The Good Old Way Defended, Treatise · Section 4
SECTION IV.
The Arguments for Parity which our Author pretendeth to answer, Vindicated.
I Took notice in the beginning of the former Section, that this Author singleth out some of our Arguments, and these none of the most evident, and with a great deal of Confidence triumpheth over them, as if he had laid our Cause in the dust: I shall now try if even these Weapons, rightly managed, be able to wound his Cause; for as he representeth them, they can do us little service: but his unfair dealing will appear in this Conduct. Before I come to the Arguments themselves, I cannot overlook the general account that he giveth of the Arguments on our side, p. 15. That they may all be reduced to three Heads. First, either they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters is expresly commanded by our Saviour. Or 2. They endeavour to support it by Consequences from several Texts of Scripture. Or 3. from some Testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Church. The latter two sorts of Arguments we do indeed use, but who ever pretended to the first, I know not. I confess, I no where read in Scripture Paritie of Presbyters named, nor such words as these, that the Church shall be in all ages governed communi Presbyterorum consilio, nor that it hath been foreign said, there shall be no Prelacy among Presbyters: and I am sure, the Scriptures that he mentioneth as containing our Arguments of this sort, were never said by any of us, to be an express Command for Paritie; though we hold it to be a full and plain Command implyed, and which may be drawn out of the words by good Consequence. He saith p. 16. the Scots Presbyterians do more frequently insist on this (arguing from express command in Scripture) than any of the forraign Presbyterians: which appeareth to be an injurious Imputation, from what hath been said: for many of the forraign Presbyterians do assert the Divine Right of Presbytrie as fullyas we do, though I cannot reckon the frequency of either their, or our insisting on it, that I may compare them, I am sure many more of them have written for it, than have defended it so in Print, in Scotland (I mean the Parity of Presbyters, which is the cardo controversiae; whatever difference may be between some of them and us, in some other things) Calvin. instit. lib. 4. c. 11. § 6. & alibi. Beza, de triplici Episcopatu contra Sarav. Paraeus, saepissime. Gers. Bucer. disser: de gub: Eccles. Blondell. apologia. Salmasius, Turretin, loc. 18. quaestion: 29. Leideck. de statu Eccles. Affric. Voet. passim. Vitringa, de syn. Vet. and many others. Likewise Smecttym. & jus div: regim: were not written by Scots Presbyterians: also Paul Bayn Dioces: Tryal.
§ 2. The Argument from express command in Scripture which he insisteth on, is Mat. 20. 25, 26, 27, 28. and Mark 10. 42, 43, 44, 45. and Luke 22. 25. We think here is a strong and concludent Argument against Prelacy and for Parity; though we did not call it an express Command. As a foundation for our Argument from this Scripture, let it be considered, that this Discourse of Christ is immediatly and directly to the Apostles, to whom he was then speaking; and by consequence, it may be applyed to all other Orders of Church Officers, ordinary and extraordinay. It is a good consequence, Christ here forbiddeth Prelacy among the Apostles; Ergo, among the ordinary Pastors of the Church likewise. And ergo, among the Elders, whose work it is to rule. And ergo, among the Deacons: our Lord is not here saying that there shall be no diversity of Degrees, or Orders of Officers, in the Church; for he hath plainly Instituted the contrary, 1 Cor. 12. 28. But among the Apostles there shall be no Soveraignty, nor Subjection, neither among other Officers who are of the same Order, and whose work is the same. 2. Let it be also noted, that our Lord doth not here mention the Tyranny, or abuse of power, that was exercised among the Heathen Magistrats, over them who were subordinate to them; but only Dominion and Authority, which they might lawfully exercise: so that what he aimeth at is, that there was Subjection and Superiority among the Heathen Rulers; but no such thing should be among Church Rulers. 3. Though we deny not that there are, by Christs Appointment, divers Orders of Church Rulers; yet we see no ground to think that one of these Orders is subject to another, or is to be commanded by it: we hold that Ministers have no Jurisdiction over the ruling Elders; but they are co-ordinate in the Government of the Church. Before I state our Argument from this Text, I observe how groundlesly he bringeth this as the chief Topick that we use, and (overlooking all of our side who have learnedly and fully pleaded that Cause) he only citeth as pleading from this Scripture, Mr. David Dickson on Matthew who toucheth it very transiently, and on occasion of his commenting o… that Text: and my Book against Stillingsfleets Irenicum, where it is said expresly p. 98. I confess there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose: or do I there use that place as an Argument, further than to clear it from the Exceptions of my Antagonist; which is here also my work I now draw this Argument from the words cited. That Dominion an… Authority that Civil Magistrats in their several Jurisdictions did, an… might, exercise over these Under-rulers, is not to be allowed in th… Church; but the Jurisdiction of Bishops over Presbyters is such a Dominion and Authority, (that is, the one is real Jurisdiction as well as th… other) Ergo it should not be exercised in the Church.
§ 3. I shall now examine his Answers to this Argument. First, he saith that Christ here supposes Degrees of Subordination among his own Disciples, as well as other Societies; and therefore, he saith, this Text referreth … the Methods of attaining Preferment; that it must not be by force, violence, and other Arts that are so fashionable in secular Courts: thus he p. 17, and … 19. he commandeth them that they should not exercise their Jurisdiction as the Lords of the Gentiles, by a spirit of Pride and Domination. This and what followeth he seemeth to have borrowed from Grotius, de imp. summar potes. circa sacra. p. 339. who yet was as little for the Divine Right of Prelacy; as of Parity. To all this I oppone first, That Christ supposeth here Subordination among his Disciples is grat is dictum. I deny not that there is Subordination among them (taking his Disciples for all Christians; but taking the word for the Apostles alone we deny it) and that both in respect of Degree and Authority. The people are subject to the Rulers; one sort of Church Officers is inferior to another; which they may be, without being subject to their Authority: but there is no ground for inferring this Subordination from what is here said: for mens Ambition prompts them to make superior Offices in the Church, that themselves may enjoy them; as well as to aspire to these Preferments that are extant and allowed. Again, Christ saith not, there shall be no Superiority in the Church; but among them, the Apostles This is evident from the occasion of this Discourse; which was the ambitious address of James and John presented to Christ by their Mother; that they might be preferred to the rest of the Apostles, in that worldly kingdom that they imagined Christ was to have on Earth: they aimed at such Authority as Civil Magistrats have, the Superior over the Inferior: our Lord telleth them his Kingdom was not of that nature; neither was there any such Subordinations to be among his Apostles. 3. That Christ here recommendeth Humility, and condemneth Ambition and Pride, cannot be denyed; the occasion given for this Discourse led him to it: but that this is the only Scope of his Discourse, is said without all Warrant: for he forbiddeth that Dominion and Authority that was among Civil Rulers, to have place among them; which yet might be exercised by humble men. 4. That his scope is to forbid the exercise of their Apostolick or Episcopal Jurisdiction by a spirit of Pride and Domination, is also said without Book: That this he condemneth, we acknowledge: but that he only condemneth this, and not Monarchical Jurisdiction it self, is a groundless fancy, and contrary to the words of the Text, which mention the one, but not the other. He telleth them also, Mat. 23. 8. that they were all brethren: where Camero observeth that Damnat rem tituli; viz: magisterium & authoritatem. 5. It cannot be said, that all the Rulers among the Gentiles, were proud and tyrannical; though not a few were such: but here Christ forbiddeth that Domination that was among the Heathen (yea it may extend to Christian) Magistrats, whether they obtain it ambitiously, and exercise it tyrannically, or not. It shall not be so (as in the Civil State where Dominion and Authority is exercised) among you. The two Brethren sought an Authority which they fancied would be in Christs Kingdom; not which he intended or instituted: and our Lord not only told them that no such thing was to be expected by any person in his Kingdom, that one Apostle should be above another, or one of the ordinary Pastors of the Church should have Jurisdiction over another; and so of the other Orders of Church Rulers: but he also reproveth their Ambition in so seeking such preferment, if any such thing were to be in the Church.
§ 4. His second Exception against our Argument is, p. 18. The Apostles exercised such Jurisdiction over inferior Ecclesiastics, therefore they did not so understand Christs words, as forbidding all Prelation in the Church. This is sufficiently obviated by what is already said: they did not understand it as forbidding all Prelation in the Church; but among themselves: It shall not be so among you. Yea, they did not understand it as forbidding Superiority of Degree or Order; but Jurisdiction over Church Rulers; such as is in the Civil State, over inferior State Rulers. His third Exception, which he saith doth bassle and expose this, Argument to all Intents and Purposes (big words, as his manner is, when the Matter is very improportionate) that he (our Lord) did that himself among them, which now he commanded them to do to one another; and therefore the doing of that toward one another, in obedience to the Command, should not infer a Parity; unless they blasphemously infer, that Christ and his Apostles were equal. This is far more easily baffled, and more exposed; if what hath been said be duely considered. But further that our Lord setteth before them an Example of Humility, and being far from ambitious Aspiring, doth no ways infer their Paritie with him; unless he were here only discharging Paritie among the Apostles; which we do not say, but have asserted the contrary. He is also condemning the Ambition and Pride that appeared in James and John, and which he well knew would be found in Church men afterwards; and with respect to that, he setteth his own Example of Modesty and Humility before them. Hence it appeareth that there is no Infatuation in owning the Scheme of Parity (as he fancieth p. 19.) but rather than drawing such a Consequence from that Scheme, deserveth that Reproach. That the Apostle Paul, and the Fathers of the Church, carried as Servants under the Apostolical or Episcopal Dignity, proveth nothing against us: beside that we own no Episcopal Dignity in the Fathers; but shall controvert it with him when he will, If Walo Messalinus (as he saith p. 20.) layeth no great stress on the Argument from th… Text, and mean, that we have stronger Arguments; I do not differ from him: and if Beza say, that here is not forbidden all Jurisdiction; I have already said the same. He maketh yet a 4th Attempt on this Argument, p. 20, 21. That in the Jewish Church there was a Hierarchie, and Subordination, by Divine appointment: and if our Saviour had pulled down that ancient Policy, and commanded an Equality among the Presbyters of the New Testament, he would not have stated the Opposition betwixt his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles; but between them and the Priests of the Mosaick Oeconomie: as he doth when he reproveth the corrupt Glosses introduced into the Church by the Scribes and Pharisees. The weakness of this Reasoning will plainly appear, if we consider 1. That it is too great sawciness in us, to teach our Lord how to reason: If he think fit to make use of one Topick, and if it be to the purpose (as all that he saith must needs he, and what is here said is manifestly so) we ought not to presume to say he would have used another Argument, if he had so meant. Indeed if our Adversaries can make it appear that this way of Reasoning was not here apt, we shall yield that Christ did not mean as we think he did: But that can never be done. 2. He falsly supposeth that we disown all Subordination in the Church, and that we think Christ here did intend to condemn it. 3. The Old Testament had not been so pertinent an Example here, because it was now to be dissolved, our Lord would no longer allow it in the Church; whereas the Magistratical Authoritie, in the several Subordinations of it, was to continue; and he would have a Difference between the Church and State, to be continually visible in this very thing. Beside that the Old Testament Hierarchie is no more a Pattern for Episcopacy, than for Parity; unless our Author will say we must have a Pope, as they had a High Priest, with universal Authoritie over the Church. 4. Our Lords reproving the false Glosses brought in by the Scribes and Pharisees, is strangely drawn in here, and the Impertinency of it is unaccountable; for how could he mention any other as bringing these Doctrines, than the true Authors of them: as he else where warneth his Church of Heathen Doctrines and Practices, and then he nameth them, and not the Teachers of the Jewish Church. The other Text p. 21. we never used by it self, as an Argument against Episcopacy: and we deny that the Text now considered, hath been understood in his sense from the beginning.
Presbyter, where Authority and Jurisdiction is mentioned. I confess I am unacquainted with such Passages of Scripture: I wish he had named some of them for our Instruction. We bring to the contrary Acts 20: 28: Phil: 1: 1: 2 Tim: 3: 1: all which himself mentioneth. The first thing that he opposeth to our Argument is, that p: 23: he proveth at great length, that the Jews, both in the first ages of that Church, and also afterward, did dichotomise their Clergy into Priests and Levites; though there was a High Priest above the other Priests, who also had their Subordinations. And therefore (saith he) the Apostles and Apostolick men made use of the current Phraseology: thus he p: 25. I shall not contradict him in this Assertion: nor be much concerned what respect the Apostles had to the Phraseology used by the Jews. But nothing of this meeteth with our Argument; unless he will affirm, and prove, that this Dichotomy was so used as that no Distinction was ever made, either by Name, or any other Character, of the High Priest from the rest; or of the Heads of the several Orders of Priests: David, by the Spirit of God, distinguished them from these Priests that were under their Charge. If he prove not this, he saith nothing to the purpose. and this he will not, I hope, attempt, the Scripture being so full and plain to the contrary; and that in all the ages of the Jewish Church, from Aaron to Christ. If he will let us see these special Masteries and Jurisdictions whereby Bishops were in the New Testament, distinguished from Presbyters, as he confesseth p: 26. The High Priest was distinguished from the other Priests, even in these times when he saith the distinction of Names was least noticed, we shall pass from this Argument as inconcludent: but this he can never do; neither hath he attempted it: wherefore our Argument is not yet touched by him. I shall not adventure to list my self among his Ignoramus's, whom he setteth that mark on, that think he pleadeth that there ought to be a Bishop above Presbyters, because there was a High Priest among the Jews; though some of his Brethren use this Plea, and himself in the very next words seemeth not to be very far from it, while he saith, but rather thus (I plead) that the Hierarchy that obtained in the Patriarchal and Jewish AEconomie, was never abrogated in the new. If it be not abrogated, sure it standeth in force, and is of Divine Right to this day: and if so, we must have Jure Divino, not only a Bishop over the Presbyters of every Province, but a Pope over all these, for so it was in the Jewish AEconomy.
§ 8. He saith p. 28. that the first Presbyter, or foreign, in the Apostolick age, he that was vested with a Prostasia, was as much above the subordinate Presbyters, as the High Priest among the Jews was above other Priests. This is boldly asserted; but we see no proof for it. We deny not that in their Meetings there was one who presided; but that there was one distinguished from the other Presbyters who had this for his Work constantly, we find not: also that the Praeses in these Meetings, had the same power (either Extensive or Intensive) with the High Priest among the Jews, is an absurd and unproved Assertion. The Concession made by Salmasius maketh nothing against us; viz. that there was a Praeses: but that that learned Author held, that in the Apostolick age there was one person to whom the proto cathedria was constantly due, we deny; though we yield that in after ages this usage was brought in; yet without Superiority of Power. He saith p. 29. that there are such manifest and palpable Evidences of this peculiar Honour and Jurisdiction due to one of the Ecclesiastical Senate, in the Apostolick age, that the learned Sticlers for Paritie cannot deny it. His proof of this he bringeth from the Apocalyptick Angels, from Timothy and Titus, and from the Succession of Bishops gathered about the middle of the second Century: and this proof he will have to be beyond all contradiction. Here were a large Field for Observations, if one were in the humour to expose this Discourse. I shall take no further notice of his gross Mistakes, than the Vindication of Truth maketh necessary. First, whoever they be that stickle for Paritie, and yet acknowledge a Jurisdiction due to some of the Ecclesiastical Senat; either in the Apostolick, or the next following Ages, they are not only not the learnedst men; but they cannot be reckoned men of a common measure of Understanding: what man of Sense will stickle for an Opinion, and yet expresly yield it to his Adversary: I deny not but some Presbyterians yield, that early in the primitive times there was a peculiar Honour given to the foreign; but that any of them do carry it so high as the Apostolick age, is more than I know: I wish he had named them, and pointed to the places where these Concessions are found in their Writings: far less do I know any that owneth a peculiar Jurisdiction; for that were indeed to yield the Cause: for the main thing in Dispute is, whether one of the Presbyters hath Jurisdiction over the rest. 2. It had been more suteable to the design and high pretenses expressed in his Book, to confound us, and rout our Cause, with these manifest and palpable Evidences; than to tell us of them in general: I profess I have hitherto seen no such Evidences in any of their Writings. 3. The Evidences that he mentioneth, the Angels in the Revelation, &c. are neither palpable nor manifest Proofs of such Jurisdiction: he knoweth that all that hath by his Party been brought from these Topicks hath been Disputed, and has, I judge, been abundantly answered: and that Sticklers for Paritie, both the learnedst and the less learned, have rejected these Evidences, and denyed the Conclusion they were brought for: and I intend to debate them with him as they shall fall in. 4. That the Catalogues of Bishops gathered in the midle of the second Centurie, should be a manifest and palpable Evidence for their peculiar Jurisdiction in the Apostolick age, is beyond my Comprehension: for the Catalogues do not determine what was their power; and these who made these Collections, are not so infallible that their Assertion should be a manifest and palpable Evidence of the Truth of what they said.
§ 9. That nothing was ever done in Ecclesiastical Meetings, Canonically, without the Bishops particular Advice, and Authority; (as he argueth p. 29.) is of no force: because first, we know not what he will call Canonically done: if he think nothing was canonically done without a Diocesan Bishop: this is to beg the Question, and not to argue for his Conclusion. 2. If he mean that nothing was done in their Meetings without a Moderator, who presided among them, and did, with the rest, authoritatively Consult and Determine; this we grant: but it maketh nothing for him. 3. What he meaneth by the Bishops particular Advice and Authoritie, I cannot well guess. If he mean that he Advised and Determined with the rest; that is what we hold. If, that he had a negative Vote; so that all the rest could do nothing without his consent, he ought not to call for Proof from us against that; the Probation is to be expected from him, who affirmeth it. If, that he determined by himself, and the rest were but his Council, this we deny also, and he must prove it. It is enough, that we prove that others with the Bishop, Moderator, or Praeses, did manage the Affairs of the Church: for which the Arguments above brought may be thought sufficient. What followeth in several pages, is to prove, that the Jews and Grecians did sometimes Dichotomize their Clergy; yet at other times they mentioned the Distinctions of the High Priest from other Priests: so of the Bishops from the Presbyters. This would indeed weaken our Argument, if it had no more force than he giveth it; If we had argued simply from the Church Officers being sometimes divided into Bishops and Deacons, without distinguishing Bishops, or Presbyters among themselves. But our Argument being taken not only from this indistinction of Presbyters in some, but in all places where they are mentioned; and also from the Scripture not distinguishing them by their Offices, Work, Qualifications, or the Injunctions that are given them about their Work: these Distinctions of Presbyters that some of the Ancients use, make nothing against our Argument: unless he can prove that when they mean Bishops as distinct from Presbyters, they ascribe also a superior power to them, which he often asserteth, but never proveth. We confess that after the Apostles age, the name Bishop began soon to be appropriated to the Praeses in the Presbyterie; but in the three first Centuries the Bishop did not rule alone, nor had superior power to the rest. I have lately defended against another of our Episcopal Brethren: and shall also endeavour it against the Assaults of this Author, when he shall please to attempt this proof. Mean while I am not concerned further to Answer what he insisteth on to p. 39. (where he engageth with another of our Arguments) than to examine some few Hints that seem to be intended as argumentative, wherewith his Discourse is interspersed.
§ 10. He telleth us p. 31. that Cyprian asserts the Jurisdiction and Prerogative of the Episcopal power, upon all occasions, with great Courage and Assurance. What my last Antagonist brought for this end, out of the Writing of that holy Martyr, I have endeavoured to Answer: with what success, it is not mine to judge; if this Author will either re-inforce the same Citations, or bring new ones, I shall not decline the Debate with him. That Polycarp: (as he hath it, p. 32.) distinguisheth himself from the subordinate Presbyters, while he inscribeth his Epistle, Polycarp, and the Presbyters that are with him. Who (saith our Author) if he had stood on a Level with these Presbyters, would never have distinguished himself from the Community of his Brethren. This reasoning (I say) is so remote from Concludencie, that our Author hath not consulted his own Credite in using it. For first, whatever prioritie of Dignity may be hence inferred, as Polycarp being an older man than the rest, or Praeses in the Meeting; it is ridiculous to infer from this, either Superiority, or solitude of power. 2. Polycarp might be the Author of the Epistle, and the rest Assenters to it; that might give occasion to his being named. 3. Will any say, that when a Letter is thus directed to a Presbyterie, for N. Moderator, and the rest of the Brethren of the Presbyterie of E, that this inferreth Episcopal Jurisdiction in the person of him who is so named? Such stuff is not worth refuteing. P. 33. He telleth us that Hermas reproveth some who strove for the first Dignity and Preferment: and if then was no such Precedency there in the Church, there was no ground for his Reprehension. Apage nugas. Have not some striven for unlawful Preferments, as James and John did for a Dominion in the Church, like that of the Lords among the Gentiles? Yea, we deny not all preferment in the Church: may not some ambitiously strive to be a Minister, or an Elder, yea, or a Deacon? All which are Preferments, if compared with the people: and may not a Presbyterian Minister strive to be Moderator, without designing Episcopal Jurisdiction. That Blondel, Salmasius, and Dally, laboured to support this Argument, as our Author represents it, is falsly asserted, p. 35. As is also, that this Opinion (about Parity) was never heard of before the days of Aerius. If he would attempt to prove all that he confidently asserteth, his Book would swell to a great Bulke Sir Thomas Craig (whose Memory is venerable in the learned World) must here also be lashed, as ignorant of Divinity, and of the Fathers, because he was prebyterianly inclined I find nothing more that is observable, or that can derogate from the strength of our Argument, as stated by us, in this his Discourse: only his unmannerly, as well as false, Assertion, p. 38. that the Ecclesiastical Levellers (so in reproach and contempt he calleth the Presbyterians) flee to this Argument as their first and last Refuge; and yet nothing is more frivolous and trifling. He may see, if he will be at pains to read what he pretendeth to refute; that they have other, yea better Arguments: and will find it hard to give a solide Answer to this Argument, represented in its full Strength.