The third text for the divine right of the Ruling-Elder, is, 1 Tim. 5.17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine. For the understanding of which words, we will lay down this rule, That every text of Scripture is to be interpreted according to the literall and grammatical construction; unless it be contrary to the analogie of Faith, or the rule of Life, or the circumstances of the Text: otherwise, we shall make a nose of wax of the Scriptures, and draw quidlibet ex quolibet. Now according to the Grammatical construction, here are plainly held forth two sorts of Elders; the one, onely ruling; and the other, also labouring in Word and Doctrine. Give us leave to give you the true analysis of the words.
1. Here is a Genus, a general, and that is Elders.
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.