These sanctions of holy church it pleased the emperor to ratify by an imperial edict, for so Justinian commanded, that in causes ecclesiastical, secular judges should have no interest: "Sed sanctissimus episcopus secundum sacras regulas causæ finem imponat:" "The bishop according to the sacred canons must be the sole judge of church matters." I end this with the decretal of St. Gregory, one of the four doctors of the church: "Cavendum est à fraternitate vestrâ, ne sæcularibus viris, atque non sub regulâ nostrâ degentibus, res ecclesiasticæ committantur:" "Heed must be taken, that matters ecclesiastical be not any ways concredited to secular persons k." But of this I have twice spoken already. (Sect. 36. and sect. 41.) The thing is so evident, that it is next to impudence to say, that, in antiquity, laymen were parties and assessors in the consistory of the church. It was against their faith, it was against their practice; and those few pigmy objections out of Tertullian', St. Ambrose, and St. Austin", using the word 'seniores,' or elders, sometimes for priests, as being the Latin for the Greek geoßúregor, sometimes for a secular magistrate or alderman, (for I think St. Austin did so in his third book against Cresconius), are but like sophisms to prove that two and two are not four; for to pretend such slight, airy imaginations, against the constant, known, open Catholic practice and doctrine of the church, and history of all ages, is as if a man should go to fight an imperial army with a single bulrush. They are not worth further considering. But this is that in this question of lay elders, the modern Arians and Acephali do wholly mistake their own advantages for whatsoever they object, out of antiquity, for the white and watery colours of lay elders, is either a very misprision of their allegations, or else clearly abused in the use of them. For now a days they are only used to exclude and drive forth episcopacy; but then they misallege antiquity; for the men with whose heifers they would fain plough in this question, were themselves bishops for the most part, and he that was not, would fain have been; it is known so of * Lib. vii. Epist. 66. i Novel. Constit. 123. 1 Tertul. Apol. c. 33. Tertullian; and, therefore, most certainly, if they had spoken of lay-judges in church-matters (which they never dreamed of), yet meant them not so as to exclude episcopacy, and if not, then the pretended allegations can do no service in the present question. I am only to clear this pretence from a place of Scripture totally misunderstood, and then it cannot have any colour from any aibevría, either Divine or human, but that layjudges of causes ecclesiastical, as they are unheard of in antiquity, so they are neither named in Scripture, nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office; and, therefore, may be remanded to the place from whence they came, even the lake of Gehenna, and so to the place of the nearest denomination. The objection is from St. Paul, oi narŵs agoeσtātes πpeoßútepoi, &c. "Let the elders that rule well, be accounted worthy of double honour, especially they that labour in the word and doctrine :" cially they, therefore, all elders do not so. Here are two sorts of elders, preaching ministers, and elders not preachers. Therefore lay-elders, and yet all are governors. espe But why, therefore, lay-elders? Why may there not be divers church-officers, and yet but one or two of them the preacher? Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach,' saith St. Paul; and yet the commission of baptizate' was as large as prædicate,' and why, then, might not another say, 'Christ sent me not to preach, but to baptize?' that is, in St. Paul's sense, not so much to do one as to do the other, and if he left the ordinary ministration of baptism, and betook himself to the ordinary office of preaching, then, to be sure, some minister must be the ordinary baptizer, and so not the preacher: for if he might be both ordinarily, why was not St. Paul both? For though their power was common to all of the same order, yet the execution and dispensation of the ministries was according to several gifts, and that of prophecy or preaching was not dispensed to all in so considerable a measure, but that some of them might be destined to the ordinary execution of other offices, and yet, because the gift of prophecy was the greatest, so also was the office; and, therefore, the sense of the words is this,' That all presbyters must be honoured, but especially they that prophesy, doing • 1 Tim. v. 17. that office with an ordinary execution and ministry.' So no lay-elders yet. Add to this, that it is also plain, that all the clergy did not preach. Valerius, bishop of Hippo, could not well skill of the Latin tongue, being a Greek born, and yet a godly bishop; and St. Austin, his presbyter, preached for him. The same case might occur in the apostles' times. For then was a concourse of all nations to the Christian synaxes, especially in all great imperial cities and metropolitans, as Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Cæsarea, and the like. Now all could not speak with tongues, neither could all prophesy, they were particular gifts, given severally, to several men, appointed to minister in church-offices. Some prophesied, some interpreted; and, therefore, it is an ignorant fancy to think that he must needs be a laic, whosoever, in the ages apostolical, was not a preacher. 2. None of the fathers ever expounded this place of layelders, so that we have a traditive interpretation of it in prejudice to the pretence of our new office. 3. The word presbyter is never used, in the New Testament, for a lay-man, if a church-officer be intended. If it be said, it is used so here, that is the question, and must not be brought to prove itself. 4. The presbyter that is here spoken of, must be maintained by ecclesiastical revenue, for so St. Paul expounds 'honour' in the next verse. 66 Presbyters that rule well, must be honoured," &c. "For it is written, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn." But now the patrons of this new devise are not so greedy of their lay-bishops as to be at charges with them, they will rather let them stand alone on their own rotten legs, and so perish, than fix him upon this place with their hands in their purses. But it had been most fitting for them to have kept him, being he is of their own begetting. 5. This place speaks not of divers persons, but divers parts of the pastoral office, προΐστασθαι, and κοπιᾷν ἐν λόγῳ· “ Το rule and to labour in the word.' Just as if the expression had been in materiâ politicâ.' All good counsellors of state are worthy of double honour, especially them that, disregarding their own private, aim at the public good. This implies not two sorts of counsellors, but two parts of a counsellor's worth and quality. Judges that do righteousness are worthy of double honour, especially if they right the cause of orphans and widows; and yet there are no righteous judges that refuse to do both. 6. All ministers of holy church did not preach, at least not frequently. The seven that were ἐπὶ τῶν χήρων τεταγμένοι, set over the widows,' were presbyters, but yet they were forced to leave the constant ministration of the word to attend that employment, as I showed formerly P; and thus it was in descent too, for ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐν ̓Αλεξανδρείᾳ, οὐ προσομιλεῖ, said Socrates; "A presbyter does not preach in Alexandria, the bishop only did it." And then the allegation is easily understood. For labouring in the word' does not signify only making homilies or exhortations to the people, but whether it be by word, or writing, or travelling from place to place, still, the greater the sedulity of the person is, and difficulty of the labour, the greater increment of honour is to be given him. So that here are no lay-elders; for all the presbyters St. Paul speaks of, are to be honoured, but especially those who take extraordinary pains in propagating the Gospel. For though all preach (suppose that,) yet all do not xoiav, take such great pains in it as is intimated in xoTTES. For xoay is "to take bodily labour and travel, usque ad lassitudinem,"" so Budæus renders it. And so, it is likely, St. Paul here means. Honour the good presbyters, but especially them that travel for disseminating the Gospel. And the word is often so used in Scripture. St. Paul, ἀλλὰ περισσότερον πάντων ἐκοπίασα· “ Ι have travelled in the word more than they all." Not that St. Paul preached more than all the apostles, for, most certainly, they made it their business as well as he. But he travelled further, and more than they all, for the spreading it. And thus it is said of the good women that travelled with the apostles, for supply of the necessities of their diet and household offices," they laboured much in the Lord." Kortav is the word for them too. So it is said of Persis, of Mary, of Tryphæna, of Tryphosa. And since those women were xoжιãσαι Ev Kugía, that travelled with the apostolical men and evangelists, the men also travelled too, and preached, and, therefore, were MOTTINYTES ÉV XÓYWw, that is, " travellers in the word." λόγῳ, "We ought, therefore, to receive such," saith St. John', intimating a particular reception of them, as being towards us of a peculiar merit. So that the sense of St. Paul may be this also, all the rulers of the church, that is, all bishops, apostles, and apostolic men, are to be honoured, but especially them, who, besides the former ruling, are also travellers in the word,' or evangelists. 7. We are furnished with answer enough to infatuate this pretence for lay-elders, from the common draught of the new discipline. For they have some that preach only, and some that rule and preach too, and yet neither of them the layelders, viz. their pastors and doctors. 8. Since it is pretended by themselves, in the question of episcopacy, that 'presbyter' and' episcopus' is all one, and this very thing confidently obtruded, in defiance of episcopacy, why may not presbyteri,' in this place, signify bishops?' And then either this must be lay-bishops, as well as lay-presbyters, or else this place is to none of their purposes 9. If both these offices of ruling and preaching may be conjunct in one person, then there is no necessity of distinguishing the officers by the several employments, since one man may do both. But if these offices cannot be conjunct, then no bishops must preach, nor no preachers be of the consistory, (take which government you list,) for if they be, then the officer, being united in one person, the inference of the distinct officer, the lay-elder, is impertinent. For the meaning of St. Paul would be nothing but this:-All churchrulers must be honoured, especially for their preaching.—For if the offices may be united in one person, (as it is evident they may), then this may be comprehended within the other, and only be a vital part, and of peculiar excellency. And, ́indeed, so it is, according to the exposition of St. Chrysostom and Primasius: Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ καλῶς προεστάναι μηδενὸς φείδεσθαι τῆς τῶν προβάτων κηδεμονίας ἕνεκεν· They rule well, that spare nothing for the care of the flock." So that this is the general charge, and preaching is the particular. For the work, in general, they are to receive double honour, but this of preaching, as then preaching was, had a particular excellency, and a plastic power to form men into Christianity, especially it being then attested with miracles. 66 But the new office of a lay-elder, I confess, I cannot comprehend in any reasonable proportion, his person, his quality, his office, his authority, his subordination, his com |