Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 1 · Chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
The Informers pleadings for Prelacy from the seven Asian Angels, discussed. That the stile of Prophetick writinges, and of this book, doe strongely conclud a collective sence of the term Angel, fully proved. The admitting the Angel to be a single person, will not help the Informer. his reasonings from the pretended Catalogues of succeeding Bishopes in these Churches, frivolous and vain, as also his new Argument taken from [diotrephes's love of preeminence,] wherein he imbraces Bellarmins evasiones, and offers violence to this, and parallel Texts.
OUR Informers next great Argument for Prelacy, is taken from the seven Asian Angels Revel. 23. Whom he holds to be Diocesian Bishops: Because though there were many Ministers at Ephesus Act. 20. Yet when that Church long after this is written to; and when increased there is but one Angel addressed, and commended, or blamed, according to what was well, or amisse in the Church: And in all the rest whatever is commended or discommended, is directed to one Angel, who by his place and authority, was mainely concerned therein. Ans: This man, if he had been so ingenuous and seen in this debate, as he would appear, might have found all this, and much more then he hath offered, fully removed and answered by many Godly learned. But they must still tell over and over, their old baffled arguments, to which satisfying answers have bein often returned. But to the point, the weaknes of this proofe; is many wayes evident. 1. It is grounded upon a Misterious Metaphorick terme of Angel, and starrs; Revel: 1: 20. the mistery of the Sevenstarrs, so must the expression of Angel, be likwayes a part of this mistery. The Maxim is known, …heologia Symbolica non est argumentativa. Far less can this be rationally opposed unto so many pregnant clear scriptures, as are produced for Presbyterian Government. Besides that, the word [Bishop] is no where in Johns writings, made use of; who calls himself a Presbyter, and never mentions superiority of one Presbyter over another, but in condemneing Diotrephes. He calls Christ the word, and the Sabbath, the Lords day; these are expressions not found before in Scripture; Surely he should have made mention of a new office, as well as of a new phrase, had any such thing as a Bishop, been allowed by him. Besides, the Metaphorical terms of Starrs, or Angels, doe import the qualities of light, heavenlines of frame &c: which are proper and suiteble to all Ministers of the Gospel: and therefore they cannot ground the peculiar preheminence of a Bishop over many Ministers. 2. The great topick of his argument is [that one is named, though many are spoken to, and where many Presbyters are supposed to be, as at Ephesus, who threfore must needs be a Bishop.] but this ground will not hold good. Because, 1. This is no more then what is suitable unto the stile of this book, which is by mistick visional representations, to include many individuals as one singular: So all the individuals of the Church, both members and officers, are represented by one candlestick: and why not also all the Ministers, by one angel, which is a terme that of it self, and in this place, imports no jurisdiction properly, but is immediatly referred to the qualities of Ministers, above expressed. 2. This is also suitable to the stile of this book, as it is epistolar, the addresse may be to one, but it will give no Authority to that one, over the rest, no more then ane addresse from the King, to a speaker of the Parliament, will give to that person, jurisdiction and authority over them? Or then our Lords saying to Peter only expressly, not to the rest of his fellow disciples, I will give unto thee the keyes &c. Will conclude that he was Prince or primat over the Apostles, and that they had not equal authority with him, in the use of the keyes. Our Informer and his fellows here, doe justifie the Papists pleading for the Pope. 3. This is suitable unto Scripture prophetick writings, and to this book, as such, to represent many individuals by one singular, The four beasts, and twentie four Elders, are not four individuall persons, or twentie four single Elders. The singular names of Woman, Beast, Whoor, Dragon, signifie a collection of many individuales. So the one Spirit of God is called the seven Spirits, in the 1 Chap: With reference to his manifold operations. Dan. 8: 20. One Ram signifies many Kings of the Medes and Persians. He that will not hearken to the Priest. Deutr. 17: 12. That is, the Priests, in the plurall. So the Priests lips should keep knowledge and the Law is to be sought at his mouth Mal. 2: 7. That is the Priests. Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord &c. that is, those servants. Particularly, as to this term Angel, It is said Psal. 34. That the Angel of the Lord encamps about the Godly, that is, many Angels. 4. It is suitable to Scripture, and to this book, To represent ane indefinet number, by a definit. Thus all Judas Adversaries are represented by the four ho…es, Zachr. 1: 18. All the Godly, and the ungodly, are represented by the five wise, and the five foolish Virgines Matth. 25. and in the 8. Chap of this book, The Seven Angels standing befor God, represent all the Angels. Fo… in the 7 Chap: Mention is made of all the Angels who doe thus stand. So we are to understand with the same indefinitnes ofttimes the Septenary number, as the Seven pillars which wisdom hewes out Prov. 2. The seven Pastours or shepherds Mic. 5. The Seven eyes Zachr, 3. And in this very book the Seven condlesticks, Lamps, and vials, Revel, 4: 5, 15—5. As wee find the scripture, and this same Apostle first naming a multitud, and then contracting it into a singular, as 2 Joh. 2. many deceavers are come into the world—then—this is a deceaver and ane Antichrist. And sometimes the individual in one sentence; turned into a multitud: as 1. Tim. 2: 15 Shee shall be saved, that is, the woman bearing Children—if they abide in faith and Charity that is such women in General, as Beza tells us all writers doe take it: So it is as certain that this single Angel is turned into many in one and the same Epistle in this book, and spoken to in the plural, as when it is said Revel. 2. 24. to you and to the rest in Thyatira. and in Revel. 2: 10. we find John changing in one sentence, the singular Angel into a multitude: fear none of these things which thow shal suffer, Behold the devil shal cast some of you into prison that yee may be tryed &c. as in 2 …oh. 2: He changes many into One. Finaly, Wee have proved that the Scripture allowes of no Angels Standing-Church officers or Bishops above the Pastours or Presbyters, who have in Scripture the whol Episcopall power given them. So that whatever this Informer shall produce as the Characteristick of this Angel, we find it applicable to Presbyters. 1. Is it the work of this Angel to preach and baptize? This Commission he will grant belongs to all Pastours. 2. Is it the power of ordination? The Scripture shewes us that this is Seated in a Presbytery. 1. Tim. 4: 14. with Act. 22: 5. Luk. 22: 66. Matth. 18: 17. Or, 3. Is it the ruling Governeing power? Surely all Ministers are such Angels, All that watch for the peoples soules have a joynt rule over them, Hebr. 13. 17. And therefor none can challenge it solely to himself. In the Church of Thessalonica the laboures in the word and doctrine, joytlie and indiscriminatim fed, joyntlie censured and admonished, and were joyntly the foreign or Rulers, to whom consequently the people were indiscriminatim (or with out any difference of one of them from another) to submitt themselves, 1 Thess. 5. 12. There was therefore no sole Angel or foreign and ruler, but this Prostasia or ruleing power was in many. So was it with the Church of Ephesus Act. 20. So with these elders or Bishops 1. Pet 5. And we offer to this, or any mans serious thoughts, whither it be suiteable to divine rules, to cross so many clear Scriptures upon the ground of a metaphorial mistick expression: and to expone them in that sense, rather then to explaine the Metaphor and mistick expression by plaine Scriptures. And whi…her it be not more suiteable to understand the Angel of Ephesus, of the Ministers: to whom in a plaine Scripture, the whole Government is found intrusted, rather then to expound that plaine text, (Act. 20) by a Metaphor, and contrary to that plain text, to set up one Angel or Diocesian Bishop over that Church, with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction.
But the Doubter objects what have been saying, viz, That the Angel is to be taken collectively, and not for one single person, but for all the Ministers. To which (in a peece of petulant folly) he Answers That he hath oft wondered at this reply, that it seems this Scripture pinches us sore, when we flie to such a shift—That Scultetus, a learned Protestant, affirms that the most learned interpreters understand the Angel thus, and that without offering violence to the Text, it cannot be otherwayes understood. Ans. 1. We hope is evident from what is said that the most native scriptural acception is to take the Angel collectively. To which we may adde, that although the Lord Jesus (the best interpreter of these Angels) doth expound the Seven candlsticks, to be the Seven Churches, yet in expounding the Seven Starrs, he losses the number of Seven, and calls them not the Seven Angels (as he should have done according to this mans meaning) but indefinitly the Angels of the Seven Churches; from which it is convincingly apparent that though there were Seven Churches written unto, yet there were not Seven diocesian Bishops, according to the number of the Seven Angels: but that all the Ministers or Angels are thus collectively understood. And wheras this man professes (in the deept of his witt for sooth) to wonder at this answer and taks it to be a shift. He should wonder at Augustin (Homil. 21. upon this booke,) who thus taks it, expounding the Angel of Thyatira, the proepositi ecclesiarum, the governoures of the Churches. He should wonder at Aretas, lib. 1. Cap: 1, 2, 9, 10. Wonder at Primasius in Apoc: C: 2. At Ambrosius, Anbertus, To: 1, 6 p: 1. Anselm, Pererius, Victorinus, Tirinus, Haymo, Beda, perkings, Fox, in his Meditationes upon the Revel. p: 7, 8, 9, 17. who cites also many Interpreters thus expounding him. Yea more, he wonders at King james and the Episcopal clergie in England, under and by whom, in the contents annexed to the Bibles of the last translation, the contents in the 2. chap: are represented [what is to be written to the Angels, that is, to the Ministers of the Church of Ephesus, Smyrna &c] Its pitie they had not this grave dictator to correct their mistake, and to present them with his new spectacles, to discover therewith, the Bishop in these Epistles. He should have wondered at Pilkington Bishop of Durham (in his exposition upon Hag: Chap. 1: v. 13.) who expoundes the Angel thus collectivly. See Gers. Buc. de Gub. Eccl. p. 1. 205, 393, 408, 419, 422, 433. Now, what pinched all these Authors to embrace this Silleptick exposition of the Angel? As for Scultetus, although a Protestant, yet he is a high Prelatist, and a partial witnes in this point, & cannot conterballance these Authores mentioned.
But next, what wil our Informer gain though it were yeelded that this Angel is ane individual or single person? Some learned men doe so take it, as Beza, and Reynolds, who notwithstanding were far from thinking him a Prelat. Because I. He may be the Angelus Preses, or the moderatour Angel, not the Angelus Princeps, or Lord Angel, yea, and the Preses and Moderator for the time, as a speaker in the Parliament. Ephesus had many elders. (Act 20: 27. 1 Tim. 5: 17.) of equal authority, who were made Bishops, and they are spoken to in the plural, though the Angel is named in the singular number. 2. This Angel is said to have no jurisdiction and superiority over the rest of the Ministers. And we challeng our Informer to shew where this Angel is spoken unto, with reference to Ministers, as subject unto him, which notwithstanding is his supposition, & petitio principii, all along in this Argument. 3. The Parochial, and Diocesian division of Churches, were long after this and not until 260. Years after Christ. 4. Nothing is required of this Angel, but that which is the common duty of all Ministers. Finally, Suppose it were granted to him, that a superiority were imported in nameing this Angel, It may be a Superiority of Order, Dignity, or Gifts, not of power and Jurisdiction
But the Dcubter Object's [That (Revel. 2 24.) Christ by Iohn speakes to the Angel in the plural [or You'] and that therefore he means all the Minist…rs.] foreign To this he answers That Beza by this phrase understands the president and the company of Ministers with the rest of the people, tabing the Angel still for a single person, and h…lds that more then the Angel are spoken unto. He tells us, that the words are ane Apostrophe, wherein the speaker amplifies his speech, turning it to some others then those who are first spoken unto. Ans. 1. We have already shown that this, and the other parallel phrase mentioned, doe strongely plead for the Angels being understood Collectivly: since the Lord makes a Plural of the singular Angel, as 1 Tim. 2. 15. Shee shall be saved if they continue &c. especially the above evinced equal power, and authority, of the Angels or Presbyters, who where in these Churches, being pondered. Besids, how doth this remove the objection, that Beza understands it some other wayes then collectively, what sayes that to the reason and argument it self? But 2. If Beza understand by the foreign or yow, the moderator or president Angel with the rest of the Ministers, wherein (I pray) is our argument infringed? viz, That this Angel is not a Diocesian Prelat, since other Ministers are taken in with him here as of equall authority in this compellation. In Beza's sense this is no other language then what might have been said or writen to a presbyterian Synod with its Moderator all being equally concerned therein, and supposed equaly Angels in this Church. And if this Cutt not the sinnews of this mans designe and argument here, let any judge. 3. Non can rationally call it a turneing of the speech to any other then such as were first speken to, foreign But to yow I Say is a continuanc of the speech to the same persons, with ane exegitick explication of the [Angel] by foreign, or [yow,] especially since they are distinguished from [the rest] or the ordinary Presessores, by the Copulative, and. In our ordinary language, we usually reinforce our speech to the same persons, and to the same purpose, with ane emphatick [I say] as it is here. Some Prelatists have a Knack (which I wonder our Informer stumbled not upon) in alledging that some copies leave out the Conjunction—Reading it foreign that is, to yow, the rest in Thyatira; making the terme [yow,] all onewith [the rest in Thyatira.] but the plaine reading of the 23. v. confutes this.
But that which the Informer thinkes should put it out of question wich us, That these Angels were Diocesian Bishops, [Is the Testimonies of the Ancients, who came immediatly after them, and condescend upon some of their names. Then he repeats to us againe the storie of Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, borne neer the Apostles times, who, numbers Se…n of his Predecessours before him and tels us That Leontius Bishop of Magnesia, Numbers Tuenty seven Bishops of Ephesus from Timothy. That these Seven Bishops of Asia are at the Council of Neice designed by their styles Ephesus, Smyrna, &c. That Eusebius, Tertullian, Irenaeus assert that Iohn made Policarp Bishop of Smyrna. That he is thought to be the Angel to whom John wrote. That Ignatius writes to him as such, &c. These he thinkes as acomment upon this and such like scriptures, should convince us.] Ans. 1. He forgot one maine point of this argument from Antiquity; before it convince us, he must condescend upon the mould, and power, of the Bishops which these Ancienas speakes of; he holds that the word [Bishop] is variously taken in Scripture, and why not also by the ancients? But if he had offered us Testimonys speaking of sole power of these Bishops in ordination and Iurisdiction, leaving nothing to Presbyters but the key of doctrine, of Bishops with a negative voice in judicatories, haveing sole Dominion over a diocess, the only proper Pastoures thereof; and Prelats of Erastus his Cutt, Then I should confess there were early such Bishops as he pleads for: and we should acknowledge their power to be a commentary upon the Scriptures he pleads from; But with this proviso, that he could quiparat them with their first progenitours, and shew us these priviledges in the scripture-Escutciones of their founders. But till then, I thinke our conviction must be suspended.
That Presbyters have the key of Doctrine, he will not deny, That they have the power of ordination, and jurisdiction, and that key likewayes entrusted to them, hath been proved from Scripture. 1. Tim. 4. 14. Luk. 22. 66. Act. 20: 28. 1. Pet. 5: 2, 1. Cor 5. 5. Now let him say, did these first succeeding Bishops (in their supposed diocesses) alwayes take this power in ordination and jurisdiction from the first Scripture Bishops, and stood invested therwith in after tymes? How then comes jerom to say [That even in his time] elders were subject to the Bishop only by Custome, not by Dispensation from the Lord. (In his Coment: on Tit:) and, (on Isa. 3.) That they had even in his time, a caetus presbiterorum, a meeting or Court of Presbyters, and ane Apostolick senat.] How comes a foreign or Presbytery to be mentioned, Councancyr. Can. 18. How comes Ambrose, (a father of the Church) upon Ephes. 4. to assert [That after the Church was enlarged., Cepit alio ordine Gubernari. It began to be governed after another maner then at first,—and that non per omnia conveniunt, &c. That the Government then in the Church, was not every way suitable to the Apostles appointment] me thinkes these assertions might convince the Informer of the folly of this argument.
But 2. What if some of these first successours, be found but meer Constant moderators? What is then become of his Series of a Succession of Diocesian Bishops from Timothy; and Titus, and the Asian Angels? saith not jerom (ad Evagrium) Alexandriae Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu Collocatum Episcopum nominabant, &c That the Bishop at Alexandria was only a Presbyter Chosen to preside. &c. Ambrose sayes that this distinction betaixt Bishop and Presbyter; cam in by Couns…l (Cubi prius) therefor he holds it was not derived from divine …, (and therein gives the lie to our Informer:) for that he sayes was different from their present custome. Augustin (Epist: 10.) sayes (with jerom) that by Custome of the Church, Episcopatus, was; Major presbyterio, the Episcopacy was greater then the presbyterat. How comes …irmilianus (apud Cypr. ep: 78.) to assert that the presbyters, possident ordinandi potestatem, posseses the power of ordination, and these presbyters he calls praepositi, the presidents or rulers. Ierom sayes, quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod nonfacit presbiter. what does the Bishop except ordination, which the presbyter doth not,—yet even in this, presbyters then concurred with them, and shared in that power. Saith not Chrisost: upon 1. Tim: inter Episcopum et presbyterum, interest ferme nihil-between the Bishop and presbyter, there is almost no difference. As for his lines of Succession, they will say nothing untill he prove these Bishops to be Episcopos principes, Prince-or Lord Bishops, and nor Episcopos presides or Moderator Bishops, which will be a hard task, since he must answer Blondel, who largely proves, that before the year 140▪ there was not a Bishop over presbyters, even the Constant president, far from the power of the present dioces…an. Policarp himself, his supposed Bishop of Smyrna, makes but Two orders of Ministery, Bishops and …, in his Epistle to the Philippians. Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Hart, proves that the first Bishop who came in after the Apostles, was nothing but the foreign, Moderator of the presbytery. In a word, as many learned men doe prove the discrepancy of the ancients among themselves, and their variety of names, and speech in relation to these first supposed Bishops, and that several authores are Spurius and counterfit who are Brought in to give Testimony in this point. So it is certain that this man and his fellowes in pleading thus for Timothies Episcopacy, doe put the blott of dread full Apostacy upon him, in making him fall (as the Angel of Ephesus is charged) from his first love; so that, if they will not runn on this inconvenience, and stage this eminent Saint for such ane Apostat, contrary to the Scripture account of him, they must wholly quit this plea. As for what he adds [of Several writers acknowledging the Angel a Single person] we have shown how vaine a reason this is, to prove his point.
But the Doubter objects to some purpose [that Beza and others might take the Angel to be but Moderator.] To this he answers [that the Angel must needs be a Bishop, because he is cheifely commended or discomended, as haveing a cheif hand in what was right, or amiss, in these Churches. That the power found in Timothy and Titus, proves it was so with these Angels.—That Beza sayes these Angels power was more eminent then the rest of their fellowes.] Ans. 1. As for Beza, its true he expones [the Angel] foreign [to the president]—but adds—[Sed hinc statui episcopalis ille gradus &c:—that is, But that Episcopal degree, which was after ward by human invention brought into the Church of God, nether certainly can nor ought to be hence concluded, nay not so much as the office of a perpetual president, should be of necessity, as the thence ariseing oligarchical tyrranny; (let our Informer marke this) whose head is the Antichristian beast now at length with the most certan ruine, not of the Church only, but of the world also, maks manifest. And this also is all which Dr. Reynolds acknowledges. Now I think he will find no advantage nor credit here to his Diocesian Bishop, since Beza maks him but a human invention, yea and the poysonous egg out of which Antichrist was hatched. 2 As for his Reason [That this [Angel] is chefly reproved or commended, as haveing the Chief hand, in what was right or amisse.] He must prove, (before this Reason wil pass current) that one single person is Chiefly reproved or commended, and likewayes that his having the commendation, or reproofe adressed to him, will evince a Chief authority, or Chief hand, (as he calls it) in government. Wee told him that in Beza's, and Dr. Reynolds judgment, the [Angel] is only the preses Mor…derator receaving the Epistle or address. Now, will ane Epistle containing commendations or reproofes of a Synod, and addressed to the Moderator, make him Chief as to what is commended, or taxed, in all that Synodall assembly or Church? Surely not at all. The Moderator may be a man as little concerned therein, and possibly less, then any of the meeting: Or will the Kings Message or Charge to a parliament, adressed to the speaker, containing reproofes and commendationes of that great body and assembly, fix the guilt or commendation principally upon the speaker, or president? He will not say it. As for Timothy and Titus, we have proved that they had no such power, as he pretends, and that their inspection was extraordinary and Evangelistick, which cannot with any shew of reason be said of these Seven Angels. As for Beza [his acknowledgment of a more eminent Authority in government, which these single persons had] this man cannot with any shew of reason alledge Beza to understand thereby any other thing beyond the eminency of his Episcopus divinus, which with Beza is the Pastour, among whom jure divino, he will not a…mit so much as a perpetual president, far less a Bishop: for the perpetual president or Moderator, is with Beza, the Episcopus humanus, which he distinginshes from the divine, or scripture Bishop; and the diocesian prelat (pleaded for by this Informer) who hath the Chief, and sole power in ordination and jurisdiction, is the Satanical Bishop. (In his Treatise de triplici Episcopatu;) So that Beza cannot Imput to these single persons any authority over their brethren, or ascribe to them any other eminency, then what the eminency of a Moderatorship will give, If Beza doe not compare them with the Elders of the Inferior sort, who rule only, as some would readily admit, who take these Churches to be Congregational. As for Mede, it is no great matter whither he take the Angels Collectivly, or for Single persons, if he Imput not to these Asian Angels ane Episcopal Authority, which this Informer proves not, in telling us, [Tha… the Tuentie four Angels about the Thron, doe with him, represent the Bishops] unless he can shew that he means his Diocesian Bishops: for he may mean the Bishops indefinitely, according to the genuine scripture acceptation. He holds there are Seven Bishops of Asia here only written unto, where are the Tuentie four Bishops, if Mr Mede take them in his sense? As for Mr. Brightman, his exponeing ordinarly the Angel, of a single person, as the Informer alleadges. Let us hear Brightman himself. [To the Angel &c.] The Epistles are intituled (saith he) one by one, to the Pastours, Becaus the safety of the Congregation depends upon the soundnes of the Pastours: for there was not one Angel alone at Ephesus, but many, Neither yet any prince among these, as is manifast by Paul, who to Miletum sent for the Elders or Bishops of Ephesus,—adding, that nothing is spoken of their obedience to any one Chief Bishop—That a Prince hood came after the Apostles, and was not yet borne, save only that Diotrephes gave some shew of it. hence he concluds thus [therefore under the name of one Angel, the Epistle is written to the whol order of Pastours &c:] And by this account of Brightmans acce…tation of the word Angel, Let any judge of our Informers fidelity.
But now comes his last Argument for Episcopacy (which surprises not only his Doubter, but I believe, Most, if not all else, who have seen it) taken from [Diotrephes his loveing to have the preeminence, 3. Joh. 9. who (he sayes) ambitiously loved to be first, and to have the Chief place: and that this ambition only John speaks against,—he adds, that ane office may be good and lawfull, though ane ambitions seeking of it, be sinfull.—That Beza renders it, qui primatum ambit—that our Inference of the unlawfulnes of the office he aimed at, will not follow from his seeking of this chief place, but rather that their was such ane office at this time in the Church, and now void, into which he meaned to put himself, or had already done so, out of ane ambitious desire to be great, which was a sinful end: that, he looked after himself, not the good of the Church.] Ans. 'tis long since we had this answer, and gloss from Romanists, though not as ane argument. Wee see popri and prelacy in despight of all con…radiction will strick hands. When Luk. 22. Touching our Lords forbidding a Dominion, or primacy among his Disciples, is objected to Bellarmin, he resolves it just as this resolver. viz. That the Lord rather institut and established a primacy in the Church, then removed it: And commanded his vicar to preside, but not as the Heathen, who seek themselves, and their own glory and commodity. de Pontif, Ques. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3.) Yee shall not rule as the Princes of the Gentiles (saith he,) Imports, that he admitts one to preside but not after that manner. He presses the Greek word foreign which signifies a Prince or Captaine (just as this man doth the foreign or loving of preeminence) to shew that such a Prince or primat was designed, de Pontif. Lib: 1. Ch. 9. Thus the Papists glosse generally the Text under debate. Tilen [in his Not. 67.] answering him [That if it were so, then Christ rather inflamed then quenched their ambitious thoughts, which they …hil foreign, or loving preeminence, intertained] makes this sin of diotrephes the same with theires which the Lord reprehended, viz. A sinful desire of ane unlawfull forbidden primacy. Adding, [That the Lord said not, he who by my appointment shall be Chief…, but he who from his sinfull desire would be Chieff. Bellarmin and the Papists fine notions, and old exploded evasions, we see stands these men in much stead: And doe furnish usefull materials to dress up Prelatick pamphlets. But what will this man say? Will he indeed owne this popish Argument and answer upon Luk 22. Which the topick of his argument here will necessarly inferr? Was their a lawfull primacy supposed among the Apostles, & the ambitious desire only forbidden? Bellarmin presses that ane exorbitant dominion or tyrannicall only was forbidden since the Princes of the Gentiles are mentioned (which this man also taks hold of) which seems to put a restricton upon that prohibition, but there is no such restriction in this place under debate: So that he is cut off from Bellarmins evasion. We heard before he admitted a lawfull Church Dominion as not discharged in Luk. 22. And here he admitts a lawfull primacy over this Church, and in his pretended antiquity we will find him not to di…owne a Chief patriarch if not directly to plead for him; And then I see not why he may not take in the High Priest into his old Testament Argument, in relation to a morall standing primacy in Church-Government, and merite a co…l in some Popish order …r it be long. Now it is evident that the Apostle simply dissounes this lover of preeminence, and censures him upon the account of the preeminence he desired. And the Informer himself (though, as I observed before, he is not one with himself in it) acknowledges that the Lord discharged all inequality, and especially a foreign, or primat, among the Apoles; and therefore, why his scoler John censured not likewayes a foreign or primacy - affecting Minister; seeking the same principality over his Brethren or fellow Ministers, which our Lord discharged among the Disciples, will puzell him to shew the disparity. Surely, when our Lord said, [It shall not be so among you,] and when he discharged a protos or Chief among the Disciples, recomending to the desirer of this to be their servant over whom this was affected, he spoke to them as Ministers, and in that capacitie: and therefore discharges this among all Ministers. For aquatenus ad omne—I wonder if this man will say that if any of the Seventy Disciples had affected to be a protos over the rest, our Lord would not have given them the same injunction. Or if he will say that they did not hold themselves concerned in the same rule, and the prohibition which the Disciples here got. Surely he cannot deny this, and therfore it is Certan that John discharhes the very protos or prostacy self for what reason will it: he invent wherefor a preeminence or primacy should be disgarged to the Apostles, and allowed among the Seventy (who he thinks represents the Pastours) or any Inferiour order of Church officers? Besides, what was it which Peter discharged to these Bishops 1 Pet. 5. Was it not a preeminence, or masterly primacy, and to be a protos? learned he not this prohibition of his Lord? and will it not be a Critical distinction to distinguish lordship from preeminence? Now the first we find universally discharged to Pastours, even over the flock…, as this man acknowledges, and therefore why this preeminence, is not likwise in it self and simply stricken against, will be Impossible to shew the disparity. I must presume that the Apostle understood the sence of this prohibition of his Lord, much better then our Informer: and we see he applyes to inferiour Pastours and Bishops, that which was discharged to himself, and the rest of his fellow disciples. And, (as I said befor) if none of these scripture-Bishops were to lord it over the flock, farr less over their fellowes. So that to be a protos or Chief over them, was inhibit, as by the lord befor, so by the Apostle here, and consequently this lover of preeminence is simply condemned. The Inglish Annot: make the two places of Peter & John, parallel, & the same evill to be discharged in both. So doe the dutch annot expressing that which diotrephes sought, in the Apostle Peters terms, of lording it over his brethren. Now I hope he will not say, that when Peter discharges Ministers to be lords over Gods Heritage, he discharged only ane ambitious affectation and Supposed a la…ll Lordship over the flock…, abstracting from this ambitious affectation. Surely then this Prohibition of the Apostle Iohn, where Diotrephes is supposed to be practising, what is by Peter discharged, can admit of no such evasion either; unless he would make these Apostles to interfer together in this matter: for it were strange clashing of weapones, and contradiction of the tongues and pens of these Apostles, if Peter should discharge all Lording even over the flocks, in any Pastour, and yet Iohn should allow unto a Pastour, a preeminence, and primacy, both over the flocks, and his fellow Ministers and labourers with him in the Lords vineyeard. Infine, If to be a primat or foreign was a lawfull office, to be a foreign or lover of it (which is all that the word will Import) could deserve no censure. The Informer knowes who said [He that desires the office of a Bishop, desires a good work] but our Lord who spoke this by the pen of Paul, said also himself immediatly to the Apostles, & by the Apostle Iohn in this place, he that desires to be a protos or Chief, must quite that desire. Hence these are different objects of desire, to be a scripture Bishop, and a protos or primat. To affect the office of a scriptur Bishop, and a primacy, are Antipods: so that it was not a lawfull, nor consequently praeexistent office in the Church, allowed by Iohn, which this man desired, and therefore he is simply condemned by the Apostle, both as to the desire it self, and the object of it. Hee who thus affects to be first, deserves to be called least in the Kingdome of God, and who thus exalt themselves, shall be abased. To all which I might add, that diotrephes Imperious lordly carriage in casting out and censureing, and not admitting into this Church, such as the Apostle appointed to be therein receaved, is a lively effigies of an… Episcopal primacy or preeminence, and of that arbitrary prelacy, that sole power in ordination and censures, which this Informer pleads for. Against which disorderlines of this early primat, the Apostles threatning of his holy censure, is a thunder-clapp which may terrifie all who carry this usurped office: and may make his Supposed Angels or Prelats, for this their aspyreing, fear the stroake and punishment of those Angels, who keeped not their first estate, but left their own habitation.
I shall dimiss the Informers last argument, with one remarke further, which is this, if the affecting to be a protos or Chief, tainted the Apostles themselves, while the Christian Church was in its first Infancy, if in Pauls time the mistery of Iniquity, and of propry, was working (the monstrous embrio of a papacy, and consequently of a Prelacy) If peter found it needfull to disscharge Covetousnes and lordship, to ministers, If the holy Apostle John was contradicted and counteracted by ane aspiring primat, Surely we need not wonder at that universal Change of the Apostolick Holy, humble Church Disciplin and parity among Ministers, which overspread the Christian Church not long therafter. And to our prelatists ordinary question [When began the Change of preshyterian parity among Ministes]? Wee may answer, That the bitter …ootes of a Primacy or prelacy, were sprouting in the Apostles times; and therefore it is no strange thing that this destroying weed grew up so quickly thereafter the foreign or evill one, did quickly sow his Cocle among the wheat, and blew up this fire of ambition, primacy pride and (his own proper sin) till it came to the flam, first of a human proftasie, then of a Hierarchy, and unto the Culmen or tope, of a chief universal primacy at last. For that which he adds of Blondel his granting [That diotrephes sought to be first Presbyter, & such a president as had authority over the rest.] Surely none who ha…e read Blondel can but acknowledge, that he distinguishes all along the Presbyters set over others from the Episcopus divine jure institutus, So in his 1, 2, 3. and 4t. Arguments, page. 190: 191, 192, 193 &c. So that he maks the very constant fixed president (much more such a president or primat as diotrephes affected to be) distinct from the Divinely appointed Bishop; And therefore whatever he might suppose to be creeping in at that tyme, he must needs, upon this ground, interpret it to be a recesse from the divine appointment, and in so far a Corruption. As for what our Informer repeats here againe ad nauseam [That Bishops were immediatly the Church before all the Apostles were gone and imediatly after, which is a commentary upon Timothy, and Titus, and the Asian Angels, and Diotrephes.] I answer, I beleive indeed, as to his last instance, that there were Diotrephesies, earely enugh, and Beza's Episcopus humanus or fixed president, but that there was either in the Apostles time, or ane hundered years, and more afterward (I speak far within compass) his Diocesian Prelat, with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction in a Diocess, he will assoone joyn the poles together, as prove it by any faithful and authentick Testimony.