Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacy, Chapter 1 · Section 4
Section IV.
Of Saint John's writings. Againe of Diotrephes.
A Second conſideration now followes to be added to this, That there is not any the leaſt intimation in all S. John's writings, of the ſuperiority of one Presbyter over another, ſave onelyonly where he names and chides Diotrephes, as one ambitiouſly affecting ſuch a Primacy.
2. A conſideration of the ſame unhappy conſtitution with the former, 1. a teſtimonio negativè againe, Saint Iohn had no occaſion to mention it, therefore there was in his time no ſuch thing, and 2. in reſpect of the matter juſt the ſame againe, put only in other words, there 'twas, [No mention of Biſhop in all Saint John's writings,] here, [No ſuperiority of one Presbyter over another in all Saint John's writings.] And ſo it can adde no accumulation of weight to the former.
3. But then 2. (bating againe thoſe two infirmities in diſcourſe) what if it were granted that at the time of Saint John's writing, there were not in the whole Church of Christ any one Presbyter, ſuperior to another Preſbyter, what hath the Author of the Diſſert: loſt, or they gained by this? He makes no doubt willingly to yeild to any inforcing reaſon that is or ſhall be produced to conclude that at that time, there was above De…cons but one degree in the Church, and yet to be never the leſſe qualified to maintaine his praetenſions, Nay he is knowne to have expreſſed it as his opinion probably inferred, and not eaſily confuted (and that by which, if it be true, or becauſe there is no evidence to the contrary, all the Presbyterian praetenſions, founded in the doubtfulneſſe of words in Scripture, are utterly excluded) that there were not in the ſpace within compaſſe of which, all the Bookes of the New Teſtament were written, any Presbyters in our Moderne notion of them, created in the Church, though ſoon after, certainely in Ignatius's time, there were; and then if the conſideration now before us were of any force at all, this would be the one direct and proper uſe of it, to adde more confidence to this opinion, and ſo to confirme, not to invalidate our praetenſions.
4. Thirdly for Diotrephes and Saint Iohn's chiding of him for ambitiouſly affecting a Primacy over other Presbyters, there will appeare to be more than one miſadventure in it. For 1. it is apparent in the Text that this Di…trephes (whom *… Pag. 24.Walo Meſſalinus a good friend to the praetenſions of the Aſſemblers, deſcribes ſo, as will conclude him a me…re Preſbyterian, Noluit, ſaith he, agnoſcore ſuperiorem aliqu…m in Presbyteros habentem poteſtatem, he would not acknowledge any ſuperior having power over Preſbyters) contended for ſuperiority, not onelyonly over his equals, but over Saint Iohn himſelfe, foreign, faith that Apoſtle, he … not us, yeilds no obedience, gives no heed to our letter of directions; This certainly belongs not to the ſuperiority or dignity of Biſhops, which reſerves the Primacy to the Apoſtles intire, and no way claſheth with it, and onelyonly pretends to that power and office of duty, which for the preſerving of unity, and the good of the flock, the Apoſtles thought fit to intruſt and commit to them.
5. Secondly, Diotrophes was not (as farre as appeares, or we have reaſon to conjecture) ordeined to any office of power in the Aſian Church, committed to that Apoſtles care, but of himſelfe without any miſſion, nay expreſſely againſt the Apoſtles conſent, was willing to aſſume and exerciſe this power, and is but an example of Corah's ſedition and preſumptuous humour (and that is inevitably the caſe of the Preſbyterian, unleſſe he can ſhew his commiſſion for the power he pretends to) all one with that of the Gnoſticks cenſured by Saint Iude under the ſtyle of foreign the gaineſaying of Cora…, and this no way belongs, or is appliable to the practice of the Biſhop, who by Commiſſion from the Apoſtle, not by any ambition or preſumption of his owne, regularly aſcends to this degree of office and dignity in the Church, and uſeth it as regularly alſo, in ſubordination to all his ſuperiors.
6. On this Occaſion the Diſſertations have offered a Dilemma to theſe Diſputants, which I ſhould be willing to heare anſwered by them, in this forme, Either Diotrephes exerciſed in the Church the power of the Biſhop, in the notion of a ſingular Praefect, aſſuming power over the Presbyters, or he did not; If he did not, then is this conſideration preſently at an end, Diotrephes is falſly accuſed, and the innocent Biſhop unjuſtly wounded through his ſides, who it ſeems was no Biſhop: But if it be ſaid he did, then I demand, Why is not Diotrophes checkt by S. John for that preſumption of affecting a power over his equals? And why doth the whole charge lye another way, that he received not S. Iohn's Letters, nor paid due obedience to them? Or why is that very thing charged ſo heavily on the Biſhops in our age, and puniſht ſo ſeverely in them, which the Apoſtle living and ſeeing, and upon occaſion taking notice of Diotrephes his inſolence, doth not ſo much as reprehend or accuſe in him?
7. For as to the Epithet which he beſtowes upon him, that he was foreign, one that loved the praeeminence, ſuppoſing that were the title of his fault, yet that extends not the Apoſtles ſpeech to cenſuring or blaming the uſe of that power, but onelyonly the ambition and affectation of it, which were otherwiſe lawfull to be enjoy'd; as when tis noted in the Phariſees, that they did foreign, love or affect the uppermoſt ſeats in the Synagogues, which otherwiſe ſimply to have ſat in, had implyed no crime of theirs, for to this very end, that ſome body ſhould ſit in them, they were certainly erected, and 'tis known that there was among them a foreign head of the Conſiſtory, and foreign Governor of the Synagogue, to whom that ſeat belonged by God's appointment.
8. Nay for the very deſire, as farre as is expreſt by foreign or foreign 1 Tim. 3. 1. deſiring and coveting, it is allowed by the Apoſtle to be terminated in foreign the office of a Biſhop, foreign, as a good, and conſequently a deſireable worke, and if Diotrephes be ſuppoſed guilty of any other, it may ſafely be yeilded to have been a fault in him, without praejudice to the good office which he ſo vitiouſly and criminouſly affected, according to that of*In 1 Tim. 3. 1 Theodoret, that the Apoſtle, foreign, accuſes not the deſire ſimply, but the deſire of rule, foreign, and teacheth to deſire, not the honour, but the vertue, not to covet the dignity, but to ſeeke the worke of the dignity, the taske to which it belongs. By all which, and much more added in the *Diſſer… 1. cap. 13.Diſſertations, it is evident, how little advantage hath accrued to the Aſſemblers from their mention of Diotrephes out of Saint John, and by conſequence from their ſecond conſideration.