CHAPTER XI.

Of the proper Receptacle, or immediate subject of the Power of Church Government: affirmatively, what it is, viz. Christ's own Officers.

Thus the proper receptacle or subject of ecclesiastical power hath been considered negatively, what it is not, viz: not the political magistrate, nor yet the community of the faithful, or body of the people, with or without their eldership. Now this receptacle of power comes to be evidenced affirmatively, what it is, viz. (according to the express words of the description of government,) Christ's own officers. This is the last branch of the description, the divine right whereof remains to be cleared; which may most satisfactorily be done by evidencing these three things, viz: 1. That Jesus Christ our Mediator hath certain peculiar church guides and officers which he hath erected in his Church. 2. That Jesus Christ our Mediator hath especially intrusted his own officers with the government of his Church. 3. How, or in what sense the ruling officers are intrusted with this government, severally or jointly?

SECTION I.

1. Of the Divine Right of Christ's Church Officers, viz. Pastors and Teachers, with Ruling Elders.

Touching the first, that Christ hath certain peculiar church guides and officers, which he hath erected in his Church. Take it thus:

Jesus Christ our Mediator hath ordained and set in his Church (besides the apostles and other extraordinary officers that are now ceased) pastors and teachers, as also ruling elders, as the subject of the keys for all ordinary ecclesiastical administrations. The divine right of these ordinary church officers may appear as followeth:

I. Pastors and teachers are the ordinance of Jesus Christ. This is generally granted on all sides; and therefore these few particulars may suffice for the demonstration of it, viz:

1. They are enumerated in the list or catalogue of those church officers which are of divine institution. "God hath set" (or put, constituted) "some in the Church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers," 1 Cor. xii. 28. These are some of the triumphant gifts and trophies of Christ's ascension: "Ascending up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men: and he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers," Eph. iv. 8, 11. Thus in that exact roll of ordinary officers: "Having, therefore, gifts different according to the grace given unto us; whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministry;" (here is the general distribution of all ordinary officers under two heads, prophecy and ministry:) "or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation," (here is the teacher and the pastor, that come under the first head of prophecy,) Rom. xii. 6-8. "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made" (or set) "you overseers," Acts xx. 28. Note—God hath set in the Church; Christ hath given for his body; the Holy Ghost hath made overseers over the flock, these pastors and teachers: and are not pastors and teachers church officers by divine right, having the authority of God, Christ, and of the Holy Ghost?

2. They are to be thus and thus qualified according to divine direction. The qualifications of these pastors and teachers, (called presbyters and overseers,) see in 1 Tim. iii. 2-8, "An overseer," or bishop, "must be blameless," &c.; and Tit. i. 5-10, "To ordain presbyters," or elders, "in every city—If any be blameless," &c. Now, where God lays down qualifications for pastors and teachers, there he approves such officers to be his own ordinance.

3. They have manifold church employments committed to them from Christ, as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God, (1 Cor. iv. 1, 2,) they being intrusted in whole or in part with the managing of most if not all the ordinances forementioned in part 2, chap. VII., as there by the texts alleged is evident. Matters of order and special office are committed to them only divisim: matters of jurisdiction are committed to them with ruling elders conjunctim. If Christ hath intrusted them thus with church ordinances, and the dispensing of them, sure they are Christ's church officers.

4. The very names and titles given them in Scripture proclaim them to be Christ's own ordinance; among many take these: "Ministers of Christ," 1 Cor. iv. 1; "Stewards of the mysteries of God," 1 Cor. iv. 1; "Ambassadors for Christ," 2 Cor. v. 20; "Laborers thrust forth into his harvest by the Lord of the harvest," Matt. ix. 38; "Ruling over you in the Lord,"[44] 1 Thess. v. 12.

5. The Lord Christ charges their flock and people with many duties to be performed to their pastors and teachers, because of their office; as to know them, love them, obey them, submit unto them, honor them, maintain them, &c., which he would not do were they not his own ordinance. "But we beseech you, brethren, to know them that labor among you, and rule over you in the Lord, and esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake," 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. "Obey your rulers, and submit; for they watch for your souls as those that must give an account," Heb. xiii. 17. "The elders that rule well count worthy of double honor; especially them that labor in the word and doctrine; for the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn, and the laborer is worthy of his hire," 1 Tim. v. 17, 18; compared With 1 Cor. ix. 6-15. "Let him that is catechized, communicate to him that catechizeth him in all good things," Gal. vi. 6-8.

Thus much for the present may suffice to have been spoken touching the divine right of pastors and teachers, the ordinary standing ministers of Christ under the New Testament. But forasmuch as we observe that in these days some rigid Erastians and Seekers oppose and deny the very office of the ministry now under the gospel, and others profess that the ministry of the church of England is false and antichristian; we intend, (by God's assistance,) as soon as we can rid our hands from other pressing employments, to endeavor the asserting and vindicating of the divine right of the ministers of the New Testament in general, and of the truth of the ministry of the church of England in particular.

II. Ruling elders, distinct from all preaching elders and deacons, are a divine ordinance in the Church of God now under the New Testament.

The divine right of this church officer, the mere ruling elder, is much questioned and doubted by some, because they find not the Scriptures speaking so fully and clearly of the ruling elder as of the preaching elder and of the deacon. By others it is flatly denied and opposed, as by divers that adhere too tenaciously to the Erastian and prelatical principles: who yet are willing to account the assistance of the ruling elder in matter of church government to be a very prudential way. But if mere prudence be counted once a sufficient foundation for a distinct kind of church officer, we shall open a door for invention of church officers at pleasure; then welcome commissioners and committee men, &c.; yea, then let us return to the vomit, and resume prelates, deans, archdeacons, chancellors, officials, &c., for church officers. And where shall we stop? who but Christ Jesus himself can establish new officers in his church? Is it not the fruit of his ascension, &c.? Eph. iv. 7, 11, 12. Certainly if the Scriptures lay not before us grounds more than prudential for the ruling elder, it were better never to have mere ruling elders in the church. Both the Presbyterians and Independents[45] acknowledge the divine right of the ruling elder. For satisfaction of doubting unprejudiced minds, (to omit divers considerations that might be produced,) the divine right of the ruling elder may be evinced by these ensuing arguments.

Argum. I. The first argument for the divine right of the ruling elder in the Church of Christ, shall be drawn from Rom. xii. 6-8: "Having, then, gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation; he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence," &c. Let the scope and context of this chapter be a little viewed, and it will make way for the more clear arguing from this place. Briefly thus: The apostle having finished the principal part of his epistle, which was problematical, wherein he disputed—1. About justification, chap, i.-vi.; 2. Sanctification, chap. vi. 7, 8; and, 3. Predestination, chap. ix. 10, 11, he comes to the next branch, which is more practical, about good works, chap. xii.-xvi. This twelfth chapter is wholly in the way of exhortation, and he herein exhorts to divers duties. 1. More generally that we should even consecrate ourselves wholly to the service of God, ver. 1; that we should not conform to the world, ver. 2. More specially he descends to particular duties, which are of two sorts, viz: 1. Such as concern ecclesiastical officers as officers, ver. 3-9; 2. Such as concern all Christians in common as Christians, both towards one another and towards their very enemies, verse 9, to the end of the chapter. Touching ecclesiastical officers, the apostle's evident scope is to urge them not to be proud of their spiritual gifts, (which in those days abounded,) but to think soberly, self-denyingly of themselves, and to use all their gifts well. This he presseth upon them, 1. From the nature of the Church, which is as a natural organical body, wherein are many members, having their several offices for the good of the whole body; so the members of Christ's body being many, have their several gifts and offices for the good of the whole, that the superior should not despise the inferior, nor the inferior envy their superior, ver. 3-5. 2. From the distribution or enumeration of the several kinds of ordinary standing officers in this organical body, the Church, who are severally exhorted duly to discharge those duties that are specially required of them in their several functions, ver. 6-8. These officers are reduced first to two general heads, viz: Prophecy (understand not the extraordinary gift of foretelling future things, &c., but the ordinary, in the right understanding and interpreting of Scripture) and ministry; and the general duties thereof are annexed, ver. 6, 7. Then these generals are subdivided into the special offices contained under them, the special duty of every officer being severally pressed upon them. Under prophecy are contained, 1. He that teacheth, i.e., the doctor or teacher; 2. He that exhorteth, i.e., the pastor, ver. 7, 8. Under ministry are comprised, 1. He that giveth, i.e., the deacon; 2. He that ruleth, i.e., the ruling elder. The current of our best interpreters to this effect resolve this context. So that here we have a very excellent and perfect enumeration of all the ordinary standing officers in the Church of Christ distinctly laid down. This premised, the argument for the divine right of the ruling elder may be thus propounded:

Major. Whatsoever members of Christ's organical body have an ordinary office of ruling therein given them of God, distinct from all other ordinary standing officers in the church, together with directions from God how they are to rule; they are the ruling elders we seek, and that by divine right.

Minor. But he that ruleth, mentioned in Rom. xii. 8, is a member of Christ's organical body, having an ordinary office of ruling therein given him of God, distinct from all other standing officers in the church, together with direction how he is to rule.

Conclusion. Therefore he that ruleth, mentioned in Rom. xii. 8, is the ruling elder we seek, and that by divine right.

The major proposition is clear. For in the particulars of it, well compared together, are observable both a plain delineation or description of the ruling elder's office; and also a firm foundation for the divine right of that office. The ruling elder's office is described and delineated by these several clauses, which set out so many requisites for the making up of a ruling elder, viz: 1. He must be a member of Christ's organical body. Such as are without, pagans, heathens, infidels, &c., out of the Church, they are not fit objects for church government, to have it exercised by the Church upon them; the Church only judges them that are within, (1 Cor. v. 12, 13,) much less can they be fit subjects of church government to exercise it themselves within the Church. How shall they be officers in the Church that are not so much as members of the Church? Besides, such as are only members of the invisible body of Christ, as the glorified saints in heaven, they cannot be officers in the Church; for not the Church invisible, but only the Church or body of Christ visible is organical. So that every church officer must first be a Church member, a member of the visible organical body: consequently a ruling elder must be such a member. 2. He must have an office of ruling in this body of Christ. Membership is not enough, unless that power of rule be superadded thereto; for the whole office of the ruling elder is contained in the matter of rule; take away rule, you destroy the very office. Now, rule belongs not to every member: "Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints," Heb. xiii. 24, where rulers and saints are made contradistinct to one another. In the body natural all the members are not eyes, hands, &c., governing the body, some are rather governed; so in the body of Christ, 1 Cor. xii. 3. This his office of ruling must be an ordinary office; apostles had some power that was extraordinary, as their apostleship was extraordinary; but when we seek for this ruling elder, we seek for a fixed, standing, ordinary officer ruling in the church. 4. All that is not enough, that he be a member of the church, that he have an office of rule in the church, and that office also be ordinary; but besides all these it is necessary that he be also distinct from all other standing officers in the church, viz. from pastors, teachers, deacons; else all the former will not make up a peculiar kind of officer, if in all points he fully agree with any of the said three. But if there can be found such an officer in whom all these four requisites do meet, viz: That, 1. Is a member of Christ's organical body; 2. Hath an office of rule therein; 3, That office is ordinary; and, 4. That ordinary office is distinct from all other ordinary standing offices in the church; this must unavoidably be that very ruling elder which we inquire after. By this it is evident, that in this proposition here is a plain and clear delineation of the ruling elder's office. Now, in the next place, touching the foundation for the divine right of this office; it also is notably expressed in the same proposition, while it presupposeth, 1. That God is the giver of this office; 2. That God is the guider of this office. For whatsoever office or officer God gives for his Church, and having given it, guides and directs to the right discharge thereof, that must needs be of divine right beyond all contradiction. Thus this proposition is firm and cogent. Now let us assume:

Minor. But he that ruleth, mentioned in Rom. xii. 8, is a member of Christ's organical body, having an ordinary office of ruling therein, given him of God, distinct from all other ordinary standing officers in the church, together with direction from God how he is to rule.

This assumption or minor proposition (whereon the main stress of the argument doth lie) may be thus evidenced by parts, from this context:

He that ruleth is a member of Christ's organical body. For, 1. The Church of Christ is here compared to a body, We being many are one body in Christ, ver. 5. 2. This body is declared to be organical, i.e. consisting of several members, that have their several offices in the body, some of teaching, some of exhorting, and some of ruling, &c. "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office, so we being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another," &c., ver. 4-6, &c. 3. Among the rest of the members of this body, he that ruleth is reckoned up for one, ver. 5-8; this is palpably evident.

He that ruleth hath an office of ruling in this body of Christ. For, 1. This word (translated) he that ruleth, in the proper signification and use of it, both in the Scriptures and in other Greek authors, doth signify one that ruleth authoritatively over another, (as hereafter is manifested in the 3d argument, Sec. 2.) 2. Our best interpreters and commentators do render and expound the word generally to this effect: e.g. He that is over[46]—one set over[47]—he that stands in the head or front[48]—as a captain or commander in the army, to which this phrase seems to allude—he that ruleth. 3. This word, wherever it is used in a genuine proper sense, in all the New Testament, notes rule, or government. It is used metaphorically for taking care (as one set over any business) of good works, only in two places, Tit. iii. 8, and iii. 14. Properly for government which superiors have over inferiors; and that either domestical, in private families, so it is used in 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5, 12, or ecclesiastical, in the church, which is the public family of God; in this sense it is used, 1 Thes. v. 12, 1 Tim. v. 17, and here, Rom. xii. 8, and these are all the places where this word is found used in all the New Testament.

3. He that ruleth here, hath an ordinary, not an extraordinary office of rule in the church. For he is ranked and reckoned up in the list of Christ's ordinary standing officers, that are constantly to continue in the church, viz. pastors, teachers, deacons. Commonly this place is interpreted to speak of the ordinary church officers, and none other; consequently he that ruleth is such a one.

4. He that ruleth here, is an officer distinct from all other ordinary officers in the Church of Christ. For in this place we have a full enumeration of all Christ's ordinary officers, and he that ruleth is a distinct officer among them all. 1. Distinct in name, he only is called he that ruleth, the rest have every one of them their several distinct name, ver. 7, 8. 2. Distinct in his work here appropriated to him; the doctor teacheth; the pastor exhorteth; the deacon giveth; this elder ruleth, as the very name signifieth, ver. 8. Compare 1 Tim. v. 17, 1 Cor. xii. 28. As the elder ruleth, so he is distinct from the deacon that hath no rule in the church; and as he only rules, so he is distinct from both pastor and teacher, that both teach, exhort, and rule; they both have power of order and jurisdiction, the ruling elder hath only power of jurisdiction. 3. Finally, he is distinct among and from them all in the particular direction here given these officers about the right discharge of their functions. The teacher must be exercised in teaching; the pastor in exhortation; the deacon must give with singleness; and the elder, he must rule with diligence, studiousness, &c. Now what other solid reason can be imagined, why he that ruleth should here have a distinct name, distinct work and employment, and distinct direction how to manage this work, than this, that the Holy Ghost might set him out unto us as an ordinary officer in the church, distinct from all the other standing officers here enumerated?

5. God himself is the author and giver of this office of him that ruleth, as well as of all the other offices here mentioned. For, 1. All gifts and endowments in the church in general, and in every member in particular; they are from God, it is he that gives and divides them as he will, as God hath dealt to every one the measure of faith, Rom. xii. 3. 2. All the special offices, and gifts for these offices in special, are also from the same God, we having therefore gifts according to the grace given unto us, differing; whether prophecy, &c., Rom, xii. 6, 7, &c. Here it is plain that he distinguished betwixt grace and gifts. By grace here we are to understand that holy office or charge in the church, which is given to any man by the grace and favor of God. And in this sense the apostle in this very chapter, ver. 3, useth the word grace: For I say through the grace given to me, i.e. through the authority of my apostleship, which by grace I have received, &c. By gifts, we are to understand those endowments wherewith God hath freely furnished his officers in the church for their several offices. Now both these gifts and this grace, both the endowments and the office, are originally from God, his grace is the fountain of them; and both the grace of each office, and the gifts for such office, relate to all these ordinary offices here enumerated, as is evident by the current and connection of the whole context, see ver. 6-8; consequently the grace, i.e. the office of ruling, which is of divine grace, and the gifts for that office, arise from the same fountain, God himself.

6. Finally, God himself is the guider and director of him that ruleth, here prescribing to him how he is to rule, viz. with diligence, with studiousness, &c., ver. 8. Now we may receive this as a maxim, That of divine right may be done, for which God gives his divine rule how it is to be done: and that office must needs be of divine right, which God himself so far approves as to direct in his word how it shall be discharged.

Now, to sum up all, he that ruleth here, 1. Is a member of Christ's organical body. 2. Hath an office of ruling in this body. 3. This his office is not extraordinary but ordinary, standing, and perpetual. 4. He is an officer distinct from all other ordinary officers in the Church. 5. God himself is the giver and author of this office. 6. And God himself is the guider and director of this office: and then see if we may not clearly conclude,

Conclusion. Therefore, he that ruleth, mentioned in Rom. xii. 8, is the ruling elder we seek, and that by divine right.

The adversaries of ruling elders muster up divers exceptions against the alleging of Rom. xii. 8, for proof of the divine right of their office, the weakness of which is to be discovered ere we pass to another argument. Except. 1. This is an arguing from a general to a special affirmatively. It doth not follow, because the apostle here in general mentioneth him that ruleth, therefore in special it must be the ruling elder.[49]

Ans. This exception is the same with first exception against the second argument hereafter laid down. There see. For the same answer appositely and satisfactorily is applicable to both.

Except. 2. But the apostle here speaks of them that rule, but we have nowhere received that such elders have rule over the church—and he speaks of all that rule in the church, who therefore would wrest this place only to elders? One cannot rightly attribute that word translated he that ruleth to elders only, which is common unto more. If these elders he here meant, neither pastors nor teachers ought to rule, for this word agrees no otherwise to him that ruleth, than the word of exhorting to him that exhorteth.[50]

Ans. 1. That such elders rule in the church is evident, both by Rom. xii. 8, where this word implies rule as hath been showed, and he that ruleth is reckoned up amongst ordinary church officers, as hath been said, therefore he rules in the church: these the apostle also calls ruling elders, 1 Tim. v. 17, viz. officers in the church, and distinct from them that labor in the word and doctrine; as in the third argument will appear: yea, they are governments set of God in the church, distinct from other officers, 1 Cor. xii. 28, as in the second argument shall be evidenced: there see; therefore these elders have rule.

2. Though in this term the apostle speaks of him that ruleth, yet he speaks not of every one that ruleth. For, 1. He speaks singularly, he that ruleth, as of one kind of ruling officer; not plurally, they that rule, as if he had indefinitely or universally meant all the ruling officers in the church. 2. He reckons up here distinct kinds of ordinary officers, pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons; and pastors and teachers, besides laboring in the word, have power of rule, 1 Thes. v. 12, Heb. xiii. 7-17, and he that ruleth, here, is distinct from them both; and therefore this term cannot mean all church rulers, but only one kind, viz. the ruling elder.

3. Though this name, he that ruleth, be common unto more rulers in the church, than to the mere ruling elder; yet it doth not therefore necessarily follow, that it cannot here particularly point out only the mere ruling elder, inasmuch, as he that ruleth, is not here set alone, (for then this objection might have had some color,) but is enumerated with other officers as distinct from them.

4. Though the ruling elder here be called he that ruleth, yet this doth not exclude the pastor from ruling, no more than when the ordinary ministers are called pastors and teachers, the apostles and evangelists are excluded from feeding and teaching, in Eph. iv. 11, 12; 1 Cor. xii. 28. This elder is called, he that ruleth, not that there is no other ruler than he, but because he doth no other thing but rule, others rule and preach also.

Except. 3. If this were meant of such elders, then these elders were as necessary to the church as pastors, being given to the church by the like reason. Consequently where these elders are not, there is no church; as there is no church where the word and sacraments are not.[51]

Ans. 1. According to this argument deacons are as necessary as either pastors, teachers, or elders, and without deacons there should be no church; for they are all enumerated here alike, Rom. xii. 7, 8, and in 1 Cor. xii. 28; but this would be absurd, and against experience. 2. Though both pastors and ruling elders belong to the church by divine right, yet doth it not follow that the ruling elder is equally as necessary as the pastor. The ruling elder only rules, the pastor both rules and preaches, therefore he is more necessary to the church. There are degrees of necessity; some things are absolutely necessary to the being of a church, as matter and form, viz. visible saints, and a due profession of faith, and obedience to Christ, according to the gospel. Thus it is possible a church may be, and yet want both deacons, elders, and pastors too, yea, and word and sacraments for a time: some things are only respectively necessary to the well-being of a church; thus officers are necessary, yet some more than others, without which the church is lame, defective, and miserably imperfect.

Except. 4. Should ruling elders here be meant, then deacons that obey, should be preferred before the elders that rule.[52]

Ans. Priority of order is no infallible argument of priority of worth and dignity; as is evidenced in answer to the third exception against Arg. II.—there see; we find Priscilla a woman named before Aquila a man, and her husband, Acts xviii. 18; Rom. xvi. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 19; is therefore the woman preferred before the man? the wife before the husband? And again, Aquila is set before Priscilla, Acts xviii. 2, 26, 1 Cor. xvi. 19, to let us see that the Holy Ghost indifferently speaks of superior and inferior before one another.

Except. 5. But here the apostle speaketh of divers gifts and graces, for so differing gifts do import, not of divers offices: for then they might not concur in one man, and consequently neither might the prophet teach, nor exhort, nor the deacon distribute, nor show mercy. Many gifts may be common in one man, many offices cannot;—which of these gifts in the apostles' times was not common as well to the people as to the pastors; and to women as well as to men? &c.[53]

Ans. Divers considerations may be propounded to discover the vanity of this exception: chiefly take these three.

1. There is no sufficient reason in this exception, proving the apostle here to speak only of divers gifts and graces, and not of divers offices also. For, 1. This is not proved by that expression, differing gifts, ver. 6, for these differing gifts are not here spoken of abstractly and absolutely, without reference to their subjects, but relatively with reference to their subjects wherein they are, viz. in the several officers, ver. 7, 8, and therefore, as the apostle mentions the differing gifts, so here he tells us in the same sixth verse, that we have these "different gifts, according to the grace given unto us," i.e. according to the office given unto us of God's grace, (as hath been manifested,) after which immediately is subjoined an enumeration of offices. 2. Nor is this proved by the inference made, upon the granting that divers offices are here meant, viz. [Then they might not concur in one man, the prophet might not teach nor exhort, &c.; many gifts may be common in one man, many offices cannot.] For who is so little versed in the Scriptures, but he knows that apostles, pastors, elders, deacons, are distinct officers one from another; yet all the inferior offices are virtually comprehended in the superior, and may be discharged by them: elders may distribute as well as deacons; and beyond them, rule: pastors may distribute and rule as well as deacons and elders, and beyond both preach, dispense sacraments, and ordain ministers. Apostles may do there all, and many things besides extraordinary. Much more may the prophet teach and exhort, and the deacon distribute and show mercy; these being the proper acts of their office. 3. Nor, finally, is this proved by that suggestion, that all these gifts in the apostles' times were common to all sorts and sexes, women as well as men; as he after takes much pains to prove, but to very little purpose. For not only in the apostles' times, but in our times also, all Christians may teach, exhort, distribute, show mercy, &c., privately, occasionally, by bond of charity, and law of fraternity towards one another mutually: but may not teach, exhort, rule, distribute, &c., authoritatively by virtue of their office, so as to give themselves wholly to such employments, which is the thing here intended; yet it is worth observing how far Bilson was transported against ruling elders, that rather than yield to their office, he will make all these gifts common to all sorts and sexes, men and women. This is new divinity; all sorts and sexes may both preach and rule. Let Bilson have the credit of symbolizing with the Separatists, if not of transcending them.

2. Here is good ground in the context to make us think that the apostle here spoke of distinct church officers, and not only of distinct gifts. For, 1. In the similitude of a natural body (whereunto here the church is compared) he speaks of distinct members, having distinct offices, ver. 4. "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office." 2. In his accommodation of this similitude, he speaks not only of gifts, but also of offices according to which these gifts are given, which he calls grace, ver. 6, (as was noted.). This grace given, or this office given of grace, is branched out, first, into two general heads, viz. prophecy and ministry, ver. 6, 7. Then these generals are subdivided into the special offices contained under them, viz.: Under prophecy the teacher, he that teacheth; and the pastor, he that exhorteth; under ministry the deacon, he that distributeth; and the ruling elder, he that ruleth. Now there is in the text just ground for this resolution of the text, in making prophecy and ministry generals, and all the rest special kinds of officers; forasmuch as prophecy and ministry are expressed abstractly, whether prophecy, (not, whether we are prophets;) whether ministry, (not, whether we are deacons, ministers:) and both prophecy and ministry are put in the accusative case; and both of them have relation, and are joined unto the participle of the plural number having, intimating that divers do share in prophecy, pastor and teacher; divers in ministry, deacon and ruling elder. But all the other are expressed concretely, and in the nominative case, and in the singular number, and to every of them the single article is prefixed, translated He—He that teacheth—He that exhorteth—He that giveth—He that ruleth. Hence we have great cause to count prophecy and ministry as generals; all the rest as special offices under them.

Argum. II. The second argument for the divine right of the ruling elder shall be grounded upon 1 Cor. xii. 28: "And God hath set some in the church, first, apostles, secondly, prophets, thirdly, teachers, afterwards powers, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongue." God, in the first founding of Christianity and of the primitive churches, bestowed many eminent gifts upon divers Christians; the church of Corinth greatly excelled in such gifts, 1 Cor. i. 5, 7. Hence their members gifted, grew spiritually proud, and despised their brethren; to correct which abuse of gifts, and direct them to the right use thereof for the common profit of all, is the chief scope of this chapter, see verse 7, "The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal." For, 1. All their gifts flow from one and the same fountain, the Spirit of God, therefore should be improved for the common good of all, especially considering no one man hath all gifts, but several men have several gifts, that all might be beholden to one another, ver. 8-11. 2. The whole Church of Christ throughout all the world is but one body, and that body organical, having several members therein placed for several uses, as eyes, hands, &c., wherein the meanest members are useful and necessary to the highest: therefore all members should harmoniously lay out their gifts for the good of the whole body, without jars or divisions, ver. 12-28. 3. All the several officers, whether extraordinary or ordinary, though furnished with several gifts and several administrations, yet are placed by one and the same God, in one and the same general Church; and therefore should all level at the benefit of the whole church, without pride, animosities, divisions, &c., ver. 28, to the end. These things being briefly premised for the clearing the context and scope of the chapter, we may thus argue from ver. 28:

Major. Whatsoever officers God himself, now under the New Testament, hath set in the Church as governors therein, distinct from all other church governors, whether extraordinary or ordinary; they are the ruling elders we inquire after, and that by divine right.

This proposition is so clear and evident of itself, that much needs not to be said for any further demonstration of it. For what can be further desired for proof that there are such distinct officers as ruling elders in the Church of Christ, and that of divine right, than to evince, 1. That there are certain officers set of God in the Church as governors therein. 2. That those officers so set of God in the Church, are set in the Church under the New Testament, which immediately concerns us, and not under the Old Testament. 3. That these officers set of God as governors in the Church of the New Testament, are distinct from all other church governors, whether extraordinary or ordinary? For, by the third of these, we have a distinct church officer delineated and particularized: by the second we have this distinct church officer limited to the time and state of the Church only under the New Testament, which is our case: and by the first of these, we have this distinct New Testament officer's ruling power in the Church, and the divine right thereof evidently demonstrated, by God's act in setting him there in this capacity; (see Part 1. Chap. VI.;) so that by all put together, the consequence of this major proposition seems to be strong and unquestionable.

Minor. But the governments named in 1 Cor. xii. 28, are officers which God himself now under the New Testament hath set in the Church as governors therein, distinct from all other church governors, whether extraordinary or ordinary.

This minor or assumption is wholly grounded upon, and plainly contained in this text, and may thus be evidenced by parts.

1. The church here spoken of [in the church] is the Church of Christ now under the New Testament: for, 1. The church here mentioned, ver. 28, is the same with that ONE BODY mentioned, ver. 12, 13, of this chapter, as the whole context and coherence of the chapter evinceth; but that ONE BODY denotes not the Church of God under the Old Testament, but only the Church of Christ under the New Testament; partly, inasmuch as it is counted the Church of Christ, yea, (so intimate is the union between head and members,) it is called CHRIST, so also is CHRIST, ver. 12, (viz. not Christ personally considered, but Christ mystically considered, as comprehending head and body;) now this denomination of the Church, viz. Christ, or the Church of Christ, &c., is peculiar to the Church under the New Testament: for where in all the Scripture is the Church of God under the Old Testament called the Church of Christ, &c.? and partly, inasmuch as all, both Jews and Gentiles, are incorporated jointly into this ONE BODY, and coalesce into one Church: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free," 1 Cor. xii. 13. Now this union or conjunction of Jews and Gentiles into one body, one Church, is only done under the New Testament; see Eph. ii. 11, to the end of the chapter. 2. The officers here mentioned to be set in this Church, are only the New Testament officers, ver. 28. 3. The scope of the whole chapter is to redress abuses of spiritual gifts in the church of Corinth, which was a church under the New Testament; and therefore it would have been too remote for the apostle to have argued from the several distributions of gifts peculiar to the officers or members of the Church under the Old Testament.

2. The governments here mentioned are officers set in this church as governors, or rulers therein: "Hath set some in the Church, first, apostles—governments." For clearing of this, consider the enumeration here made; the denomination of these officers, governments; and the constitution or placing of these governments in the Church. 1. The enumeration here made is evidently an enumeration of several sorts of church officers, some extraordinary, to endure but for a time, some ordinary, to continue constantly in the Church; to this the current of interpreters doth easily subscribe: and this the text itself plainly speaks; partly, if we look at the matter, viz. the several officers enumerated, which are either extraordinary, these five, viz. apostles, prophets, powers, or miracles, gifts of healing, and kinds of tongues: these continued but for a season, during the first founding of Christian churches: (the proper and peculiar work of these extraordinary officers, what it was, is not here to be disputed.) Or ordinary, these three, viz. teachers, (there is the preaching elder,) governments, (there is the ruling elder,) helps, (there is the deacon;) these are the officers enumerated; and however there be some other officers elsewhere mentioned, whence some conceive this enumeration not to be so absolutely perfect, yet this is undoubtedly evident, that it is an enumeration of officers in the church: partly, this is evident, if we look at the manner of the apostle's speech, which is in an enumerating form, viz. first, secondly, thirdly, afterwards, then: and partly, it is evident that he intended to reckon up those officers that were distinct from all other parts of the mystical body of Christ, by his recapitulation, "Are all apostles, are all prophets?" &c., ver. 29, 30, i.e. not all, but only some members of the body are set apart by God to bear these offices in the church. Now, if there be here a distinct enumeration of distinct officers in the church, as is evident; then consequently governments must needs be one of these distinct church officers, being reckoned up among the rest; and this is one step, that governments are in the roll of church officers enumerated. 2. The denomination of these officers, governments, evidenceth that they are governing officers, vested with rule in the Church. This word (as hath been noted in chap. II.) is a metaphor from pilots or shipmasters governing of their ships by their compass, helm, &c., James iii. 4, (who is hence called governor, viz. of the ship, Acts xxvii. 11; Rev. xviii. 17,) and it notes such officers as sit at the stern of the vessel of the Church, to govern and guide it in spirituals according to the will and mind of Christ: governments—the abstract is put for governors, the concrete: this name of governments hath engraven upon it an evident character of power for governing. But this will be easily granted by all. All the doubt will be, whom the apostle intended by these governments? Thus conceive, negatively, these cannot be meant, viz. not governors in general, for, besides that a general exists not but in the particular kinds or individuals thereof, a member of a body in general exists not but in this or that particular member, eye, hand, foot, &c.: besides this, it is evident that Christ hath not only in general appointed governors in his Church, and left particulars to the church or magistrate's determination, but hath himself descended to the particular determination of the several kinds of officers which he will have in his Church; compare these places together, Eph. iv. 7, 11, 12; 1 Cor. xii. 28; Rom. xii. 7, 8: though in the ordinance of magistracy God hath only settled the general, but for the particular kinds of it, whether it should be monarchical, &c., that is left to the prudence of the several commonwealths to determine what is fittest for themselves. (See Part 2, chap. IX.) 2. Not masters of families: for all families are not in the Church, pagan families are without. No family as a family is either a church or any part of a church, (in the notion that church is here spoken of;) and though masters of families be governors in their own houses, yet their power is not ecclesiastical but economical or domestical, common to heathens as well as Christians. Not the political magistrate,[54] for the reasons hinted, (Part 1, chap. I.; see also Part 2, chap. IX.,) and for divers other arguments that might be propounded. 4. Not the prelatical bishops, pretending to be an order above preaching presbyters, and to have the reins of all church government in their hands only; for, in Scripture language, bishop and presbyter are all one order, (these words being only names of the same officer;) this is evident by comparing Tit. i. 5, with ver. 7. Hereunto also the judgment of antiquity evidently subscribeth, accounting a bishop and a presbyter to be one and the same officer in the church; as appears particularly in Ambrose, Theodoret, Hierom, and others. Now, if there be no such order as prelatical bishops, consequently they cannot be governments in the church. 5. Not the same with helps, as the former corrupt impressions of our Bibles seemed to intimate, which had it thus, helps in governments, which some moderns seem to favor; but this is contrary to the original Greek, which signifies helps, governments; contrary to the ancient Syriac version, which hath it thus, (as Tremel. renders it,) and helpers, and governments: and therefore this gross corruption is well amended in our late printed Bible. Helps, governments, are here generally taken by interpreters for two distinct officers. 6. Nor, finally, can the teaching elder here be meant; for that were to make a needless and absurd tautology, the teacher being formerly mentioned in this same verse. Consequently, by governments here, what can be intended, but such a kind of officer in the church as hath rule and government therein, distinct from all governors forementioned? And doth not this lead us plainly to the ruling elder?

3. These governments thus set in the Church, as rulers therein, are set therein by God himself; God hath set some in the Church, first, apostles—governments—God hath set, put, made, constituted, &c., (as the word imports,) in the Church. What hath God set in the Church? viz. apostles and—governments, as well as apostles themselves. The verb, hath set, equally relates to all the sorts of officers enumerated. And is not that officer IA the Church of divine right, which God himself, by his own act and authority, sets therein? Then doubtless these governments are of divine right.

4. Finally, these governments set in the Church under the New Testament as governors therein, and that by God himself, are distinct from not only all governing officers without the Church, (as hath been showed,) but also from all other governing officers within the church. For here the apostles make a notable enumeration of the several sorts of church officers, both extraordinary and ordinary, viz. eight in all. Five of these being extraordinary, and to continue but for a season, for the more effectual spreading and propagating of the gospel of Christ at first, and planting of Christian churches, viz. apostles, prophets, powers, gifts of healings, kinds of tongues: three of these being ordinary, and to be perpetuated in the Church, as of continual use and necessity therein, viz. teachers, governments, [i.e. ruling elders,] and helps, [i.e. deacons, who are to help and relieve the poor and afflicted.] This is the enumeration. It is not contended, that it is absolutely and completely perfect, for that some officers seem to be omitted and left out, which elsewhere are reckoned up, Eph. iv. 11; Rom. xii. 7, 8. Evangelists are omitted in the list of extraordinary officers, and pastors are left out of the roll of the ordinary officers; and yet some conceive that pastors and teachers point not out two distinct sorts of officers, but rather two distinct acts of the same officers; and if this will hold, then pastors are sufficiently comprised under the word teachers; yea, some think that both evangelists and pastors are comprehended under the word teacher.[55] But, however, be that as it will, these two things are evident, 1. That this enumeration (though evangelists and pastors be left out) is the fullest and completest enumeration of church officers which in any place is to be found throughout all the New Testament. 2. That though we should grant this defect in the enumeration, yet this is no way prejudicial to the present argument, that governments here mentioned are ruling officers in the Church, distinct from all other church officers that have rule; for they are plainly and distinctly recited as distinct kinds of officers, distinct from apostles, from prophets, from teachers, from all here mentioned. And thus interpreters[56] commonly expound this place, taking governments for a distinct kind of church officer from all the rest here enumerated.

Now to sum up all that hath been said for the proof of the assumption; it is evident, 1. That the church here spoken of is the Church of Christ now under the New Testament. 2. That the governments here mentioned, are officers set in this church, (not out of the church,) as rulers governing therein. 3. That these governments set as rulers or governors in this church, are set there not by man, but by God himself; God hath set in the Church—governments. 4. And, finally, That these governments thus set in the Church, are distinct, not only from all governors out of the Church, but also from all governing officers within the Church. And if all this laid together will not clearly evince the divine right of the ruling elder, what will? Hence we may strongly conclude,

Conclusion. Therefore these governments in 1 Cor. xii. 28, are the ruling elders we inquire after, and that of divine right.

Now against the urging of 1 Cor. xii. 28, for the proof of the divine right of the ruling elders, divers exceptions are made, which are to be answered before we pass to the third argument.

Except. 1. The allegation of this place is too weak to prove the thing in question. For will any man that knoweth what it is to reason, reason from the general to the particular and special affirmatively? or will ever any man of common sense be persuaded that this consequence is good: There were governors in the primitive church mentioned by the Apostles—therefore they were lay governors? Surely I think not.[57]

Ans. This exception hath a confident flourish of words, but they are but words. It may be replied, 1. By way of concession, that to argue indeed from a general to a special, is no solid reasoning; as, This is a kingdom, therefore it is England; this is a city, therefore it is London; the apostle mentions government in the primitive Church, therefore they are ruling elders: this were an absurd kind of reasoning. 2. By way of negation. Our reasoning from this text for the ruling elder, is not from the general to a special affirmatively—there are governments in the Church, therefore ruling elders: but this is our arguing—these governments here mentioned in 1 Cor. xii. 28, are a special kind of governing officers, set of God in the Church of Christ now under the New Testament, and distinct from all other church officers, whether extraordinary or ordinary: and therefore they are the ruling elders which we seek after, and that by divine right. So that we argue from the enumeration of several kinds of church officers affirmatively: here is an enumeration or roll of divers kinds of church officers of divine right; governments are one kind in the roll, distinct from the rest; therefore governments are of divine right, consequently ruling elders; for none but they can be these governments, as hath been proved in the assumption. If the apostle had here mentioned governments only, and none other kind of officers with them, there had been some color for this exception, and some probability that the apostle had meant governors in general and not in special: but when the apostle sets himself to enumerate so many special kinds of officers, apostles, prophets, teachers, &c., how far from reason is it to think that in the midst of all these specials, governments only should be a general. 3. As for Dr. Field's scoffing term of lay governors or lay elders, which he seems in scorn to give to ruling elders; it seems to be grounded upon that groundless distinction of the ministry and people into clergy and laity; which is justly rejected by sound orthodox writers[58], as not only without but against the warrant of Scripture, clergy being nowhere appropriated to the ministry only, but commonly attributed to the whole church, 1 Pet. v. 2, 3. The Scripture term given to these officers is ruling elders, 1 Tim. v. 17; and so far as such, (though they be elected from among the people,) they are ecclesiastical officers.

Except. 2. But it is not said here governors in the concrete, as apostles, prophets, teachers are mentioned concretely, which are distinct officers: but it is said governments, in the abstract, to note faculties, not persons. The text may be thus resolved: The apostle first sets down three distinct orders, apostles, prophets, and teachers: then he reckons up those common gifts of the Holy Ghost (and among the rest the gift of governing) which were common to all three. So that we need not here make distinct orders in the Church, but only distinct gifts which might be in one man.[59]

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 Caesar's household;" some saints not of his household: all saluted them, but especially those of Caesar'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.