The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar, Part 2 · Chapter 1

The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar · Part 2 · Chapter 1

CHAP. I. The Dr's▪ Vnsound and Impertinent Reflections upon our first Reformers, as to their Iudgment in point of Church-Government, Exposed: Together with his Vnsound and Popish Method in his Answer to the Argument against Episcopacy, taken from Mat. 20.25. And with the paralell Texts.

TO Examin in the better Method, what this Dr. produceth, against us, it is fit, that we First view, what he represents as our Assertion, and which he boldly Charges with Error and Novelty, and as one of those Opinions never heard of, for 1400 Years after our Saviours Incarnation: It is thus, That we affirm our Saviour hath appointed his Church, under the New Testament (whether Provincial, National, or Oecumenick) to be Governed by the several Classes of Presbyters, acting in a perfect Parity, and owning no Subordination to p. 2any higher Officer in the Ec…lesiastick Senate, above a Presbyter, in the modern and current Notion of the Word.

That which I mainly desiderat here, is. 1. The term of [several Classes] appears obscure, not pointing at the Beautyful Order and Subordination of Judicatories, which we maintain according to the Nature of all Government, consequently of Church Government. The Classes and excerpted Classes, is an invidious, independent term: We own the Congregational Church represented by the Pastors one or more, with the Congregational Eldership: The Presbytrie, a Judicatory Superior to this, made up the Pastors of the Congregations, together with Ruling Elders: The Provincial Synod, superior thereunto, consisting of the Ministers of the Several Presbytries, with Ruling Elders, in the Precincts of the Province, to which the proportioned number of Presbytries are subordinat, and wherein they are represented: The National Church, made up of a convenient number of Ministers and Elders, from every Presbytrie therein, to which the Provincial Synods are subordinat. Which Model of Government, has been so fully Cleared from Scripture, by many Learned Pens, that he cannot stand before the evidence of Divine Authority, and Reason, offered for the same; And which any, who have Read, may see the vanity of his empty Pamphlet. 2 When he tells us of Presbyters, Acting in a perfect parity, he insinuats, as if We held no other Presbyter, than the Pastor, and that all who come under this general Name or Character, have by our Principles, the same interest in Church Government; which, if he mean of Government in its whole Extent, viz, that Power, which is called the Diatactick, Critick and Dogmatick, its a gross Falsehood: For, we distinguish an interest in the last, which is proper to Pastors, from that interest in the first two, which we allow to Ruling Elders. 3. When he tells us, We own no higher Officer, in the Ecclesiastick Senate, above a Presbyter in the modern Current Notion of the Word, he speaks in the Clouds, and confusedly, not specifying, what is that Notion of the Word, which he calls Modern and current, and which we own as of the Divine Appointment and Signature. We hold, that the Pastor, labouring in the Word and Doctrin, and to whom is Committed the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key, is termed also in Scripture, the Elder or Presbyter, and that he is the highest ordinary Church Officer of Divine Appointment; and this with the Body of Protestant Churches and Divines. We also hold, that the Scripture points out an Elder or Presbyter, that Rules only, and is inferior to the Labourer in the Word and Doctrin, as having no interest therein; and this Notion of the Word we hold, and can make good to be the Scripture, as well as Modern Notion. If this Dr. in calling it the Current Notion of the Word, intend that which is the general Sense of Divines, he seems here to Charge them all with Novelty and Singularity, since all, who hold this Notion of the Word, and p. 3understand the Presbyter, in the Sense above exprest, must needs own him to have such interest in Government, and the same Authority, which we Assert: And therefore, Cross to the Dr's Notion, which he is not pleased directly to specifie.

The Dr. without distinction, or setting up his discriminating Marchstones, as to the extension of time, calls the days, wherein this Notion of the Presbyter is become current, dayes of Separation and Singularity, differing in this from the Uniform Testimony of Antiquity; And the Critick has here much to say, in proof of his Charging with Singularity and Separation, and a dangerous Separation from the Uniform Testimony of Antiquity, the whole Body of Reformed Churches and Divines, since in their Confessions, and the Current usage of their Writers, they thus understand and make use of the term Presbyter. As also, that upon other grounds, he Charges them, with Singularity and Separation, since he calls these dayes such, absolutely, abstracting from this particular Cause: And what dangerous Consequence, this Doctrin is of, and how highly reflecting upon the Churches, will sute his serious, second, and more sedat Thoughts, when in a better frame and humour.

The Dr. adds, That, in this we differ from the first Presbyterians among our selves, who Declare in their Confession of Faith, that all Church Policy is Variable, so far were they from Asserting an Indispensible and Unalterable Right of Parity. But, in this, he has Abused his Reader, and any that but reads that Confession, may easily discover his Impudent Forgery and Imposings: For, First, In the ninteenth Article of that Confession, Assigning the Notes of the True Church, they present these three, (1.) The true Preaching of the Word of God, as he has revealed himself, in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles. (2.) The right Administration of the Sacraments, annexed to the Word and Promise, to confirm it to our Hearts. (3.) Ecclesiastical Discipline, uprightly Ministred, as Gods Word prescribes, whereby Vice is repressed and Vertue nourished. And giving Instance of this in particular Gospel Churches, they add, Such were in Corinthus, Galatia, Ephesus, and other places, wherein the Ministry was planted by Paul, and were of himself named the Churches of God, citing on the Margine, 1 Cor. 1.2. 2 Cor. 1.1. Gal. 1.2. Ephes. 1.1. where Paul ownes them, and names them as Churches; and to prove they had a Ministry and Ecclesiastick Discipline planted therein, they further cite, Act. 16.9, 10. and 20.17, &c. pointing us to Pauls last and farewel Charge to the Elders or Pastors of Ephesus, wherein he entrusted the Government thereof to them, as the only Bishops thereof, set up and Authorized by the Holy Ghost: And such a Church, they profess the Protestant Church in this Realm to be.

From this Account of the Confession, it is evident, 1. That in the Sense p. 4of our first Reformers, Church Government and Disciplin, rightly Administred, is an Essential Mark of the Church. 2. That it must not be according to Mens Invention, or Rules of Worldly Policy, but according to the Prescription of the Word of God: Thus, clearly asserting, that the Word of God, prescribes the Rules and Measures of it, and consequently determines, what Government and Disciplin it is, else there could be no Appeal to that Rule. And look, as, they make the Word of God, the Standart and Rule of the true Doctrine, in the first Note, so, of Discipline and Government, in this third: Hence, as, none can, without extremest Impudence assert, that the Word leaves us to Waver, and at an Uncertainty, as to the true or false Doctrine, or that it is not perfectly contained in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles, Appealed to, in that first Note, so, without the same Impudence, neither can this be alledged of the Discipline or Government; anent the Rectitude whereof, and its Divine Measures, the same Appeal is made. 3. When exhibiting Scripture Instances, they mention a Ministry established by Paul in the Churches, and in special, such a Ministry or Eldership, as had the Government established and lodged with them, in a Parity of Pastors, as the Church of Ephesus, when Paul gave them his last Charge, to Feed and Govern joyntly, as the Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost, they clearly assert the Divine Warrands of Presbyterian Parity.

Next, for that Passage, which the Dr. takes hold of, in Art. 21. (which he durst not point his Reader to, as knowing that the very Reading, would discover his Forgery) that which they affirm, is thus expressed. Not, that we think any policy or Order in Ceremonies, can be appointed for all Ages, times and places, &c. Its evident, that it utterly rejects his absurd gloss, and impertinent groundless inference: For, 1. They are not speaking of the Species and form of Government, but of these things, which Councils has a Power to determin in, yea, peremptorly affirm, that they have no Power or Authority to make that to be Gods Word, or the true interpretation thereof, which was not so before, by his Holy Will, and by clear Consequence, that no Councils can alter or change that Ministry and Government, which in Art. 19. They affirm the Apostles established. 2. Having mentioned the Confutation of Heresies, and giving a publick Confession of Faith, according to the Word, as one great. design of General Councils, they assign the Second, which is to Constitut good Order and Policy, to be observed in the Kirk, that all things be done decently, and in Order, citing 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done decently and in order: Wherein Paul prescribs this general Rule to be applyed to the particular circumstances of that Church— Then they add, Not that we think any Policy and order in Ceremonies, can be appointed for all Ages, Times, p. 5and places— Adding, That when Ceremonies foster Superstition, they ought to be removed: Wherein, it is evident, as the Meridian Light, that that Policy, which they hold alterable, is not the Government of the Church, appointed by the Apostles in the Word, or that Ecclesiastick Disciplin, therein prescribed: For, this they make a Note of the true Church; and to call this alterable according to the difference of Times and Places, were so gross a contradiction, as no Men of Sense, could fall into, much less the Godly and Learned Compilers of that Confession. But, by this alterable Policy, they mean, such as Rel…tes to the variable Circumstances of particular Churches, and such appointments thereanent, as God has left to the Regulation of the Christian Prudence of Church Governours, according to the general Rules of the Word; of which Rules, that instance they exhibit, 1 Cor. 14.40. hath the prime place. So, that the Dr's Inference, that therefore, the Authors of the Confession, held not an indispensible Divine Right of Parity of Pastors or Presbyters, has no dependence upon that Passage, which he Cites, nor has any Subsistence, but in his own imagination.

The Dr. adds (P. 13) That the First Presbyterians pleaded only, that their New Form, was not repugnant to the Oeconomy of the New Testament Church, and Primitive Institution; that it came nearer to the Original Model of Churches: But never affirmed, that the Christian Church, by the Original Authority of our Saviour, and his Apostles, ought to be Governed by a Parity of Presbyters, and that no Officer in the Church, higher than a Presbyter, could pretend, to any share in Ecclesiastick Government. I Answer, the Dr. hath not exhibit to us, these Presbyterians, whom he calls First, and who thus pleaded. We heard, that our very First Reformers, Pleads for that Government, they were settling, as a Divine Ministry and Government, according to the Word, and deriving its Original Pattern from the Apostles Plantation of Churches, such as Ephesus had, when Paul gave his last directions to that Church. To which Original Pattern, they hold, that all Churches ought to be squared and Subordinat. And if we advance a step further, to our Books of Disciplin, we will find the Divine Right of our Government Asserted, in most Material Points thereof.

The Peoples interest in the Election of Pastors, in their Call, and in their Admission, is Asserted in the First Book of Disciplin, Head 1. with the Explication.

In the 7 Head of Ecclesiastick Disciplin, the highest Censure of Excommunication, is attributed to the Ministry, as their Duty and Priviledge (not to the Prelat) and all Preachers, without exception, are declared Subject to Disciplin; and the Subjection of all Preachers to the Prophets, in their Doctrin, is Asserted in the 9. Head of Church Policy, upon that special Point of Propesying and interpreting the Scriptures. All which, cutts the Sinnews p. 6of the Prelats Exercising Power over Pastors, Establishing their Essential Divine Right of Government.

In 2 Book of Discipl. Chap. 1. The Divine Right of Church Government and Policy, is Asserted, and its distinction from the Civil. The unlawfulness of Ministers, assuming Name or Thing of Lordship. Again, The extraordinary expired Function of Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, is Asserted. The identity of the Pastor and Bishops Office, as the highest ordinary Function, together with the Relation thereof to a particular Flock, is Asserted Chap. 2.

Moreover- Ch. 7. initio, the Ruling Elders Office, and Congregational Eldership, are Asserted.

Ibid. Our Church Judicatories, Congregational, Provincial, and National, are Asserted.

Chap. 11. The Unwarrantableness of the Office of Bishops Assuming Authority over Pastors, and a Lordship over them, and over Christs Inheritance, is Asserted: And such Bishops, as refuse Subjection to the Established Disciplin and Government of Pastors, are appointed to be deposed from all Function in this Kirk. Likewise, Patronages, as crossing the Peoples Right, in Election of Pastors, are condemned as a Corruption of Popery, Chap 12.

Now, the Divine Right of the Courts and Officers, we own, in opposition to Prelacy, being thus Asserted in these Books of Policy, and in the Judgment of the Compilers thereof, drawn forth from the Fountain of the Word; the Model also, presented and described in these Books, amounting to a specifick form of Government, and eversive of Prelacy, the Compilers, also, as is said, presenting it as the Divine and Scripture Pattern; they must needs hold it to be a standing Form, appointed by our Lord and his Apostles. Again, if the Dr. hold, that the New Testament Oeconomy, contains a specifick standing Form of Government, and a Standart for all Churches, while time lasts, then such a Form, as with Respect to the main, is asserted to be consonant thereunto, is asserted in so far, to be, not only allowable, but necessary: And this, the Dr. must needs admit, unless with Papists, he will make Scriptures themselves, a Nose of Wax, and the New Testaments Prescriptions, in Point of Government, and its Oeconomy, versatile, and so Lax and General, that it discovers no Species of Government. Besides, if these Reformers affirm, the Pastor, to be the highest Church Officer, Iure Divino, and that he is all one with the Preaching Presbyter, then by necessary Consequence, they must needs hold, that by Original Authority of Christ and his Apostles, all Churches ought to be Governed, by a Parity of Presbyters or Pastors, and that no Ecclesiastick Officer, above a Presbyter, can pretend, to a share in Ecclesiastick Government. These Assertions, are of so close and clear a connection, that if the Dr. attempt to cut p. 7this Gordian Knot, he will fall into such a shameful Assertion, as to affirm, that an Officer, not allowed by Christ, but condemned by his own Original Authority, and that of his Apostles, has notwithstanding, a share in Ecclesiastick Government. Besides, the dull inadvertency of this Assertion, appears in this, that he holds our Reformers did plead, that their Form was allowable, and not repugnant to the New Testament Oeconomy, and yet not such, as was recommended by our Lords Original Authority to all Churches: For, if he hold, that the New Testament Oeconomy, is a clear fixed Standart and Model for all the Churches, then, whatever Frame of Government is not Dissonant or Repugnant, is conform and consonant thereunto, and consequently, not only allowable, but necessary. And if our Lords Original Authority prescribed this Oeconomy, as a Standart and Rule for Church Government, in all Ages, that Model that comes up to this First Standart, in so far as it comes up to it, is that which the Church is to imitat in all Ages, unless he will say, that all Ages are not to imitat this Pattern, shewed upon the Mount. And in special, our Reformers hold, that our Saviour in the Original Prescription of this Pattern, presents the Pastor or Preaching Presbyter, as the highest ordinary Church Officer. And therefore, it is no rashness to affirm, that in all times of the Church, such an Officer as a Prelat, Superior to Pastors, is forbidden and Condemned. The Dr. says, That; tho our Reformers affirm, their Government was not repugnant to the New Testament Oeconomy, they were not so rash as to affirm the Church ought to be thus Governed in all Ages. So, its with this Grave cautelous Dr, rashness to affirm, that a Government suted to the Divine Pattern, is for all Ages, consequently a precipitant Assertion to affirm, that our Lords Pattern is the just Standart for all Ages. The Dr. will be satisfied, That we plead for our Iudgment in Government (which he calls a New Notion) as probable, but cannot endure, that we plead for an absolut infallible Right, and require obedience to it, as due to infallible Authority; This, he says, is worse, , than speculative Enthusiasm. I Answer, if we can produce no Scripture Warrand for that Government we own, we shall be satisfied it come under the Character of a New Notion; But, if we can make it appear, to be the Government recommended in the Scripture-Oeconomy and Pattern, then, as being founded upon Infallible Authority, we justly challenge Obedience to it; and while this Light is shut out and rejected by the Dr. and his Fellows, they are justly Chargeable, in so far, with Speculative, yea, and Practical Enthusiasm. The Dr's. pretended Rhetorical Florish, whereby he would set off this Charge upon Presbyterians, taken from the similitud and allusion to the person, who should threaten to knock him on the Head, unless he wil affirm, against his Reason and Senses, that he sees such Armies in the Air, as are pointed out to him; Is but a phantastick Flash of his own Airy Imagination, p. 8for we impose nothing Arbitrarly or Imperiously upon his Reason, or any of his way, but challenge the utmost attention, and best Exercise of their Sense and Reason, to that Scripture-Light and demonstration of our Government, which we offer from the Word, which, had he seriously searched and pondered, with an Eye to God, the Father of Lights, he had been otherwise, and better imployed, than in flinging out such Squibs and Crackets into this Countrey, and in writing his folly and ignorance, in such an Airy Childish Pamphlet as this is. He adds (P. 14.) "That it were better to fall into High-way-Mens hands, than amongst such Spiritual Robbers. But he commits this Robbery upon himself, while shutting his Eyes against that Scripture-Light, which has been offered upon this Point. And he knows, by what numerous cruel Laws, and Barbarous execution thereof, in the late Reigns, he and his Masters, our Scots Prelats, endeavoured to knock down the reason and Conscience of many Thousands of this Nation, both Godly and knowing, in an Imperious obtrusion of their ungodly Hierarchy upon them, and many wicked Vows and Oaths for upholding it.

The Dr. next alledges; That we vainly boast of a Divine Institution of our Government, and unanswered Writers in its defence, but when put to produce Arguments for it, we have have nothing but perplexed Probabilities, intricat consequences from wrested Scriptures, to offer, contrary to the Uniform suffrage of the Ancients, &c. Ans. what Divine Warrand we plead for the Divine Right of the Courts and Officers we own, is so well known to such as are acquaint with this Controversie, and how solid our Scripture-proofs are, and consonant to the Sense, both of Ancient and Modern Writers, that this Mans flanting boast, can make no other impression upon them, than of his procacious vanity. Had he intended as a Champion indeed for his Cause, to Fight, not to bragg, in this Pamphleting Bragadocio, which any may see to be ad pompam, non ad pugnam, he should have fairly and formally encountred Ius Divin. Reg. Eccles. Ius Divin. Minist. Evang. Smectym. with its Vindication. Mr. Baynes Diocesan Tryal, in Answer to Dounham. Didoclav. Cap. 4. And the Scripture-Pleadings of many Forreign Divines, against the Hierarchy, and for the Parity of Pastors; and then to have boasted (having discussed their Arguments) at the putting off of his Armour.

But now, that we are come to the Point, the Dr. (P. 15.) tells his Friend, That he can give but a short History of our Arguments, for the Divine Right of Parity: And good Reason; since he is for little slight Skirmishes, not for the Shock of more close and dangerous Encounters. Our Arguments, he reduces to three Heads. 1. The express Command of our Saviour. 2. Consequences from Texts of Scripture. 3. Testimonies of Ancient Writers. I shall not insist in Criticizing upon the Dr's general Partitions: Only, as for what he offers anent our Saviours express Command and Institution of p. 9Presbyterian Government and Parity of Pastors, he should have done well, to name the Authors, who assert this, ere he had so confidently ascribed this Assertion to Presbyterians. No doubt, had he dealt fairly, in a particular Condescendance upon our Arguments drawn from Scripture, for Parity of Pastors, and offered clear Scripture Replies to them, Presbyterians would have thanked him, for his Diligence, in endeavouring their further Light and Conviction on this Head. But to prevent his Mistake, or any else of his Perswasion, I must further add, that, as for the Argument from Antiquity, however he and his Party do magnifie it, stuffing their Books and Pamphlets therewith, instead of more solid Scripture Reasoning: And altho, we are not afraid to try their Strength, in this Method of Arguing, yet Antiquity, or the Testimony of Humane Writers, is none of the Foundations, upon which we do build the Ius and Divine Right of the Government we maintain, but the Lively Oracles, the Scriptures of Truth allenarly: And we look upon the Testimony of Antiquity, or of Ancient Writers, as an Accessory Humane Illustration, in some Matters of Fact, but no proper proof, or to be ranked in eodem genere, with the first, and as tending to refute the Charge of Novellism, wherewith the Dr. and his Fellows, are bold to asperse our Principles in this point.

The Dr. now falls upon the first Head of Arguments, taken from a supposed express Command of our Saviour, anent the Parity of Pastors, exclusive of the Iurisdiction of a Bishop (I heartily wish, he had here, specified and defined this Jurisdic…on) He tells his Friend, (p. 16.) We prove this from Matth. 20.25. which, he sayes, we insist upon, more than Forreign Presbyterians, and he professes he will hear our Argument from hence, calmly and deliberatly, with Reverence and Attention. He adds the paralells, Luk. 22.25. Mark 10.42, 43. Naming in the Margine, the Reverend Mr. Dickson, and the Answer to the Iraenicum by G. R. Our Argument from hence, the Dr. represents thus, That the Officers of Christs House, were by his own express Command, established in a perfect Equality, even in such a Parity, as excludes the Power and Iurisdiction of any higher Order, than that of a Presbyter, in the Modern Notion.

Before I come to represent the Dr's Answer to this Text, (premonishing again, what is before animadverted upon the Term of express Command) I shall, First, Shew what we plead from it. Secondly, That our Pleading is Consonant to the Sense of Sound Divines.

For the first, It is apparent in the premised paralell Texts, that the Tentation of Ambitious Emulation among the Disciples, ha… prompted them to a Sinful Contest about Primacy, or which of them should be greatest, to prevent the Mischievous Effects whereof, our Saviour Cautioned and Rebuked them, Discharging them expresly, the Lordly Grandure of Earthly p. 10Rulers, to Exercise Lordship and Dominion one over another, in Opposition thereunto, Commending Humble Ministerial Service, and Spiritual Diligence in their Stewardship; both which he enforces from his own Exemplary Humility. Hence, we infer, 1. That our Lord discharged Superiority and Inferiority among Officers of the same kind, so, that none are greater than another in their Office, no Apostle, no Evangelist above another; that a compleat Parity in their Official Power, is commanded: And therefore, by clear Consequence, a compleat and entire Parity among Pastors; And by further clear evidence, we argue, that superior and inferior Degrees among them are discharged. 2. That whatever Priority of Order, be allowed among Officers of different kinds, we conclude, that our Saviour, in these places, discharged Dominion and Principality, in any of them, of whatever kind, all Masterly Power, such as Civil Governours Exercise; There being one Master of his Family only, whereof all Ministers are Brethren and Fellow-Servants: Because, in Exemplifying what he discharges, our Saviour gives the Instance, in such Rulers, as are called Benefactors, or Gracious Lords, and in Opposition thereunto, Commands an Humble Ministerial Service, not a sort of warrantable Dominion, as the paralell, 1 Pet. 5. makes it evident. So, that, he gives here, the Lord-Prelat, two Deadly Wounds, (1.) In that he makes himself an Officer of an higher Order and Degree, than the Pastor, holding himself, to be a Pastor, specifically distinct from the Preaching Presbyter: Thus Dividing and Cutting out the Pastoral Office, into Antiscriptural, Distin…t, Official Kinds, whereas, our Saviour discharges this, among Officers of the same kind. (2.) In that he Lords over his Brethren and Fellow-Pastors, and that both, in a pretended Spiritual Capacity, arrogating a sole Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction, a Masterly Power and Principality over Church Judicatories, and likewise, in assuming the Earthly Lordship, Place and Grandure, which is expresly here discharged. Now, if from what is said, it be evident, that such an Office and Officer is discharged, the Prelats Office is unlawful. and an Official Parity in the Pastoral Office, clearly concluded. And that it may appear, that this is no Novel or distorted Exposition, let us

In the second place, view what Patrons it hath. To begin with the Belgick Divines upon Matth. 20.21. they shew, that the Occasion of the Contest, was the Apostles Ignorance of the Condition of Christs Kingdom, to which they were called viz. Not to a Worldly Rule, but to Serve and Suffer. And upon v. 2… they shew, that all who are called to the Ministry of the Church, are discharged a Worldly Rule. Upon Luke 22.25. they assert a Lordship and Worldly Power to be forbidden; paralelling this with 1 Pet. 5. which discharges a Lordship over Gods Heritage. The English p. 11Annot. on the place of Matth. shew, That the Lord, to appease their Contention, told them, they were not to expect Worldly Greatness and Dominion in following him, and whoever usurps this, affects that which God has not given — that they were to look after a Life of Teaching and Labouring, not Lording, citing 1 Pet. 5.3. And though, in a general Sense, they assert, there are Orders among Ministers, generally considered, viz. Apostles above Evangelists, Pastors above Elders, yet the Prohibition of all Worldly Power to Ministers, they do here assert, and whatever Power is opposit to a Laborious Service and Ministry. Diodat. on that passage of Matth. shews, That our Saviour bespeaks the Apostles, as Ministers, shewing, that they ought to place their Dignity, not in Worldly Lordships, but Humble Faithful Serving for the Salvation of Souls. And that our Lord discharges Worldly Greatness, as inconsistent with his Spiritual Kingdom, in that passage of Matth. is asserted by the Authors of Pool's Annot. part. 2. who also, upon Luke 22. do assert, That our Lord discharges Ministers to Exercise a Dominion or Lordship, such as is forbidden 1 Pet. 5.3. Not as being Lords over Gods Heritage, citing also 2 Cor. 1.24. where Paul disownes a Dominion. Pareus upon that place of Mat. shews, That it is not a Civil only, but Ecclesiastick Dominion, which is here forbidden, or a Lording over the Church, as Peter, saith he, commands the Presbyters, not to Lord over the Flocks committed to them: Joyning as paralell to this 2 Cor. 1.24. where Paul useth the simple Verb foreign lest we apprehend its only Tyranny, that is discharged. He shews, that our Lord Reasons from the Condition of the Apostles, who were not to be Lords, but to Teach, to be Subject, to Serve the Church. 2. From the Dignity of the Ministry, which consists in a Faithful Service. 3. From his own Example who had Humbled himself, to Minister to all, &c. Whittaker Answering Bellarmins Glossings upon this Text, to save the Popes Supremacy, tells him, That comparing Matthew and Luke together, and considering that Luke uses the Simple, not the Compound Word, in expressing the Dominion, which is discharged, would have his Disciples understand, that they have nothing to do with Dominion: Thus he, de Ponsificatu, quest. 1. Turret. part. 3. quest. 16. thes. 4. cites Luk. 22. with the paralell, 1 Pet. 5. as enjoyning a Ministry, and discharging all Dominion in the Church. Thes. 5. he shews, It was not the Ambitious Affectation, but the Power and Dominion it self, which the Lord discharged, opposing to it, and commending in its place a Simple Service and Ministry. And Thes. 6. He shews, That the Question among the Disciples, was not about a violent Domination, or violent Ways of obtaining it, but the Lordship and Dominion it self, which he simplely discharged; proving it from Lukes using the simple Verb. And that passage, he p. 12that will be great, he shews, is to be understood, not of a Real, but Imaginary Affected Greatness. He also shews, that Christs Reasoning from his own Example, Non argumentatur a pari, sed a majore ad minus, argues not from a sameness, but from the greater to the less — If I your Lord, do minister and serve, much more ought you, who are indeed Servants, who have no Iurisdiction over one another, to lay aside all Thoughts of Domination, as when he said, if I your Lord, have washed your feet, you much more, Ioh. 13.14. He after, reasons this same point, from Christs discharging them to assume Masterly Imperious Titles, shewing them, that there is but one Master in the Church, &c. Shall I add, what Iunius has upon this Text against Bellarmins Glosses, de Pontificat. Lib. 1. Our Lord said of the thing it self, they Exercised Dominion — He spoke not of the manner, after this or that manner — but not so ye, saith he, its a simple denyal of the thing proposed. Bernard Writing to Eugenius, expones this passage, and of 1 Pet. 5. as striking against all Dominion, and enjoyning a Ministerial Care in Opposition thereunto. And Whittaker on the passage, tells Bellarmin, that its not Humility in Dominion, that is here enjoyned, but Dominion it self, is forbidden. Let us add Cartwright against the Rhemists, upon these passages, who reasons at large, that its not Ambition nor Tyranny, but the Dominion of great Ones over their Vassals and Inferiors, which is here forbidden, shewing that in this, the Ecclesiastick Office, differs from the Civil, that it admits not of Dominion and Principality, as the Civil Government, nor the outward Pomp and Superiority thereof. And the Argument from Christs Example, he thus expones, in Opposition to the Iesuits Glossings and Scope, It doth not follow, saith he, that because Christ their Lord and Master, had Rule over them, therefore, they being Fellow-Servants, should have Rule one over another, but it follows rather, that for as much, as he their Lord and Master humbled himself to the basest Service, therefore, they should be ashamed to be Lords and Masters over one another: Thus, saith he. Cyprian alledged by Gratian (Distinct. 10, quoniam id vid.) expones this place, Not of Pride and Ambition — but of the several Acts and distinct Honours betwixt both the Powers. And upon the paralell Luk. 22.24. he asserts against the Iesuits, that Majority and Superiority among the Apostles was reproved simplely, not a Tyrannous Affectation of Rule. We might multiply Protestant Writers to a Voluminous Bulk, upon this Head. For Calvin and Beza's Sense upon the place, I need not mention them, these are the Dr's Adversaries; Only I must notice their Correspondence with the Body of Protestant Divines, in this Sense and Account of the place exhibit. Yet I must add one Novelist more, Chamier de Oecum. Pont. lib. 10. cap. 3. who upon this passage represents the Popish Glosses, anent our Lords discharging only the Manner of Aspiring to Greatness, not the Dominion it self, which he refutes in the same manner, and from the same grounds, p. 13as Iunius and Whittaker. But now it is time, to return to the Dr.

From what is premised, it is no hard Matter to discover the Vanity of his Evasions. First, He tells us, p. 17. That our Lord supposes Degrees of Subordination among his own Disciples, as in other Societies; And therefore, directs Ecclesiasticks, who would climb to the highest places o… the Church, to take other Methods than these used by the Grandees of the World; he that deserves Preferment in the Church, is to be Servants of all; So that this refers to the Method of Promotion, not to the Extirpation of their Iurisdiction: They were not to aspire to Dignity and Honour by Force and Violence, and the Arts fashionable in Secular Courts, but by Acts of Modesty, Humility and Self-Denyal. Ans. 1. For what he says of Christs supposing Degrees of Subordination; If he mean it in general, among Church Officers, its admitted; If among the Disciples, or these here Addrest, in this Speech of our Saviour, he Beggs the Question, and Contradicts the Sense and Pleading of Protestant Divines, upon this passage, who (as we have heard) do hold that Majority and Superiority among them, was here discharged, and a compleat Parity of Official Authority enjoyned. The Clause, Not so among you, we heard that Turretin, with others, do hold absolutly to discharge this supposed Inequality of Power and Dominion, which he proves from the Nature of the Phrase, collated with Paralells: And we have also found, that Pareus (as might be cleared in others) do extend this, even to an Ecclesiastick Superiority. 2. If the Dr. draw this Supposition of degrees of Subordination, from that Clause, He that will be great and chief, as is evident he doth; Then I Charge him First, With Crossing the Sense of Sound Divines, upon that Text, who in Pleading against the Papists, tell them, that our Lord said not, He that by my Allowance is great, but he that will be great. I confess, some do understand here a true Greatness, viz. in Vertue and Reward, a true Ministerial Greatness; And this Sense also baffles the Dr's Gloss of an External Greatness, the Unsoundness whereof, further appears, when we ponder what our Saviour enjoyned, in Opposition to the Worldly Grandure discharged, viz. to be their Servant, over whom this is affected, which is further evident in the Alternative Branch of the Paralell, 1 Pet. 5. whereby Sound Divines do clear and expone this Text: For, that which the Apostle opposes to, being Lords (the thing prohibited) he expresses by, being Examples to the Flock, importing an Holy, Humble, Ministerial Service. Again, I do Appeal to all Men of Sense, who understand this Controversy, whether the Dr. doth not in this Answer, stand upon the same ground with Bellarmin, (de Pontif. cap 1.) in Defence of the Papacy: His Answer is, that a Primacy is not here discharged, but rather supposed, since our Lord says, he that will be chief, &c. And that therefore, an Ambitious Lust of Overruling, is here only prohibited, such as is among the Kings of the Gentiles. p. 14Whittaker Answering Bellarmin, quarrels him, as Abusing and Wresting the Text, since, instead of admitting Dominion it self, to be discharged (as he makes evident, and even out of Bernard) the Iesuit holds, that Ambitious Affectation only is forbidden, the Modus Rei, not the Object, the Manner of Seeking, not the Thing it self, and that he admits the prohibited Lordship, with the supposed or pretended Qualification of Modesty and Humility: And if the Dr. sayes not here the same, let any Judge by his Words; For, he tells us, that such as would climb up to the highest places in the Church, (and who knows, how high these highest places mounts in the Dr's Fancy; None will doubt, to a Metropolitan's Office at least, over a whole Nation: For this he ownes) must not take Methods of Force and Violence, as usually Worldly Grandees, but advance by Acts of Modesty, &c. So, that in the Dr's Sense, and Bellarmin's, the Popes Mitre is never touched by this Text, it being the Modus Rei, the Manner of Seeking and Affecting, not the Object of highest Places and greatest Dignities, which our Saviour here discharged. Nay, the Dr. in this Pleading, stands so Antipode to Protestant Arguments, that he fixes the Popes Mitre faster, which I prove thus; If that which the Contest was about, and the desire of it was Lawful in the Object, then a Primacy was Lawful in the Object, and only the Method of Seeking Discharged. The debate among the Disciples, was, who should be the Chief, and have the highest place in the Church under Christ; And the Dr. says, This Climbing up to highest places in the Church, is in it self a Lawful practice, flowing from a Lawful desire and emulation, so that a Man set his Steps right, and climb regularly: And will any Papist deny this? who knows not that their Writers Condemn many Popes violent and bad Methods to get into the Chair? The Dr. tells us expresly (P. 17) that the Text refers only to the Method of Promotion: And if so, then by infallible consequence not to the Promotion it self, tho even extended to a National, yea or Oecumenick Primacy (as is said) If any object, that the Dr. holds, that this preferment was to be in the Church, and that the person aspiring is enjoined to be Servant of all, so, that it is neither a Civil, nor Ambitious Grandure, which he allows: I Answer, Papists will allow the First, and Popes pretends the Second, even to be Servus servorum Dei, while he Possesses his Primacy: And the Dr. holds, its such a Service of all, as can consist with the Metropolitans Mitre, or a National Primacy overall; And upon this supposition, I would whisper the Dr in the Ear, what if in the disposal of Supreme Providence, the whole Christian Church should be confined to that Nation, or the Nation extended to the Limits of the whole Church, what is then become of poor simple Protestants Pleadings from this Text, against an Universal Patriarch, or Primacy, over the Christian Church? The Dr must expugne and disown these, as Novel Glosses and New Opinions of Presbyterians. p. 15One reflection more, I add upon the Dr's Answer, and do Charge him with Sophistical Shuffling and Confounding the Terms and State of the Question. When the Controversie was Stated among the Apostles, which of them, should be Chief and greatest, and have a Primacy over all the rest, in Christs Church and Kingdom, and when our Saviour bespoke them, in the terms above exprest; the Question is, what that was, which our Lord in this reprehension did Discharge, and what in the positive Injunction, he allowed? In Answer to this, the Dr. holds, that that which the Lord Discharged and prohibit, referrs only to the Method and Manner of Seeking and affecting, not to the Object it self: For, he tells us, The Text referrs to the Method of Promoti…n, even to the highest places. Now, this is exclusive, it referrs not then to the Object: And what was that Object, I pray? The Text says, it was, who should be Chief: But when the Dr. Represents, what this prohibition reaches not unto, and is allowed, (for he holds, that our Lords words, contain a negative Prohibition, and positive Precept) he thus Represents it; That our Lords words, refers not to the extirpation of their Iurisdiction; which is as far a leap from the Point, as any can be. Their Apostolick Jurisdiction was never the Question, but an absolute Primacy; and none were ever so brutish, as to imagin, that the Prohibition, did in the least reach, far less, tended to extirpat the same. But the Dr. behoved to hide the other Branch of the Question in the Clouds, and was ashamed to speak it out, which yet the sequel of his reasoning doth, viz. that this Negative precept, reaches only to the manner of Promotion to a Primacy or Supremacy over the Church, not to the Primacy or Supremacy it self.

The Dr's next Answer (P. 18.) resolves in a Question: If the Apostles understood the Lords Precept in our sense, how came they to exercise Iurisdiction over all subordinat Ecclesiasticks, during their Life, in all the Churches, they planted? Did they cross our Lords Institution, who perfectly understood his meaning? Ans. I might here retort his Question and Answer, in a Counter-query. If the Apostles understood our Lords Precept, in his Sense, as prohibiting only, an ambitious violent manner of aspiring to Principality or Chief places in the Church, but not the Thing it self, how came it, that none of them, in such Modest Method, as he prescribs, sought that Greatness or Chief Power? Were they Frighted from the Lawful use of their Jurisdiction, which the Lords prohibition touched not? Were they so Brutish, as not to reach his meaning? yea, whence was it, that in their Doctrin and Practice they disown all dominion, and Prelatical Principality in the Church, and all outward grandure and greatness, as inconsistent with their Office, and the Office of all Gospel Ministers? But to the Topick and ground of the Dr's Argument, I Answer directly, that the Apostles, as they understood, p. 16so they practised our Lords Precept, in the sense we owne. 1. In that they practised a compleat equality of Official Power among themselves. This I hope, he will not deny, or if he do, its easie to set all Protestant Divines in pursuit of him. 2 In that they never exercised, nor attempted to seek any Civil Greatness or Dominion, such as the Prelats he pleads for, do own as competent to their Office. They knew, that their Lord, when but desired to give advice in a Civil Cause, gave this return, who made me a Iudg? And declined the Imployment. And that therefore, neither they, nor any of their Successors, were to be Civil Counsellors, and Spiritual Peers, in Parliaments and Princes Courts. 3. They disown all Dominion in one Pastor over another, and discharged it earnestly: Thus the Apostle Peter, to be Lords over Gods Heritage, 1 Pet. 5. Thus also Diotrephes, affecting a Preheminence, is rebuked by the Apostle Iohn: And Paul owns himself, and other Apostles, as Stewards only in the House of God, and disowns a Dominion, as we have heard.

Next, As for their Iurisdiction over subordinat Ecclesiasticks, which is the Substratum of the Dr's great Answer and Question, I do deny: First, that they exercised any Episcopal Jurisdiction, properly taken, over them. Secondly, such a Jurisdiction as did Cross this Precept: The Proof of both these, will fully discover the vanity of the Dr's Second Reply

And First, that the Apostles exercised no such Episcopal Authority over Ecclesiasticks, or Churches planted, as the Dr. pleads for, is evident thus. 1. Their Apostolick Authority connected with their Infallibility in Teaching, reached to prescrib Duty to the Members and Officers of Churches, consequently was cumulative thereto, not privative thereof, which appears in their enjoyning the exercise of Spiritual Iurisdiction, as inherent in Church Officers, as Excommunication, 1 Cor. 5. And their owning a Spiritual Jurisdiction and Authority in Pastors, both in the designations of Rulers, Governours, Overseers, Bishops, attribut to them; As also, in their frequent enjoyning the Peoples obedience and subjection to them, as in that capacity Heb. 13.7.17. 1 Pet. 5.2.3. 1 Thess. 5.12.2. The Apostles did not as the Prelats, invade the decisive Power of Pastors in Government, but took along their decisive Votes and concurrence, as we find in that Council Act. 15. where its evident, that in every Point, the Elders or Ministers, conccurred with the Apostles, in the Disquisition, Sentence, and decretal Letter. 3. As the Apostles planted Churches with Pastors or Preaching Presbyters, instructing them with Authority to Feed and Rule, as Bishops or Rulers, set up by the Holy Ghost, so they committed the Government of the Churches to them, in their last farewells, without the least hint of Super-institut Officers of an higher Order: So, that the Apostles instructing Pastors with such Authority, commanding its exercise, enjoyning p. 17the Churches obedience to them, exemplifying and Authorizing their interest in highest Judicatories, yea, making even Evangelists, as Timothy, pass through the Door of Presbyterial Ordination, in order to the exercise of his Office; Not to insist upon, even Apostles submission to the Authoritative Imposition of the Hands of Prophets and Teachers, when sent out upon a special Gospel Legation: To which we may add, the Apostles owning Pastors, as Brethren, Fellow-helpers, Fellow-Labourers, Co-Presbyters or Elders. It follows inevitably. (1.) That as to the Perpetual Pastoral Charge, the Authority of Preaching the Gospel, the Administration of the Sacraments and the appendent Jurisdictional Power (which by the Apostles Doctrin, is a Lower Step to this, and connected therewith) they own the Pastors or Preaching Presbyters, their Equals, and their proper Successors in this Ministerial Authority, consequently the ordinary Church Officers of the highest Order, to whom they committed the Keys of Doctrin and Disciplin. (2.) That the Exercise of their extraordinary Apostolick directive Power and Authority, which they could not divest themselves of, while alive, did no whit impeach the standing Authority of Pastors, nor did it includ any Jurisdiction properly over Churches, constitut and Moulded in their Organick being. By [Iurisdiction properly] I mean such as is of a standing necessity, in order to the Churches Edification, in all times, or such a Jurisdiction over Churches, as may be supposed paramount unto, or privative of the Jurisdictional Authority of Pastors, and of Organick Churches.

Secondly, That the Apostles exercised no such Authority over the Churches, as did cross our Lords Precept and Prohibition, is evident, in that. 1. Our Saviour discharged Imparity among Church Officers of the same kind, and therefore, this could not impeach the Apostles Authority over ordinary Officers. 2. Our Lords instructing them with such a measure of the Spirit, as was sutable to the First founding of the Churches, and with Authority, as his living and infallibly inspired Oracles, to plant Churches, and the Gospel Ordinances and Government therein: Unless the Dr. will say, that our Lords Precept did cross and contradict his design, he must needs ackdowledg, that the Apostles in exercising this directive Power and extraordinary Authority, over ordinary inferior Officers, could not cross this his Precept and Prohibition, they being our Lords immediatly called, infallibly inspired, and extraordinarly Gifted First Messengers, in order to this end. Thus we have seen the vanity and insufficiency of the Dr's Second Answer. But there is no end of Vanities.

The Dr's Third Answer, is Prefaced with a very big and high Flown swelling boast. That which, he says, baffles and exposes our Argument to all intents and purposes, is, that our Lord did that himself among them, which now he Commanded them to do one to another; And the doing of this, one to another, in obedience p. 18to his Command, could not infer a Parity, unless we Blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal: For, our Lord recommends, what he enjoins from his own constant and visible Practice among them, that he their Lord and Master was their Servant: And therefore, it became the greatest among them, to be Modest, calm and humble toward their Brethren, which would qualify them for Ecclesiastick Promotions. This poor and mean Answer and Reason of the Dr's, is a notion, for which he is beholden to his Popish Masters; And being here subjoyned to such big words, brings to mind, some Poetick Phrases.

Quid tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu — And

Projicis ampullas & sesquipedalia verba — And that of

Partu…iunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus.

There's no doubt, that the Dr. has as much exposed and baffled his own Judgment and Reputation, in this thrasonick weak Answer, as in any thing else. But to the point, First I must tell him, that if this Argument tending to prove from this Text, our Saviours discharging Lordly Dominion in his Church, and inferred from his own exemplary Humility, be bad and fallacious, it has long since deceived the best & ablest of Protestant Divines, in Reasoning against the Papists and Papacy? And if this his pretended Baffling Answer be so Mighty and Invincible, as he pretends, Bellarmin and the Popish Adversaries, have long since Baffled our Divines Arguments with it; For all know, it is the very same with theirs; And I must add, that it seems, the Dr. is so highly in Love with this Popish Notion and evasion, that he has not concerned himself to notice what Baffling Replyes, Protestant Divines have returned to it, wherein they have discovered, what an insipid impertinent evasion it is, to save the Popes Mitre, from the stroak of this our Lords Prohibition and Precept; and consequently that of Prelats, whereof we have already exhibit some instances. I have told him, that Turretin (no doubt, one of our Dr's new Minted Novelists) makes it appear, that the Argument from our Lords Example, is an Argument, non a pari, sed a majore ad minus. If I your Master, be as one that serves, much more you the Servants, ought to eshew all Lordly Dominion: As when he washed the Disciples Feet, and thus recommended Love and Humility towards one another, since he their Lord and Master had done so. I know not if it be true, that this Man rode in the Popes Guards, but sure I am, he fences fiercely for his Mitre. He says, our Saviour did that himself among them, meaning his Exercising a Principality and Supremacy over his Church: For, in the Sentence, he puts the Words [He] and [Them] in Emphatick distinct Characters, and consequently holds, that what our Lord thus Exemplified, is still to be imitat in his Church. Thus, his Answer and Reasoning, runs clearly to this Issue; That which I command you, I have done; And therefore, that which I command you, is consistent with a Supremacy p. 19over my Church, which I have Exercised and Exemplified. And here the Popes Holiness, has a fair Plea from the Venerable Dr. If Christ did that himself, which he enjoyned his Disciples here, then the doing of what he enjoyned, was consistent with a Supremacy: The Connection is clear; Christ as Supreme Head, and in that Capacity, Exercised the same Humility, Self-Denyal, and Meekness, which he here enjoyned. But for more direct Answer, I do again tell him, that our Lords Scope, in proposing his own Example, is to Antidote their inward Pride, the Root of this Desire of Unlawful Dominion, and powerfully to recommend Humility and Self-Denyal, as the most excellent Remedies thereof. So, that his first Argument runs a fortiori, thus, If I your Lord and Master be as one that serves, and am such a Pattern of Self-Denyal and Humility among you, much more ought you to Study Humility, and to Guard against all Usurped Dominion and Authority, one over another, who are Fellow Disciples and Servants: As he Reasoned, Ioh. 13. If I your Lord, have washen your Feet, much more ought ye to wash one anothers Feet.

Again, in the Dr's Mould of Answer, I find two gross Points of Inadvertency, which hardly any ordinary Capacity, could fall into, if we suppose the Person serious, and attending to the Matter in hand, and very ill beseeming one, who sets to his Name, a D. D. and Chartells this whole Church. 1. In that he will needs have our Lords Precept and Prohibition, to be levelled against an Ambitious Principle or Design, but not at all to reach (rather to allow) that Effect and Expression thereof, which our blessed Lord, in down right Terms doth prohibit, viz. that Dominion mentioned in the Text, and which they were contending about: Thus setting in Opposition, things which are Subordinat, as if the Dr. had forgot the common Maxim, Subordinata non Pugnant; And, as if a bad Principle, could fall under a Prohibition, and not the bad Practice, the Issue thereof. What a Childish Conception and Weakness is this? 2. He imagines, that our Lords Argument of Humility (while Pressing his Apostles, to eshew Unlawful Dominion one over another) drawn from his Practice, will inferr his Arguing a pari, and a Supposition of his Equality with them, if we shall exclude the Dr's Hypothesis of a Warrantable Supremacy and Dominion; An Imagination than which, nothing can be more Sottish; the Argument running clearly a majore ad minus, from the greater to the less, and the very Basis and Topick of it, supposing and inferring the quite contrary Conclusion and Assertion. So, that the Dr's. Arguing that upon this Ground, as above Sensed, we would make Christ and his Apostles equal, has no more Twist of Reason in it, than if one should infer, from our being dehorted from Strife and Vain Glory, and enjoyned Humility and Love, because Christ made himself of no Reputation, and humbled himself to Death, p. 20the absurd Conclusion of the Equality of his Disciples and Members with himself. The Dr. gives this Sense of our Lords Words and Argument, in the premised Scriptures; If I your Lord and Master was your Servant, it becomes the greatest among you, to be Humble towards Subordinat Brethren, which will Qualify you, for Ecclesiastick Promotion. This carries with it, such a clear Supposition of the Warrantableness of a Greatest or Chief among them, as I dare promise him, the Popes Approbation of his Commentary, it being the very same, with that of his great Champion, Bellarmin, who tells our Divines, that a Dominion and Supremacy, is here rather supposed than forbidden, and only Humility in it's Exercise enjoyned. But the Dr's petty Novelists, Protestant Divines, have told him, that if this Gloss were true, then our Lord rather Inflamed than Quenched their Ambitious Desire of Dominion and Greatness, one over another, since, Reprehending only the Unwarrantable Method of Seeking, he thus Tacitly Recommended the Thing it self, as Lawful and Desireable. But once more, I would fain know of this Dr, whether our Lord did not command an Equality or Official Sameness of Authority Apostolical among the Apostles? Or, if he thinks indeed, that one was allowed to be in this Respect, Prince and Supreme over the rest? If he hold this last, then I dare Appeal to all Protestants, whether he has not left our Camp, and is in the Tents of the Papists. If he owne, that our Lord here enjoyned an Authoritative Official Equality of Power, among the Apostles, then I would know, what his Sense is, of our Lords Argument, Pressing and Recommending this Equality, from his own Example; And whether his Assigning this Sense, and giving this Account of our Lords Reasoning, will Blasphemously inferr, that Christ and his Apostles were equal. So, that the Dr, must either quite this Sense of our Lords Words, and consequently the Sense exhibit by Protestant Divines, or acknowledg the Absurdity and Futility of his own Argument and Answer, and that he falls by the Rebound of his own Blow and Weapon. But I am tedious in a Matter of it self plain.

To proceed therefore: The Dr. (P. 19.) is so taken with the Invincible Strength of this his Answer, that he falls into a Compassionat Regrate, for his Presbyterian Brethren, telling his Reader, That its very sad, that any should be so infatuated, with their new Schemes of Parity, as to alledge such Texts, which if understood, in their Sense, degrades our blessed Saviour, to the Degree of one of his Disciples; For, what he Commanded to the Apostles, he Practised among them himself. If I were to give Way to such a Retaliating Regrate, as this would tempt some unto, I would Echo it back, in telling him, that its very sad, that a Man, who is bold to Chartell this whole Church, and sets his Name with a D. D. to such a bold Pamphlet as this, should (in a pretended Pleading for Episcopacy, and Answering a Presbyterian p. 21Argument against it, in the premised Scriptures,) so betray his Cause, and Proclaim his Folly, as to Charge with infatuation the Body of Protestant Divines, in their Pleadings against the Pope, and Support his Mitre, in pretending to plead for Episcopacy. As to our Lords practising himself, what was Commanded to them; I have already demonstrat the futility of this Notion, and what an Aegyptian Reed it is, to support his Conclusion. Our Saviour practised Humility, and called the Apostles to such an exercise of it, as did sute that Humble Ministry he enjoyned them, and was opposit to that Proud Dominion and inequality they were affecting. And this wise Critical Dr. with this his new Sword, will needs cut the Gordian Knot of the Argument, here made use of by our Lord, when exciting to Humility and Parity, such persons, as are of unquestionable equality, in point of Official Power, denying the Strength of all such reasoning. He tells us, that what our Lord enjoyned, was toto coelo, different from Parity. And thus, must be antipode, and in the highest Line of opposition thereunto, and consequently a Primacy: And this Confirms that which before I Charged upon him, anent his owning a Primacy among the Apostles. He says, They were not to exercise their Iurisdiction, as Lords of the Gentiles, by a Spirit of Pride and Domination, but in an ingaging behaviour of Charity and Humility. Yet still the Dr. supposes, their Jurisdiction included a Supremacy and Chiefness of Power, one over another; And so here is good sound Popish Pleading: But Protestant Divines have long since Taught his Reverence, that all Earthly Dominion it self, and worldly Pomp is forbidden, all Greatness and Grandure, whether Civil, or pretendedly Ecclesiastick, and this as opposit to the Nature of their Power and vocation, which is a Spiritual Laborious Service and Ministry, for the Salvation of Souls; And thus stands in contradiction to all sort of Domination and Lordship. Moreover, he apparently falls into a pityful inadvertancy, in identifying Civil Dominion, with a Spirit of Pride, there being a Lawful Commanded Civil Dominion, appointed of God: And if he Object, that the Princes of the Gentiles, whom our Lord instanceth in, thus exercised it: As the Mould of his Phrase, will not admit of that defence, so, our Saviours instancing such Gentile Princes, as were called Benefactors, or Gracious Lords, and in Luke, using the simple, not the Compound verb, which points at a Civil Rule and Dominion simplely considered, intirely excludes this his subterfuge, and shuts up this postern: Whittaker hath long since told him (De pontif. quest. 1.) that the word, which Luke makes use of, is applyed to denote Lawful Rule, and that all the Princes of the Gentiles were not such, as did Tyranically Overrule, or Reign unjustly, and that the Clemency and Justice of many of them, is Celebrat. And both he, and Iunius (ubi sup.) does shew, that it is the Dominion or Lordship it self, not the unwarrantable p. 22Exercise, or manner of attaining, which our Lord here Condemns.

For that which the Dr. adds (ibid.) of Pauls answering his Episcopal Character, when the Care of all the Churches was upon him, in employing his Episcopal Power to Edification: I have already told him of what Nature that Care was, and how it differed from the pretended Inspection and Dominion of Prelats. His care of the Churches, was an Apostolick directive Inspection, suted to his Extraordinary Office and Gifts, which no ordinary Officer can pretend unto, and in its exercise, so far from Exemplifying a Prelatical Dominion, that both in Doctrin and Practice, he baffles it out of the World, in enjoyning the highest Acts of Jurisdiction to Pastors or Presbyters; as these of Corinth aa1. Cor. 5.1 Cor 5, enjoyning the whole Episcopal Authority to the Elders or Pastors of Ephesus, in his last farewel to that Church bbAct. 20.Acts 20, ascribing the Power of Ordination to a Presbytrie, though himself was present in the Action cc1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6.1 Tim 4:142 Tim 1:6, Identifying in his Epistles to the Philippians, to Titus, the Name, Office and Qualifications of Bishop and Presbyter ddPhilip. 1. 1. Tit. 1.6.7.Phil 1:1Titus 1:6Titus 1:7, disowning all Dominion in the House of God ee2 Cor. 1.24.2 Cor 1:24, Ascribing to himself, a Ministry and Service only ff1. Cor. 4.1.1 Cor 4:1, so far was he from Arrogating to himself, a Spiritual Lordship in God's House, or a Civil Peerage in the State, such as the Prelats, whom the Dr. Pleads for, do usurp. And, if in all these, he answered his Episcopal Character (as who will doubt, but he did) and obeyed this injunction of our Saviour, by consequence, he condemned the Prelatical Character, so many ways opposit thereto. Besides, he pronounced a woe upon himself, if he Preached not the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9.16. and Preached it in Season and out of Season: Thus enjoyning Timothy, 2 Tim. 4.1.2. And therefore, pronounced a woe upon non-Preaching Prelats, who look upon this as no part of their work. He preferred the Labourer in the Word and Doctrin, to the Person who Ruled only, 1 Tim. 1.17. And thus Preaching Pastors, to non-Preaching Prelats, who look upon their pretended spiritual and Civil Rule, as the proper Characteristick of their Office, and Preaching but a little piece of supererogatory. Work, but no exercise of their Prelatick, Office and but obiter to the Actings of their supposed Grandure. He enjoyned Christs Minister and Souldier, to beware of ingadging in Worldy affairs, if they would please Christ, who has Chosen them to be his Souldiers, 2 Tim. 2.4. And thus condemned Prelats holding Stat Offices, as pleasers of men, of Princes, of themselves, and not of Christ.

He tells us next (P. 20) That the Fathers of the Church advanced above their Brethren to Ecclesiastick Power, had this Notion of their dignity, that they were p. 23the Servants of others. As for the advancement of Ancient Fathers, we say, that, as the equality of Pastors, is Christs Pattern upon the Mount, and that (as Ierom expresses it) the Apostolick Churches, were Governed communi Presbyterorum consilio, so the First Fathers or Bishops, were fixed Moderators only, and had no Jurisdiction above their Brethren, and even when this Usurping Jurisdiction above Pastors was Gradually Advancing, some of the best Bishops, as Cyprian particularly, owned the Pastors as their Collegues in Government, and were far from the fastuous Pomp and absolut Dominion of the Prelats, whom the Dr. pleads for. And if any of them held this Notion of their pretended Dignity, when their Power came to the length of incroaching upon that of Pastors in Government, they held but an empty Chimerical Notion, Contradictory to their Practice; As the Popes Notion of his being Servus Servorum Dei.

The Dr. (ibid.) returns again to his Post, telling us, That it appears, from what he has said, we have no Shadow of Argument for our new Doctrine, from the Texts above instanced. Thus the Protestant Pleadings therefrom, against the Papacy, has no Shadow of Argument with him. But whether our Arguments, or his Answers, be most Substantial, is left to the Reader to Judge, from what is said. He tells us, That Wallo Missalinus, Glances at this Text, but lays no great Stress upon it. But the Dr. has not exhibit either his Words or Argument; as neither Beza's Reflection upon the Passage, in his larger Notes: Tho he tells us, (as some great Discovery forsooth) that Beza holds, That all kind of Iurisdiction is not here forbidden, but such as is joyned with Imperious Bitterness and Domination. And what he would make of this, I would fain know. Did ever any imagine, that all kind of Jurisdiction is here forbidden? Did our Lord discharge all Government in his Church, by this Precept and Prohibition? As for Beza's expressing thus, that which is forbidden, it is evident to any, who are acquaint with his Writings, that he holds all pretended Spiritual Jurisdiction, which is joyned with Domination, or Lordly Rule, of one Pastor over another, to be a Sinful Abuse of Jurisdiction, and consequently to fall within the Compass of what is prohibited in these Texts.

I proceed to another Notion and Answer of the Dr's: We are told next, (ibid.) That the Hierarchy and Subordination of Priests, was establisht by Divine Authority in the Jewish Church: If our Saviour had pulled down that Ancient Policy, and commanded Equality among Presbyters of the New Testament, he would not have stated the Opposition betwixt his Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles, but between the Mosaick Oeconomy and the Disciples of the New Testament. Here the Dr. obliges us, in affording still more Light, in taking up his Judgment and Principles in Point of Church Government, viz. in his Sense, the Iewish Policy, by our Lords Warrand, was at this time standing, as the p. 24exact Standart and Plat-Form for the Gospel Church Government; And therefore, we need not doubt what he means by Chief Places, and Dignities and Honours in the Church, and that he holds, that our Saviour did not forbid, but supposed the Lawfulness of a Chief Rule and Principality, of one Disciple over the rest in the Church. Nay, (P. 27.) he is clear and positive in this, That that Hierarchy, the foreign whereof was divided in a Supreme and Subordinat Priests, was never abrogated (consequently stands imitable and imitated) in the New Testament. I think the Dr. will find the clearest Pattern at Rome of this his Holy Standing Hierarchy. In Answer whereunto, I need only say, That the standing Policy of the Jewish Church, never abrogat; but continuing as the Measure and Standart of the New Testament Church Government, is so notoriously known, to be the great Popish Argument for the Papal Hierarchy, pleaded by all the Antichristian Rabble and Locusts, who stand up for this Monster and Mystery of Iniquity, and so Universally condemned by all Protestant Churches and Divines, that there needs no more to Stigmatize a Man, as of that Number, in their Judgment, than such an Assertion. That all our Divines, do hold the Abrogation of the Iewish Church Policy, is so clear, that it would Load much Paper, but to Recite their Names. Rivet. Cath. Orth. Tract. 2. Quest. 4. brings in his Iesuit, Ballaeus, with this Argument in his Mouth — That because one High Priest under the Old Testament, had the Chief Government; therefore, it ought to be so in the New: And tells him, that there is Multiplex Abusus, or a manifold Abuse and Corruption in this Pleading. He shews him further, that every thing in that Dispensation, reaches not us; that the High Priest was Typical of Christ, as the Apostle shews, Heb. 7. That if a Parity of Government were pleaded, there should be a Dedication of one Family for the Ministry, as there was for Priests and Levites, &c. Turret. Part. 3. Quest. 16. Thes. 15.16. After he has set d…wn the Judgment of the Ancients against a Primacy in the Church, he brings in the Solution of the Popish Objection and Argument, taken from the Government of the Church under the Old Testament, which he Baffles from several Grounds; such as, 1. The Extent of the Christian, beyond that of the Iewish Church. 2. That the High Priest had no absolute Authority over that Church, being subject to the Jurisdiction of the great Sanhedrin, Deut. 17.11. 3. That what Authority he had, was Typical of Christs, the High Priest of the New Testament. Wallaeus de Function. Ecclesiast. P. (mihi) 470. brings in this Objection against Parity of Pastors, taken from the High Priest under the Old Testament, and the twenty four Orders of Priests, over whom there were Presidents: And thus Answers, That these things were partly, Typical, partly Political; that there was a Priority of Order here, not an Essential p. 25Difference of Power and Authority; that they all Governed the Church by Common Counsel.

But for the Abrogation of this Ministry, and that it was to be no Standart for the Gospel Church, I will produce and offer again to the Dr's Consideration, that one Text, Heb. 7.12. — The Priesthood being changed, there is made of Necessity a Change of the Law, viz. The Policy suted to the State of that Church, must be changed also. The Text asserts, that the Priesthood, or their particular Frame of Church Officers being changed, or abrogat, there is therefore, a Change or Abrogation of the Law, i. e. the Legal Ordinances, respecting both their Worship and Government. Pool. Part. 2. tells us, That this Change referrs to the Expiration of the Aaronical Order, to which the Hebrews were not bound; for that a better Priesthood and Law, were to fill up its Room — That the Mutation of the Priesthood, required a Change of the Law — That God determined that both Priesthood and Law should expire together. English▪ Annot. on v. 11. assert the Abrogation of the Legal Priesthood, together with the Covenant (viz. the Legal) and by clear Consequence that Policy. The Belgick Divines upon the place, do shew, That the Levitical Priesthood, was many ways involved with the Legal Dispensation of the Covenant; a…d therefore abolished with it. Diodate shews, That the Priesthood, and all the Ceremonial Worship of the Tribe of Levi, was to give place to Christs, in whom was accomplished all the Reality and Truth, and he is now both Priest and Law-Giver. Bilson (an English Bishop) shews the Reason, why that Policy cannot stand under the New Testament (Perpet. Gov. Chap. 2.) viz. That the Tribe of Levi was not subject to another, and had its special Governours — That the Books …f Moses containing their Mould of Civil Government, the Levites were on the Benches with the Judges — That the Offices of the Sanctuary, and the Rites and Ceremonies thereof, were various — That all, except the Levites, being restrained therefrom, this required several Degrees …f Administrators, in this Diversity of Offices and Services — But the Word and Sacraments, Concredited to all Ministers, without Distinction, are of one kind, and admitteth no Difference of Administration: And therefore, no different Degrees of Ministers. Thus, we have seen, what good Harmony, our Dr. keeps in this his Notion of the Iewish Po…icy, with the Sense and Judgment of Protestant Divines; And how this Famous English Bishop, has Checkt him for the same.

But now, to come more closely to his Argument, If that Policy had bee… pulled down, our Lord would, in Commending Parity to Presbyters, have stated the Opposition betwixt the Jewish Oeconomy, and that of the New Testament Church, not betwixt his Disciples, and that of the Gentile Princes. Ans. 1. That this Oeconomy p. 26was to end as Typical, with other Typical Ordinances, is made good; And if the Dr. admit, that it was to be removed in any Measure, and as Typical, he stands in so far, upon the same Grounds with us, and is obliged to Answer this Notion, or acknowledge it nought. 2. The Dr. himself, in his Way of Arguing, Answers himself; He says, That our Saviour designed to discharge and prohibit, a Violent Secular Way of Aspiring to Greatness, such as is Fashionable in Secular Courts, and that the Disciples were prohibited to Exercise their Power by a Spirit of Pride and Domination. And the Dr. will not say, that this was the Method of Attaining Offices in the Iewish Policy, or their allowed Practice, God having subjected the same to his own Holy Rules and Measures: And that consequently, what our Lord prohibited, and even according to the Dr's Sense and Expressions, was only and fitly represented by the Dominion of the Princes of the Gentiles, which he holds to be of this Nature, and thus Exercised, and who did not understand Gods Law or Measures, either as to the Attaining or Exercise of Government. But 3. I must tell him, that in Commanding Parity among Ministers, (for otherwise, we owne an Imparity and Subordination, among Church Officers in general) our Lord could not state an Opposition betwixt them, and the Priests of the Iewish Oeconomy, there being no such Dominion among them, as he here discharged; As we heard Wallaeus assert; None of them had an Episcopal Dominion, or a sole Decisive Suffrage in Ecclesiastick Courts, or such a Negative Voice therein, as the Gentile Princes Dominion did import, and Prelats assume and Exercise. The Learned Iunius (de Cler. Cap. 24. Not. 13.) makes evident, and will inform the Dr, That par Consortium fuit Honoris, & Potestatis inter Sacerdotes, sed Ordine impari, qua Familiarum, qua Temporis suspectu, penes concessum Sacerdotem, ex Lege fuit ordinaria Iurisdictio Ecclesiastica. — That there was a like Share of Honour and Power among Priests, though in a different Order, partly, in respect of Families, partly, in respect of Times: The ordinary Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction, belonged to the Assembly of the Priests, according to the Law. Hence, we may, by clear Consequence, inferr, that it belonged not (in the Sense of Iunius) to the High Priest, nor to any of them solely. Now, where there was such a well ordered Parity of Power and Government, among these several Orders of Divine Appointment, it was very unsuteable to Exemplifie such an Arbitrary Dominion thereby, as the Dr. here supposeth, and such a Civil Greatness and Supremacy, as the Apostles affected. Besides, the Dr. and we, doth both hold, a Subordination of Courts and Officers, under the New Testament, wherein both Oeconomies were alike, and there being under the Old Testament Oeconomy, no such Headship and Soveraignity, as is said, the stated Opposition betwixt the two Governments, could not so well correspond to our Lords Scope in this Precept and Prohibition.

p. 27But finally, the Dr. cannot but acknowledge, that the Distemper, the Apostles now Laboured under, was their Fancy of a Temporal and Earthly Kingdom of our Lord, admitting of Worldly Dignities, and Degrees of State and Honour, as the Kingdoms of the World; which is the Notion, that the Iews to this day, entertain of the Messias Kingdom, understanding in a Literal Sense, the Magnificent discriptions thereof, exhibit by the Prophets. Hence, the People came to make our Saviour a King, and were mainly Stumbled at his Humble and low Estate, and (which is to this purpose very considerable) we find the Disciples themselves propose that Question to him, after his Resurrection, wilt thou at this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel? So, that its clear, that the Ambitious affectation of Earthly Grandure, Pomp, and the greatness of this Worlds Potentats, was the distempering Principle, leavening the two Brethren, and which prompted them to propose to our Saviour the Sute, which excited their Fellow-Disciples emulation against them, and gave occasion to the Precept under debate. And hence, the opposition was most fitly stated betwixt the Honour and Offices of Christs Kingdom, and that of the Kingdoms of the World, and Earthly Potentats, and it was needful, that our Saviour, should thus shew the Disciples, the Distinction betwixt his Kingdom, and the Kingdoms of this World, as himself asserted to Pilate, Ioh. 18. Besides, the Pomp and Corruptions of the Kingdoms of the World, being to continue in after-Generations, and consequently, the tentation thereof, endangering the inflaming of this Ambition in Church Officers: But not the Iewish Oeconomy, now to be abolished; the opposition, which our Lord stated, was most fit, and sutable to his Scope.

Upon what is here offered, we may see the inconsequence and insufficiency of what the Dr further adds, in Confirmation of this his Notion, P. 21. viz: That our Lord did state the opposition betwixt the current Doctrin and his own, when he would direct in better Morals; And therefore, if he had forbidden Subordination, and Degrees of Priests, and Established Equality, he would have Stated the opposition, betwixt the Model of the Temple, and that of the Christian Church. This is no Reason. For 1. We deny that our Lord enjoyned an absolute Parity of Church officers, but among those only of the same kind; he did not forbid all Imparity and Jurisdiction among Church Officers. 2 The opposition betwixt the Tmple-Model, and that of the New Testament, could neither so well sute the Apostles distemper and tentation, nor our Lords design in this prohibition and Precept. There was (1) A Subordination and jurisdiction required therein, so in the New-Testament dispensation. (2) Ministers therein, were to attend their Charges diligently, so also, in the New Testament Church. (3) None of them had an Imperious, arbitrary or Civil Rule over their fellow-Priests, p. 28and thus it is with Ministers of the New Testament Church. The Moral Law being the constant Standart of Truth and Duty in all Ages, our Saviour, who came to fulfill all Righteousness, and establish the Law, was therefore concerned to vindicat the same from corrupt glosses; but this bears no proportion to his Scope in the Case of the Disciples, that old Ministry and Policy, being now ready to evanish.

The Dr. proceeds to another Text, and tells his Reader, that we Cite 1 Pet. 5.2.3. to serve the same design. We have made appear, that our design in pleading this and the preceeding Texts, is the same with that of Protestant Divines, and that the design, the Dr. serves in his Glosses and Answers, is Popish (as to the intentio operis, at least) a design to support the Popes Triple Crown, with Bellamin and his other pleaders and Advocats. Our Argument from this Text, against the Prelatical Hierarchy, is this: Looking to the Apostles scope, he, first, dehorts Ministers (and none will doubt all ordinary Church Officers) from the evils they are constantly tempted to, viz. Covetousness, Lordship, usurpation and Dominion over Gods Heritage (evils of a close connection and cognation) that they do not Act the Diotrephes, seeking Preheminence over their Brethren, or affect a Masterly Dominion over the People; for that both comes under the Denomination of Gods Heretage, none will doubt. He likewise dehorts from Reluctancy, at their Laborious imployment. Next, there is a positive exhortation presented to Ministers, viz, that they be examples to the Flock, that is, that the Graces they Preach to others, shine in their Walk, and in special that of Meekness and Humility, which most nearly Resembles their Glorious Master, the great Shepherd of the Sheep, that this appear in their conduct and Government, as that of his, who leadeth Gently, and would not have Ministers to Rule with Rigor, as those Reprehended Ezek. 34.4. Hence from the Scope and contexture, it appears. 1. That the Pastor, Labouring in the Word and Doctrin, being here addressed as the Apostles Co-presbyter and Fellow-elder, is owned by him as the highest ordinary Church Officer, and that this Apostle now shortly to put off his Tabernacle, doth Aaron-like, invest him, in his Robe …or highest Sphere of an Ordinary Minister. 2 He enjoyns them to exercise Episcopal Authority; As also Paul did the Elders of Ephesus. Act. 20. which must respect Ordination and Jurisdiction, in the full extent thereof, and their equal interest therein. 3. All of them are discharged to Lord it, or exercise a Dominion over one another, or over the Flock, but to exercise a humble exemplary Ministry. Hence we further inferr against the Hierarchical Prelat. (1.) That the Apostle ascribing this comprehensive Authority to Pastors, which comprehends both the Doctrinal Key, and that of Jurisdiction; For, I hope, our Episcopal Brethren, will acknowledg p. 29that the foreign or Episcopal Authority and inspection, includs both, he cuts off the Hierarchical Prelats pretended super-Inspection, paramount thereunto. Hence (2) The Pastor being found thus discribed, and installed in this comprehensive Scriptural Episcopal Authority, the Hierarchical Prelats Office, which swallows up this Power and Authority of Pastors, and arrogats to it self solely, the Name and thing of a Bishop, is discharged as unlawful. (3) We argue a minore ad Majus, against that Office from the Text thus; All Masterly power of Pastors over their Flock is discharged, Ergola Fortiori, much more that of Prelats over Pastors themselves.

Now, for the Judgment of Protestant Writers, in corespondence to this our Sense, we might exhibit a great cloud of Witnesses, but of the whole, we offer only these few instances. The Belgick Divines make this, 2. v. paralel with that which is enjoined Act. 20.28. to the Elders of Ephesus; as to the Authority and exercise of a joynt Episcopal inspection, competent to Pastors: And the 3. v. they Translate [not Exercising Dominion] the very same thing which our Lord prohibit to his Apostles. Pool. Annot. 2. Part. doth also make the Command in this 2▪ v. praralel with Act. 20.28, and Ioh. 21.15.16. and Paraphrases the Command, as importing both to feed and Rule, and enjoining the exercise of the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key jointly, yea and hold it to be of such a Nature, as to the main designs of the Gospel, as was enjoined to Peter himself, and his Fellow-Apostles. The Clause of [taking the oversight] they expone thus, being Bishops, or acting as Bishops over it, superintending, Inspecting and Watching over it (viz. the Flock) paralelling this with Act. 20.28.29. where such Pastoral Episcopal Feeding and Rule, is enjoyned in Pauls farewell to the Elders or Ministers of Ephesus. The prohibition or negative part of the Precept, v. 3. [not as being Lords] they Expone of not exercising such Lordship and Dominion, as temporal Lords; paralelling this with Matth. 20.25, 26. Luk. 22.25. as also with 2 Cor. 1.24. where Paul disowns Dominion; and with 1 Cor. 3.5. Who then is Paul? or who is Appllo? But Ministers: Yea, even Grotius, Comerarius, Menochius, expone the Command of Feeding, v. 2. as importing Government or Rule; paralelling this with Ioh. 21.15, 16, 17. Act. 20.28.29. The Clause of [taking the oversight ▪] is generally understood of superintending and acting the Bishops, Episcopum agentes. Beza, Piscat, Valla. Erasm. Gerard, says, its an allusion to their Name, as if the Lord enjoined them to be Answerable to it. The ensuing Verse, is understood of imperious Dominion over GOD's Church: Thus Piscat. Menoch. &c. Turret. (Institut. Theol. Part. 3. Quest. 16. Thes. 8.) produces the same Text, collated with 2 Cor. 1.24. as proving a prohibition of all Lordly Power to Ministers, shewing, that this is the prerogative of Christ the Chief Sheepherd, and that in opposition to such Lordly Power, p. 30Pastors, are called Ministers, Messengers, Servants, Stewards of the Mysteries of God. Maccov. from this Passage Collated with Act. 20.28. concludes the identity of the Episcopal and Pastoral Office. Loc. Commun. Cap. 82. P. 845. The Eng. Annot. upon the place, do shew, "That such a Magisterial carriage is forbidden, as is Taxed, 3 Ioh. v. 9. in Diotrephes Love of Preheminence.

But now, What is the Dr's. great Answer to this Text? He says, Its the Apostles Commentary upon our Saviours Words and Commandment. This is very true: He next adds, That it forbids the Spirit of Pride and Insolence, as a thing very unsutable to all Power and Authority in the Church. To which I Answer, it is certain the Word foreign, is Paralel with Matth. 20. Luk. 22. where Peter learned the prohibition, and imports Dominion, but not Tyranical Dominion properly; It being made use of by the LXX. to express Lawful Dominion. 2. We have told him, that the positive part of the Precept, refuts his gloss, which the Apostle doth not thus express in the Dr's. Sense [not proudly or insolently Domineering] but using Dominion moderatly, as the Apostle would have presented the Precept, if a Lawful Lordship had been allowed, but he adds in the other Branch, in expressing what is enjoyned [being examples to the Flock] enjoining thus to Feed by Example, and an Humble Ministry; And this is opposit to all Dominion whatsoever, and doth not discriminat one Dominion from another; as is also evident in the positive part of the Paralel Precepts abovementioned. We have also told him, that the instance and Illustration, drawn from such Princes of the Gentiles, as were accounted Gracious Lords, and the simple word of Rule used by Luke, in the paralel, confutes this Gloss, and doth demonstrat, that it is not proud insolent Dominion, or a Dominion secundum quid, and thus qualified, which is only here forbidden, but Lordship and Dominion, simpliciter, the desire whereof did notwithstanding proceed in the Apostles, from some remainders of Pride, and in their Case, could not be exercised or assumed without a fastuous insolency, it being Diametrically opposit to the Nature of their Holy Office and Function. So then, I argue against the Dr. from his own Principle and Gloss; If Peter thus understood our Lords Precept, Matth. 20. and Luk. 22. in this Sense, that Pride was the Principle of their desire, and of that greatness they sought, and that the exercise of this greatness was prohibit, as the very emanation of insolent Pride, and if with all, he coppied out this his Precept to Ministers, from that great Command of his Lord, and took his Measures therefrom, he could not but look upon Pastors Lording over the Fl…cks, as proceeding from Pride, and the very practice and exercise of a Domineering Tyranny; yea, he could not but put under this Character, whatever exercise of pretended Ministerial Authority, goes beyond the Limits of that humble exemplary Ministry, that Ministerial diligence and service of the Lords p. 31Flocks, which is enjoyned in the positive part of his Masters Command, exactly coppied out in this his Apostolick Precept. I further remark, that the Dr. holding out the Sense of the Apostle, as terminating only in this General, discharging Pride and Insolency in Government, without condescending upon the extent of the Negative and positive explication of the Precept, and the Nature of that Power, here specified and Discharged, as Flowing from this Pride and Insolent Disposition, and but only shewing, that it is a Pride unsutable to all Power and Authority in the Church, leaves room for even a Monarchy and Patriarchat, and the setting up of such a Dominion in the Church, as may be supposed in an abstracted Sense, and in its general Nature, Lawful; and thus still saves the Popes Mitre, from the Touch of this prohibition. The Dr. holds, That our exposition of those Texts, was never heard of, till these latter days. Thus with him, the Papists only have hit upon the true Ancient Exposition, and Protestants have missed it. Amongst many other confuting Instances, he might have minded the abovementioned Passages of Bernard to Eugenius, lib. 2. Apostolis interdicitur Dominatus; Ergo tu tibi usurpare aude ut Dominans Apostolatum, aut Apostolicus Dominatum.