Part 1 — Chapter 7: Argument 5 from 1 Tim. 5:17

Our fifth argument is taken from a clear place, 1 Timothy 5:17. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine. Hence we reason after this manner.

These churches which had some elders that labored not in the word and doctrine, yet were worthy of double honor for ruling well, had the very same ruling elders we plead for.

But the Apostolic churches had some elders that labored not in the word and doctrine, yet were worthy of double honor for ruling well. Ergo.

The argument rises from the plain text, than which what can be clearer? But there are some who would darken light, and lighten darkness.

Doctor Field propounds three glosses upon this place for the frustration of our argument. First, that 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 that the Apostle notes two parts or duties of presbyterial offices, not two sorts of presbyters. This is manifestly against the text, which speaks of officers, not of offices, of persons, not of duties, for it is not said, especially for laboring, &c., but especially they that labor, &c.

Secondly, he says, among elders some labored principally in governing and ministering the sacraments, some in preaching. So Paul shows that he preached and labored more than all the Apostles, but baptized few or none. And when Paul and Barnabas were companions, and their travels equal, yet Paul was the chief speaker; so that though both were worthy of double honor, yet Paul especially. But for answer to this: first, we would gladly know what warrant he had for expounding Paul's more abundant laboring than all the Apostles, of his preaching alone? Secondly, what warrant for such a distinction of elders, that some labored principally in governing, some in preaching? Because Paul preached and did not baptize, and because he was the chief speaker when he and Barnabas traveled together: therefore some elders labored in governing, some in preaching; good logic forsooth. Thirdly, thought he that the Apostle did ever account such ministers as do not mainly labor in preaching to be worthy of double honor: no, it was never the Apostle's mind to allow any honor, far less double honor, either to non-preaching or to seldom-preaching ministers. Ut quid enim doctor appellatur nisi ut doc[•]at? says Chrysostom. 4. Tell me whether preaching is a duty belonging to all the ministers of the Gospel or not? If it be not the duty of all, then it is the duty of none, but a work of supererogation or some such thing; for if some be not bound to preach by their presbyterial order and vocation, what is there that should bind others to preach? The order and calling of a presbyter is alike common to all. Now if all be bound to preach (which Field himself seems to say in his first gloss, when he calls pains in teaching a part or duty of the presbyterial office, no less than governing) how shall those presbyters be worthy of double honor, who do not the duties of their presbyterial office, but leave the one half of them undone?

Thirdly, says Field, there were some that remained in certain places for governing of those who were already won by the preaching of the Gospel: others traveled with great labor, from place to place, to preach Christ to such as had never heard of him. Both these were worthy of double honor, but especially the latter, who did not build upon another's foundation, nor govern those whom others had gained. The poet would here answer: Non minor est virtus quam quaerere parta tueri.

A physician would haply say, that to prevent the recidivation is as much worth as the cure. But I answer: 1. There is no such opposition in the text, but a subordination rather; for elders who labor in the word and doctrine are not contra-distinguished from elders that rule well, but are declared to be one kind of elders that rule well. 2. Though the Apostles and Evangelists traveled from one country to another, to preach Christ to such as never heard of him; yet where has he read that some of these who were mere▪ presbyters (for of such speaks the text in hand) did so likewise? It rather appears from Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 that elders were ordained in every city, there to remain at their particular charges, and no elders find we ordained by the Apostles ordinatione vaga.

We have heard Doctor Field's three glosses upon this place in question. Sutcliffe has given us other three which are no better. First, he says, that if there be here any distinction of ruling elders, it is between those that labor more abundantly and painfully, and between those that labor not so much. This gloss is also received by Saravia, by Titen, by Bishop Hall in his Assertion of Episcopacy by divine right. They tell us, it is one thing to preach, another thing to labor in the word and doctrine. Answer: 1. It is not the ministry of the word, but the ministry of ruling which here the Apostle makes common to both. 2. This exposition allows not only honor, but double honor; yes, a high degree of double honor to such as take no pains in preaching, but are sparing therein. 3. It makes the Apostle's speech not to grow, but to fall: for [in non-Latin alphabet] when they have stretched it to the full, notes only great labor, whereas to rule well imports both great labor and great prudence, dexterity, faithfulness and charity beside. 4. It makes the last part of the speech, in the word and doctrine, to be superfluous: for they hold that all the difference here is in the measure or manner of labor, and no difference in re subjecta. 5. All who have any charge in the ministry are called [in non-Latin alphabet] (1 Thessalonians 5:11); if they be at all faithful, and worthy of honor, then do they labor (1 Corinthians 3:8); yes, in laboring, watch, as they that must give account (Hebrews 13:27). 6. The Rhemists do interpret the Apostle in the same manner. But Cartwright answers them: if he had meant any extraordinary labor, he would rather have said [in non-Latin alphabet] than [in non-Latin alphabet]; for elsewhere he uses [in non-Latin alphabet] as a degree of painful travail above [in non-Latin alphabet], which is put for common labor (Romans 16:12).

But it may be the next Commentary shall be better. The words, says Sutcliffe, are to be rendered thus: Let Elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honor, labouring greatly in the Word and Doctrine: so that the later part of the speech is added exegetically, to show who they be that rule well, to wit, these who labor greatly in the word and doctrine. That the words are so to be understood, he undertakes to prove from the text itself: For, says he, one who purposes to say in Greek, especially they who labor, will not say, [in non-Latin alphabet], but [in non-Latin alphabet]. Thus changing the Participle into a Verb, and the prepositive article [in non-Latin alphabet], which is written with an aspiration alone, into the subjunctive [in non-Latin alphabet] cum accentu gravi, for this answers to the relative who, which the prepositive article does never. Moreover, says he, if the Apostle would have distinguished Elders into these that preach, and these that preach not, he would have added the adversative particle [in non-Latin alphabet] after [in non-Latin alphabet]: for [in non-Latin alphabet] signifies indeed especially, but [in non-Latin alphabet] alone without [illegible] signifies greatly, or much, as here it does. Answer 1. This reading of his is very harsh, and had need to sound better before it contradict both the English Translators, and the common current of Protestant Interpreters. 2. He is not so very well skilled in the Greek, as he boasts to be, unless he make the Apostle Paul a great Ignoramus in that language. For he puts a Participle with the Prepositive Article for a Verb and a Relative, (Philippians 4:7) [in non-Latin alphabet], and the peace of God which passes all understanding. So (Ephesians 4:22) [in non-Latin alphabet]. The old man which is corrupt, and v. 24. [in non-Latin alphabet]. The new man which after God is created. (1 Thessalonians 5:12) [in non-Latin alphabet]. To know them which labor among you. If Sutcliffe's rule hold, we may not read it so, but thus, To know them labouring among you. So (Revelation 7:14) [in non-Latin alphabet], These are they who come out of great tribulation. Many places of this kind there are, which I need not cite. 3. An Ellipsis of the particle [illegible], is no error, no not in members of an opposition, as (Colossians 2:23) much less in the distinction of a Species from the Genus. 4. [In non-Latin alphabet] without [illegible], is put for especially, as well as when it has [illegible], (1 Timothy 4:10) who is the Savior of all men, especially of these that believe [in non-Latin alphabet]. This skilled Grecian would have us to conceive it thus: God is the Savior of all men who believe much: and so it shall be a comfortless text for those of little faith.

Surely this man had need to be more happy in his third exposition; and now let us know what it is? He says, that though we could evince, that the Apostle here speaks of some other Elders besides the Ministers of the word; yet we shall have no advantage for our ruling Elders: for the Apostle being to prove that the Ministers of the word ought to be maintained, why might he not, says he, use this general proposition, That all Rulers, whether public or domestic, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical, are to be honored? When the Apostle speaks of the choosing of Deacons, he will have them to be such as have ruled their own houses well. This is his last refuge, and how weak, let any man judge. We have heard of many sorts of Rulers, but who did ever hear (before Sutcliffe told it) of Domestic or Civil Elders that rule well. Had not the word Elders been in the Text, but the word [in non-Latin alphabet] alone, he might have been the bolder to have given this sense. But since the Apostle speaks not generally of them that rule well, but of Elders in the Church that rule well, this mars his gloss altogether.

Bilson gives yet another sense, That there were two sorts of Elders, some who laboured in the word and doctrine, some who had the care of the poor: both were worthy of double honor; but especially they who laboured in the word. Answer. Deacons are distinguished from Elders, (Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12; 1 Timothy 3) and by all antiquity. If we make Deacons to be Elders, and the care of the poor to be an act of ruling, then let us make what you will of the plainest Scriptures.

I find in Didoclavius three other interpretations beside the former: First, Bridges says, That by Elders who labor not in the word and doctrine, are meant rulers or inferior Magistrates, chosen for compounding of civil controversies. Answer 1. This is a strange language to call civil Magistrates by the name of Elders. 2. The Apostle is speaking of Ecclesiastical not of Civil office-bearers. 3. This exposition makes Pastors who labor in the word and doctrine, to be a sort of civil Magistrates, because they are a kind of Elders that rule well.

Next, Bishop King expounds this place of old and infirm Bishops, who cannot labor in the word and doctrine. Answer 1. The Apostle speaks of Presbyters, not of Prelates. 2. To rule well imports as great labor as preaching, and somewhat more, as I showed before, so that they who cannot labor in preaching, cannot labor in ruling neither. 3. They who have eviscerated and spent themselves in the work of the Ministry, who have been (as long as they could stand upon their feet) valiant Champions for the truth, against the enemies thereof, who have served their time according to the will of God, without the stain of Heresy, Schism, Apostasy, or unfaithfulness, when they become old and infirm, they ought not to be the less honoured (as the impious verdict of this Prelate would have it) but so much the more honor ought to be given to their hoar head found in the way of righteousness.

Another gloss is given by the same King, namely, that the Apostle would have Ministers, not only to live well, but to feed also by the word and doctrine. Answer 1. The rising of the Apostle's words does not concern duties, but persons, as we have said before. 2. To live well is not to rule well, unless we will make all who live godly, to rule well. 3. Thirdly, this gloss does still leave a double honor to Ministers that live well, though they do not preach.

We see now, our opposites have been trying all winds to fetch upon us: but here we leave them between wind and wave: for this our last argument carries us away with full sail.