A Defense of Sundry Positions of the Congregational Way, Position 18
POSITION XVIII.
The Elders are not Lords over Gods heritage, 1 Pet. 5.3. nor do exerciſe authority, as the Kings and Princes of the earth do; remembring our Saviours leſſon, Matth. 20.25, 26 Luke 22.25, 26.
They are not ſo many Biſhops ſtriving for preeminence, Anſwer. as Diotrephes did, 3 Joh. verſ. 9, 10.(a)Theſe Scriptures are alledged to 32 q p. 59. & 76. though not with ſuch tartneſſe againſt Presbyteriall government.
We will not ſay to you as Geta in the Comoedian(b)Teren. in Phor. Reply. Nihil eſt Antipho quin male narrando poſſit depravarier; tu id quod boni eſt excerpis, dicis quod mali. For you do not only leave out (in reciting) that which is good, but for want of an evill uſe made of theſe Scriptures by the Elders of New-England in the 32. Queſt. you firſt inſinuate, that ſuch an ill uſe is made of the Text, and then confute your own fiction; for you ſay,
To ſay nothing that the title foreign is ſometime tranſlated Sir, Anſwer. and ſometimes Lord, Joh. 12.21, &c.
You take up the Title foreign, Reply. and tell us that it ſignifies Sir, and Lord, and that it is ſometimes given to Elders amongſt others, as if you had a minde to ſpeak a good word for ſome kinde of Lordly power in Church-officers; but you lay it down again, and tell us,
Though Elders be not Lords over Gods heritage, Anſwer. yet they are Leaders and Guides; yea, Shepheards, Rulers, Overſeers, Biſhops, Governoure, and not only Preſidents of the Congregation, Moderators of her actions, or, as the fore-men of the Jury.
And is not this to inſinuate, Reply. that the Elders of New-England ſay, that the Elders are only Preſidents of the Congregation, (I ſuppoſe you mean meerly for orders ſake) Moderators of her actions, or as the fore-men of the Jury? Now there is not the leaſt expreſſion in either of the places, that ſo much as ſeems to ſmile upon ſuch an aſſertion as you would father upon the Elders of New-England. Nay, do they not expreſsly ſay, that the Elders rule as Stewards, as Shepheards, as Captains, as Guides, as Leaders? and doth this amount to no more (in your Arithmetick, then a bare preſidency Moderatorſhip, or Fore-manſhip of a Jury, which doth not advance the perſon that carries the ſtamp of it one haires breadth above his Brethren in point of authority; But only one ſtep before them in point of order. Whereas the Elders do not only ſtate a Miniſteriall authoritative power in them, but alſo lay an obligation of duty upon the people towards their Officers, by vertue of 1 Theſ. 5.12, 13. This is that that we judge to be your own fiction.
The other Text (ſay you, Anſwer. viz. Mat. 20.25, 26.) forbids Kingly or Lordly power in the Miniſters of the Goſpel: for the two Apoſtles ſtill dreaming of a temporall kingdome, and being kinſmen to Chriſt, did expect ſome temporall honour and advanaement. Chriſt ſaith not, there was inequality amongst the Prieſts of the Jews, and amongst the Prieſts of the Gentiles, or between the Prieſts and the people; but, it ſhall not be ſo among you: but very aptly and pertinently to their Petition anſwereth, The Princes of Gentiles, &c.
And would you indeed make the world believe by all this, Reply. that you are all this while, beating up the quarters of the Independents; when as in truth, this Text is urged by the Elders to no other purpoſe, but to deny a kingly, or Lordly power in Elders over their Brethren; but not to deny an authoritative miniſteriall power in reference to their Congregations? Therefore, they ſay, the Elders are forbidden to exerciſe authority as the Kings and Princes of the earth do, and they quote Mr. Baynes his Dioceſan triall, Q. 2. p. 74. where he diſtinguiſheth power into naturall, and morall; morall into Civill, and Eccleſiaſticall; both into Kingly and miniſteriall: aſſerting Kingly Eccleſiaſticall power to be in Chriſt; miniſteriall in the Elders of the Churches; who, though they be Governours to the Church in the deſcending line of power, yet are they but ſervile or miniſteriall Governours in the aſcending line that leads to Chriſt, from whom they receive the Commiſſion; becauſe they do all ex mero alterius obſequio, by the meer will and command of another.
I, but by this Text they deny a kingly ſpirituall power, Object. whereas the Text ſpeaks nothing of ſpirituall; but only of kingly ſecular power.
Admit that not only the two ſons of Zebedee, Anſwer. but even all the Apoſtles that had been converſant with Chriſt, and heard his doctrine, from the beginning, were ſuch babes, as to imagine that Chriſt would lay down his ſpirituall Kingdome over the ſouls and conſciences of his people, and for their ſakes over Angels, wicked men and devills in a way of ſoveraign power, and would take up a temporall kingdome, to divide inheritances, rule over the perſons and eſtates of men. Nay, admit that the ſons of Zebedee, or any, or all of the reſt of the Apoſtles had their eyes ſo dazled with the luſtre of this imaginary temporall kingdome, that they deſired an eminencie one above another herein, nothing regarding an eminencie above others in the ſpirituall Kingdome: yet it will not follow, that Chriſt ſpeaks nothing by way of reproofe of ambitious aſpirings in the ſpirituall, but only in the temporall kingdome of Chriſt. Neither needed Chriſt, by expreſſing the inequality among the Prieſts, whether of Jewes or Gentiles, &c. amplifie and expreſſe the equality which he would have amongſt the Miniſters of the Church. For expreſſing the diſparity betwixt civill polities of the world, and the ſpirituall polity of the Church, he doth that abundantly: ſaith he, It ſhall not be ſo amongst you as it is in the civill polities of the world: There one, or more, rule with Lordly power, the reſt are in ſubjection; but in the diſcharge of your Apoſtolicall Commiſſion, there ſhall be no ſuch thing; but you ſhall be all of equall power; but if any will aſpire to greatneſs in point of authority, above his brethren, let him be your miniſter, &c. as the Apoſtle taught afterwards, 1 Cor. 12.5. There are diverſities of adminiſtrations, but the ſame Lord; Chriſt only rules with Lordly power over the Church, one Apoſtle, or Miniſter, hath no ſuch power, nor any authority at all one over another: but are all fellow-ſervants, having a miniſteriall authority in reference to the houſhold of the Church.
2. It holds true in this caſe, optimi corruptio fit peſſima; though Church-officers, and offices are excellent things, whileſt they retain their genuine vigor, and vertue according to the inſtitution of Chriſt; yet are they moſt dangerous, when they grow degenerate and corrupt, and no corruption ſo dangerous as that which is Symbolicall in the common nature of Church-power, with that from which it doth degenerate. Hence it is, that corruption of Church-governours, in an uſurpation of exorbitant Eccleſiaſticall domination is of more dangerous influence to the Church, then if they ſhould uſurp ſome parts, or branches of civill power. For as in naturall things we ſay, Elementa ſymbolica facilius tranſmutantur, ſo in morall things, corruptions do more eaſily change things in ſome thing ſymbolicall with themſelves, into their own degenerate property; like a diſeaſe that it moſt contagious to perſons of the ſame blood. Aud therefore if inequality of civill power be forbidden, how much more inequality in power Eccleſiaſticall, which is the ſpawn; and riſe of Antichriſtian tyrannie?(a)Paſtor, & Prel. p. 23. Anſwer to Mr. Down. See pag. 81. 82. Mr. Pagets Defence. part 2. p. 29 The learned Clergie in the dayes of Hen. 8. confeſſed, there was no diſparity of Miniſters inſtituted by Chriſt, Act. & Mon.
Diotrophes being but one, was liker to a Prelate then a Prsbyterie, &c.
Theſe words are brought to vindicate, 3 Joh. verſ. 9, Reply. 10. from a ſuppoſed abuſe by theſe words, They (viz. the Elders) are not ſo many Biſhops, ſtriving for preeminence, as Diotrephes did.
We muſt confeſſe, we had almoſt ſaid; we wonder that your ink did not bluſh, to blot and blur ſuch ſweet, humble-ſpirited, holy and pertinent expreſſions, as you do in this place. Let your ſelf once more, and the Reader, take a judgement of the paſſage, as it lies in its perfect luſter, in the Anſwer to the 32 Queſt. The Queſtion propounded by the Brethren of Old-Engand is this:
What authority or eminency have your Preaching-Elders above your Ruling-Elders?
To which the Elders of New-England frame this Anſwer.
It is not the manner of Elders amongſt us, whether ruling only, or ruling and teaching alſo, to ſtrive for preeminence one above another; as remembring what leſſon our Saviour taught his Diſciples, when they were at ſtrife among themſelves, which of them ſhould be the greateſt, Luke 22.24, 25. If Diotrephes ſtrive for preeminence, verily we abhor ſuch ſtriving; and by the grace of God, reſpect one another as Brethren.
Brother, where lies the fault, for which they lie under cenſure? Is it a fault that the Elders in New-England ſtrive not for preeminence? If ſo, we ſuppoſe it lies in this, that their humble and brother-like walking, each towards other, condemnes the pride of thoſe that will needs be ſtriving for ſome kinde of preeminence, and Prelacy above their Brethren.
(b)Juvtual. Satyr.— Patriam tamen obruit olim
Gloria paucorum, & laudis tituli que cupido.
— This formerly the countrey overthrew;
The luſt for praiſe and titles, and the glory of a few.
Or, are they to blame to inſinuate, that the Apoſtles cenſure upon Diotrephes, doth ſo frown upon thoſe (whether Prelates or Presbyters) that ſtrive for preeminence, that it is a matter of abhorrency to them ſo to ſtrive? Hinc illae lacrymae; hence it is that you ſay, Diotrephes being but one, is liker to be a Prelate then a Presbyterie.
Brother, Reply. a horſe in the abſtracted notion of unity, being but one, is liker a Prelate then a Presbytrie that are many. But what of that? Prelacy doth not conſiſt in unity, but in the uſurpation of undue (that is to ſay, unſcripturall) ſpirituall power over their Brethren; and in this capacity it is poſſible, that a Claſſicall Presbyterie may be as like Diotrephes, as a Prelate; that is to ſay, if they take upon them a preeminence over their Brethren, as he did. 'Tis as truly Prelaticall when fourteen or fifteen exerciſe a juriſdictionall power over all their Brethren in a County; as when one man ſhall take upon him to exerciſe the power aforeſaid in two or three ſeverall counties. Perhaps the fourteen or fifteen (being better principled then the other) may do it with more gentleneſſe and leſſe offence, but(a)More and leſſe do not alter the kind. magis & minus, non variant ſpeciem; and they may be both(b)Alike, if not equally. aequè, if not aequaliter, Prelaticall.
Yet John dod not blame him ſimply for acceping or having preeminence; Anſwer. or for taking upon him to anſwer in the behalf of the Church to which St John writ; or for taking to him the power of commanding, forbidding, excommunicating; but for loving preeminence, (as Mat. 23.6, 7.) for not receiving the Apoſtles and Brethren; and prohibiting what he ſhould have required, and incouraged; and excommunicating ſuch as were the beſt members of the Church.
Reply. You might more properly have ſaid, uſurping, or exerciſing preeminence: for accepting preſuppoſeth an offer made of the thing accepted: Now it is more then probable, that the Church never offered him preeminence, both over the Apoſtle John, and over her ſelf, that he ſhould over-rule the Church, and caſt out her beſt members at his pleaſure; neither if ſhe would, had ſhe any ſuch power.
Let it be granted that Diotrephes was an Elder of the Church of Corinth, Reply. (c)Rom. 16.25. 1 Cor. 1.14.and ſo had a preeminence by vertue of Office over the Body of the Church, yet this is not the preeminence here ſpoken of, but an exorbitant preeminence, uſurped over the whole; both the Elders his equalls, in power, and the fraternity (who though his inferiours, yet have a ſhare and intereſt in the paſſing of excommunication, and other weighty affaires of the Church) expreſſed (as your ſelf ſtate it) in taking upon him to anſwer in the behalfe of the Church, commanding, forbidding, excommunicating. Now ſay you, he is not ſimply blamed for accepting or having, but for loving preembrence, and exerciſing it corruptly, in regard of the things done and performed by him. It is ſaid of corrupt Princes, Iſaiah 1.23. Every one loveth gifts: by the ſame reaſon, that Diotrephes is excuſed from the guilt of ſolitary excommunication in regard of the materiality of the action; by the ſame reaſon may theſe Princes be excuſed from their bribery and corruption: And it may be ſaid, the Prophet doth not reprove them for the receiving, but for the loving of gifts. When the thing is evill, there love, how moderate ſoever, is faulty, in this regard, that it is placed upon a wrong object. But where the thing is lawfull, a moderate and well tempered love of it is lawfull alſo: As for the Scribes and Phariſees, ſo far as they were men of chief rank and place,Mat. 23.6. for them to poſſeſſe and love to poſſeſſe with a well bounded love, the uppermoſt rooms at feaſts, and the chief ſeats in Synagogues, would not be unlawfull, but perhaps their ambition put them upon affectation of places undue to them; and then their poſſeſſing them, and their foreign, as Mark, foreign, as Matthew and Luke; or, as Chriſt ſpeaks, Luke 24 7. foreign, they chooſe the chief rooms, and this foreign, to be ſeen of men, being added to their poſſeſſing:
—Digito monſtrari, & dicier hic eſt(a)To be ſhewed by the ſinger, and to have it ſaid, This is ſuch One. is that which may juſtly be condemned by our Saviour: But the caſe which reſpecteth Diotrephes may be this; it is probable that John writ about ſomething that did concern Diſcipline, as the receiving of certain Brethren either to conſtant memberſhip, or by vertue of church communion; now this was a buſineſſe in which the fraternity had ſome intereſt, as well as Diotrephes and the reſt of the Elders; and therefore the Apoſtle writes not to Diotrephes, or the Elders alone, but to the whole Church: alſo, becauſe Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debet; that which concerns all, muſt be handled by all. But Diotrephes riſeth up, and he alone commands, forbids, excommunicates, and what can be more deſtructive of the power of the Presbyterie and liberty of the people, then ſuch a courſe? and yet, ſay you, (or elſe you ſay nothing to the purpoſe) he is not blamed for it. If Diotrephes were not to blame, being but a particular Elder, to take upon him the power of the whole Elderſhip, yea, and the whole Church, why may not a particular brother take upon him the power to elect an Officer which belonge to the fraternity, or one Elder to ordain an Officer which pertains to the whole Presbyterie? Or in your Claſſick Way, why may not a particular Elder, a member of the Claſſis, exerciſe the juriſdiction of the whole Claſſis? why may not a Claſſis exerciſe the power of a Provinciall Synod? that of a Nationall; and the Nationall of the Oecumenicall Synod; and yet be blameleſſe? the reaſon is, the ſame proportion that an Elder hath to the whole Elderſhip, the ſame, or far greater, have a brother to the whole fraternity, an Elder to the Claſſick, a Claſſick to the Provinciall, a Provinciall to the Nationall, and that to the Oecumenicall Synod.
But peradventure it was not unwittingly done by you, to put in the word ſimply for a retreat, in caſe you ſhould be hotly charged for pleading the cauſe of Prelacie, under the notion of Presbyterie; and ſo you will ſay, you affirm not, that John doth not blame Diotrephes for having preeminence, but he doth not ſimply blame him for having preeminence. Now, if this be your meaning, and that you indeed grant that Diotrephes was blamed for ſtriving for preeminence; why do you blame the Elders of New-England, for ſaying, that the Elders are not (i. ought not to be) ſo many Biſhops ſtriving for preeminence, as Diotrephes did?
But if it be ſaid, that the force that is offered to the Text, lies not in this; that the Elders of New-England ſay, that if Diotrephes ſtrive for preeminence, verely they abhor ſuch ſtriving, (for theſe are their words) but in this, that it is ſaid, The Elders are not ſo many Biſhops ſtriving for preeminence, as Diotrephes did; which, peradventure may have an oblique inſinuation, that Claſſick Presbyters are ſo many Biſhops, ſtriving for preeminence; and it may be ſaid, the text affords no ſuch concluſion.
We anſwer; thoſe words, ſo many Biſhops, are no expreſſion of the Elders of New-England, neither is the Text applied by them, to prove that Claſſick Presbyters are ſo many Biſhops ſtriving for preeminence.
I, but M. D. ſaith, a Claſſick Presbyterie ſets up many Biſhops in ſtead of one.
Peccat Aemilius, plectitur Rutilius. M. D. offends (if it be an offence,) and the Elders of New-England are beaten. Or, ſuppoſe that reverend, learned, and holy man, M. D. have let fall words which reflect with ſome blemiſh upon the Presbyterie, from the ſenſe of what himſelf had ſuffered, yet your profeſſed buſineſſe is not to vindicate Presbyterie, but the Text. Now M. D. (we conceive, for we have not his book) doth not urge 3 John verſ. 9, 10. to prove, that the Claſſicall Presbyterie ſets up many Biſhops in ſtead of one, and therefore what thing ſoever he hath ſaid, which offends in reference to the Presbyterie; yet he is not guilty of wrong-doing in reference to the Text.
I will not tell you who ſaid, All the Church is holy; Anſwer. ye take too much upon you, &c.
Our conſciences are unto us a thouſand witneſſes, Reply. that we have (and by the aſſiſtance of grace) hope ever to carry it with all gentleneſſe and meekneſſe toward our godly Brethren, that are guided by a different light in point of Government from us; and therefore it is leſſe grievous to us to be parallel'd with Corah, Dathan and Abiram, thoſe grand incendiaries of the Congregation of Iſrael; yet it is not unworthy your ſerious conſideration, whether it might not be with good cauſe ſaid to you, as ſometimes Chriſt ſaid to one of the twelve, when he asked, Maſter, is it I? and he anſwered, Thou haſt ſaid.