign,Iohn. 21.1… 16.17. as the refuter doth, of ruling abuse to proue the Popes supremacie) expoundeth foreign, by the word foreign, which signifieth not to rule, but to feed.To feede … flocke, saith Raynolds, to perform… the dutie of Pastor vntounto Conf. with … 461. It is true, that authority of guiding and gouerning his flocke is implyed also in the signification of the worde, but it is a pastorall authoritie, giuen to none but pastors, and to them, vntounto this end, that they may feed the flocke. Which ende is noted by Paul. Act. 20.28. to feede the flocke: as also, by our Sauiour himselfe, Luke 12:42: where the Lords seruant is said to be set ouer his houshold, to this end, to giuegive them their foode in due season. Cal. in 1. Pe… 5.2For therefore are they called pastors, that is, such as doe feede.
Caluin speaking of this word, in 1. Pet. 5.2. saith, the name of Presbyter, containeth in it the dutie of feeding: And the definition of the word is to be knowne. Because the flocke of Christ, Pasci non potest nisi pura doctrina quae sola spirituale est pabulum, cannot bee fedde but with pure Doctrine, which is the onelyonly spirituall foode. Hence it is, that Pastors & Doctors, (which some would distinguish) are in the scriptures confounded. As Eph: 4.11. For whereas the Apostle when he would note diuerse functions, vseth notes of distinction, saying: Christ gaue some to be Apostles, some to be Euangelists, &c when he cōmeth to Pastors and Doctors, he vseth a note of copulation. For he doth not say, some Pastors, & some Doctors; but some pastors and Doctors, vsing the latter word, as the explication of the former,Epist. 59. ad Paulinum. and nothing that by Pastors, hee meaneth such as be teachers. VponUpon which words Augustine saith thus: Pastors and Doctors, whome you would hauehave mee to distinguish, I thinke are one, and the same. For Paul doth not say, some pastors, some Doctors; but to pastors ioyneth doctors, that pastors might vnderstand it belongeth to their office to teach: of the same iudgmēt is Sedulius & Muscul: & some others
In the places, which the refuter quoteth, the word foreign, is not applied at all to Ecclesiasticall persons: but either to Christ; and to him, either as our King, & then it signifieth to rule (as Mat. 2.6. cited out of Mi. 5.1. & Apoc. 12 5. as it is vsually paralleld with Psal. 2.9. Apoc. 19.15. compared with v. 16.) or as our pastor & doctor, and thē it signifieth to feed, and so ought to be translated, as Apoc: 7.17. (where, to our hunger & thirst, v. 16. his feeding & leading vsus to the waters of life is opposed:) or else it is applied to all the faithfull, who in Christ are made Kings, as Apo. 2.27.Apoca. 1.6. In Act. 14.23. The Greeke scholiast, in the place quoted, hath no such thing: But is alledged by T. C. to another purpose, for the proofe of Lay-Elders (as we shal heare) which perhaps was the cause of this allegatiō, But on the place in hand,In Act. 20.28. vponupon those wordes, Attend to your selues, and the flocke: he saith that Paul foreign, enioyneth the teachers two things to be done: and noteth also, whom Luke called ver. 17. Presbyters, to bee called in this verse Bishops: either saith hee, because presbyters or ministers also, must superintend the flocke: foreign, or else hee calleth Bishops here, such as indeed be Bishops: & in like manner, on 1. Pet. 5.1.2 with some parallel with Act, 20.28. Hee noteth that foreign, fellow-Elder: in that place, if it bee not vsed as a word of age, doth import foreign, the honour of a Bishop, as if he had called himselfe their fellow Bishop. For in the booke of the Acts also, Bishops are called Presbyters. and by foreign, hee vnderstandeth the Clergie. foreign saith hee, foreign. Hee calleth Clerū, (which is translated inheritance) the sacred companie. Euen as we now also do call it, that is to say the Clergie. Which exposition if we follow, then those presbyters to whō Peter writeth, prescribing vntounto them how they should foreign, That is (saith Caluin,) Episcopatu fungi, exercise the office of a Bishop, and noting their authority ouer the Clergie, were such as we call bishops: But of that, by the way.
Now if the presbyters, Act: 20. were ministers and teachers as I hauehave proued, and as all writers, almost, euen those that are parties in the cause do teach: then by foreign, we are to vnderstand the dutie of feeding,Cons. w… Ha…. p… which belongeth to pastors and teachers, and wil neuer be proued to belong to Lay-Elders.
The refuter hauing with such successe as you see, endeuored to maintaine,§ Sec… that the presbyters, Act. 20. were as wel Lay-Elders as ministers, and that the duties both generall, of attending to themselues, & the whole flocke, and also special of feeding the Church, were required, as common to Ministers with Lay-elders (which assertions I hauehave confuted, with euidence of truth) in this exposition, or opposition rather, he doth so please himselfe, as that hee doubteth not to retort my Syllogisme vponupon me after this manner,
If the presbyters spoken of Acts 20, 28, be not onelyonly ministers, but gouerning Elders also, and the same with those. 1. Tim, 5.17. then the presbyters spoken of 1. Tim. 5.17. are not onelyonly Ministers, but gouerning Elders also:
But the presbyters spoken of Acts 20, 28, are not onelyonly ministers, but gouerning elders also, & the same with those 1. Tim 5, 17
Therefore, the presbyters spoken of 1. Tim. 5.17. are not onelyonly Ministers, but gouerning Elders also.
Heere this great Logick-maister, that taketh vponupon him to teach, and to comptroll mee in matters of Logicke, bewrayeth himselfe to bee a Logicaster, or smatterer in Logicke: For an entire and a better Syllogisme, concluding the same question as I noted before in his Analyzing of mine, is here tumbled into the proposition; & the proposition and assumption therof, not only idlely, but with disaduantage to himself, if he had meant to hauehave proued it, repeated. But because he hath bene at some paines with me this way to shew his own ignorāce, I will teach him to make his sillogis: thus:
The Presbyters to whom Paul did speake, Acts 20.28. were not ministers onelyonly, but Lay or gouerning Elders also:
The Presbyters of whom hee speaketh, I. Tim. 5.17. were the Presbyters to whom he spake, Acts. 20▪28.
Therefore the presbyters of whome hee speaketh, Tim. 5.17. were not onelyonly ministers, but Lay, or onelyonly gouerning Elders also.
This propositiō which is but part of his own assumption, whē he shalbe able to make good by any sound proofe, I will subscribe to his Lay-Elders. For whereas hee for want of better proofe saith, that hee hath already iustified it by the ouerthrow of mine, it is a most vaine bragge, as I hope it doth sufficiently appeare to the reader. For what one reason, or shew of reason hath hee brought, or can bring, to proue that the Presbyters mentioned, Acts. 20. were Lay, or onelyonly gouerning Elders?