Discourses on Divers Texts of Scripture, Discourses 1 · Sermon 19
1 TIM. 5. 17.1 Tim. 5. 17.
Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour: especially they that labour in the Word and Doctrine.
THere are two things in these words to be explicated; First, what is meant here by Elders: Secondly, what is this double-honour due unto them. For the first, there is no question but the Priests or Ministers of the Gospel of Christ were contained under this name: for so the New Testament useth the word foreign, or Presbyter, for the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments in the Gospel; whence commeth the Saxon word Priester, and our now English word Priest. And the Ancient Fathers thought these onelyonly to be here meant, and never dreamed of any other. But in our time those who obtrude a new Discipline and Government upon the Church, altogether unknown and unheard of in the ancient, will needs have two sorts of Elders or Presbyters here understood: one of such as preach the Word and Doctrine, whom they call Pastours; another of Lay-men, who were neither Priests nor Deacons, but ned as assistants to them in the exercise of Ecclesiasticall Discipline in admonitions and censures of manners, and in a word, in the execution of the whole power of the Keys.
These our Church-men call Lay-Elders, and the Authors of this new device, Presbyterians; these Presbyters or Elders they will have meant in the first words, foreign, Elders that rule, or govern well, whom therefore they call Ruling-Elders; the other whom they call Pastours, to be described in the latter words; they who labour in the Word and Doctrine, whom therefore they distinguish by the name of Teaching-Elders.
This is their exposition, and this exposition the ground and foundation of their new Discipline; but none of the Fathers, which have commented upon this Place, neither Chrysostome, Hierome, Ambrose, Theodoret, Primasius, Oecumenius, or Theophylact, (as they had no such, so) ever thought of any such Lay-Elders to be here meant; but Priests only, which administred the Word and Sacraments.
But how (will you say then) is this Place to be understood, which may seem, as they alledge, to intimate two sorts of Elders, some that ruled only, others that laboured also in the Word and Doctrine? The Divines of our Church, who had cause, when time was, to be better versed in this question, then any others, have given divers expositions of these words; none of which give place to any such new-found. Elders, as the Fautors of the Presbyterian Discipline, upon the sole Authority of this one place, have set up in divers forain Churches, and would have brought into ours. I will relate four of the chief of these expositions, to which the rest are reducible.
The first is grounded upon the use of the participle in the Greek tongue, which is often wont to note the reason or condition of a thing, and accordingly to be resolved by a causall, or conditionall conjunction. According whereunto this Text, foreign, duplici honore digni habeantur, (or dignentur) foreign, is to be resolved thus; Elders or Presbyters that rule or govern the Flock well, let them be accounted worthy of double honour, and that chiefly in respect, and because of their labour in the Word and Doctrine. And so this manner of speech will imply two duties, but not two sorts or orders of Elders, and that though this double honour be due unto them for both, yet chiefly and more principally for the second, their labour in the Word and Doctrine: and this way goes S. Chrysostome and other Greek Writers.
A second exposition is taken from the force and signification of the word foreign, which signifies not simply foreign, to labour, but to labour with much travell and toyl; for foreign is derived from foreign, vexor, laboribus & molestiis premor, and so properly signifies molestiam, or fatigationem ex labore. Thus the meaning will be; let Elders that do bene praesidere, i. govern and instruct their Flock well, be counted worthy of double honour; especially such of them as take more then ordinary pains in the Word and Doctrine: Or thus; let the Elders that discharge their office well, be, &c. especially by how much the more their painfulnesse and travell shall exceed in preaching the Word and Doctrine, &c.
Thus we have seen two expositions of these words, neither of them implying two sorts of Orders of Presbyters, but only distinguishing severall offices and duties of the same Order, or implying a differing merit in the discharge of them: But if they will by no means be perswaded, but that two sorts of Elders are here intimated, let it be so; two other expositions will yeeld them it, but so as will not be for their turn; for their Lay Elders will be none of them.
The first is this, That the Apostle should speak here of Priests and Deacons, considering both as Members of the Ecclesiasticall Consistory or Senate, which consisted of both Orders, and in that respect might well include them both under the name of Elders; it being a common notion in Scripture, to call the Associates of a Court of Judicature by that name Senatus in Latin hath its name à senibus, i. senioribus, of Eldership; and is as much to say, as foreign. According to this supposall, the Apostles words may have this construction: Let the Elders which rule well, whether Priests or Deacons, be counted worthy of double honour, but more especially the Priests who besides their government labour also in the Word and Doctrine. Now what can be opposed against such an exposition I see not. For it is not improbable, but the Apostle should make provision as well for the maintenance of Deacons, as of Priests, seeing he omits it not, of Widows in the verse going next before this. But unlesse he includes them under the name of Elders, he makes no provision for them at all. Besides this is not the only place (some think) where Deacons are comprehended under the name of Elders. For the Councell of Hierusalem, Acts 15. where they inscribe their Synodicall Epistle thus; The Apostles, Elders, and Brethren to the Brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, &c. may seem to comprehend the Deacons under the name of Elders or Presbyters, otherwise they should omit them, which without doubt were part of the Councell.
There is another exposition, which allows also of two sorts of Elders to be here implied, but makes them both Priests; namely, that Presbyters or Priests in the Apostles time, were of two sorts, one of Residentiaries, and such as were affixed to certain Churches, and so did foreign, praesidere Gregi. Anothe…, of such as had no fixed station, or charge over any certain place, but travelled up and down to preach the Gospel where it was not, or to confirm the Churches where it was preached already; such, as are elswhere known by the names of Euangelists and Doctors or Prophets: that these were those foreign, spoken of here by the Apostle: that both these sorts of Presbyters were to be counted worthy of double honour, as well foreign, as those that travelled up and down to preach the Gospel, foreign, but especially these latter, because their pains were more then the others. This is confirmed from the use of the word foreign which in Scripture signifies not only corporall labour, as may appear in many places; but seems to be used by S. Paul even in this very sense we have now given, as 1 Cor. 15. where he says, comparing himself with the other Apostles, foreign, I have travelled up and down more then they all, as is manifest he did.
These are the principall expositions given by the Writers of our Church, upon this passage of Scripture, which is the foundation and onelyonly place whereon they build this new Consistory, and are so much in love with it. But this being capable, as you see, of such variety of exposition; how much too weak and insufficient it is to establish any such new order of Elders never heard of in the Church from the time of the Apostles untill this last age, any man may judge.
But give me leave to propound a fifth exposition, which shall be more liberall to them then any of those yet given. For it shall yeeld them all they contend for so eagerly to be implied in this Text, namely, that there are not only two sorts of Elders here implied; but also that the one of them are Lay-Elders, such as have nothing to doe with the administration of the Word and Sacraments; what would they have more? yet they will be never the nearer for this concession; for the Lay-Elders here implied, may be no Church Officers, but Civill Magistrates, which in Scripture language we know are called Elders: as when we reade of the Elders of Israel, of the Elders of Iudah, of the Elders of the Priests, and Elders of the people, of Priests and Elders, and the like; according to such a notion the words may be construed by way of Transitus à thesi ad hypothesin, as Rhetoricians call it, to wit, in this manner; Cum omnes Seniores, sive Reipublicae, sive Ecclesiae, qui bene praesident, duplici honore dignandi sint, tum maxime Seniores Ecclesiastici, qui laborant in verbo & Doctrinâ: Or thus, Let all Elders that govern well, of what sort soever, be counted worthy of double honour, especially the Elders of the Church which labour in the Word and Doctrine; Is not this good sense? and doth not the Apostle in the beginning of this very Chapter, use the name Elder, in the larger and more generall sense, when he says, Rebuke not an Elder, but exhort him as a Father, and the younger men as Brethren, the Elder women as Mothers, the younger as Sisters: why may he not then do so here? And doth not S. Iames in his last Chapter call the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, foreign, as it were in distinction from foreign? But it will be objected that this exposition is too ambitious, because it makes the Apostle to preferre the Elders of the Church before the Elders of the Common-wealth, that is, the Priest before the Civill Magistrate, when he says that all Elders, whether of Church or Common-wealth, are to be accounted worthy of double honour, so especially those Elders which labour in the Word and Doctrine, which are the Presbyters of the Church.
But here know that the name of Elder is never given in Scripture to the Supreme Magistrate, but to the subordinate only; and why the Ministers of the Word and Doctrine should not be accounted as worthy of double honour, as they, or more worthy, I know not; especially if S. Paul here says it; sure I am, this objection is not sufficient to refute my interpretation.
Thus I thought good to acquaint you how many ways this place may be expounded, without importing any such new Elders, (neither Priests nor Deacons) as they would impose upon us for Church Officers, by the sole authority thereof; for though this Disciplinarian controversy of our Church stirred up by the admirers of the Genevian platform were in the heat before our time, yet the sect is not yet dead, but ready upon every occasion to surprise such as they finde unarmed, or not forewarned.
And thus having informed our selves who they are, wch are here termed Elders, we will now see also, what is that honour which is due unto them, which was the second thing I propounded, foreign, let them be accounted (saith the Apostle) worthy of, or deign'd double honour. That by honour here, is meant honor arium stipendium, or a tribute of maintenance, is manifest by the following words, which the Apostle brings to inforce it; For the Scripture saith, (saith he) Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corn; and, The labourer is worthy of his hire: Who sees not what these proofs infer? The first of them he alledges also in the same argument, 1 Cor. 9. where he addes, Doth God take care for Oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? (ours namely, that preach the Gospel) For our sakes no doubt this is written, that he which ploweth should plow in hope, and he that thresteth in hope, should be partaker of his hope. The case is plain; It is an Hebrew notion, to bring honour, that is, to pay tribute, or bring a present, as Apoc. 21. 16. foreign to wit, the new Jerusalem. And thus much of the word Honour.
But what is meant by double honour? Some (as among the Fathers S. Ambrose,) will have this double honour, to be honour of maintenance, and honour of reverence. But because the Apostles proofs here infer only maintenance; I take it to be meant in this place only of it. And as for double, there seems to be an allusion to the right of the first-born, to whom at first the office of Priesthood belonged in their Families, and into whose room the Levites were taken, and whom the Presbyters of the Gospel now succeed. As therefore they had a double portion among their Brethren, in like manner should the Presbyters of the Gospel be counted worthy of double honour.
And if you will admit of that construction of these words, which I gave in the fifth place, namely to comprehend as well the Elders of the Common-wealth, as the Elders of the Church, (that both were to be accounted worthy of double honour, but especially those of the Church, who labour in the Word and Doctrine) it will agree yet far better; because both the one and the other succeed in the place of the First born; to whom belonged both to be Priests and Civill Governours in their Tribes and Families.
Yet howsoever the ancient Christians were wont in their Agapes or Love-Feasts, to give their Presbyters a double portion, foreign, with some reference to this Text, as appears by Tertullian; neverthelesse, I think double honour is not here to be so precisely taken, but only to note a liberall and ingenuous maintenance, such as might set them above the vulgar, as the First-born by their double portion were preferred above the rest of their Brethren.
But I have not yet done with the word foreign, for from this that the Apostle here styleth the Priests maintenance, honour; it followeth, that the Priests maintenance is not to be esteemed of the nature of Almes, as some would have it, but is a Tribute of honour, such as is given by an inferiour to his superiour. For Almes and honour, Nec bene conveniunt, nec in unâ sede morantur, the one respecting those to whom it is given, as miserable, the other, as honourable. I mean if almes be taken, as we use the word, for a work of mercy. From the same ground also it follows, that the Priests maintenance is no ordinary mercenary wages, but such as is given by way of honour, as well as of reward: for such as is given to ordinary workmen is reward and wages only, and not a Testimony or Tribute of honour: But that which is due to the Priest, as you see, is foreign, namely, of the same nature with that which is given to Princes and Magistrates, by those which are under them. For as the Ministers of the Gospel are in the nature of Presbyters or Elders, unto the people over whom they are set; so is their maintenance from them, such as is sutable to the condition and Dignity of an Elder; not a common wages, which the superiour often gives to his inferiour, or servant, but honorarium, or foreign.