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.
Except. 10. Seeing in every minister of the word three things are requisite, unblamableness of life, dexterity of governing, and integrity of doctrine; the two first are commended here, but especially the labor in doctrine above them both; therefore here are set down not a two-fold order of presbyters, but only two parts of the pastoral office, preaching and governing; both which the apostle joins in the office of pastors, 1 Thes. v. 2-13.[86] "The guides of the church are worthy of double honor, both in respect of governing and teaching, but especially for their pains in teaching; so noting two parts or duties of presbyterial offices, not two sorts of presbyters."[87]
Ans. 1. It is true, pastors have the power both of ruling and preaching belonging to their office, as is intimated, 1 Thes. v. 12, 13, and Heb. xiii. 7, and in other places; but doth it therefore follow, that none have the power of ruling, but those that have the power of preaching? or that this text, or 1 Tim. v. 17, intends only those rulers that preach? 2. Bilson, in this exception, confesseth that laboring belongs to ordinary fixed pastors, and therefore contradicts himself in his former objection, wherein he would have appropriated it to unfixed apostles and evangelists; yea, by this gloss it is granted, that preaching presbyters are to be more honored than non-preaching ruling prelates. These are miserable shifts and evasions, whereby they are necessitated thus to wound their own friends, and to cross their own principles. 3. According to this gloss, this should be the sense, "Let the ministers that rule well by good life, and skilful government, be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine." Now doth not this tacitly insinuate, that some ministers may rule well, and be worthy of double honor, though they labor not in the word and doctrine? and how absurd were this? But if the text be interpreted not of several acts of the same office, but of several sorts of officers, this absurdity is prevented, Let ruling elders be doubly honored, especially those that both rule and preach. 4. The text evidently speaks not of duties, but of persons; not of acts, but of agents; not of offices, but of officers; for it is not said, "Let the elders be counted worthy of double honor, for well ruling; especially for laboring"—but, Let the elders that rule well, especially they that labor in the word, &c. So that this gloss is vain, and against the plain letter of the text.
Except. 11. Though the emphasis of the word, they that labor, be not to be neglected, yet the difference betwixt presbyters is not put by that word, but by those (in the word and doctrine.) This does not signify two kinds of presbyters, but two offices of ministers and pastors; one general, to rule well; another special, to labor in the word and doctrine. To rule well, saith Hierom, is to fulfil his office; or, as the Syriac interpreter expounds it, "to behave themselves well in their place;" or as the Scripture speaks, To go in and out before God's people as becomes them, going before them in good works in their private conversations, and also in their public administrations; whence the apostle makes here a comparison betwixt the duties of ministers thus, "All presbyters that generally discharge their office well are worthy of double honor; especially they who labor in the word, which is a primary part of their office."[88]
Ans. 1. For substance this objection is the same with objection 10, already answered, therefore much more needs not to be added. 2. It is to be noted, that the apostle saith not, "Let the presbyters that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially because they labor in the word—for then he should have pointed at the distinct offices of ministers;" but he saith, especially they that labor, which clearly carries the sense to the distinction of elders themselves, who have distinct employments. 3. If preaching presbyters only should here be meant, and under that phrase (that rule well) their whole office in general, and the right managing thereof, should be contained, whereas laboring in the word and doctrine (as this exception implies) is but one part thereof, then hence it would inevitably follow, that a minister deserves more honor for the well administration of one part of his office only, than for the well managing of the whole, which is absurd! Here therefore the apostle doth not compare one primary part of the pastor's office, with the whole office and all the parts thereof; but one sort of presbyters with another, distinguishing the mere ruling presbyter from the ruling and preaching presbyter, as the acute and learned Whitaker hath well observed.
Except. 12. It is evident in the text itself, that all these elders here meant were worthy of double honor, whether they labored or governed; which by St. Paul's proofs, presently following, and by the consent of all old and new writers, is meant of their maintenance at the charges of the Church.[89] Now that lay-judges and censors of manners were in the apostle's time found at the expense of the Church, or by God's law ought to have their maintenance at the people's hands, till I see it justly proved, I cannot believe it: which yet must be proved before this construction can be admitted.[90]
Ans. 1. This word honor signifies (after the custom of the Hebrews, Exod. xx. 12) all pious offices and relief. This phrase (double honor) interpreters expound either absolutely or comparatively. Absolutely thus: double honor, i.e. great honor, so some; maintenance in this life, happiness in the life to come, so others; honor of reverence to their persons, and of maintenance for their labors, so Chrysostom, of which saith Calvin, "That Chrysostom interprets double honor to be maintenance and reverence, I impugn not." Comparatively thus: double honor here seems to relate to what was before spoken, ver. 3, "Honor widows that are widows indeed." Now here he intimates, that though widows are to be honored, yet these should be much more honored; they should have single, these double honor. In this last sense, which seems most genuine, it seems most likely that the apostle here intended principally, if not only, the honor of maintenance; partly because the honor appointed for widows, ver. 3, &c., was only maintenance; partly because the reason of this charge to honor, &c., refers only to maintenance, ver. 18. Thus far we grant, that the text speaks of maintenance. 2. It may be further yielded that all the presbyters here spoken of are to be counted worthy of double honor, of honorable, liberal maintenance; even they that rule well (if need require) are to be thus honored, but the principal care of maintenance ought to be of them that labor in the word and doctrine, because the apostle saith especially they that labor, &c.: the like injunction, see Gal. vi. 6, "Let him that is catechized, communicate to him that catechizeth him in all good things;" and thus much this text plainly evidenceth. 3. What then can be inferred hereupon by the adversaries of ruling elders? "Therefore the ruling elders (in the reformed churches) that take no maintenance of the church, are not the elders that rule well here mentioned?" This follows not: the apostle Paul took no wages of the church of Corinth, 2 Cor. xi. 7-9, and xii. 12, 13, &c., was he therefore not an apostle to them, as to other churches of whom he took maintenance? Divers among us in these days labor in the word and doctrine, and are not sufficiently maintained by their churches, but forced to spend of their own estates to do others service; are they therefore no ministers? Forgive them this wrong. Most churches are not able (or at least not willing) to maintain their very preaching presbyters and their families comfortably and sufficiently, as the gospel requireth: if therefore in prudence, that the Church be not needlessly burdened, those ruling elders are chosen generally that need no maintenance, doth their not taking maintenance of the church make their office null and void? Or if the church do not give them maintenance (when they neither need it, nor desire it, nor is the church able to do it) is the church therefore defective in her duty, or an ill observer of the apostolical precepts? Sure maintenance is not essentially and inseparably necessary to the calling of either ruling or preaching elder. There may be cases when not only the preaching, but the ruling elders ought to be maintained, and there may be cases when not only the ruling but also the preaching presbyter (as it was with Paul) should not expect to be maintained by the church. 4. It is as observable that the apostle here saith, let them be counted worthy of double honor, though the reformed churches do not actually give double maintenance to elders that rule well, yet they count them worthy of double maintenance, though the elders do not take it, though the churches cannot give it.