2. Two distinct species, or kinds of Elders, _Those that rule well_,
and _those that labour in word and doctrine_; as Pastor and Doctor.
3. Here we have two participles, expressing these two kinds of Elders,
_Ruling_, _Labouring_, the first do only rule, the second do also
labour in Word and Doctrine.
4. Here are two distinct Articles, distinctly annexed to these two
participles, ὁι προεστωτες, ὁι κοπιωντες. They that rule, They that
labour.
5. Here is an _eminent discretive particle_, set betwixt these two
kinds of Elders; these two participles, these two Articles evidently
distinguishing one from the other, _viz._ μαλιστα _especially they
that labour_, &c. And wheresoever this word μαλιστα is used in the
New Testament, it is used, to distinguish thing from thing, or person
from person; as _Gal._ 6.10. _Phil._ 4.22. 1 _Tim._ 5.8. 1 _Tim._
4.10. _Tit._ 1.10. 2 _Tim._ 4.13. 2 _Pet._ 2.20. _Act._ 20.38. In all
which places, the word [_especially_] is used as a discretive particle,
to distinguish one thing from another, or one person from another; and
therefore being applyed here to persons, must necessarily distinguish
person from person, officer from officer. It is absurd to say, (saith
Dr. _Whitaker_,[55]) that this text is to be understood of one and the
same Elder. If a man should say, _All the Students in the University
are worthy of double honour, especially, They that are Professors of
Divinity; He must necessarily understand it of two sorts of Students_.
Or if a man should say, _All Gentlemen that do service for the Kingdom
in their Counties, are worthy of double honour, especially they that
do service in the Parliament; this must needs be understood of
different persons_. We are not ignorant, that Archbishop _Whitgift_,
Bishop _King_, Bishop _Bilson_, Bishop _Downame_, & others, labour to
fasten divers other interpretations upon these words, which would be
over-tedious here to rehearse. Only thus much we crave leave to say,
which we desire may be seriously weighed; That all other senses that
are given of these words, are either such as are disagreeing from the
literall and Grammatical construction, or such as fall into one of
these two absurdities, either to maintain a _non-preaching Ministry_,
or a _lazy-preaching Ministry_ to deserve double honour. Archbishop
[56]_Whitgift_ by the Elder that rules well, understands a Reader that
is not a Preacher. [57]Dr. _King_, a Bishop ruling, and not preaching;
which is to say, that a non-preaching Minister deserves double honour.
Dr. _Bilson_ [58]saith, that the words are to be understood of two
sorts of Elders, and that the meaning is, That the Elder that rules
well, and preacheth, is worthy of double honour, especially they that
labour, that is, _that preach abundantly_, that do κοπιαν, labour as
a Waterman at his Oar; which is as much as if he had said, that a
_lazy Minister_, or a _seldome-preaching Minister, deserves double
honour_. For all Preachers are in Scripture required κοπιαν, _to
labour abundantly, 1 Thess._ 5.11. _1 Cor._ 3.8. where the same word
is used that is here expressed. If the Apostle had meant to have
distinguished them by their extraordinary labour, he would rather have
said, μοχθουντες, then κοπιωντες, for other-where he useth μοχθος, as
a degree of painful labour, above κοπος, which is put for common
labour, _Rom._ 16.12.[59] Dr. _Downame_ and others, interpret the
words of one and the same Elder, thus, The Elders that rule well, are
worthy of double honour, especially they that labour; that is, (say
they) _especially they labouring, or especially because they labour_.
And so they make their labouring, to be the chief cause of their
double honour. But this interpretation is against the literal meaning,
for the Greek is not ει κοπιωσιν, _if they labour_, but μαλιστα ὁι
κοπιωντες, _especially they that labour_. Here is a participle with an
Article, and a _discretive particle_, which can never be rightly and
literally translated _causatively_. And therefore we conclude,
together with our Reformed Divines[60], that this text according to
the proper and Grammatical construction of it, doth hold forth unto
all unprejudiced Christians, a Ruling Elder, distinct from a teaching
Elder, which is the thing we undertook to prove.
Besides these three Scriptures thus expounded, we shall briefly offer
one more; and that is, Matth. 18.17. where the offended Brother is bid
_to tell the Church_, &c. In which words, the whole power of
excommunication is placed by Christ in the _Church_. The great
question is, what is meant by Church? Here we take for granted: 1.
That by Church, is not meant the civil Magistrate, as _Erastus_ fondly
imagineth; for this is utterly contrary to the purpose of Christ, and
the aym of that discipline here recommended to be used, which is the
_gaining of our brother unto repentance_; whereas the aym of the civil
Magistrate, is not the spiritual good properly and formally of the
offender, but the publique good of the Common-Wealth. And besides, it
is a language unknown in Scripture, to call the Magistrate the Church;
and it is an exposition purposely invented, to overthrow all
Ecclesiastical government.
2. That by Church, is meant _primarily and especially_ the particular
Congregation; we do not say _onely_, but firstly and especially. Hence
we argue; If the power of Excommunication be placed in the particular
Church, then either in the Minister alone, or in the Minister and
whole Congregation, or in the Minister and Elders chosen by the
congregation.
But not in the Minister alone, who being but one man, can no more be
called a Church, then one man can be called many, or a member called a
body. For one person cannot be called a Church, (saith _Bellarmine_
himself[61],) seeing the Church is the people and Kingdome of God. It
is certain, that the Church here spoken of, is a certain number met
together; for it is said, _Where two or three are gathered together_,
&c.
Nor in the Minister and whole Congregation; for God who is the God of
order, not of confusion, hath never committed the exercise of
Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, to a promiscuous multitude; the
Scripture[62] divides a Congregation into Rulers and Saints, into
Governours, and governed; and if all be Governours, who will be left
to be governed? And besides, if the collective body of a Church be the
Governours, then women and servants must govern as well as others.
And therefore we conclude, that by Church, must needs be meant, the
Minister and Ruling-Elders, which are the Officers we are enquiring
after.
And this is no new interpretation, but agreed unto by ancient and
modern Writers. _Chrysostome_ saith[63], by Church, is meant the
προεστωτες, _the Rulers of the Church_, Camer.[64] _the Colledg of
Presbyters_; others, the _Ecclesiacall Senate_. These are called a
Church, for four Reasons:
1. Because it is usual in the Old Testament, (to which our Saviour
here alludeth, as appears by the words Publican and Heathen,) to call
the Assembly of Princes and Elders a Church, Numb. 35.12, 24, 25. with
Deut. 1.16. 1 Chron. 13.2, 3. with 28.1, 2. & 29.1, 6. Deut. 31.28, 30.
1 King. 8.1, 2, 55. Num. 5.2. compared with Levit. 13.15.
2. Because they manage Church affaires in the name of Christ, and of
the Church, and are servants of the Church, as well as of Christ.
3. Because they are, as it were, the eyes and ears of the Church; and
therefore as the body is said to see or hear, when as the eyes and
eares alone do see and hear; so the Church is said to see, hear, and
act, that which this _Senate Ecclesiasticall_ doth see, hear, and act.
4. Because they represent the Church; and it is a common form of
speech, to give the name of that which is represented, to that which
represents it; as we say, that to be done by the whole Kingdome, which
is done by a full and free Parliament. Hence we might further argue:
_If the Colledge of Presbyters represent the Church, then it must be
made up of Ruling-Elders, as well as Ministers._ For Ministers alone
cannot represent the Church; the Church consisting not of Ministers
alone, but of Ministers and people, who are part of the Church as well
as Ministers, and are so called, _Act._ 15.3, 4.
This is all we shall say, for the Scriptural part.
[Sidenote: Episcopacy by Divine right.]
As for the _Primitive times of the Church_, we should have wholly
waved the mention of any thing about them, were it not for the base
calumnies & reproaches which the Prelatical party cast upon the
Ruling-Elder, in saying, That it is _the new fangled device of Calvin
at Geneva_; and never known in the Church of Christ before his dayes.
There is a Bishop that _makes offer to forfeit his life to justice,
and his reputation to shame, if any man living can shew, that ever
there was a Ruling-Elder in the Christian world, till_ Farell _and_
Viret _first created them_. But he hath been abundantly answered by
_Smectymnuus_, insomuch, that whereas in his Episcopacy by Divine
Right, he boldly averreth, that the name of the Elders of the Church,
comprehendeth none but preachers, [65]and that therefore none but they
may be called _Seniores Ecclesiæ, Elders of the Church_; though some
others haply may have the title of _Seniores populi, Elders of the
people_, because of their _civill Authority_. Yet notwithstanding
afterward, the same Bishop in his [66]reply to _Smectymnuus_
acknowledgeth, that besides _Pastors and Doctors_, and besides
_Magistrates and Elders of the City_, there are to be found in
Antiquity, _Seniores Ecclesiastici, Ecclesiastical Elders_ also; only
he alledgeth, they were but as our Church-Wardens, or rather, as our
vestry-men; whereas in truth, _They were Judges in Ecclesiasticall
controversies_, and did assist the Pastor in ruling and governing the
Church; witnesse that famous place in [67]_Ambrose_, which testifies,
_that both in the Jewish and in the Christian Church, there were
these Ecclesiasticall Rulers_. This is also the judgment of
[68]_Tertullian_, [69]_Origen_, [70]_Basil_, [71]_Optatus_,
[72]_Hierome_, [73]_Augustine_, [74]_Gregory_ the great, and divers
others cited by _Justellus_ in his Annotations in _Can. Eccl.
Affricanæ_, and by _Voetius_, and by _Smectymnuus_, and by the Author
of the _Assertion of the Scotch Discipline_, some of which are
rehearsed in the Margent. We will conclude this Discourse, with the
confession of Archbishop _Whitgift_, a great Writer against the
Presbyterial-Government; _I know (saith he) that in the Primitive
Church, they had in every Church Seniors, to whom the Government of
the Church was committed, but that was before there was any Christian
Prince or Magistrate_.
And therefore, let not our respective Congregations suffer themselves
to be abused any longer with a false belief, that the _Ruling-Elder_
is a new device, and an _Officer_ never known in the _Church of God_,
nor _Word of God_. For we have sufficiently (as we conceive) proved it
to be warranted by the Word, and to have been of use in the purer
times of the Church.
Three things we shall desire to adde, as a conclusion of this
discourse.
1. _That there are prints of the Ruling-Elder remaining amongst us
even at this day_; for as the _Overseers_ of every Parish, have a
_resemblance of the Deacon_; so the _Church-warden_ hath some
_foot-steps_ of our _Ruling-Elder_; though we must needs confess, that
this _Office hath been much abused_; and we could desire it might be
laid aside, and the true _Scripture-Ruling-Elder_ set up in his place.
2. That the Prelatical Divines, [75]which are such great adversaries
to the _Ruling-Elder_, do yet notwithstanding, hold and prove, that
men of abilities which are not Ministers, are to be admitted into
_Generall Councels_; because that in the Synod of _Jerusalem_, not
only the _Apostles_, but _Elders_ and _Brethren_ did sit and vote,
because this was practised in the _Old Testament_; and because that
this was practised in the Councels held afterwards in the Church of
Christ, as appears out of _Eusebius_, _Sozomen_ and _Theodoret_, and
by the subscriptions of those Councels done by men, not Ministers, as
well as others.
Hence we might argue;
_If other men, besides Ministers, are by Gods word, even in the
judgment of the Prelaticall Divines, to be admitted into the greatest
Assemblies, and Councels of the Church, much more are they by the same
right to be admitted into particular Congregations, to sit and vote
with the Minister in the Government of the Church._
3. Adde thirdly, that even in the Bishops days, for these many hundred
years, there have been _Ruling-Elders_ in the Church; for the
_Chancellours_, _Commissaries_, _Officials_, and such others, were all
of them _Governours of the Church_, and had the _power of suspension
and excommunication_; and yet were few of them, if any, _Ministers of
the Word_: And it seems to us, to be a great _curse of God_, that
lyeth upon mens spirits, that could willingly submit to _Chancellours_
& _Commissaries_, who did nothing else but _pick their purses, and
tyrannize over their bodies and estates_, and yet will not submit unto
the _Ruling-Elder_ now established, who _seeks no other interest, but
the interest of Christ, and medleth not with mens bodies or estates,
and desireth nothing but to be helpfull to the Ministers of Christ, to
keep their Congregations in unity, piety, and verity_. This is all we
shall say, in answer to the first Objection.
The second grand Objection against the _Presbyteriall-Government_, is,
that it requires all, of all sorts, to come to the _Minister_ and
_Elders_ to be examined, before they can be admitted to the Sacrament
of the Lords Supper, which is (as some ignorantly say) to bring in
auricular confession again into the Church, to bring the people of God
into a spirituall slavery and bondage unto the Eldership, and which is
an usurpation more then prelaticall, and a tyrannicall domineering
over mens consciences, and hath no footing in the Word; for the
Scripture saith, _Let a man examine himself, and so let him eate_, &c.
It is not said, _Let him first be examined by the Ministers and
Elders_: the Scripture addes, _He that eats and drinks unworthily,
eats and drinks damnation to himself_, not to the Eldership. And why
then must a man submit himself unto the examination of the Eldership?
and how come the Eldership to be guilty of another mans unworthy
receiving? It is further added by some, that for their parts, they
will willingly come before the Minister, and submit to his
examination, but they will rather for ever be without the Sacrament,
then submit to come before the _Lay-Elder_, for whom, they see no
warrant in the Word of God: Others say, that they will freely yield
that the _younger sort_, that never have received the Sacrament,
should present themselves to the _Eldership_ to be catechized, and
instructed, and fitted for the Sacrament; but they will never yield,
that old men and women, that heretofore have divers times received,
should now in their old age be required to come, to be examined not
only by their Minister, but by the Elders also, who oftentimes are
very unfit for that Office: Others adde, that though some Ministers
rigidly keep all from the Sacrament, that will not come before the
Elderships; yet there are others, that are _Presbyterians, and have
Elders chosen, that act without them_, and will receive us to the
Sacrament without comming before them. These, and such like
Objections, are brought against this way of Examination, that is so
happily begun amongst us. Now that we might satisfie these Objections,
and make good our practice out of the Word of God, we shall briefly do
these four things.