Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 1 · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
The Informer undertakes to answer the Arguments of Presbyterians against Episcopacy. His answers to our Argumets from Matth. 20: 25, 26. and Petr. 5: 3. Examined at large. The genuine strength and nerves of our reasoning upon these Texts, which he dare not medle with. His answers found inconsistent with themselves, the same with Papists answers for the papacie, and contrare to the sense of sound divines.
THe doubter in the nixt place [alleages Prelacy to the forbidden, and therefore unlawful: bringing for proof Matth. 20: 25, 26, 27, 28. And the Argument from this text, he makes his poor doubter slenderly and curtly to represent thus, That Christ forbids any of his disciples to he greater then another. This passage with its parallel Luk. 22: 25. Is much scanned betwixt the Papists and us, in relation to the popes Dominion, and as it striks clearly against Prelacy, so Papists and Prelats doe as clearly joyne issue in their answers. In both passages it is apparent, that upon occasion of a sinfull and ambitious emulation àmong the Disciples, which of them should be greatest, our Lord did sharpely reprehend them, dischargeing them expresly the Lordly grandour of Earthly Rulers or Princes, and to exercise Lordsnipe or Dominion over one another, commending instead thereof, and in opposition thereto, a humble Ministerial service, and spiritual diligence in their spiritual stewardship or Ministery, pressing both, from his own exemplary humility in his converse with them. Now, our Argument against Prelacy is very strong from this text, and hath these Nerves. 1. The Lord most expresly discharges Superiority and inferiority among officers of the same kinde: Non are greater then another in their office; no Apostle above another, but a compleat parity in their official power is here holden out; ergo, by necessary consequence, he commands a parity among Pastoures, and discharges superior and inferior degrees among them. 2. Whatever priority of order among officers of different kindes, be allowed, yet he discharges Dominion or principalitie in any of them, all masterly power, such as is allowed in civil Government; there being but one Master or Lord over the Church, and all Ministers being Brethren. This is clear, in that he mentions the civil Lordshipe of Rulers who are called benefactors in exemplyfiing what he discharges them, and likewayes in opposition therunto, commends a humble Ministerial service, not a sort of warrantable Dominion, as that parallel 1 Pet. 5: 3. Makes it evident; So that he gives two deadly blowes here to the Diocesian Lord Prelat. 1. In that he makes himself a higher order and degree of the Pastorall office, whereas the Lord discharges this among officers of the same kinde. 2. In Lording it over his brethren (other Pastoures) both in a pretended spiritual capacitie, arrogating to himself a sole power in ordination and jurisdiction, and a masterly power and principality over Church judicatories, (as is cleared above) and likewayes in his assumeing the Earthly Lordship, place and grandoure, of civil Magistrates, which is here expresly discharged. This being premised, let us hear what this new Advocat sayes to this Text. 1. He tels us that [It is a great mistake to think, that all superiority among Church men is here forbidden, which he fortifies 1. With this Reason, that the twelve, though equall among themselves, yet were superior to the seventy Disciples who were also sent to preach, & this He proves, because Matthias who was chosen to succeed Judas in the Apostleship, was one of them.] Ans. 1. It is here convincingly apparent, that this man shiftes, but dare not grapple with this Scripture, and the argument drawn from it, while he shuffles in this glosse and mistake (which is his own, not oures) viz, that all superioritie is here discharged among Church men, as our inference or medium ágainst prelacie from this text, as is evident from what is said. We grant with all sound divines, that among Church men or Church officers, there are superior and inferior degrees. First Apostles, secondarly Prophets &c. But we say, that hereby superiority among these of the same degree is forbidden, and likwayes principalitie and lordship in any of them of whatever order or degree, over another. So that we are not concerned to enquire, whither the Apostles were Superior to the seventy Disciples, or whither they were sent to preach, and not rather (as some doe judge) intrusted with a transient mission to prepare our Lords access to those places whither he was to come, with out any formall Ministeral mission above ordinarie Disciples. Only I must say, his proofe of this Superiority of the Twelve above the Seventie, is very odd (viz.) Matthias was chosen ane Apostle, though one of the Sevintie. Now, to give Scripture light and proofe of this topick, both branches of this assertion must be proved from Scripture, not only that Matthias was chosen in Judas roome, but also and mainely, that he was one of the Seventie, wherof the Scripture is utterly silent: and instead of Scripture proof of this, wee must take Clemens and Dorotheus, their Said so, which maks up a heterogenious proofe, like the feet and toes made of iron and clay. 2. He tells us, That ambition, and not inequality, is here discharged. This ane old shift of Bellarm: and the Papists, we say that both ambition, the root and principle of this desire, and the thing it self which was the object of this ambitious desire (viz.) Dominion, Principality, and Lordship one over another, is here forbidden: Subordinata non pugnant, 'tis strang sottishnes in this man to imagin, that ambition, the inward principle of this unlawful primacie or inequalitie, should be forbidden onelyonly, and not the inequalitie or primacie it self, the outward act and accomplishment of this ambition. Bellarm: answer to our divines argument against the popes Supremacie from the text, is, that dominion is no: here discharged, but rather supposed, and that it is only such ane ambitious lust of overruling as is among the Kings of the Gentiles, that is forbidden. Whittaker (de Pontif: Cap: 1.) Answers him, that this dominion it self, not the ambitious affectation only, is discharged. Bernard writing to Eugenius, & expounding this passage, & that of 1. Pet. 5. Understands them both as striking against dominion, and enjoyning a Ministeriall care in opposition therunto, Dominion (saith hee) is discharged and Ministery is enjoyned, So at length he concludes after severall things to this purpose. Thus Bernard clearly teaches (saith Whittak: de Pontif: Quest: 1.) that humilitie is not required in dominion (as our Informer distinguishes with Bellarm:) but dominion it self is discharged. But Bellarmin admitts to play the Lords if they be modest and humble in their dominion. Christus de re ipsa &c. (saith Iunius, de pontif: lib: 1.) Christ said of the thing it self, they exercise dominion but he spake not of the maner, they exercise dominion after this or that maner; they exercise dominion, saith he, but not so yee that is, yee shall not exercise dominion: it is a plaine denyal of the thing proposed. So we see his shift here as to prelacie, is the same with that of the Papists in defending the papacie. But his Reason of this his glosse must be considered, [viz.] Because otherwayes, our Lords argument taken from his own example v. 28. Would not suite his purpose, since he was in power and authoritie above the Twelve. Ans. (Not to stay here to tell him, that this defence and gloss will equally serve the popes turne, and bear the blow of this text off his head in Correspondance with Bellarmins Notion above touched) Our Lords scope in proposeing his own example, is to antidot their inward pride, the root of their desire of this dominion, and powerfully to commend to them humility and low lines, as the most excellent remedy therof: And his argument runns a fortiori thus. If I your Lord and Master be as on that serves, and am such a pattern of selfdenial and humility among you, much more ought you to studie humility, and to guard against all usurped authority and dominion, over on another, who are fellow Disciples, and servants. So he reasoned Joh 13. If I your Lord & master have washed your feet, you [viz, much more as being equalls] ought also to wash one anothers feet; so that which he imagines doth mak Christs argument not sute well, maksit the more forcible & suite the better. 2. He here contradicts himself, while making the argument from Christs example, v. 28. to suite the discharge of ambition only, not of inequality (the terms in which he impertinently states the difference and opposition, as to what is discharged and not discharged) for he grants there was to be no inequalitie among the Apostles; and when he thus limites his general answer [that all supeiroritie among Church men is not here discharged] he grants that some superioritie (viz) among the Apostles themselves, was discharged, and consequently discharged upon this motive Christs own example How then, I pray, will he make this argument from Christs example, who was in dominion and principality above the Twelve, and their, and all the Churches monarch and head, suite his purpose of discharging Inequality, Superioritie, or primacie among the Apostles? His reason he explaines, thus further, that taking Christ onelyonly to speak against ambition, or a sinful desire of superoritie, which was Diotrephes fault, the reason from his own example suites well who, though above all, yet was, a pattern to all in humility. Ans. 1. Wee have heard that Christs argument suites best in the sense we have propounded, which is the sense of all sound divines. 2. If it was only a sinful desire of a superioritie in it self lawful, such as he sayes Diotrephes had (how rationally we shall after see) which our Lord dehorted from by his own example, then all our divines have mist the marke in pleading from this text against the object of this desire, not the sinful maner of desiring only, and the Papists gloss holds good against them, viz: that Christs example will plead only against ambition. 3. Our Informer yet againe falleth here into a twosold contradiction. 1. He makes the Superiority, the object of this ambitious desire, to be in it selflawful, and their fault only to lie in the ambitious or sinful desire; yet in answer to the nixt obiection he grants, that Christ discharged dominium civile & despoticum; Now, he must either say, that this was the object of their desire, & consequently that it was sinful in the object, or else that our Lords discourse and exhortation was not to the purpose; Againe, this domineum civile & despoticum, is more then a meer superioritie. But 2. the superioritie here discharged was among the Apostles themselves, & this was the object of their desire; the ambitions question and debate was, which of them should be greatest, and highest above all the rest? Now he grants that there was to be no superioritie, far less principality among them; How then can he say that Christ discharged only ane ambitious affectation of a superioritie in it self lawful; such as Diotrephes had, whom we will find him after assert to have endeavoured to put himself into a lawful pre-existent office. Surely if there was to be no inequality among them, their desire of inequality was most sinful in the object, upon that very ground. Againe, he grants that Christ speaks to the Twelve, and likwayes cannot deny, but clearly insinuates a concession with the text, that the Apostles were striveing about inequality, which he acknowledges was unlawful in them, yet in the second answer, he will not have this discharged; which how inconsistent it is, let any judge. Beside, since. Christ spoke this to the twelve, among whom there was to be [no inequality in respect of power] as he sayes, & consequently discharged this, since he is rebuking them for striving about a primacy, the highest degree of inequality in respect of power, how absurd & nonsensical is his 2d answer, which denies [that Christ discharged inequality;] could Christ discharge them an inequality of the highest pitch, and yet not discharge inequality? Or could [all inequality in respect of power] be unlawful among them, and yet not be discharged when our Lord discharged [a primacy of power?] he will prove a strang critick if he distinguish these. He tells us lastly here that humility & imparity can well consist. But can humility, & a forbidden imparity consist? can humility in a Churchman, & [Dominium civile and despoticum] consist? Both which he acknowledges were discharged to the Apostles here. So he insinuats that their desired imparity, was still lawful in it self, since it may be possessed even humbly, & thus heaps up inconsistencies. He objects to himself That Christ in denying to them, the Dominion of the Princes of the gentiles, discharged all superiority among Church men. To which he answers That he onelyonly discharges [Dominium civile, & despoticum] a princely Lordly power, such as they exercise: but the power of the Church is of another nature. Ans. 1. [Not to meedle with his makeing Dominium civile, and despoticum, adequat termes, there being a Dominium politicum, ordinately contradistinguished from despoticum, which is also a Dominium civile) He grants here, that it was more then a simple desire of a lawful superiority, which the Apostles were tainted with, forgeting what he said immediatly before. Nixt, if Christ discharged this civil Lordly power to Churchmen, he discharged them to be Parliaments Lords, and to hold civil state offices, contrare to what he pleades from the instances of the Priests Numb. II. and from Eli & Samuel; and so he must grant the new Testament Church and its dispensation, to be in this different from the old, since he acknowledges that Church power was here allowed the Apostles and their successors, and civill power discharged. Thus our Informer must grant, that Christ did here rid marches betwixt these things which he before confounded, and their Erastian Prelacy confounds. Again, this is the very shift of Bellarmin to save the popes supremacie: The Lord, saith he, In forbidding them, to rule as the Princes of the Gentiles, signified they were to rule, but not after that manner [viz.] Ecclesiastically; So he thinks it touches not the popes Ecclesiastick supremacy, and the Informer in this stryks hands with him. For if our Lord discharged only here that kind of Dominion as he sayes; But allowed a Church power or dominion of another nature, surely for anything that is here discharged, ane Ecclesiastick pop or patriarch his mytrestands sure, and is never touched by any prohibition which the Disciples here got, against the sense and pleading of all Protestants. Moreover, will this Informer adventur to say that the popes primacy, or ecclesiastick Monarchy, even as abstracted from his civill Dominion, is not here discharged; And if it be [as all our divines assert it is] then our Lord understood another sort of abuse of power then invadeing a Dominium civile, even all despotick or Lordly power, whither civill, or pretended ecclesiastick in Church officers. Besids, if he discharged Lordly power, he discharged that which Peter discharged 1 Pet. 5. Even to Lord over Gods heritage. What? will he dare to say that it is only a civill Lordship which is there discharged & not rather ane ecclesiastick dominion, Which bath Gods heritage or Church for its object: And if so, then the Prelats Dominion is expresly stricken against, since (as we have above cleared) his power is a meer despotick Lordship or rule; For to be the proper object & fountaine of all ecclesiástick authority in the Diocess, to have sole power in ordination & jurisdiction; the sole decisive suffrage in Judicatories, is either a despotick Dominion and Lordship or it is nothing; and if the Churches power is of another nature then this civill Dominion, as this man tells us, of what nature is it? Only of another nature, because it touches spiritual objects; Then for any thing that is here forbidden, a papall ecclesiastick monarchy is never touched. Or is it of another nature because in it self Steward-like and Ministerial, not despotick or Princely, like that of the Magistrat (which is the sense of all sound divines, and must be his too, if he speak sense) then who sees not that the power of the Prince-or Lord-Prelat is most formally discharged? It being evidently of this nature. Yet againe, it is in this apparent that he shiftes and shuffles the question, and its terms here, anent the power of the Prelat and the power discharged in this text. For in saying in the beginning of his Answer, that Christ discharges that kind Dominion of onelyonly which civil Princes exercise, he must needes be supposed to contradistingush from this, ane ecclesiastick Dominion which is allowed, yet when he speaks of this he alters the terms, telling us [that the Churches power is of another nature] he should have said the Churches reserved Dominion, if he had spoken consequently, as that other kind of Dominion which he allowes, and by the consequence of his discourse, holds that the Text will allow; In a word, that all sort of [Dominion] whither pretended ecclesiastick, or civil, is here discharged to Church officers, and consequently his offering violence to the Text, is apparent from the context two wayes. 1. In that the strife among the Apoles, flowing from this desire of unlawful greatnes, and which drew forth this exhortation and prohibition under debate, was not about a civill despotick rule; properly, or onelyonly, but anent a Lordship & chief rule in the Church, and in matters ecclesiastick, under Christ as their head; So that though the Lord exemplified the greatnes which he discharged them, in that of earthly princes, (there being no other then existent and apparent) yet it was not this primarily, but ane ecclesiastick Lordship or dominion, which he strycks against; Since he is directing them both negatively and positively anent the nature, And exercise of their spiritual and ecclesiastick Authority and Rule. 2. The positive parte of his injunction touching a Ministerial service, or humble Ministery, excludes all sort of dominion in what ever sense it can be taken, and not a civill dominion onelyonly. Our Informer tells us, nixt. That sundrie interpreters, interpret Christs words, as discharging only Tyranny, such as earthly Princes exercise. And in this he Informers us right; OnelyOnly he should have been so ingenuus as to tell us that they are interpreters beyond our line, that is popish interpreters, for this is directly Bellarmins shift, to which, since he stands here upon the same ground with him, I shall return learned Whittakers interpretation and answer, which hitherto I believe hath passed current with all sound Protestants. Christ sets before them the example of the Kings of the Gentiles, not to the end they may flie ambition on'y (as this man shifts it) but to let them understand that they have nothing to doe with a kingly rule.—For (saith he) though the words translated [exercise dominion or authority] which Matthew maks use of, doeth sometimes signifie immoderat dominion, yet Luke Omitts the preposition in both these Words: But so it is that the simple verb, is attribut to these who obtaine power and dominion, not to these who insolently and tyrannically overerule; for all those who among the gentiles obtained principality did not reigne tyrannically or unjustly, nay the Clemency of many such, and their justice is praised. Thus he, de pontif: Quest: 1. To which I may add, that our Lord speakes of such Princes as were called Benefactoers or gracious Lords, a very unsuiteable designation for Tyrannes.
How easie is it from the Informer reasoning here, and with his net to fish out a papacy. That which the Apostles here desired was in it self lawful, and the fault was onelyonly in the ambitious desire, as it was with diotrephes who desired a lawful preexistent office: This he clearly asserts: I subsum: But that which they desired, and were striving about, was a primacie or papacie, Ergo that office is lawfull in it self. The pope will thank our Informer for this.
The nixt text objected by the doubter, is that pregnant passage 1 Pet. 5: 3. Be not Lords over Gods heritage. And from this he maks him mutter out this slender argument, [is not superiority among Church men there clearly forbidden.] Still we see our Informer keeps him under the covert of his own groundless supposition, that we doe from this and such like texts Impugne, Superiority among Church men, as he terms it, whereas wee allow (as he cannot but know) with all sound divines, and scripture it self, superiour and inferiour degrees among Church officers: And he cannot shew that any Presbyterian did ever draw forth from this text such ane insignificant notion as this against Prelacy; But hee behoved to make the knot easy, since himself must loose it. Our Argument from this text, is this, That the Apostle here injoyneing Ministers their duty [both negativil and positively, he first dehorts from evills they are lyable unto, such as heart reluctancy at their laborius employment, covetusness and usurpation or Lordship and Dominion, whither over their fellowes, which Dietrephes affected, or over the people, by taking ane arbitrarie masterly imperious way with them, or a way of force and rigoure, as these reptehended Ezek. 34: 4. He nixt, positively exhortes them to lead or rule in a holy exemplarie, Shepherd-like Method, expressing the word of grace in their practise. Now [I say) from this genuine sense and scope of the place, wee argue against Prelacie, thus. 1. The Apostle exhorts these elders or Ministers as their [fellow-elder] supposeing them his immediat Successors in the highest Spheere of ane ordinarie Ministery, for he supposes them to have non higher over them now when he was shortly to put off his Tabernacle. 2. He enjoyns them to feed and take the oversight, or exercise Episcopal authoritie over the flock, as Paul did likewayes the Presbyters or elders of Ephesus, in his last farewel. (Act. 20.) a scrybing a compleat Episcopal authoritie to them, both as to jurisdiction and ordination. 3. Yet he discharges any of them to Lord it over Gods heritage, commending instead thereof, ane exemplarie humble service or ministery, Hence wee inferr against the Diocesian Prelat. 1 That there is no higher officer then a Presbyter, left by the Apostles as their ordinary Successor, since the Apostle as their follow Presbiter, exhorts themas the highest ordinary officers, and therfor the Prelat, pretending to be ane higher ordinary officer, is Apocriphal. 2. All Episcopali authority is in Presbyters, both as to ordination and Jurisdiction, and they have both name and thing of a Scripture Bishop, and therefore the Prelat, arrogating this name solely to himself, & all the Episcopal power of ordinationand Jurisdiction as his solely, and denying it to Presbyters, is ane Anti-scripturall Monster: Since these Presbyters had this in a compleat parity 3. Non of these Elders must exercise a masterly power and dominion over the flocks, therefore the Lord Prelats imperious Lordly power is palpably condemned, which he exercises over both Pastores and flocks. Now, this being our argument from this text, let any man judge of this Informer ingenuity, while representing it in such a disguise, that he may seem able to grapple with it; Whereas we shall find that his answers to his Argument presented thus in its genuine strength, are like the conflict betwixt the giant and pigmee. But what sayes he to the Argument as in his own mould. 1. He answers That superiority among Churchmen is not discharged. By [Churchmen] if he understand in General, [Church officers] (though the terme be some what odd) we shall easily Admitt that this Text discharges not superior and inferior degrees among them, but this will nothing help his cause, as is evident. If he mean superiority among preaching Presbyters, or Elders, we have proved it to be here discharged, since the Apostle attributes episcopal Authority to these elders in common, and discharges Lordly preheminenc in any of them. Well, what is it that our Informer will admitt to be here discharged? domineering and Tyranny, saith he, which may be the fault of ane ordinary Minister towards his flocke. This is the old popish song made new again, to which I repon two things. 1. The word foreign is parallel with that of Matth. 20. and Luk. 22. Where peter learned the prohibition, and (as is said) imports indeed Dominion but no Tyrannical domineering it being made use of by the seventy interpreters to express Dominion unquestionably lawful. 2. The positive parte of the precept refutes this gloss, he sayes not, Not Tyrannically domineering, but using Dominion moderatly (which ought to have been the other alternative branch, if this mans gloss were true, and the Apostle had allowed a lawfull Lordshipe) but He adds for the other branch in expressing what is injoyned being examples to the slock. Injoyneing thus to feed by example, and a humble Ministery; And this is opposit to all Dominion and Lordship whatsoever, and doth not discriminat only one Dominion from another; which is also apparent in the alternative branche, and positive precept of the above mentioned paralel texts. Besides we might here tell him, That the Episcopal preheminence, being so many wayes cross to the Scripture rules in pointe of Government, may be truely called a most TyrannicalDomineereing. But the reasons of his gloss follows. He tells us; That this domineering and Tyranny may be the fault of ane ordinary Minister towards his flock, and that the Apostle is not here speaking of Church mens carriage towards one another, or of their equality or inequality among themselves, but of their behaviour towards the people, who are called the flock, or Gods heritage. Ans. This is a strange reason, and very hard to comprehend, only Tyrannical domineereing must be understood because it relates only to the flock. Can there not be a Tyrannical domineering over the Clergy also? And because the Apostle forbids to Lord it over the flock, therefore he forbids not Dominion over the Clergy; The quit contrare conclusion will better follow: If the Apostle forbids them to Lord it over the flocks, who were subject to them as their spiritual guides, therefore, a fortiori, he much more forbids them to Lord it over their fellow Presbyters, who were their equalls in this Spiritual trust and Authority over the flocks; And if it be unlawful to play the Domineering Prelat over one poor flock, it must be much more unlawfull to Act this Tyranny over some Hundreds of both pastores and flocks. So that Ministers, or (if he will) Churchmens carriage towards one another, must be here clearly pointed out by a very necessary consequence from the less to the greater, and the equality of Ministers in their spiritual Government and Rule, by he same topick strongly inferred from this place. It strange that the Apostle should discharge to Lord it over the flocks, and yer allow a Lordship over both Clergy and flocks. But another wonder is, how he comes to excludMinisters from that tittle of Gods heritage, which his party (from whom our Informer here proves a separatist) do often make peculiar unto [Church Rulers] one would thinke that they should have a special Interest and share in that which grounds this denomination; Are they not the Lords purchase, as well as the people Act. 20. Nay they are in a singular manner such, and Christs glorie; Are they not such as he will never cast off and alienat Psal. 94: 14. They are the starrs which Christ holds in his right hand; nay, as being singularly dedicat to him, they are singularly his: as the Levits had the Lord for their Inheritance in a speciall way; So they were singularly his, set aparte for him beyond all the rest of the tribes. And are not Ministers taken from among the people for his Priests and Levits—And called therefore men of God, stewards of God, Ministers, Servants, Ambassadoures of Christ, because of their singular relation to him: And as this is a strong disswasive from Lording over the people, that they are Gods heritage, who therefore most not be the servants of me…, So upon the ground of Ministers speciall interest in this denomination, the Apostles argument as to them, is the more forcible. Againe, since he so expresly forbids any of these Pastoures to Lord it over Gods Heritage (enjoyning them a humble exemplary Ministery) and far less to exercise a Lordly Rule over one another, he establishes by clear consequence (as I hinted) ane equality among them, in their pastoral official power and authority; Withall, the Apostle speaking to them indefinitely in this precept without the least exception and reserve as to any one of them: and making their episcopal inspection relate to the flock (as this man himself pleads) both these grounds hold out their equality among themselves, and inferrs a discharge of inequality. This Informers likewayes would remarke that the Spirit of God here commands Presbyters to act the Bishopes, thus indentifying the Bishop and Prisbyter, but without Lording it over Gods heritage, the prohibition not to Lord it, is remarkably joyned with the command to Act the Bishop: And referring their office to the flock, he must confess the Apostle acknowledged no Bishops whose inspection was over Pastours themselves. Thus we see hisanswer to the Argument against Prelacy from this Text is contrare unto the scope and sense of the Words, yea and inconsistent with it self.